Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Homosexuality 2 "Freewheeling" Label 3 Bias 4 "the list" 5 Comments offered in response to recent Featured Article candidacy 6 POV tag 7 Evidence section 8 Further books, articles, and sources 9 Removal of POV Tag 10 improving the article 11 Suggestion 12 New thoughts 13 Evidence & article links removed? 14 Editorial Slant 15 Tydings subcommittee 16 Arthur Herman book 17 McCarthisim, and POV in Lead and beyond 18 Neutrality, continued 19 KarlBunker

Homosexuality

Under the 'Early Life' section, there is an implication that McCarthy may have been secretly gay. This rumor seems very dubious. Should it be included? It appears to be nothing more than rumor from a McCarthy detractor.--CReynolds 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included. Hank Greenspun is no more a "detractor" than was Murrow. He was a highly respected journalist. --Dh100 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was very anti-McCarthy (as was much of the media in the 1950s). I haven't been able to find an actual copy of the October 25, 1952 Las Vegas Sun article, but the one excerpt I've read from the article has no facts in it. It's just an accusation that appeared on the Editorial page. That is hardly the basis for including the rumor in a Wiki page.--CReynolds 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again; he was a respected journalist. As was Murrow and many others. 'Very anti-McCarthy'? 'Much of the media in the 50's'? Honestly, I'd suggest you not project your biases onto others. There was a good deal of media that was openly, stridently PRO-McCarthy at the time, and didn't bother to even put so much as a sheen of objectivity on it. A key example would be the number one media personality of the time, Walter Winchell. --Dh100 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan Rather was a very respected journalist but he tried to perpetrate a fraud on the american people to throw a presidential election. I don't think that an evidence free accusation should be included in an encyclopedia accusation. And never any conclusive evidence is a lot stronger than no evidence at all. Until there is evidence produced for the talk page of a level of quality sufficient for inclusion (ie more than just somebody's unsupported word) it should be gone and I'm pulling it.

TMLutas 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TMLutas, you are more than welcome to believe that the rumor was not true. You are not welcome to assert that the rumor did not exist, nor that it was simply a slander manufactured by one reporter. As shown by my references below, the rumor was widespread, and had a notable effect on the course of various events. KarlBunker 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it should not be included. What the section amounts to is some nut claimed that McCarthy was gay but didn't have any evidence. In fact, the nut himself turned out to be in the closet. Interesting note that the same people that are fighting to slander McCarthy with this gay thing are the ones that think homosexuality is "normal". If it's normal then why bring it up?

This whole section is ridiculous, I think we need a section on McCarthy being a space alien next. McCarthy's sins against the left will never be forgiven and they will go to any ends to slander him. --24.165.87.40 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The rumor and speculation about McCarthy's sexuality was (and is) quite widespread, and it is therefor worthy of including in the article. Illustrations of this can be found on the following pages (some effort may be required to find the correct book link or the relevant part of the web page: [1], [2], [3], [4]

See [5] for quotes from 2 Greenspun articles.

KarlBunker 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

'Some nut'? Since when does a respected journalist qualify as a 'nut'? Since when does discussing the factual life of a politician and public figure qualify as 'slander'? BTW, you want to accuse people doing edits here of 'slander', then I suggest you get an account and cease being an IP only, drive by poster. --Dh100 19:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, one more thing overall; as the article plainly notes, and as was noted by many contemporary sources, it is most definitely a fact that rumors of his orientation were openly in circulation during his time in office. Whether or not true, his marriage and subsequent adoption of a daughter were seen, again in contemporary sources, as being a 'response' to these allegations. --Dh100 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My two bits? This whole gay thing is nothing short of libel. Back in that era, such a taboo, successfully applied, would have driven a man out of office. So what if his assistant was gay, that says nothing about the man. The included quote alone hints at a strong anti McCarthy bias on the part of Mr. Greenspun. Oh and BTW, Dh100, chill out about the IP only stuff. This is an open discussion and anyone wishing to participate should be allowed to, ANONYMOUSLY! (BTW, I agree with 24.165.87.40 :>) Deepdesertfreman 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Freewheeling" Label

Back to the 'freewheeling' debate. The term is biased and implies the "communist' accusation is without merit. Regardless, the adjective itself has a PoV to it and I believe should be removed.--CReynolds 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The word is accurate and necessary, as is evidenced by the fact that the sentence makes no sense without it. "During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy and his staff gained notoriety for making accusations of membership in the communist party or of communist sympathies."? Making accusations does not earn one notoriety. Only making accusations that are considered to be in some way inappropriate does. In McCarthy's case, "freewheeling" is the best word I can think of to succinctly describe what it was about his accusations that was inappropriate. KarlBunker 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is one spot where I'd have to give the pro-McCarthy set their due. I think 'freewheeling,' while hardly a term of evil or anything, might be better replaced by other words or phrases in an encyclopedia entry. 'Freewheeling' is OK for Dylan on an album cover, but other things are likely better here. :-)

Even at that, I don't see their huge objection to it on POV grounds. Reynolds in particular seems to be attaching all sorts of meanings to it that aren't stated in any way, shape or form. --Dh100 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the extensive previous discussions here: [6]. -Will Beback 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that "freewheeling" was used in an official Senate report on McCarthy's actions.[7] -Will Beback 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Will; I've added that reference as a footnote to the word "freewheeling." I don't expect that to end all the discussion, but it might cut down on some of the repetition, at least. KarlBunker 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as though the term was used in an official Senate report on his activities, I retract my previous objections to its usage. --Dh100 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Senate report (and good cite by the way) simply says McCarthy has a "freewheeling style," not that his accusations of Communist affiliation were "freewheeling", which implies they were without merit. The term itself has PoV, and if the sentence doesn't work as well without it then the sentence can be reworded. How about "During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy and his staff gained notoriety for making accusations, some based on dubious motivations, of membership in the communist party or of communist sympathies."?--CReynolds 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the context of the "freewheeling" comment in the Senate report makes it plain that it's not in regard to just his personal style, or his choice in clothes, or how he plays bingo at his local parish, but it was in regards to his investigatory methods in his official duties, as well as the method in which he doled out allegations outside the chamber. --Dh100 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dh100. The sentence CReynolds proposes says essentially the same thing, except that it's more specific, and therefor both less accurate (since the broader wording is more accurate) and less supportable (since specific accusations like "dubious motivations" invite a demand for specific supporting evidence--saying "Bill Gates has $3.79 billion" invites a demand for supporting evidence more than saying "Bill Gates is rich"). KarlBunker 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The footnote refers to his freewheeling style. I've reordered the words and added manner "freewheeling manner" so that it is clear that it is indeed a stylistic issue. TMLutas 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy's accusations were the aspect of his career that was under discussion when the "freewheeling style" remark was made. Therefor you're drawing a distinction between "accusations made in a freewheeling style" and "freewheeling accusations." The two phrases are identical in meaning. KarlBunker 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Article is very biased against Joseph McCarthy, and per the FAC, I wanted to say that the lead should be rewritten, and soon I'm going to put up a NPOV tag. :) Judgesurreal777 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think the article is biased, why not make specific comments and suggestions (preferably not just rehashing arguments that have been gone over before--see the Discussion archives). FWIW, there are others who have voiced the opinion that this article is very biased in favor of McCarthy. It's a controversial subject, and one in which true neutrality is difficult to define. KarlBunker 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think if you've got people from both sides saying it's possibly biased, then you've done a pretty good job of splitting the difference. I know I've looked at material in the entry and thought about changing some of it, and then decided not to, even though I may not have cared for it myself. When you get to that point, then you've probably about as close as you can get to a NPOV on a subject this controversial, I think. BTW, I think the Judge may be pullin' your leg, too. :-) --Dh100 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Being that bias is one of the reasons this article is failing Feature Article candidacy, it is not difficult to argue. The lead of this article is biased against McCarthy, as I stated in the FAC, and the article needs to mention important information like McCarthy's popularity. Judgesurreal777 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article is not FA quality, and something on McCarthy's popularity would be a good addition. As for bias, it is my opinion that the lead of the article is appropriate. Most of the world is "biased" against McCarthy. It's important that the article not jump on the bandwagon and become part of the jeering crowd, but also not to cover up the fact that the man was someone whose name has become an epithet. Furthermore, there are facts involved--it's not purely a case of "some people feel this way and other people feel that way." By any rational standard, McCarthy's accusations and methods were, at best, "freewheeling." KarlBunker 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Adolf Hitler is far less biased than this one. People dislike Joe McCarthy, but it is not NPOV to parrot left wing bias against him, witch hunts and all that...perhaps I will try to rewrite the intro. :) Judgesurreal777 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"the list"

is there any reason why it shouldn't be noted that the 'list 57 communists' in McCarthy's hand on his feb 9th 1950 speech was actually a laundry list (a receipt i suppose)? is this a rumor? i seem to remember my 7th grade history teacher saying he used to wave that thing around all the time, keeping it and a bottle of bourbon solely in his briefcase. but that was 10 years ago since 7th grade. can anyone confirm this 'laundry list' fact? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a real rumor, as shown here, though the best book-citation available online is from a book called Hatemongers and Demagogues, the title of which might lead some to suspect a teensy bit of bias on the author's part.  :-) KarlBunker 10:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments offered in response to recent Featured Article candidacy

I'm moving the following comments here instead of the big "To Do" box at the top of the Discussion page. The former format suggested that there was some kind "official" authority behind these comments, which there is not. KarlBunker 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• needs more citations where there are quoted statements such as under the Tydings Committee and Anti-Communism. Also, some quotes appear to be from the listed references such as Richard Rovere, but it's not clearly stated that the statements are from his book. Not that I doubt the accuracy of the statements as I've read and heard them myself on different occassions, but many readers may wonder where the statements are quoted from. If that can be fixed, I'll definitely support as it is otherwise a very complete and well written article. Tombseye 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• right off the bat, lead extremely POV against McCarthy. Also fails to mention that McCarthy in the height of his popularity was very well approved in national polls for his anti-communist efforts. Needs to go significently further in shedding bias. Judgesurreal777 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Stubby little paragraphs
• Poor prose.
• "These accusations were largely directed towards people in the U.S. government, particularly employees of the State Department, but included many others as well." After "largely", "but" is not a contradiction of the previous text; therefore it's inappropriate.
• It takes a while before we learn the country that you're talking about. Some readers won't have guessed until then. Why not "the US state of Wisconsin" (first sentence)?
• Can you find a more specific (piped) link for "Congressional", since it's the inquiry system that is at issue here? Why does "Communist" start with an upper-case C?
• If you're going to refer to the Second Red Scare in the lead, please tell us what the first one was. For this reason, the term is probably better introduced in the body of the article.
• Why are "McCarthyism" and "witch hunts" in italic?
• If you're quoting dictionary definitions, which is kind of tedious in a WP lead, provide references. Regardless of which dictionary the source is, remove the redundant "in order" from "... in order to suppress opposition" .
• Please find someone who's relatively unfamiliar with the text to perform a thorough copy-edit on this article.
• Even in the lead, the POV is obvious. (Just because somebody called him "freewheeling" in his accusations doesn't mean that it's a neutral fact.) Tony also has some good criticisms. Also: the sections "Actual Soviet Activities" and "Evidence" seem out of place. Could they be integrated into the more relevant biographical sections? Lastly, I've never been a big fan of "X in pop culture" sections, but if you think it's relevant, could you prosify it a bit? Cheers! The Disco King 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• POV, language, context, tone problems.
• Some places not referenced properly - and the last few sections are too short.
• Popular culture list should be converted to prose.

POV tag

As no effort has been made to address bias issues, I have no choice but to label the article as it is, biased. Judgesurreal777 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of effort has been made to make and keep this article as neutral as possible. "Neutral" is not synonymous with "in agreement with your politics" however. Point out specific complaints, please. KarlBunker 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think surreal here should be given the weekend to point out specific areas of 'bias.' If he/she can't, then the 'neutrality' tag should be pulled. 'Address bias issues'? As you haven't raised any specific issues, I have to ask what on earth you are talking about. --Dh100 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat again what I said last night: surreal better be able to articulate and substantiate claims of bias against this entry, and using more than vague insinuations about 'liberals' and 'left wingers', within a reasonable time period or I will personally pull off the NPOV tag. I don't think enforcing one's own political ideology and making sure your feelings in that direction don't get bruised have any place in encyclopedic entries.--Dh100 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Three... two... one... Surreal? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone? --Dh100 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence section

I had to remove the very little that was in the "Evidence" section because, (1) the info is not given credit, i.e. part of anti-McCarthy folklore, and (2) extensive evidence does indeed exist as to what Senator McCarthy did indeed discover during his tenure as Senator. I have posted information that is well documented and credited regarding the evidence issue. --Jtpaladin 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Further books, articles, and sources

I added some additional books and articles that will help the reader find more information on this subject and related subjects. Frankly, this entire article needs to be re-done to remove what I call "Left-Wing Folk-Lore", made-up and malicious stories about Senator McCarthy. I have spent considerable time today on this article and we all have to come back and clean up anything that can not be sourced by a scholarly reference.←--Jtpaladin 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are, needless to say, right wing folklore stories too, and some of them come from come from scholarly sources; as you demonstrated with your edits. KarlBunker 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Karl, that's called, "proof". I provided evidence that can't be disputed but instead is removed by people who can't address the facts. --Jtpaladin 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd describe anything coming from the "New American" as a "scholarly source." --Dh100 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dh100, be as critical of the "New American" as you like but at least have the ability to argue the facts not spew personal hatred. --Jtpaladin 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: the materials that come out of 'The New American' have zero scholarly standing. ZERO. That particular journal serves primarily as the mouthpiece of the John Birch Society and its political OPINIONS. If you find that to be 'hatred,' I'd say that OPINION exists only between your ears. When you can point out when even more right leaning, genuinely scholarly outfits like the Hoover Institute take 'The New American' seriously, then you will cease to be sans point. Until then, however, I suggest you learn the difference between 'hate' and disdain based on a consideration of their merits (or rather, lack thereof). Furthermore, it's a little difficult to have 'personal hatred' for a magazine. My advice to you in this regard is simple: get a grip. --Dh100 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV Tag

For somebody who seems to like to cast around accusations about the content of this entry, the person who put the POV tag on it came up woefully short on actual specifics, let alone edits. I have removed it, as it seemed to be put on primarily to assuage their personal political beliefs to put the label of "bias" onto the entry, without supplying any concrete means of fixing it. --Dh100 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not remove a Neutral point of view tag when there is a list above this text showing the different concerns that have to be addressed to warrant its removal. Unless you didn't notice, there is a big list of unaddressed FAC fixes still to be done, and one is the huge amount of bias in the lead against McCarthy. But if you want to be more specific, I will. Judgesurreal777 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This section of the lead is totally POV

As a result, the term McCarthyism was coined to describe the paranoid anti-communist movement that existed in America from 1950 to about 1956, a time which has been labeled as being "The Second Red Scare."

During this period, people from all walks of life were suspected of being Soviet spies or communist sympathizers and were brought before Congressional inquiries. These inquiries later came to be referred to as "witch hunts" by anti-McCarthyites. Senator McCarthy was accused of victimizing people—and to this day, dictionary definitions of "McCarthyism" include "the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence" and "the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition".[2]

Here are several unsupported claims, and only one citation....

Many historians and critics of McCarthy contend he embellished or exaggerated his wartime service record when running for office. It has been claimed McCarthy exaggerated the number and nature of the flights he undertook and that he obtained the commendation from Adm. Nimitz by deception. Also, the injuries referred to in the commendation citation were, according to members of his unit, the result of an accident during a shipboard hazing ritual, not combat wounds as McCarthy later allowed people to believe.[3] Many critics also allege McCarthy's Distinguished Flying Cross was unmerited and that high-ranking McCarthy allies in the Pentagon supported McCarthy's claim for the medal for political purposes.

uncited statement

McCarthy's winning of the primary nomination (207,935 to 202,557) has been claimed to be partially attributed to his campaign's criticism of La Follette

Speculative/original research statement

The effect of McCarthy's speech, in a nation already worried by the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union in Europe and alarmed by the trial of Alger Hiss then in progress, was electric. McCarthy's accusation was seen as an explanation for the fall of China to the Maoists and the Soviets' development of the atomic bomb the year before. The exact number stated by McCarthy would later become a matter of some importance when the matter was brought before the Tydings Committee.

There is a start. Annnd, back goes the tag.Judgesurreal777 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You mention POV, and then proceed to quote from the article without suggesting changes or pointing out a problem. Then you mention a couple of places where there is a lack of citation. The lack of citation in this article is indeed pretty serious, but that's a different thing from POV. --KarlBunker 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I supposed to rewrite the article myself? I want to point out the things that are screaming to be fixed, since you are educated wikipedians, cant you see that they need citations and to have their bias fixed? Why fight me, and just get some citations, since it would make the article better and this issue would go away? I have just rewritten the lead, and it seems neutral nowJudgesurreal777 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, the article can be biased if it is filled with weasal words and unsourced condemning statements about Joe McCarthy. Judgesurreal777 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, rewrote chunk of the lead, more informative, less biased. Also started working on Featured article candidacy notes so we can make this article featured. I am totally willing to help you. Judgesurreal777 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Making large changes like that isn't going to work. The POV you're inserting is extreme, and you introduced some errors of commission and omission. I agree that the article needs work, but if you want to help, you're going to have to engage in a slower, section-by-section, change-by-change process. --KarlBunker 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is there to discuss? The FAC has already pointed out huge systematic liberal bias in this article against Joe McCarthy, the lead was totally bashing him, and I fixed it. I also helped the text flow more, and now the article is much better. Why not improve on what I have already done, instead of engaging in senseless reverting? Judgesurreal777 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, judge, if your aim here is 'fighting liberal bias,' it indicates to me you're less interested in producing a high quality, NPOV, FACTUAL entry than grinding an ideological axe. The latter is what blogs are for. --Dh100 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As an example, prior to your revert, I was going to start addressing at least one of his wholesale changes by removing a bit he put in the intro about Venona 'proving' that 'many' of the people he named 'were Soviet spies.' In a section that he merely altered the section header on remained documented evidence that Venona had info on FIVE people mentioned by McCarthy, and furthermore just mentioned them, without conclusive proof they were active intel assets. He had edited the entry into contradicting itself, which often happens with wholesale edits on non-trivially sized entries. --Dh100 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine, if you choose to completely stone wall both the Feature Article Candidacy review and my attempts to fix this articles far left perspective, bringing it back to neutral, back goes the tag. Maybe if this stays here for a year you'll begin to understand that what you think is "The truth" about Joe McCarthy is really just the lefts view of him. Judgesurreal777 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the dictionary definition of "McCarthyism" that Judgesurreal777 recently removed because I think it does a lot to point out McCarthy's place in history. (How many legislators have their had their name made into an "ism" that can be found in dictionaries?). An editor who contributed an opinion to the FAC nomination disagreed with this part of the article, but he didn't justify his position well, and his opinion has no special weight.--KarlBunker 16:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And there you go again... 'far left perspective.' If you have a LEGITIMATE beef with the entry, it should be on the basis OF ITS FACTUAL CONTENT. NOT on the basis of conspiracy theories. If you have to appeal to near-tinfoil hattery as to why something is 'wrong' then your point isn't merely weak, it's non-existent. As far as 'back goes the tag,' I'll also be happy to revert that yet again until you can demonstrate the need for it on the basis of veracity of content instead of ideological appeals. --Dh100 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All articles on Wikipedia must be neutral in tone, and this article is, objectively, not. It is biased, and misrepresents liberal bias as history. This must be fixed. Now I have twice given a list of things that must be changed, and you wont acknowledge it, and I tried to correct it and you have reverted it. Make no mistake, this MUST BE FIXED, and I am going to fight for this articles fixing, because you cannot be allowed to misrepresent history.

(I am assuming this is judgesurreal again, and he simply forgot to sign his statement above) Again, here we are back again to the mysterious 'liberal bias.' If something has a DEMONSTRABLE bias then it is on the basis of FACT, and NOT due to an appeal to ideology and emotionally charged buzzwords. It's simple: the fact that you continually have to appeal on an emotional, ideological basis proves that you are sans point. I don't care if this sort of thing sways people in meetings in your basement, and really do not care if those meetings are gatherings of the young socialists league, the Birchers, or even an anarcho-syndicalist ice cream social. I just do. NOT. care. This entry is NOT a playground for ideological longings or wild accusations related to tinfoil hattery. And it sure isn't akin to entries on videos based on lego toys or the creatures in George Lucas' imaginary universe. Keep it factual for a change and STOP appealing to ideological buzzwords you personally find pretty, and I think you'll get a lot further. --Dh100 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, the first thing that must be changed is the lead, which is heavily balanced against McCarthy, emphasizing his criticisms versus his actual life. Also, many weasal words are present in this article in the passages I have singled out, and unsourced statements, which need references. Now we can either cooperate with one another and help improve this article, or we can fight until we all end up in arbitration. I would prefer to work with you. Judgesurreal777 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your way of 'working with you' appears to consist of making enormous edits (at least one of which conflicted directly with documented facts that remained elsewhere in the entry) and then demanding that they remain whole and unchanged, and then after their reversion, refusing to work with others on smaller, more reasonable edits. If we wind up in arbitration, I'm certainly not nervous about what the findings will eventually be. --Dh100 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

improving the article

Again, I have no wish to fight over this, so I suggest we attempt to find some kind of compromise, and improve the article together. I wish to improve this article, and make it neutral, that is my only concern; not being right, or insulting you. If I am passionate, it is because I have tried to give suggests that appear to have been ignored.

Why not start fresh.

I'm assuming the above was again written by judgesurreal sans signature. There isn't a need for 'a fresh start,' which I take to mean a complete rewrite of the entry. If you give substantive suggestions, that address the factual content of the entry, and don't make ideologically driven assertions, or assertions about the content that reveal more of a 'reading between the lines' than an actual reading of the content, then I'm certain things will be looked at. --Dh100 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that the lead be re-written with the criticisms of Joe McCarthy cited as being from his critics, which is truthful, and it also points out the fact that not everyone believed that he was on a witchhunt. Judgesurreal777 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The lead is written factually, and in a well documented manner. It points out what the dictionary definition of McCarthyism is (and even links to it). It points out what the Senate's own investigation found to be the case. In fact, the part of the intro that mentions the term 'witch hunt' specifically points out that the term was used by critics of his. If this doesn't demonstrate that not everybody 'believed he was on a witch hunt,' I don't know what does. In fact, the continued pressure by yourself to 'rewrite the lead', along with your previous appeals to ideology, leads me to question your motives. As I've pointed out, if you simply read the lead, it already does what you assert it does not. It certainly is NOT in need of 'a rewrite.' Your previous wholesale changes to the entry not only inserted POV, it also introduced at least one diametrical self-contradiction with documentation elsewhere in the entry. At this point, rather than worrying about 'rewriting' an entire section, please point out specific problems in the lead. I think that would work best. --Dh100 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

• The time period called the second red scare, by whom? What is the origin of this label, and who uses it? Calling the period a Red Scare was done by someone with a very definite point of view.

• who says that the movement against communism was paranoid?

• why is there no mention of the truthfulness of McCarthy's accusations against some people mentioned in the lead?

• who coined the term McCarthyism? his political opponents, and that too needs to be mentioned.

• freewheeling is a POV term, it is sufficient to say "he made accusations".

I think that's it.... :) Judgesurreal777 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here goes -

• Follow the link on the term 'Red Scare'; it's quite well documented on its own Wikipedia entry.

• Personally, I think the inclusion of the term 'paranoid' in that spot isn't particularly defensible; you may have one there.

• As to mentions of the truthfulness of McCarthy's accusations, look elsewhere in the entry. There wasn't a single case of him naming an actual Soviet intel asset that was so much as brought to trial, let alone successfully prosecuted. Where the entry documents Venona decrypts, it's documented that Venona mentions a total of five people also targeted (among many) by McCarthy. It's telling that these people were MENTIONED in Venona, without indication whether they were actual assets, or approached to become assets, or incidentally contacted.

• Since when is the very distinguished political cartoonist Herbert Block (Pulitzer winner, etc) a 'political opponent' of McCarthy? If you simply follow the link on 'McCarthyism' there is yet another detailed entry on the term, its meaning, its origins, documentation, etc.

• The term 'freewheeling' is accompanied by a direct link to documentary evidence. It's not POV; it's a direct quote from the Senate's own investigation.

Again, if you simply look at the entry, it's all already there for the most part. --Dh100 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you make some good points.

• I still think that the VERONA project should be mentioned in the lead, even just to say it didn't show he was right.

• And as others have said, just because the senate said freewheeling, doesn't make it either true or neutral, and I assume that the senators who wrote that were not neutral toward McCarthy either.

• Referring to the whole period of the first half of the 1950's as the Red Scare could be construed as POV, since the sentence sounds like there was no communist threat, and there were no communists trying to infiltrate the country. The middle paragraph totally discredits the anti communist movement, calling them liars by calling them McCarthyites.

I'm glad we are slowly working this out :)

Judgesurreal777 23:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, in the interest of working it out -

• It's the VENONA project; why should it be mentioned in the lead? The fascination with Venona as some sort of magic floor wax or new laundry detergent that gets your whites extra bright is, again, something I've noted as being prominent among people with a specific ideological viewpoint to peddle when it comes to McCarthy. Why specifically does it need to be mentioned in the intro, especially if it's not going to make any sort of substantive contribution to tone or tenor of the entry, or more importantly, to its factuality? A specific reason I can think of to NOT mention Venona in the intro is that it's become an object of recent fascination vis-a-vis McCarthy, and certainly was not contemporaneous with the man or during the period of his greatest national fame and influence. In fact, there's zero evidence he was aware of the program at all during his lifetime, let alone made privy to its secrets.

• As to the term 'freewheeling,' that's the official finding of the Senate investigation. The same Senate that censured him by a wide margin, certainly much wider than the split in its party makeup. Or are we back to asserting tinfoil hattery again, assuming that the broad majority of the entire Senate was 'out to get' McCarthy?

• Again, you seem to be reading meanings into the text that simply are not there. There's an entire entry on the meaning of the term 'red scare,' it's well documented, and it's a well known term in use everywhere from popular culture to scholarly sources. I was born in 1960 myself, and by the time I was in primary school, if somebody mentioned the term I could have told you roughly when it was. The middle paragraph also makes absolutely NO assertion that all people who felt themselves anti-communists were also 'McCarthyites.' In fact, I seriously doubt that Gen. Marshall, who was certainly no communist supporter, was a fan of McCarthy or his methods. Please cease reading things into the text that obviously are not there.

Hope this helps clear things up for you. --Dh100 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It does a lot, actually, and I thank you for that. List shrinks further....

• It should be stated in the article, based on what you have said, that the senate called him that.
• Why is there no mention of his censure by the senate in the lead?
• Red scare is still a liberal history term, even if taught in a class room. it implies many things, and its POV should be in some way stated. There were communists attempting to infiltrate american society, and that is a fact that should inform the lead in some way.

) What say you? Judgesurreal777 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here goes...

• Why should it be stated in the intro? It's directly linked, right where the term is used, to the appropriate documentation. It doesn't get any better than that.
• Why does it need to be mentioned in the lead? The lead is just that; a brief synopsis of why the person is of note, a very brief, general overview of what they did, the general consensus, etc. Details are supplied deeper in the entry. The intro on this entry concisely states when he was famous, what he was famous for, and what he's still listed in history books and dictionaries for. Straightforward and to the point, with a good deal of linked documentation right in the intro, which is pretty unusual for an intro to the average Wikipedia entry. Gumming it up with detail better served in the detail of the entry doesn't serve any real purpose.
• OK, now we're back to the mysterious, pervasive and insidious 'liberal bias' again. Rather that shoot down that old war horse yet again, let's simply deconstruct the term 'red scare'. I'm going to assume you don't have a problem with using the term 'red' to refer to communism or communists; people on the anti-communist side don't have a problem with it, and communist revolutionaries eagerly coined and applied it to themselves. That leaves the word 'scare.' That word by itself has NO connotation of bias or negativity. Think about it; it connotes that people were scared or concerned. Does it mean that people had no real reason to be concerned? NO. It is NOT the 'red paranoia' or 'red hysteria.' Does it conversely mean that there absolutely was a massive attempt at a real communist takeover and the worst fears were absolutely justified? NO... a competing term used by people who felt that way was the 'red menace.' The term 'red scare' means precisely what is says; people were frightened or concerned about what communist influence might have been doing. The culture at large certainly was during those years, and that's an uncontested fact. It does NOT indicate that the fears were 'unjustified', or that they absolutely were justified. It is, in fact, quite neutral. This is why that term is in common use among scholarly sources both within and outside of collegiate academia. If you go talk to historians at the Hoover Institute or any number of other more conservative foundations, if you refer to 'the second red scare,' they will know precisely what you are referring to, and they will not smack you upside the head for 'using a biased term.' So we can put that one to bed now.

--Dh100 02:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New thoughts

On the basis of what we've discussed, the main problem is not necessarily the bias in the statements, which was a big concern of mine, but rather the lack of comprehensiveness in the lead. I dont wish to gum up the lead, but I really think more information about McCarthy should be listed; his censure by the senate, the verona project, and thereby less emphasis on the negative aspects of his career, creating a more neutral lead. Also, as you have agree, "paranoid" should go, as it is POV.

This way, the lead will be more informative and more comprehensive. I'm sure we can do that and make it more clear. I also think this would be a good compromise to get ride of the NPOV tag. It doesn't subtract any information, but adds it. Judgesurreal777 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for including Venona in the introduction. It really doesn't bear directly on McCarthy at all. Re. "freewheeling," one option would be to put the word in quotes. That, plus the citation, would make it clear that this is a word that has been used in reference to McCarthy, rather than a word that the WP article is using purely as a representation of fact. Re. mentioning the censure in the intro: I'm kind of neutral on that. A brief mention, with some mention of how rare a thing it is for the Senate to censure (actually, I think they used the term "condemn," but I'm not sure without looking it up) one of its own could be a good addition. And Re. "paranoid," I have no objection to removing that. --KarlBunker 10:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with that, in quotes would be a big improvement, and probably stop people from trying to remove it. His censure is pretty unique to his life, being the only one, and I dont think would be POV, its too significent. The thought behind including Verona is that the 3rd paragraph doesn't have a closing sentence showing talking about his legacy; dictionary definitin is nice, but how is regarded today kinda sentence is what i was thinking about. Judgesurreal777 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice changes, if we could just add a sentence on McCarthy's censure, that would resolve the objection :) Judgesurreal777 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys amaze me. You're not even qualified to comment on this page if you think Senator McCarthy was "censured". He was NOT censured, he was "condemned", which is different and less of a charge. Guys, do your homework because you're wrong. --Jtpaladin 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

'Less of a charge'?: http://www.foxvalleyhistory.org/mccarthy/senator8.htm --Dh100 21:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure seems to be an actual censure. (Senate Resolution 301: Censure of Joseph McCarthy) - http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page86.htm --Dh100 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The official records at the Library of Congress refers to McCarthy's 'Censure' as a precedent: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp104&sid=cp104susc7&refer=&r_n=sr137.104&item=&sel=TOC_91694&

The official House rules on ethical standards refers to McCarthy's 'censure': http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2ac.htm

DH100, you are simply the funniest guy here. Thank you so much for proving my point that McCarthy was "condemned" and not "censured". Your very 1st link to foxvalleyhistory.org spells out the resolution with the word "condemned" and does not use the word "censure" in the resolution. In order for a censure to be a censure, it must be called a censure. Senator McCarthy was "condemned" as the resolution you were kind enough to link to states. Simple enough? I hope so because if this isn't obvious, we're going to be at this for a very long, long time. --Jtpaladin 00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence & article links removed?

I know there are people here who hate Senator McCarthy to the degree that they are willing to lie and remove factually accurate information and articles that support him. All I asked is that if someone is going to remove all the evidence that I provided, that it be shown that the info is not correct. So what do I find? The same old undocumented, non-footnoted "Evidence" section is reposted. Why is unscholarly info being allowed to be posted? Why are articles and books listed that are positive towards Senator McCarthy removed? What are some of you doing to historical facts? You come here and remove provable facts and real articles and books and then post info that is not even documented? Why was the book by William F. Buckley, "McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning" removed? What is wrong with some of you? Unless I am prohibited by an Administrator, I plan to re-add all FACTUAL and DOCUMENTED information and remove info that is not factual or at least given some basis in footnotes. So, whoever is posting that "folk-lore" in the "Evidence" section, please post a source for that comment or barring an Administrator telling me not to do so, I will delete that info and re-post the evidence that is provable. In other words, if you're going to post lies, at least have the courtesy to post the name of the liar who told you that lie. --Jtpaladin 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All else aside, if you're going to use the word "folklore", please learn how to spell it. Thanks. KarlBunker 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Karl, you have an amazing ability to focus on the irrelevant and ignore the main issue. I'm less concerned about exact spelling here than on the article itself. You should be more concerned about the fact that unsupported anti-McCarthy stuff is being posted and references to articles and books that are of scholarly content, i.e. William F. Buckley's book, are being removed. --Jtpaladin 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

'Unsupported anti-McCarthy stuff'? Then I have a very simple challenge for you: identify it and clearly state what's wrong with it. I'll warn you now that tinfoil hattery about the insidious 'liberal bias' doesn't make the grade for this task, either. --Dh100 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: STOP fixating about wanting things 'that are positive towards McCarthy' added. The idea is for the entry to be as factual and NPOV as possible. The fact that you feel a need to add 'positive' things about him speaks volumes about your actual motivation. Either things are factual, historically supportable, and not from sources with an axe to grind or they aren't. If you feel a need to read and write 'positive' things about the subject of this or any other entry, well, that's what blogs are for. --Dh100 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not posting any opinion. I am posting pure FACT. I have posted the info, given citation, and then returned to find it removed. I even posted William F. Buckley's book as a source, and that source was removed from the listing of books about Senator McCarthy. Why? Obviously because there are people here that do not want FACTS posted, even source material from well qualified authors. By the way, I spoke to Mr. Drummey about his article, specifically about the evidence, and everything he wrote came right out of the Congressional Record and sources like Buckley's book. I took the time to actually contact one of the authors of the sources listed here because I'm interested in getting as much fact into this article as possible. I would think that this would be your goal as well. Lastly, where is the citation for the silly little story in the "Evidence" section? All the evidence I provided, which was cited, was removed and that silly little story was left there. Can you explain? --Jtpaladin 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Slant

As I find all too common in Wikipedia articles, this has a slant favoring the opponents of conservatives. McCarthy's accusations were the furthest thing from baseless. When VENONA was declassified in the 1990's, it clearly proved the vast majority, if not nearly all of his accusations correct to a certain extent. For more information read Slander or Treason, both by Ann Coulter. I find this a much more reliable report than that of mainstream journalism because her research has been proven almost always impeccable. Deepdesertfreman

• Does anyone have a copy of Treason? We should use her sources and start adding information to this article, it is in great need of it Judgesurreal777 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Again, reality doesn't have a 'bias.' And if Coulter's book was worth two hoots in hell, it would be used as a primary source in actual scholarly settings. As it is, I seriously doubt they use it as one even in more conservative scholarly organizations. That you folks continually whine about this ideologically and keep reaching towards ideological sources, this time in a blatant effort to simply graft them onto the entry, makes plain your agenda. And I'll warn you now, I have ZERO patience for this sort of crap, and I don't care if it comes from you or a bunch of people wanting to graft on 'McCarthy is the great satan' junk from the pages of the Worker's Daily. --Dh100 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, judgesurreal, my days of 'cooperation' with you are at an end. Now that a compatible ideological playmate has show up, you've fully revealed your true motivations. As it was, despite your bluster and endless complaints, once they were addressed one by one you were left with next to nothing of substance when they were examined critically. If you have further complaints, I suggest you address them substantively UP FRONT, rather than endless rounds of appeals to ideology and tinfoil hattery, after which you have to fold because there was nothing behind them to begin with. I've come to believe that you're like most ideologues, and you're simply looking to have people waste time on pettiness. If you honestly belive this entry is so 'biased' it requires arbitration, have at it; I am extremely confident as to what the outcome will be. In the meantime, with your new playmate, you can run off and consider ideological material from Hitler, Stalin, William Jennings Bryan or William Tell, but you will NOT be posting baloney here. If you want to get into ideology peddling, the two of you can start a blog, which is where such advocacy belongs. --Dh100 15:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny Dh100, Using using Coulters sources, not the book itself, is perfectly fine, she is well known for her extensive research. And second, you need to START cooperating, since you have yet to add that sentence we discussed to help fix the lead. Judgesurreal777 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

She is well known for partisan hackery. Again, I'm not aware of her 'extensively researched' materials being used anywhere as a genuine text is scholarly settings. Mentioning using a book of hers like some sort of Rosetta Stone of research on the subject is preposterous. And which 'sentence' are you referring to? The last changes that were discussed and AGREED TO being made were indeed made, to wit: the word "freewheeling" had quotes placed around it, and the word "paranoid" in reference to the red scare period was removed. Outside of that, you are again, as usual, sans point. --Dh100 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing; given the sorts of subjects you and 'desertfremen' have the bulk of your experience editing in the past, I can understand your itch to remake something more substantive to suit yourselves. However, the jump from scads of entries on the world of video games and fantasy books to one on one of the most incendiary figures of 20th century politics is a bit much, and when arriving there demanding those changes be made to meet your 'standards' is likewise especially rich, even given your chronological inexperience in life. A good place to start might be some requisite experience and intellectual rigor, rather than slavishly following a partisan source. --Dh100 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We discussed that another sentence would be added citing his censor by the senate. Judgesurreal777 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The word is CENSURE. Why it needs to be added to the intro escapes me. The intro currently is as intros are supposed to be, namely brief, succinct, and to the point. We have briefly discussed it with no good reason put forth as to why it's needed when the entire matter is discussed at length deeper in the entry. --Dh100 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a critical aspect of his political career, and the lead needs to be made more comprehensive as we have discussed above. Judgesurreal777 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, guy... leads aren't supposed to strive for comprehensiveness. That's why they're LEADS. Otherwise the lead winds up being the entire entry unto itself. This is very simple stuff, and works the same whether you're talking about journalism on the high school paper or all the way up to entries in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. BTW, it's your assertion that the lead needs 'comprehensiveness.' You can discuss that until you're blue in the face and it still doesn't mean it really needs it. --Dh100 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Leads need to cover the major relevant topics of the article, and that is a major part of his biography, and the article becomes unbalanced with an incomplete lead. Judgesurreal777 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dh100, please watch your personal attacks. I don't comments on other editors experience or age are useful. Remember, WP:AGF. Nloth 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dh100, AGAIN, the word is "CONDEMNED" not "CENSURED". Stop putting inaccurate information on this page. --Jtpaladin 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an odd thing to make a big deal out of, since "condemned" obviously sounds a lot worse than "censured," even if it is technically less of a punishment within the obscure lexicon of the Senate. And in fact, scholars do not universally agree that it's a "lesser" form of punishment.

I've removed the NPOV tag as the list of issues seems to have been mostly resolved. Please consider using NPOV or WW on sections rather than the whole article if there are specific sections that need changes Nloth 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tydings subcommittee

User:KarlBunker seems adverse to this paragraph:

Three days after the committee dismissed McCarthy's claims, the FBI arrested Julius Rosenberg on charges of espionage for assisting the Soviet Union in obtaining information from the Manhattan Project to develop an atomic weapon. Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared all the personnel, but within one year the State Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy's list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation. 204.56.7.1 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am, and I left an edit summary explaining why: I believe it's irrelevant to the section. The mention of Rosenberg is unequivocally irrelevant (he didn't work for the State Department, and he certainly wasn't on McCarthy's list). The rest of the paragraph is an argumentative attempt to suggest that McC was "right," and it does this by innuendo rather than clearly connected facts. The meaning of "instigated proceedings" is unclear, and saying that 81 had left their jobs "by dismissal or resignation" says nothing clear or specific about anything.--KarlBunker 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Karl, you are adverse to anything remotely stating that there were communists found in the government of the U.S. Why is that? Do you know why Venona and the Rosenberg's are important to the article? Because there are many Americans who are under the impression that there were NO communists or security risks in govt. at the time Senator McCarthy was making his case. I have the facts that show that such security risks existed and Venona is part of my source. The point about that info you don't like is that even though the highly biased Tydings Committee cleared all the personnel, the State Dept. did its own investigation and found that they had security risks on their hands. That is relevant. Can you understand that? --Jtpaladin 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, perhaps you could show me where I deny that communists were found in the government. And if the State Dept. did its own investigation and found that they had security risks on their hand, that information was not in the section that I removed from the article. All that was there was innuendo and the mention of the Rosenbergs, which was utterly irrelevant to that section, for the reasons I gave. If you have a citable source that lists or gives a count of people whom the State Dept. found to be security risks after they had been cleared by Tydings committee, I would be happy to see that added to the article. KarlBunker 02:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Herman book

I've remove the following paragraph:

In his book Joseph McCarthy, Arthur Herman asserts that McCarthy correctly identified: Owen Lattimore, Edward Posniak, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, (the second-highest official in the Treasury Department), Mary Jane Keeney, Gustavo Duran, and John Carter Vincent.

The problem with it is that it doesn't distinguish between people who were simply mentioned by McCarthy as possibly disloyal or security risks, but whom had already been identified as such by other investigators, and those whom McCarthy identified through his own efforts and sources. For example, it was pretty easy for McCarthy to name Alger Hiss as a security risk after Hiss had been accused of being a communist by Whittaker Chambers, investigated by HUAC, and brought to trial for espionage (and acquitted, in his first trial). McCarthy can hardly be given credit for "correctly identifying" someone in a case like that. If someone can separate out those who fall into the two categories, we can put the paragraph back. KarlBunker 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I now have a copy of Herman's book. The list, which doesn't include all the names shown above, comes from a quote by J.B. Mathews (author of "Reds and Our Churches", see the article), not Herman himself. Herman does not give an explicit opinion on Mathews' list, but doesn't point out the errors in it either. Some of the people named have never been shown to be remotely Communist or pro-communist, and the degree to which McCarthy could take credit for "revealing" some of the others is more than a little questionable. Hiss isn't included, but Owen Lattimore, a long-standing target of the conservative "China Lobby" when McCarthy came along, is. KarlBunker 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

McCarthisim, and POV in Lead and beyond

Is this article about McCarthyism or Joseph McCarthy? From reading the lead it is clear that this article is about McCarthyism is not the Man Josephy McCarthy.

It begins describing a time when Joseph McCarthy was senate. "During his ten years in the Senate" then quotes a OPPONENT of McCarthy, to describe the views of those OPPOSED to Joseph McCarthy.

How can it be a NPOV when the first thing you do is quote a person OPPOSED to the subject. It would be like quoting Ann Coulter in the intro to Julius Rosenberg, or quoting the head of the KKK to describe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is irresponsible and not what Wikipedia was established for.

Should a man be introduced by the views of his enemies?

Then the second part of the article goes on to describe a certain period of time "1950-1956" NOT Joseph McCarthy, which, if memory serves, is the subject. It introduces "McCarthism", a term made up to ATTACK McCarthy by a cartoonist strongly OPPOSED to McCarthy. So we take the time in an lead to introduce a term used to ATTACK, the subject of the article?

This is a NPOV?

Would you introduce a racial slur in the Lead to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? I wouldn't, that would be completely inappropriate.

Then the lead give us another term made up by those OPPOSED to the McCarthy? In addition the term "The Second Red Scare" Describes a time period not the subject. Was Joseph McCarthy the only man fighting communism?

The lead goes on to describes the years between 1950-1956 "During this period". It talks about the “congressional inquires”, not Joseph McCarthy, the subject of the article. It introduces another term made up by those OPPOSED to McCarthy.

"These inquiries later came to be referred to as "witch hunts" by those who opposed them"

Please notice the ending "who opposed them". So the term "witch hunts" was a term made up and used by people who OPPOSED the inquires. What was the subject of this article again? Was it the congressional inquries? Was it the years betweein 1950-1956? was it the term McCarthyisim? NO it is Josephy McCarthy

I will go on.

The lead concludes by REPEATING the term created up to ATTACK McCarthy by a cartoonist who was strongly OPPOSED to McCarthy. Then, it goes out of it’s way to include definitions of the word created to ATTACK McCarthy, to make it clear to the reader what the made up term means.

Again this would be like using the "N-word" to describe Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr, then go on to define the "N-word", to attack the subject again?

Lets conclude the lead contains

"McCarthyism" A used to attack the WORK of Joseph McCarthy and his STAFF

"Witch hunts" A term made up and used to attack the WORK of Joseph McCarthy and his STAFF

"The second Red Scare" A term made up and used to attack the WORK of Joseph McCarthy and his STAFF

"freewheeling" A term used by an OPPONENT to attack the WORK of Joseph McCarthy and his STAFF

The lead is basically a series of terms and phrases made up and used by those who OPPOSED Joseph McCarthy. It does nothing more then makes a commentary of the time from the view of those OPPOSED to Joseph McCarthy and his staff. It has no factual nor relevance and is the POV of those OPPOSED to Josephy McCarthy

There is a Wikipedia article on the subject of McCarthyism, why does the lead focus on this term and other ways of saying the same thing. A term by the way that describes a time period in history, not Joseph McCarthy subject of the article.

This article starts off with a clear agenda to attack McCarthy, and continues though the rest of the article. Time does not allow me to go on for now.

This topic has been brought up time and time again and the same people oppose the obvious. I feel there is nothing dispute, I will put a POV tag in the article until it can be systematically fixed. In the mean time I recommend and plan to remove the offensive lead as it is NOT a NPOV. It is the view of those OPPOSED to the Joseph McCarthy.

One thing that you aren't recognizing is that history is not "neutral" towards all people. Some historical figures are remembered as heros, and some as villains. In the case of McCarthy, it's an unavoidable fact that most of contemporary society remembers him as a villain. I won't bother going into the reasons for this; if you look, you can find those reasons for yourself. Certainly there are some who disagree with this characterization of McCarthy, and some who hold the opposite view: that he was a hero. But these are an extremest minority--far-right-wing bloggers and authors like Coulter. Few in general society, and no one among serious scholars, agrees with this alternate view of McCarthy.

You say that the article repeats negative opinions about McCarthy. Yes it does, because the world has a negative opinion about McCarthy. An article that didn't voice such opinions would be misleading and dishonest.

Evidently you are among those who think that McCarthy was not a villain, or that he was a hero, and therefor you find this article "slanted" and not to your liking. If it's any consolation to you, you aren't alone. There are Wikipedia readers who think that Martin Luther King was an evil and villainous man, and they no doubt find the WP article about Martin Luther King not to their liking. There are those who believe that the work of the KKK is noble and heroic, and they no doubt find the WP article about the KKK not to their liking. You are welcome to your minority opinion. You are not welcome to reshape this article to fit that opinion. KarlBunker 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you have a complete lack of reality, read any article on any person, Sadam, Hitler, or anyone. No article on Wikipedia has a lead which only contains nothing but views of the opposition. I am sorry that you are blinded by your hated of McCarthy and may never see anyone's views as valid. As such you should remove yourself from editting or commenting on this article. Josephy Mcarthy was a decorated War hero, a twice elected senator and may still have been a senator to this day, only he died in office. 30,000 people lined up to pay their respects to a man they felt was obviously a hero. The sentate shut down, and there was an offical state funeral for the man you clame to be a villain. 70 senators and the president of the united states were in attendance of your villain. The truth about McCarthy has been hidded and destroyed. He is attacked to this day and supported by citing previous attacks. And yes there are some people in the world that probably see the KKK as noble and there is you that see McCarthy as a villian. Eventually through open discussion and the fair disclosure of facts, the truth about things can be revealed. I don't claim to know Joseph McCarthy, but what I have read and have found out lead me to change my mind on the person. A circuit court judge who resigns to sign up as a private in the marine to serve his country deserves an unbiased article on his life. The fact that he was beloved and missed by so many clearly disputes your baseless claim that he was a villian. I am sure you think this is all lies, but they are not. They are indisputable facts, below is a link to pictures of Joseph McCarthy's Funeral, I guess they are just photoshoped or somehow fake in your eyes. I don't know what to tell you. I would like for you to be fair on the matter. If I must, I will seek a medator, whom I hope is fair and open minded to all people and of course cold hard facts. Clearly you do not like me and may never, I respect that. I once believed what you did, and then I did a bit of research. The world has been told lies about the life and service of Joseph R. McCarthy, though the media that attacked him, through text books that still do, and of course though websites with little or no integrity. Wikipedia should not be one of them.

To quote you "the world has a negative opinion about McCarthy. An article that didn't voice such opinions would be misleading and dishonest". Yes it does, yes the world does have a negative opinion of McCarthy this is true, the world once saw African Americans as slaves, the world once thought if you floated out to see you would fall off the edge. The world has been full of mistakes and lies and to perpetuate those lies in the face of reason and fact would be, my dear friend, "misleading and dishonest" I choice to fight your miss leading and dishonest ways.

http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/photos3.html

have a little dignety for the man when you look at his coffin, he was a senator, a judge, a war veteran, and to a great many in his day a "hero". Attack him if you must just not in a fair article about his life. I think this is where you start calling me names or deleting what I write.. If history repeats it self.

No one denies that McCarthy was and is popular among some, especially during his lifetime, so pointing this out at length is unnecessary. One of the most common characterizations of McCarthy (which, in one of its several flaws, this article fails to mention) is that he was a demagogue. A person can't be a demagogue without being popular among some. You believe that this article doesn't reflect the truth about McCarthy. You should refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which explains that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "correct" generally accepted views of the truth. Its purpose is to present the opinions of verifiable sources, with (as noted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight) the space given to different opinions in proportion to the numbers who hold each opinion. Another flaw of the McCarthy article is that it doesn't include any systematic compare-and-contrast of majority and minority views of McCarthy's place in history. This would be a good addition to the article, as it could go into more depth about the range of opinions on that subject, and the relative numbers of reputable scholars who support various opinions. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the sort of change you're interested in making.

As it stands, the article briefly notes the majority perception of McCarthy and his place in history. It explains in a factual way that he is remembered for "McCarthyism," and notes what McCarthyism means and stands for in contemporary society. The reality is that that is the sum total of McCarthy's place in history. If he wasn't remembered for McCarthyism, he would not be remembered any better than any other random Senator of the 50s. You may believe that McCarthy should be remembered differently. You and others are welcome to try to bring about such a change in popular opinion, but the policies of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia isn't the place to make that attempt. KarlBunker 10:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read in detail last night what NPOV was and that Wikipedia gives greater weight to the popular view, yet it also states that it gives greater weight to factual views. Right now I am only addressing the lead which has no factual basis, go read the articles on Stalin, Hitler, or any other person on Wikipedia, the lead if it exist does not go on and on repaating insulting terms made made up by his opposition. It is true there is a ton of books on the subject as of late i have read a number of them. I find many of them to be simply the commentary of the Author giving no actul facts or reason. When reading primary source matteral on the subject we then understand how so many of his day loved the man and felt he was a fallen hero. Slander is Slander even if it is repeated a billion times. If McCarthy is only know for McCarthisim, then what is the point of the article, just say that, because that is all the lead describes. It introduces McCarthisim not once but twice and goes on to repeat terms that are different ways of saying McCarthisim and then ends by definning the word using a definitions that directly attacks McCarthy. The Lead is about McCarthism, there is an article on McCarthism this lead belongs in that afticle not this one. And yes McCarthy right or wrongly is known for the term created to attack him. I think it is time we evolve about simple name calling. A racial slur or an insult in general is accurate and not in dispute, but it is not proper. Again no one would dispute that the popular definition fo the N-word is to describe a African American, It is still a very popular word for many people for some unknown reason. It would be only stating popular opinion to say that Dr. Martin Luther King jr was called by many of his day as a n-word or some other racial slur. There is no desputing that fact and as you point out that if a person is called that by some, then it is considered valid and be stated a the common view. Still the lead to Dr. Martin Luther King jr should not contain entirely a series of racial slurs meaning the same thing, then define the insulting word. Part of the benifit of Wikipedia is to learn something you didn't already know. The lead is a great place for that. You seem to think that everyone knows McCarthy as McCarthyism. I know more and more that this is not the case and more and more every day people like myself read more about it and find out a disturbing trend. When I was in school they tought us pilgrams landed on Plymoth rock. They tought us about thanks giving they tought us a great deal about our history, much of which was inaccurate, grossly misleading, and all together lacking. For the first 200 years of this country and for a hundred years before any text book and any lesson given is school did not represent Native Americans positively. I was of the benifit to have a number of teachers that actually knew about Native Americans, and taught us a fair view of them and didn't just call them savages that attacked innocent pioneers because they liked scalps. The word scalps was never brought up in my lessons. Taking scalps is factually accurate, but not needed. My point is yes McCarthisim is a common belief, it is text books and news paper and has quickly found it's way into dictonarys. But the article is about the man not to define the man, all african americans were once called slaves or freed slaves, they are now call people, human, citizen... The facts on the matter are clear. This article only repeats the views of opposition which cite the vies of the opposition not of the man, but of the era which he was a part of. The lead talks about that era, not the man. I will remove it. Thanks for your views. Mantion 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Mantion

I thank you for your views, but I dearly wish you would make an effort to write them more briefly. You'll find that your arguments are better and more convincing when they are brief and clear, rather than rambling all over history to draw vague and unconvincing analogies.

The article begins with an introduction that explains how McCarthy is remembered and what he is noted for. It then goes on to relate the high points of his life and career. This seems to me not only an appropriate format, but a necessary one. An article that simply launched into biography without explaining McCarthy's place in history would be utterly incomplete. And the only way to explain McCarthy's place in history is to describe his real and perceived role in McCarthyism. --KarlBunker 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the lead does nothing more then restate terms associated with McCarthism at least 4 times and then defines it, I figured that repeating yourself and rambling was the point. I agree breif is better. Look at Hitlers lead, it doesn't say he was best know for being a vile and crazy leader that ivaded surounding countries killing all who oppossed him. More importantly it doesn't waste the whole lead taling about the Nazi party which is what he is mostly know for. In addition it says "using charismatic oratory and propaganda, appealing to economic need of the lower and middle classes, nationalism and anti-Semitism ". Using words like charismatic, appealing, economic needs, nationalism to describe what the man actually did. Instead invading other nations and starting ww2, it says "expand german lebensraum (living space)" and "trigger ww2". Hitler was hated and feared by far more people in the height of his power then McCarthy ever was. Hitler killed people, McCarthy wanted people fired. Why is there no mention that McCarthy was charismatic, he was, no mention of his nationalism, he was, McCarthy was from a low class family, elected by the low and middle class of his home state twice. Why isn't it mentiond that he appealed to the middle class, fighting sugar rations so wives could bake cakes for their son's birthdays. Why does hitler's lead include things other then a seiries of words made up to attack the era of WW2. Why does his wifes name get mentioned. Could we not mention that McCarthy died with his wife by his side while still in office? Or that he just adopted a little girl, or anything other then phrases use to attack the man?? 30,000 people didn't line up to pay their respects to hitler, why does he get a fair intro.Mantion 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Mantion

No neo-Nazi would consider the introduction to the Hitler article to be "fair." It blames him for triggering WWII in Europe, it strongly suggests that he only gained power by taking advantage of the crisis in Germany and by "appealing to economic need of the lower and middle classes" ("appealing" is a negative word here, not a positive one as you seem to think), it calls his government an "authoritarian regime", it blames him for the Holocaust, even reporting the number killed, and to top it off, it gratuitously mentions his death by suicide. It simply doesn't work to try to use that article as an example of how "neutrality" somehow means ignoring what historical figures are remembered for. --KarlBunker 18:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the lead on hitler is is more fair then the lead on McCarthy.. Can I re-write the lead on McCarthy following the format of the hitler lead?Mantion 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)mantion

You mean give an approximate count of the number of innocent people whose careers he destroyed, characterize him as a demagogue who subverted the First Amendment and other freedoms, say that he took advantage of a crisis and appealed to peoples' irrational fears to enhance his own political power, and mention that he died of alcoholism? Is that the "format" you're talking about? KarlBunker 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your POV on the subject is clear, though your POV was popular amoung writters, liberals and communist, it is not the only view that exist. The facts clearly support an alternative view. Maybe instead of saying he destroyed careers of innocent people, maybe you could actually give an example. Or site an actual action that violated First Admendment rights. Could you provide the name of one person who's First Amendment rights were violated? Also include the court case that proved he Subverted the First Admendment. Please provide the actual date of the finding and of course all citations... Oh that is right you can't, because it never happened. I am sure you can find a number of authors who support your POV with out acutally providing examples. I will rewrite the lead in the format of Hitler. One that states facts, not just restates different phrases that mean McCarthism.Mantion 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)mantion

Mantion has a valid point. "destroy" and "innocent" are POV words. it is better to provide examples of people's lives who were effected. detailed examples should be added to this article. where Mantion is wholely off-base is when he says "it never happened." there can be found numerous examples. Kingturtle 14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Destroy" and "innocent" are not necessarily POV words, as they both refer to clearly defined things whose existence or lack of same can be established. However, neither word appears in this article, so it's not much of an issue here. I was merely giving an example of how the intro to this article could approach the allegedly more "fair" format of the Hitler article KarlBunker 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Destroy and Innocent may not be in the article, yet the point of the article is "McCarthyism" A term made up by a cartoonist who hated to attack McCarthy. It was hate speach used to insult McCarthy. "McCarthyism" is the POV of a anti McCarthy Cartoonist. I don't know how many times I can say it. It is hate speach and the hate speach is Defined in the intro to further attack the man. Yes it is in a dictionary, there are many insulting words in a dictionary and someone somewhere made them up. As I said before The "n-word" is in the dictionary, it is a generally accepted term, and shouldn't be used and certainlly wouldn't be defined in an intro of a African American. It would be accurate but it would be wrong. The term McCarthyism is a POV that simple. It is fine if you want to put it in the article, but not in the lead and certainly not defined there. There is an entire article about McCarthyism if people want to know about the term made up to attack McCarthy. I needs to be removed from the intro as well as the definition.

In addition the second section of the intro starts off "during this period" a period that started before Senator McCarthy became a senator and didn't end with his death. McCarthy's primary focus was of loyalty risk employeed by the government. People who were paid by tax payers who represent the wishes of the people, people who had access to sesitive information. It is true that people of all walks of life were investigated "during this period". And yes McCarthy called witnesses outside the goverment for questioning, but his focus was on Government employees.

McCarthy had no control over Local and private sector investigations "loyalty reviews". The lead is correct the term McCarthyism has been associated more with the time period then McCarthy himself, so why include it in the intro.

McCarthy gained Notoriety because he rallied hard agains communist in the goverment, a point which has been proven time and time again. The american people opposed Communism and communist working in the government. McCarthy became popular not because of "freewheeling" accusations (as described by an opposing democratic senator), he beame popular because he spent countless hours attacking soviets in the government. These are all points not in dispute. McCarthy became popular because he fought hard agains communism. Not because he made "freewheeling" accusations. He investigated communist employeed by the fedral goverment, that was his focus, that is not in dispute.

McCarthy spent countless hours away from his wife, he was attacked by the press and countless other powerful people. His heathy declined and still he spoke out againt communist in the government. Yes he drank while working all night, yes he had many illnesses. To say that he only wanted to get relected and never cared about Communist is in every way known to be falls. It is an insult to everyone's intelligence. He died in office of a known illness, he wasn't seaking fame, he wasn't seaking re-election, he didn't want soviet spies and communist working in the goverment. The American people didn't want that. And yes there were spies in the goverment, that is not in debate, that is a known FACT.

The intro is false in many ways, it only shows the point of view of people who hated him then. It is baseless and inaccurate. Pure spectulation through and through. There are facts about McCarthy that are not in dispute, there are facts that are known. He gained popularity because he fought communist in the goverment. There were Communist in the goverment, these 2 facts are not up for dispute. McCarthy was loved by and missed by many, he had tens of thousands of people who waited in long lines to pay their respects. It did happen, we have pictures of them. We know congress shut down and the majority of senators,and even the president attended his funeral inside the senate chamber. Many papers including his own hometown paper called him a "hero". He was a decorated veteran, a man who gave up a safe and promising position as a judge to Join the Military and fight for the USA against Japan. He was not drafted he activly quit a job which would of kept him out of service and signed up to fight. None of these things are in dispute. All of these things are important to understand the man. They were things he was known for at the time. Yes he was known for because some democrates in office did not like him, they attacked him politically, they were helped by press and many writers who didn't like his strong stance agains communist. Yes he was attacked and hated, this is true but it was not what made him popular.

The fact that people some goverment officals, news papers, tv anchors and authors all over the country hated him. and attacked him. But that is not what he was, that wasn't what he did. If you want to include those attacks in the article that is fine. But those attacks simply were not the man. They were what people who hated him thought. Lets put something that McCarthy actually believed or actually said in the intro. Or better yet, lets put something he actually did, something he was actually apart of. I have complained about the lead enough, I have made my arguement. I will write a review from a NPOV that include details that shows that people apposed him, but also shows what he believed and why he was so popular. I will keep short and relevant. I will post it here for a FAIR critisisim and constructive ways to improve it. But the current lead is not relevant, missleading, and lacking in reality.

If you have anything that you think is relivant feel free to post them here I will try to fit them in. Remember this article is about McCarthy not the words his enemies called him, not the anti communist movement, not local and private investigations he was not appart of and not the what a democrate thought of his actions. Thanks you. Mantion 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mantion

Neutrality, continued

Mantion -- 2 things:

1. I'm starting a new section just to make this easier to keep track of and edit.
2. Your last comment was too long and I'm not going to read it. Please try again; I'm sure if you just choose one or two points you want to make, and stick to those one or two points without repeating yourself or using elaborate analogies you can make your comment much briefer and undoubtedly clearer and more compelling too. Thanks.

KarlBunker 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is fine you don't need to read it, The point is simple, the lead is not proper, I systematically explained why. Would you like to dispute the lead line by line? I don't.

Mantion 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mantion

KarlBunker

Is this article KarlBunker’s article? I see that he makes a lot of decisions on what is not relevant or accurate. Is KarlBunker's POV is the only POV allowed in the article?

In a section titled "Fall of McCarthy". One of the points is that Jospeh McCarthy "makes a similar accusation against the administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry Truman". A contributor added the point that McCarthy’s statement was correct and included an example. "Harry Dexter White" is now an undisputed soviet agent code name "Jurist". It is a proven fact, but KarlBunker did not like the word “proved” and changed it to suggested. I contributed the Soviet Code name "Jurist" and replaced the word Proved and cited the official FBI Memorandum that Identified Jurist. I felt that these were very small changes and they did not affect the flow. Eventually after a few revisions KarlBunker deleted the line and stated it was irrelevant. Joseph McCarthy fought against soviet agents in the government. Most of the article is based around if McCarthy’s “accusations” were false. So a specific example supported with an official government paper is more then relevant. It is at the center of the entire article.

McCarthy called the Democrat presidents "traitors." Having a Soviet spy on one's staff (obviously) does not make a president a traitor, and the Venona citation was utterly irrelevant to McCarthy's statement. If Venona evidence could be used to show that McCarthy was "right" about the Communist threat, or about any of the people he accused (and that's a whole separate debate), that would indeed be relevant to the article, but that particular statement about Harry Dexter White still wouldn't be relevant to that sentence in the article. KarlBunker 10:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is so poorly written that it is hard to know what is being said. Never the less Harry Dexter White the soviet agent known as "jurist" was the assistant treasury secretary. The second highest position in the Treasury Department. It is a cabinet position of the president. He was part of the administration. It was completely relevant to that sentence in the article. As I said, if you didn't like the format or flow you should moved it yourself not vandalize someone else’s contributions.Mantion 20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mantion

I guess in KarlBunker’s POV some facts are Irrelevant.

Yes, some facts are irrelevant. That's why "irrelevant" is a separate word from "incorrect." KarlBunker 10:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted a valid, relevant, cited, contribution. That is vandalism.Mantion 20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mantion

In another instance on July 11th KarlBunker vandalized a section because he felt it was not properly formatted. In a section titled "Actual Soviet activities in U.S. Government". A contributor included a very interesting list of proven communist McCarthy identified. Again the heart of the article is if McCarthy’s assertion about communist in the government were all false. The contribution below is valid and if KarlBunker does not like the format he can reformat it himself. Not just destroy a contributors work. The section below is valid and should be reinserted.

"In his book Joseph McCarthy, Arthur Herman asserts that McCarthy correctly identified: Owen Lattimore, Edward Posniak, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, (the second-highest official in the Treasury Department), Mary Jane Keeney, Gustavo Duran, and John Carter Vincent."

That is not a list of "proven communists," (though that phrase wasn't in the article) nor is it a list of people that McCarthy "identified," nor, I believe, would Arthur Herman be so absurdly sloppy as to say that "McCarthy correctly identified" all of the people on that list, nor did I remove that sentence because it wasn't "properly formatted". Before you declare that an edit is incorrect, you check the facts. KarlBunker 10:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White was know as "jurist", - source FBI memo states this

"Alger Hiss did spy for the Soviets" - source PBS interview ALEXANDER VASSILIEV (former KGB Agent)

Mary Jane Keeney - Sergey Korsakov became their new KGB handler. - source her own diary

Owen Lattimore - the Soviets considered Lattimore to be "working for them". - source FBI FOIA

I could go on

In KarlBunker's POV they are not communist and McCarthy never "identified" them. The respected Author wrote a book supporting his view. According to the Amazon review of the book "he argues persuasively". It was a valid, relevant, cited contribution. But, it didn't fit KarlBunker's agenda so he vandalized it.Mantion 20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mantion

KarlBunker's carring a lot of the load right now in protecting this article from POV insertions, but here is another user that agrees with him. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker is carrying a lot of the load right now protecting his POV in the article is more accurate. He deleted valid, relevant, cited information. He spends a great deal of time defending his POV and vandalizes other people contribution. He and his friends clearly has an agenda. I said they systematically hijacked this article, you know this better then anyone Donald Albury, aka. "Dalbury". The 2 of you almost completely control this article. You are not protecting this article, you are protecting your own POV.Mantion 20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mantion

Mantion, you are apparantly violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, both of which are Wikipedia policies. Please tone down your rhetoric. I also notice that your only edits in article space are to this article and talk page. Your pronouncements here might carry more weight if you had a history of contributing to Wikipedia other than arguing about the presentation of the facts in this article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who made personal attacks. LOL. I said you both control the content and point of view of the article. You help each other vandalize other people's contributions. It is not proper and must stop. I will advance this to the next level. You are right, I have not contributed much to Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia, but have on a number of occasions contributed valid, relevant and cited information to this article which you 2 both vandalized. At least I haven't spent years destroying other peoples work and to maintain your POV in the article. This article is terribly long, full of un cited speculation, baseless attacks and is terribly redundant. Although I have not contributed until recently I have read thousands of articles and this one was so terrible I had to try to improve it. This article is not worthy of Wikipedia. The whole article needs to be re-written from scratch and not by 2 people with a common agenda.Mantion 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to have any meaningful discussion, it's important for words to be used correctly. Please go read through Wikipedia:Vandalism before you use the word again. Thanks. KarlBunker 02:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Vandalismis any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."

"Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."

KarlBunker as noted above often has deleted parts of the article that do not support his POV. He has compromised this article for a very, very long time. This article lacks integrity because of it. He is not doing it by accident, he is deliberate in his deletions for which there is not just reason. As I said before he spends a lot of time trying to make the article better, but he needs to stop destroying contributions that he personally disagrees with. It is not his article.Mantion 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, this is a content dispute. Calling KarlBunker's actions 'vandalism' is highly inappropriate. Please stop attacking KarlBunker and confine your comments to the contents of the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're genuinely confused about the difference between vandalism and edits that you disagree with, I suggest you contact a Wikipedia administrator and refer him or her to the edits of mine that you're referring to. Perhaps some outside party will be able to explain it to you better than I can.

If and when you get past that point and want to have a meaningful debate about any edit of mine, I'm at your service. KarlBunker 11:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were a few edits it would be a content dispute. KarlBunker has deleted significant sections repeatedly.Mantion 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)