Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What is the status of this discussion page?

Is there some reason why all discussion regarding this topic has ceased? Jtpaladin 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why all discussion regarding this topic has to continue? If you feel you need to discuss something about the article, do it. We shouldn't talk so that we don't shut up. If nobody says anything, this means that nobody has anything to say (or has, but doesn't want to say it)86.104.234.46 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. I was just wondering why the article remains POV. I assumed that this matter was going to be resolved. If no one has any objections, I'll re-engage discussion regarding making the article NPOV. Thank you for your response. Jtpaladin 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Since your contributions to discussion inevitably consist of uninformed wingnut drivel, I object. RedSpruce 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I could just as easily say that your contributions consist of maintaining the "crackpot Communist Party line" but I won't. However, I will say that you are violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Stop addressing your comments at me and instead address the article itself. I would hate to see you banned for violating Wikipedia rules. Jtpaladin 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inherently unverifiable

Regardless of DCgeist's assertion of it being factual, the statement is disputed. The way its worded is inherently unverifiable. According to a widely circulated but unsubstantiated rumor, test audiences, unaware that only archival footage of McCarthy was used in his depiction, felt that the "performer" who "played" McCarthy was overacting. There are no authoritative reports of any such test audience reaction.

It clearly states there is no source and its not substantiated. WP:V very clearly requires a source, so unless one is provided it cannot stay in the article. I provided a source from a newspaper, but that wasn't acceptable for DCGeist and he doesn't seem interested in finding one. If that is the case then that sentence can be removed. We don't get to leave something in the article by declaring it completely unverifiable.--Crossmr 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire item is so vague, against the background of a minutely-researched biography, that it seems hard to justify retaining that sentence. While the comment about McCarthy 'overacting' is juicy if anyone actually made it, it would represent the point of view of some individuals in the audience who can't be named or even narrowed down to a particular city, and who are not on record as being interviewed by any particular journalist. If it were up to me I would strike the whole sentence about the rumor. EdJohnston 03:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's the problem: There are multiple putatively "reliable" sources that have disseminated this rumour without caveat, that is, as fact. For instance, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette critic John Hayes begins his review of the film thus: "When director George Clooney held screenings of 'Good Night, and Good Luck,' audience members said they felt the guy who played Sen. Joseph McCarthy was overacting."[1] Careful research, however, demonstrates no evidence whatsoever for this claim. Hayes, like many others, is simply repeating an unfounded rumor without questioning it. He does not, because he cannot, say where this test audience saw the movie, when they saw the movie, and how many of its members had the fabled response. When the discussion of the rumor has been absent from the article in the past--the state EdJohnston suggests we return to--various editors have placed the rumor in the article without caveat, that is, again, as fact. There is not a shred of evidence that it is a fact, but it is a very persistent rumor. The current means of dealing with it is the most effective available at the moment. Yes, it would be lovely if a responsible journalist would state clearly that it is an unsubstantiated rumor. Until that glorious day, let's continue to ward off falsification of the historical record as best we can. It is the rumor itself that fails WP:V, and we do good by Wikipedia and its readers in stating so (in different words, of course) in the article.—DCGeist 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a reliable source, while your "careful research" is Wikipedia:original research. That means that until you have another reliable source saying it's just an unsubstantiated rumor, we shouldn't say it is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. We're making claims we cannot back up.--Crossmr 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Then give evidence that its widely disseminated as the sentence claims, or better yet find a source which speaks to the fact that so many newspapers have reported it, yet no one can substantiate it. Because as its written, it reads like something completely unverifiable, of which no verification can ever be found. Widely disseminated is subjective and a citation has to be provided so that an editor can verify that statement which hasn't been done.-Crossmr 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be two choices here. Either qualify the report of the rumor enough to make it properly sourced (e.g. credit it to the Post-Gazette writer in the body of the text, as a direct quote, and state that he provides no details), or leave it out. But why does something so flimsy belong in a serious historical article? That is the sensible reason for leaving it out. The third way, that I don't favor, is to keep the rumor in but say bad things about it by calling it widely-circulated but unverifiable. This would seem to violate our rules because there are no sources to back up that description of the rumor. The Post-Gazette certainly doesn't say that. EdJohnston 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank God. Where were you guys? I'm glad to see that there are still people who find this article POV and want to improve it. That Clooney movie rumor should be removed. It has no basis in fact. Otherwise, I begin today's session below: Jtpaladin 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

God says you're welcome. Yes, as I suggested, it would be nice not to have to mention the rumor at all. But when it has gone unmentioned in the past, it has routinely been entered in the article as fact. I wrote that quite plainly above. Ah...reading. Helps with the communication process. God likes it, too--in the beginning was the word...well you know.—DCGeist 05:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So then remove it after its edited and remind the editors that there is no proof of it. We don't keep something in an article that is unverifiable just because individuals keep adding it.--Crossmr 15:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of anyone who wants the rumor kept and is willing to fully document its existence and multiple reportage, I propose that we delete the rumor from the article. If people keep re-adding it in the future, we can revert with a mention of the talk page consensus that it does not belong. EdJohnston 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
We can do a bit more than maintain a revert watch, I realized. Mention of rumor and caveat against its inclusion without firm evidence now hidden after Good Night, and Good Luck bullet point.—DCGeist 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

Let's start out with something simple. The following statement mixes fact with Original Research WP:OR.

The cause of his death was variously reported as acute hepatitis and cirrhosis.

Why not add cancer, heart failure, murder by Communists, alien abduction, glue sniffing, lead poisoning, and being "raptured" to a list of possible reasons for Senator McCarthy's death? This is Original Research and speculation. Or, we could just stick to the official cause of death as reported on his Death Certificate. That would be acute hepatitis.[1]

I'm going to add a "citation needed" to this statement, give a day to get a response or correction and then I'm going to edit. This article has existed in this form long enough for proper citation. Lacking proper citation is cause for deletion or alteration of the issue in question. Jtpaladin 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm going to be targeting WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, and WP:CON issues. I suggest that those not familiar with these guidelines should make themselves knowledgeable of them or remain out of this disucussion or refrain from doing any edits until they do so. These guidelines are essential to any article. I would be happy to help anyone to better understand these guidelines and I appreciate anyone who helps me stay focused on them as well. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. If there is a reported and official cause of death, cite it and stick with that.--Crossmr 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In this edit, Jtpaladin is favoring a primary source (the cause of death listed in the death certificate) over the analysis presented by secondary sources. This is contrary to WP policy, as stated in Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources, in the subsection "Primary and secondary sources."
It is possible to characterize all the summarizations, analyses and/or interpretations of secondary sources as "speculation," and to thereby suggest that they're less reliable than primary sources. There's no need for us to argue about that point however, because the WP policy it clear: Secondary sources are preferred. RedSpruce 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, I was in the middle of typing a response to your edit when you commented. Here's what I was writing:
RedSpruce, all joking aside between us, I seriously appreciate your efforts to cite sources for McCarthy's death but in that statement, we are looking for accuracy, not speculation. Both Oshinsky's book and Reeves' book are vehement anti-McCarthy books. They include every possible story and unsubstantiated rumor they could throw in their book. I don't know if you've read their books but I read them both and found a great deal of their data to be just rumor. Herman does a bit of a balancing act but even he doesn't stick to solid sources. It's only fair and within Wiki guidelines to report the "official" cause of death and leave out rumor. The only way to add those sources is to say that "rumor has it that McCarthy died of alcoholism" but the problem is that Wiki does not allow for rumor and speculation as part of an official citation. The biggest obstacle in adding the "alcoholism" view is WP:NPOV. In that guideline, you have to be able to quote specific people who can attest to McCarthy dying as a result of alcoholism and that their opinion is neutral and not based on ax-grinding. Even more importantly, as you know alcoholism is not a cause of death. It is a syndrome or an addiction. It is not something any coroner is going to put down as the cause of death. I don't see any problem in simply quoting the factual cause of death which is "acute hepatitis" and leaving out speculation about him being an aloholic. If you can cite a Wiki guideline that allows for rumor in this instance, please do so and then let's reach a consensus about including that into the article. But I ask you please not to edit something without discussing it here first because of the contentious nature of this article. I would very much like to work together to improve the article and to do so means that we should be able to reach a consensus on the issues. Thank you for your time. Jtpaladin 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, you are arguing the point that I said there was no point in us arguing. Secondary sources are preferred. Your personal opinions about the quality of those sources doesn't matter; only the opinion of the scholarly community matters, and these sources include the two most notable and respected biographies of McCarthy. If you could cite equally reliable sources that state a contrary view, that view would warrant inclusion in the article. But in this case you're arguing against a view that is universally accepted by all reputable sources on McCarthy.
I agree that "died of alcoholism" is questionable from a technical point of view, but the phrase is commonly used and universally understood. It seems preferable to "drank himself to death," which would be more technically accurate.RedSpruce 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
How about instead of "he died of alcoholism," "his death was brought on by alcoholism"--a little wordier, but both appropriate tonally and accurate technically.—DCGeist 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, the problem still lies in the fact that we don't know on a medical basis if citing alcoholism was a factor in his death. For example, I know of examples of people who have died of "acute hepatitis" that were not alcohol consumers at all. I also know of cases of people that were chronic alcoholics that died of medical reasons completely unrelated to alcohol. So again, we are having to rely on speculation to include the alcoholism factor in the cause of death which according to Wiki guidelines would be inappropriate. If someone wants to go into the alcoholism issue somewhere in the article, that would be fine but trying include it as part of the official cause of death would be mixing fact with rumor. Jtpaladin 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are to be based upon reliable secondary sources. All reliable secondary sources state unequivocally that McCarthy drank himself to death. Therefor this information belongs in the article. The evidence indicating that McCarthy drank himself to death is quite overwhelming, but that doesn't matter by itself, just as it doesn't matter that you consider that evidence to be "rumor". It's what the reliable sources say, therefor it belongs in the article. RedSpruce 17:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, WP:RS is not the only standard upon which articles are based. But like I said, if you want to discuss rumor about what contributed to his death, it's already in the article. Check out: [2]. The initial paragraph that we have been discussing summarizes the McCarthy article and the main body of the article goes into detail. The speculation of alcoholism is done in the "Final years" section. So, I think that settles this issue, don't you? Jtpaladin 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If the intro section is going to mention the cause of death, it should do in a way that is accurate according to the policies of Wikipedia. It currently does not do this. I suggest that, since the "official" cause of death is dismissed as a polite lie by his biographers, the mention of it should be removed from the intro, and replaced with what his biographers universally agree is the actual cause of death. Per DCGeist's suggestion I propose simply "His death was brought on by alcoholism." RedSpruce 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that we would be using unofficial information in a section that should be giving the official coroner's report. Like I said, the topic of alcoholism is already addressed in the "Final years" section. That is the appropriate place to discuss what his biographers thought brought on his death. The biographers are simply stating an opinion whereas the coroner's report is a fact whether we agree with the report or not. It also follows the manual of style WP:MOS to briefly lay out facts in the intial paragraph and then go into all sorts of details in the body of the article. There's no reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over throughout the article. Merely stating the fact in the initial paragraph and going into argumentative detail in a later section is very much in keeping with the manual of style found throughout the articles in Wikipedia. Jtpaladin 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you, except that this isn't an argumentative issue. There is universal agreement on the part of reliable McCarthy authors that he died as a result of alcoholism. Including only the coroner's cause would therefor be to include a statement that is universally regarded as false. If you want the official cause included in the intro, I would accept "The official cause of his death was acute hepatitis, though biographers agree that his death was brought on by alcoholism." I believe that this would be unnecessary repetition, and that the relatively minor point about the misleading coroner's report should only be mentioned in the body of the article. RedSpruce 19:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if I were to agree with you about what some biographers have said (I've seen the claim disputed), I guess the main issue would be where official info should appear and where unofficial info should appear. I'm of the thought that the official cause should be in the intro and the unofficial should be in the main body where it is right now. I think you and I are pretty much at odds with this question so maybe we can get some other opinions on this so we can reach a consensus. Sound fair? The funny thing is consider how much time we've spent debating this minor issue when there are much larger issues to be discussed. Jtpaladin 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for a third opinion. As I stated at the beginning, WP policy is extremely clear on this point: Secondary sources are preferred. And in this case, the reliable secondary sources are unanimous. Show me a single reliable secondary source that argues that McCarthy did not drink himself to death and then perhaps we have a reason to continue this discussion. As things stand now, you are defending an edit that violates WP policy. RedSpruce 10:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That's where WP:CON comes into play. You and I disagree about adding speculation to an official coroner's report. The article already states the speculation of biographers but it seems you want to add speculation to every reference of McCarthy's cause for death. What's wrong with leaving one comment without speculation and just sticking to facts? Also, none of the sources I cite are going to be liked by you. I can cite James Drummey, Roy Cohn, M. Stanton Evans and others but you won't like them and you will simply disregard them so what's the point? At this point, we need consensus to settle the matter. That's what Wiki guidelines call for when we reach such a point. And, we have reached that point. Jtpaladin 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As you know, James Drummey, Roy Cohn, M. Stanton Evans do not qualify as reliable sources under WP guidelines. As I've pointed out, referring to the contributions of secondary sources as "speculation" does not alter the fact that WP prefers secondary sources. You do not have a disagreement with me here; you have a disagreement with WP policies. I suggest you take that disagreement to the proper discussion forum. RedSpruce 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, you are violating Wiki rules by making a change that has no concensus. You are not restoring what was there before you are making a conclusion based on what you think are reliable sources. The sources I gave are in fact reliable. Do not make the change without consensus. This is not your article to do with as you please. Jtpaladin 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I am calling for an Administrator to help in this matter. I ask you not to modify that comment until this has been arbitrated. Jtpaladin 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As you know (I hope!), there is no rule against "making a change that has no concensus" (or even consensus). I welcome the attention of any administrator to this matter, but as you probably also know, that does not constitute "arbitration." RedSpruce 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, I don't understand why you refuse to wait and allow some further discussion on this issue before making the change. You not only changed the comment in question to a POV perspective but you have also not reverted to the original comment, which was, "The cause of his death was variously reported as acute hepatitis and cirrhosis." You are writing this part of the article without consensus and as POV. If you want to revert back to the original comment before we started discussing this issue, then that's fine with me until we can get consensus, but re-writing this article as you see fit is not appropriate consideering the obvious contention with this article. I will compromise and change the comment back to the original state until we can get more input on this. I hope you agree with this compromise. Jtpaladin 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
We have established after extensive discussion that this is not an NPOV issue, and that it is a simple matter of reporting what reliable secondary sources state. You have offered no rational defense of your edit. Instead you are trying to recruit supporters to create a "consensus" in favor of an edit that is contrary to WP rules. I consider this reprehensible behavior. Does that clarify things for you? RedSpruce 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it can be a NPOV issue. Even if a reliable source reports it. If there is concern about it being npov then it needs to be demonstrated that this view of his death is held by more than a minority view point. Its covered under undue weight. If there is an official cause of death on record, and someone wants to put forth an alternate theory in a book, that doesn't automatically make it right or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. It makes it reliable in that we can cite that author as having held that opinion, but we should look at whether that author has any evidence or if they're an expert on causes of death.--Crossmr 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree Crossmr, that this could be a NPOV issue under other circumstances. In this case, as I've pointed out and Jtpaladin has admitted, there is no reliable source that disagrees that McCarthy drank himself to death. No reliable source whatsoever has ever put forward a dissent to this view. Even Ann Coulter doesn't argue the point.
Please don't speak for me. I don't agree. There are reliable sources that state McCarthy did not drink himself to death. I believe even Herman states that in later years, McCarthy drank very little. Jtpaladin 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Your belief is incorrect. Herman describes McCarthy's death by alcoholism in some detail. That's why his book was included in the references which you removed. There is no reliable source, as WP defines the term, that denies that McCarthy drank himself to death. RedSpruce 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Herman states that McCarthy was a heavy drinker during his "hey day" years but was a moderate drinker in his final years. Herman assumes that heavy drinking was the cause of hepatitis. Neither Harman nor the other biographers are doctors and can not make a medical claim however they can speculate, which is what is done in the "Final years" section. Jtpaladin 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(Response to RfC) One easy solution would be to say that he died of acute hepatitis as a result of alcoholism. Alcoholic hepatitis (a form of acute hepatitis) is a common and potentially fatal complication of alcoholism. This appears to be the case with McCarthy - in other words, acute hepatitis was the immediate cause of death, while alcoholism was the cause of the hepatitis. Failing that, remember that WP:RS favors secondary, interpretative sources (i.e. biographies which uniformly almost uniformly state alcoholism was the underlying cause of McCarthy's death) over primary sources (e.g. the death certificate), for reasons exactly like this - it's too easy to hold up the coroner's report as if he developed hepatitis in a vacuum, when in fact alcoholism was apparently responsible. These are not mutually exclusive causes of death, but in fact complementary. MastCell Talk 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would accept "He died of acute hepatitis brought on by alcoholism." RedSpruce 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, people die of hepatitis without ever drinking alcohol. People die of lung cancer without ever smoking. Unless the biographers have some medical evidence that directly link McCarthy's death to alcoholism, how can we possibly make a statement that we don't know to be true? The body of the article already discusses his heavy drinking in the "Final years" section. It states: The official cause death was listed as acute hepatitis; an inflammation of the liver. It was hinted in the press that he died of alcoholism, an estimation that is accepted by contemporary biographers. So why do we need to repeat the allegation in the intro section that is actually meant to summarize, not go into speculation about his death? Merely stating that "The official cause of his death was acute hepatitis." would suffice in the intro. That is a factual statement. Anything beyond that is speculation and is mentioned in the "Final years" section. Jtpaladin 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in a sense it is speculation, or analysis, or interpretation. These are the things secondary sources are supposed to do; that is why they are valued over primary sources. "What we know to be true" is not relevant here; to quote the WP policy: "The threshold for inclusion in an article is verifiability, not truth." The "verifiability" here lies in the fact that all the reliable secondary sources are in agreement on this point. The primary source in this case, on the other hand, is a deliberate half-truth -- the exact sort of thing that makes the contributions of secondary sources necessary.
Again, if you want to argue against WP policy, please do so in the appropriate forum. RedSpruce 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
My 2 cents are above, but to reiterate: stating that "the official cause of death was acute hepatitis" is misleading by virtue of omission. If numerous reliable secondary sources blame his death on alcoholism, then Wikipedia needs to reflect that. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the knowledge contained in reliable secondary sources, not recapitulate a coroner's report without context. MastCell Talk 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "unsubstantiated claims"?

Why is the article suggesting that McCarthy's claims were "unsubstantiated"? It's mentioned twice in the intro alone!!

He was noted for making unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.

McCarthy was never able to substantiate his sensational charges.

Can someone please reference a specific claim where McCarthy was wrong in this regard? Certainly we are not suggesting that McCarthy wasn't right about Communists in govt., right?[3][4][5] Anyone who has read the Executive Session transcripts and/or Venona will find that McCarthy did in fact find Communists in govt. Can someone substantiate this comment in the article? Thank you. Jtpaladin 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In all cases, the context of any statement about unsubstantiated claims provides the references that show that the claims were unsubstantiated.
As for the requests for citation that you've added to the article, it isn't clear what you want citations for. Because these are introductory sentences, they're broad and general, so no single citation can support everything they cover. Every point in those sentences is fully supported, with citations, in the body of the article. RedSpruce 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There are also other citations in the intro paragraph. I just thought it would be appropriate to cite these comments as well. I agree with you that they are broad statements. That's one reason why I don't particularly like them. They are too easy to make and too easy to attack. Maybe the intro should just stick to a NPOV and leave the questions and arguments for the body of the article. Does that make good sense? Jtpaladin 16:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't, for the reason noted below. RedSpruce 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics and censure?

Can someone substantiate this:

Ultimately, his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate.

What tactics are we talking about here? You mean the kind of tactics used by Congressional members to question organized crime figures? How was he discredited? When did a "censure" happen? McCarthy was "condemned" by the Senate, not "censured". There is a difference. Jtpaladin 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The article substantiates the statement, in most unequivocal terms. The article also points out (with citations) that the term "censure" is generally used, despite the fact that the word "condemned" appeared in the text of the resolution. In other words, in the eyes of historians and the Senate, there is not a difference between the two. RedSpruce 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, don't you think that the intro should just stick to a NPOV format and leave the body for specifics? Also, from my reading, there is a difference between "censure" and "condemned". Shouldn't we stick to the facts rather than using terms that don't apply? On a side note, I honestly appreciate your professionalism in dealing with these concerns. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Find a reliable source that argues there's a meaningful difference between the two and cite it. It's the purpose of the intro to briefly describe McCarthy's career and to note what he is famous for. There is no way to do the latter thing while still remaining what you would call "neutral." He is noted in history as a bad person, therefor the intro has to briefly explain this. RedSpruce 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There may be no difference but it would be more accurate to report the exact wording. See[6] Jtpaladin 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The more accurate reporting would be to use the term that is (by far) most often used by lay-people, scholars and government documents, with a brief discussion (as is already in the article) about the alternate use of "condemned." RedSpruce 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that rumor should weigh as heavily as official govt. record? I mean, this isn't some huge intricate issue. It's a simple job of looking at the resolution and quoting it. The link I provided goes directly to the Senate webpage and states exactly what happened. I've seen some anti-McCarthy articles say all kinds of bizarre things as to why he was "censured" by the Senate. Rumor tends to build on rumor. Jtpaladin 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of reliable secondary sources use "censure" primarily and mention the "condemn" technicality only briefly. The article reflects this balance, therefor the article is correct by WP standards. RedSpruce 21:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, secondary sources are based upon primary sources, like government documents, and many secondary sources are creating their own version of history. However, there are secondary sources that do in fact use the proper word "condemned". Even Herman after referring to the whole process as censure, concludes by mentioning the "censure vs. condemn" difference and calls the entire episode as having an "ambiguous ending". The whole matter as a complete farce is well laid out in Cohn's "McCarthy" but other secondary sources ignore these issues. Jtpaladin 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "After several largely undistinguished years in the Senate,..." POV

Most junior senators don't have particularly distinguished terms in the first few years. They don't have seniority so they don't get to be chairmen or serve on important committees. Also, McCarthy was part of the minority party so his opportunities were even fewer. So should every biography about every junior senator that has ever served in the U.S. Senate be tagged as "undistinguished"? This is a POV of view comment. Anyone see it differently? Jtpaladin 15:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that, unlike other largely undistinguished senators, McCarthy went on to become one of the most infamous senators in U.S. history. There is a need to explain to people who might be unfamiliar with McCarthy briefly how he got from being basically a nobody senator to his current infamous reputation. Knightw 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, "famous". Depends upon the person or the biographer you ask. Nevertheless, the words "distinguished" or "undistinguished" are loaded words that can be used postively or negatively. As opposed to saying "uneventful" or "as most other junior senators" would be neutral in use and context. Jtpaladin 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank goodness for "luck"

What is the point of saying this:

However, in 1939, McCarthy's luck was better: he successfully vied for the elected post of the non-partisan 10th District circuit judge.

So he became a judge based on luck? Who wrote this nonsense? Why don't we say that because of "the hand of God" he became judge? Or, how about we say that because of "Zeus" he became judge? Wait, I've got one more. How about we say that because of "Satan" he became judge? I think some people would prefer the later. Anyway, the part about "luck" should be stricken as being utterly and indefensibly stupid and POV. Jtpaladin 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I think you have a perfectly valid point. A microscopically trivial point, since "luck" is often used in cases like this, but a valid one. For the sake of us trying to keep up with your comments, perhaps in the future you could try to restrain your word count when you're dealing with trivia. RedSpruce 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for handling this. I appreciate it. I realize that my initial discussion items are not of huge importance but these little items are what as a whole become part of a larger effort to discredit every single thing McCarthy has accomplished. Even winning a judgeship is pinned on "luck". The only way to deal with an article that is a tug-of-war is by one item at a time. Believe me, I have no interest in spending this much time on such small issues but in the interest of balance and fairness, there's really no other way of doing it. If I start lumping varying issues together, they can easily get lost in the melee that ensues. Jtpaladin 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Marines choice

About this comment:

McCarthy reportedly chose the Marines with the hope that being a veteran of this branch of the military would serve him best in his future political career.

I realize that there is a citation from Herman about McCarthy's choice to join the Marines but what is it that Herman said and how did he come to this conclusion? Just citing a book is not good enough. We need a specific reference. A page number. A name of a person that knows what McCarthy said and when he said it. Can anyone shed some light on this? Jtpaladin 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A page number is already given in the reference. You might want to slow down the pace of your comments, and try to make them more accurate. RedSpruce 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you have a copy of this book but if you do, can you cite what source Herman is using? I have a copy of this book but it's in storage. I could order another copy from Amazon but I would rather not. Please let me know. Thanks. Jtpaladin 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have the book and the citation is correct. I'd be happy to help you with your research, if in return you will promise to apply that research to some project that is as far away from Wikipedia as possible. RedSpruce 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I'll take the cash instead. I just hate to pay for the Herman book again. If you know what he said, would you mind posting his exact words? Also, I'm going to have to buy those anti-McCarthy books that are so full of errors. Thankfully they sell for next to nothing used on Amazon. Yes, they are nearly worthless in more than one way. Jtpaladin 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

This was tagged, and quickly reverted, so we'll bring it here again. As it was already pointed out, this article is long. The popular culture section doesn't really add anything to the article, except to collect various trivial mentions of his name. This doesn't really convey any real information about him or help readers understand more about McCarthy. The only previous discussion on this I noticed was Talk:Joseph_McCarthy/Archive_6#Popular_culture which is hardly overwhelming support, in fact KarlBunker seems to support it only if it doesn't collect random bits of information which it currently seems to hold. in fact DCGeist doesn't even seem to support it so much as he seems to just want a better argument for its removal. --Crossmr 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this section tries to grab on to every possible reference of McCarthy in popular culture. The most absurd examples are:
  • In 1953, the popular comic strip Pogo introduced Simple J. Malarkey, a pugnacious and conniving wildcat with an unmistakable physical resemblance to McCarthy.
  • The radio comedy team Bob and Ray parodied McCarthy in 1954 with the character Commissioner Carstairs in their soap opera spoof "Mary Backstayge, Noble Wife."
This one doesn't even belong here because it doesn't fit the profile of being from popular culture. It might as well be stuck with all the other biased anti-McCarthy references jammed into the references section --> *In 1964, director Emile de Antonio released a documentary on the Army-McCarthy hearings, drawn from archival television footage, called "Point of Order!".
Oh, come on. This is quite a stretch --> *In Wu Ming's novel 54 (2003), Cary Grant and David Niven mock McCarthy's sloppy manner of dress. At the end of the novel, the apparition of Frances Farmer appears to Grant and expresses relief at McCarthy's demise.
The rest are fair enough for this section. I support the removal of the above based on the fact they don't directly mention McCarthy. Jtpaladin 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I support the removal of the Pop Culture section altogether. RedSpruce 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm with RedSpruce on this one. Jtpaladin 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability filter (for popular culture section)

I see that a lively discussion has already started. Here is my proposed trimming of the popular culture section, not based on pro- or anti-McCarthy, but based on external notability or historical relevance:

EdJohnston 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collecting opinions on the pop culture section (this is certainly not a vote!)

OK, we have RedSpruce and Jtpaladin both willing to ditch the pop culture section entirely. I'm listed above as favoring a shortened version. Do Crossmr and DCGeist wish to express themselves on this question? Any other opinions? Thanks. EdJohnston 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for its removal. I've never really found them to be beneficial to any article, and if information really is noteworthy it should be worked in to the main text. We have DCGeist's previous opinion unless he wants to change it.--Crossmr 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In the archived discussion (mentioned above) we have DCGeist saying that he sees some value in it, but would be willing to consider an argument for its removal that seemed strong. We have KarlBunker wanting it to be kept. It would be better if we could get those two gentlemen here so we can parley with them. When opinion is divided, we might compromise by whittling the section down to a few items that everyone can support. Or we could agree on where to merge the better items into the main text. EdJohnston 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In short, I find the information useful and interesting and the present format undesirable (I do share, in a general way, Crossmr's opposition to trivia lists). I would favor consolidating the info into a short, two-paragraph section just above where it is now--below Ongoing debate and above the corrective HUAC. The first graf would cover the items that were part of popular culture during McCarthy's political career; the second graf would cover the later items. Ed, your ranking of the items' relative pertinence seems quite sensible, though I'll note in re the Block and Glazer songs, their presence or absence in other Wikipedia articles is hardly a reliable standard for judging their importance; the Block article, in particular, is the stubbiest of stubs. I'm not sure about cutting all mention of the two songs and the novel, but more concise references could easily be subsumed in a single efficient sentence surveying McCarthy's continuing presence in popular culture.—DCGeist 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, as I am very new to Wikipedia. If I'm not I apologize. But shouldn't Arthur Miller's play The Crucible be included? WhiskeyHead (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Miller's play was about McCarthyism in general, with no direct connection to or mention of Joseph McCarthy in particular. It's mentioned in the McCarthyism article. RedSpruce (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military service

Let's start with this one:

It is well documented that McCarthy exaggerated his war record.

OK, if it's so well documented, where's the citation?

Next:

Despite his automatic commission, he claimed to have enlisted as a "buck private."

Where did he say that? I didn't see any wording in either the Herman or Morgan references that quote anything about McCarthy claiming that he enlisted as a Buck Private.

Third:

He flew 12 combat missions as a gunner-observer, but later claimed 32 missions...

Ok, again, what U.S. Marine document supports this view? Who were the eyewitnesses?

Fourth:

McCarthy publicized a letter of commendation signed by his commanding officer and countersigned by Admiral Chester Nimitz, but it was revealed that McCarthy had written this letter himself, in his capacity as intelligence officer.

I know for a fact that it's not uncommon for someone to write their own commendation. However, even so, where is the evidence that he wrote it himself?

Fifth:

A "war wound" that McCarthy made the subject of varying stories involving airplane crashes or antiaircraft fire was in fact received aboard ship during an initiation ceremony for sailors who cross the equator for the first time.

Citation, please? Jtpaladin 18:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All of these points are covered in the citations. In one case (the reference to "buck private") the page number 22 should be added to the Herman footnote, in addition to 30. In several cases you're asking for "evidence." Once again, this is not how Wikipedia works. The cited reliable sources said these things; whether or not the evidence happens to meet your standards is irrelevant.
Are you saying that just saying that McCarthy exaggerated his war record and not providing proof is sufficient? The reason for asking for verification is because sometimes biographers make mistakes. And sometimes they just lie. Jtpaladin 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, positively, 100%, that's what I'm saying, and more importantly, that's what WP rules say. To go "fact-checking" a published source is original research. The WP policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true." (The second sentence in Wikipedia:Attribution.) The only way to validly fact check reliable sources is to see if there are other reliable sources that state a contrary view. Your own detective work is specifically not allowed under WP rules. RedSpruce 10:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armistice in place?

I've watched the on-going edit wars here for several months now. I am not an editor of this article, just an occasional arbiter of disputes, dispenser of advice, etc., and it seems to me that the article is not substantially better now than it was at the first of the year. Recently, the byte count has leveled-out at about 101,000, and it has remained there for a while.

All of this indicates to me that you have entered the "pure attrition" phase of your war. McCarthy (the article) has become more and more like the Second Battle of the Somme (the actual battle), a senseless waste of human capital. Why don't you all take the pledge to leave the damned thing alone for the summer? Then, come back on September 1 and ask yourself whether the things that enflamed your passions nine weeks earlier still make the ol' blood boil. Perhaps you'll come to the same conclusion I have come to, too: lately, there have been only two kinds of edits, -- silly edits and damned silly edits.

C'mon, take the pledge.

Wishing you zephyrs and pina coladas, I am PeterHuntington 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words? RedSpruce 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I KNEW the worst offender would be the first to blather back. Sorry for disturbing the hostilities with a plea for peace. I have come to treasure your (RedSpruce's) largely nonsensical approach to McCarthy. It has been a source of considerable amusement for weeks. Flame on. And have a nice summer too! PeterHuntington 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from adminstrator MastCell

Since this comment applies to most of the edits that Jtpaladin has been arguing for, I'm copying it here from Jtpaladin 's talk page for the edification of all: RedSpruce 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion appears to be ongoing here and at the article talk page (where it might be more appropriate), I thought I'd chime in. Jtpaladin quotes the section of WP:RS which describes reliable sources as those whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. In this case, the subject at hand is Joseph McCarthy. His biographers are trustworthy and authoritative on that subject, including his congressional career, his family history, his alcoholism, and yes, how he died. There's no need for a separate, dedicated expert for each one of those areas - his biographers are expert on the subject of McCarthy. To insist that only a physician or medical professional can adequately describe his cause of death is contrary to both the spirit and, I believe, the letter of the guideline and sounds sort of like Wikilawyering. MastCell Talk 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I posted this on my Talk page so I'll lay out here what I said there:

There's nothing Wikilawyering about this. This is a simple matter of fact vs. speculation. The problem is that you are depending upon people who are not medical experts and who do not have access to his medical records in order to give a medical evaluation of the cause of death. I don't know how else to phrase this issue. Feel free to speculate but trying to pass it off as an informed medical assessment is pure fraud and completely inappropriate. The use of medical terms to describe a condition is only valid if the source of the assessment is a medical professional with access to the medical records of the patient. That doesn't that you have to be a doctor in order to state a medical fact, but you do have to have a medical fact in order to make the statement. Saying that McCarthy was an alcoholic is not fact because a doctor never made that assessment. Saying that McCarthy died from acute hepatitis is a fact because a medical professional made that assessment. But feel free to state that "most biographers believe McCarthy was a heavy drinker and believe that this may have contributed to his death." That's a lot more factual than saying "McCarthy was in fact an alcoholic and that he definitely died because of heavy drinking."
Let me ask you this: Does speculation equal fact? No. Do any of the biographers have access to McCarthy's medical records? No. So how can anyone make the statement that McCarthy died from alcoholism when "alcoholism" is a medical condition that can only diagnosed by a doctor? But, you can easily say, "McCarthy drank a lot and we speculate he died because of it." Feel free to state that. But to say emphatically that McCarthy died from alcoholism is in no way based in fact and should under no condition be stated as fact. The only fact in this situation is that McCarthy died from acute hepatitis. Other than that, it's pure speculation. So, why on earth do you want to present speculation as fact? Jtpaladin 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, glancing at the title of this section I feel compelled to point out that being an admin doesn't give my opinion any more weight than anyone else's. That said: a reputable biographer describing someone's cause of death is a reliable source; we presume they have vetted their information appropriately. The TIME obituary says he died of cirrhosis of the liver after a lifetime of heavy drinking - fairly straightforward. Unfortunately, the cause-of-death reference link appears broken, so I can't verify the other sources. However, presuming that McCarthy's biographers have drawn a clear link between his drinking and his death, it is not speculation and that is sufficient sourcing for it to be mentioned. MastCell Talk 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
We can assume that, and we generally would but in the face of any other evidence. However if you weigh an official death certificate vs an author, I think that you would have to find the official cause of death more reliable. Its not uncommon for an author to speculate about something or put forth theories. If the author did properly research this to say why McCarthy died, there should be some other sources supporting it. Much like the movie reference above it wouldn't be rare for something not necessarily true to snowball into "fact". Especially about a public figure. I'm not saying one way or the other, but I don't think it hurts to view things critically.--Crossmr 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess my point is that a death certificate stating McCarthy died of "acute hepatitis" is 100% compatible with an alcoholism-related death. We're setting up a false dichotomy here. A death certificate stating he died of "acute hepatitis", combined with reliable secondary sources stating he died of complications of alcoholism, paints an entirely consistent picture. There's nothing contradictory about this. We apparently have reliable sources claiming he died of complications of alcoholism; do we have any refuting this or calling it into doubt? MastCell Talk 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, if the biographer had documentation backing up that conclusion, I would agree with you and have no problem with it. But none of the biographies I have seen provide any such evidence. They just parrot each other making claims that are not backed up by medical assessments. So, the question is, do we state speculation as fact or just use the facts that we have, which is the coroner's report, and report that? Death by acute hepatitis can occur without the person ever having drank any alcohol and none of the biographers provide any data to back up a medical assessment of alcoholism. But, I'm always keeping an open mind so if there's some medical info about McCarthy that states he was diagnosed as an alcoholic and this led to his death, please post it. That would solve this issue rather quickly. Lastly, if you will note that in the "Final years" section of the article, there is speculation about McCarthy's drinking so it's not as if this issue is not being addressed at all. My thoughts are related only to the intro paragraph where speculation is usually limited or avoided. So, in the intro paragraph I would think that simply stating the fact of death by acute hepatitis would suffice. What are your thoughts about the first paragraph being left as just the coroner's report and then discussing heavy drinking in the "Final years" section? Does that seem consistent with other articles and fair enough? Jtpaladin 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When something is published by 3 or 4 reputable biographers, it's no longer really speculation, but a verifiable fact (in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary). Now, I'll be the first to admit I haven't read the biographies that were cited to this effect; however, I'm assuming that they've been accurately depicted (correct me if I'm wrong). If these biographies do indeed indicate that alcoholism played a major role in his death, then I think we should mention it in the lead (assuming we mention his death at all). Pointing to the literal text of the death certificate (a primary source - see WP:RS) shouldn't override the numerous secondary sources that seem to indicate that alcoholism played a role. I'd bet that John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s death certificate states that he died of "blunt force trauma" - yet in a Wikipedia article, we'd say that he died in a plane crash, by way of context. I see this as fairly analagous. But again, those are my 2 cents. I'm happy to hear other opinions, and I'm not a regular editor of this article - just responding to an RfC. MastCell Talk 02:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I have one further Wiki item that I have addressed elsewhere and I would like you to consider. I know that under "What is a reliable source?" WP:RS, it states, "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." Just as a "world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology" it also stands to reason that a political author is not a reliable source on medical issues. So it appears that if you are not someone with a background in autopsies, medical examinations, medical evaluations, etc. the author's opinion on the cause of death of a person beyond what is stated in the coroner's report, is inadmissable as a qualified source under this rule. In the case in question, "the most reliable sources available to its editors" is the coroner's report since none of the authors have access to the subject's medical records or an opinion from a medical authority who has examined the person in question. We are relying on authors who have no professional knowledge in alcoholism, hepatitis, or any other medical condition. So how are we allowing these authors to make a medical claim when they do not have the credentials to make such an assessment? Is this a correct line of thinking? I think so but otherwise, please tell me how you would interpret this Wiki guideline. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I would like to state that I agree with MastCell. In attempting to accurately depict to the reader the circumstances of and surrounding the death of the subject, the numerous reliable sources already mentioned hold significant weight. A medical report or cause of death does indeed list just that- the simple biological cause of death. But, per the part of the WP:RS guideline you quoted, this does not provide any context, which may be taken freely from other reliable sources (in this case biographers) who have written on the matter. To say that other sources should be dismissed because they are not doctors is to muddy the water- the precise biological cause of death is part of, but not the whole picture of, the circumstances of death. --ForbiddenWord 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A brief look at Arthur Herman's biography of McCarthy confirms the general picture about his cause of death stated in our article. An extra thing Herman adds is that McCarthy may have had manic-depressive illness. During his depressions his drinking may have greatly escalated, and this in turn may have produced the liver damage. So we have career reverses leading to depression leading to heavy drinking leading to cirrhosis. He states that the manic-depression may be covered in his medical records that have still not been made public. Without the medical records being available I doubt we can justify putting his mental issues in the article. EdJohnston 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I received my copy of McCarthy by Roy Cohn today. It's a reliable source and it comes from someone who personally knew McCarthy. Let me quote: "Even so, he did not drink constantly and did not qualify as an alcoholic." There's more. Lots more. It talks about the fact that McCarthy was a victim of a hepatitis outbreak in the early 1950's and that almost any amount of alcohol was dangerous for him. What a normal person could drink, McCarthy could not. So, calling the man an alcoholic is not true but saying that normal amounts of alcohol were lethal to him would be appropriate. Nothing is ever so simple that you can explain away with a simple throw-away line. So I will oppose calling him an alcoholic based on that reliable information. Jtpaladin 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Since Cohn was an involved party in McCarthy's career, his book is a primary source, not a secondary source. Also, you won't find any scholar in the field who takes his book seriously, or places any more stock in his statement that McCarthy wasn't an alcoholic than is placed in Cohn's statement that he (Cohn) wasn't a homosexual. In any case, Cohn's view isn't enough to negate the overwhelming consensus view among scholars that McCarthy was an alcoholic. RedSpruce 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How did I know you were going to say that? Roy Cohn is a reputable published source and better qualifies as someone who could judge McCarthy's health condition than anyone else. Bozell also confirms what Cohn said. It's WP:VERIFY and WP:RS so it's a valid source. It doesn't engage in speculation as other sources do and is very reasonable in its' explantions. It doesn't try and whitewash McCarthy's drinking but gives an fair analysis of his drinking and health problems. If you haven't read this book, you should. I think that even you would be convinced by the information it provides with regard to this issue. Jtpaladin 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As a former employee, friend, and fellow ideologue of McCarthy--and by no means a historian or biographer by trade--Roy Cohn is far from a "reliable source" on this topic, just as, say Jesse Jackson would not be a reliable biographical source for an article on Martin Luther King Jr. You may wish to argue that Cohn's personal claim is sufficiently notable that it deserves mention in the main text of the article (e.g., "McCarthy's former associate Roy Cohn would later claim that McCarthy 'did not qualify as an alcoholic'"), though I think that hardly rises to the standard of notability for inclusion in a general biographical article.—DCGeist 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
So Roy Cohn, noted thief, liar and disbarred attorney, is "reputable"? And apparently he also meets your previously stated requirement of medical expertise sufficient to comment on medical issues: that McCarthy was "a victim of a hepatitis outbreak"? (And presumably also a victim of that nasty cirrhosis epidemic of the fifties.) And somehow his diagnosis isn't speculation? You're going to wrench your back making 180-degree turns on a dime like that, Jtpaladin.
You really need to read through a discussion subject if you intend on making comments. Since a number of people here are saying that it does not matter if any of the biographers have medical knowledge, I'm simply saying, "OK, fine, then you won't care if biographers I present are not medical authorities as well." That's all. Very simple. As for your hatred of Roy Cohn, I don't care what you think. He has first hand knowledge of the subject (far better than the utterly hateful and disgusting character assassinations by anti-McCarthy biographers) and is an excellent source as McCarthy's biographer. Again, if you bother to read his book, you will find that he treats the subject of McCarthy's drinking very fairly. He doesn't candy-coat anything. He makes it clear that McCarthy drank. He makes it clear that hepatitis made worse by his drinking killed him. Whereas the anti-McCarthy biographers don't try and present any kind of fair assessment. The only ones here guilty of 180 degree back-twisting are those that hate McCarthy so much that they refuse to allow any source that meets Wikipedia's standard for Reliable Sources because it paints a picture of the matter that they don't like. Jtpaladin 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Jtp, you've lost this one. Roy Cohn is not a reliable source as a biographer of McCarthy for the multiple, unrefuted reasons enumerated above. Any more on this matter is so much wasted breath. Next topic, please.—DCGeist 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course Roy Cohn won't work for you, he doesn't support your conclusions. And you are right about one thing, I have wasted a lot of breath on deaf ears: No soup for you!! Next!!! Jtpaladin 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Uninvolved Editor I'm certainly no friend of McCarthy, but I'm concerned at seeing the encyclopaedia containing such smears as "The official cause of death was acute hepatitis; it is widely accepted that this was brought on by alcoholism." There's no need to phrase it in this fashion. "It was hinted in the press that he died of alcoholism, an estimation that is accepted by contemporary biographers." is also unnecessarily precise, I don't think we need to see the words "alcoholism" or "alcoholic".
Something like "most biographers believe McCarthy was a heavy drinker and believe that this may have contributed to his death." is perfectly adequate to get the point across (assuming drink has to be mentioned in this context - does it?). PalestineRemembered 09:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how describing someone as suffering from "alcoholism" is a "smear" while describing someone as a "heavy drinker" is not. They are descriptive terms with no inherent value judgment. One may choose to believe it's a low or loathsome thing to be an alcoholic (just as one may choose to believe it's a low or loathsome thing to be a conservative or a liberal), but that's an entirely personal choice. I, for instance, certainly believe no such thing about alcoholism. If I did, I would have cut ties with several of my closest friends years ago. The follow-up phrase you propose is simply very weak writing: "...believe this may have contributed [to his death]" is wrong; they believe it caused his death. There's no justification for watering down that judgment with hesitant verbiage.—DCGeist 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also no justification in calling someone an alcoholic when a medical diagnosis of such a condition has never been made and the people closest to him state this was not true. But of course that doesn't stop you from making false allegations of alcoholism, does it? If you have a medical diagnosis that you are endangering your health by drinking because you have hepatitis, as McCarthy did, then stating that any amount of drinking was dangerous to him, would be a valid statement. Jtpaladin 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Footnote 4 names three books as a source of the claim about alcoholism contributing to his death: Oshinsky, Reeves and Herman. There is a page reference supplied in each case. Does anyone disbelieve that those books say what is asserted here? We have no duty to question the secondary sources, unless there is some reason to believe they are biased. EdJohnston 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Jtp. Not a single editor here has made an "allegation of alcoholism," false or otherwise. As conscientious Wikipedians, we are simply reporting what all the leading secondary sources concur on. I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but that's how it is.—DCGeist 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
DC, the good news for you is that I don't have copies of those ant-McCarthy books to properly deal with what sources are being used to espouse that absurd perspective of alcoholism. The good news for me is that I have ordered about 6 anti-McCarthy books that are on their way to me so I can look at exactly what garbage you guys are depending on to make these absurd allegations. Plus, I have in my possession two books that denounce the idea of alcoholism. So, enjoy your "reign of terror" on this page because soon I will bring balance to this anti-McCarthy article. I'm sure you'll be thrilled. Jtpaladin 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, Jtpaladin, I'm always thrilled to see correct information from reliable sources added to this article. You say you have two books that say McCarthy wasn't an alcoholic. You've named Roy Cohn's book as one; may I inquire what the second one is? RedSpruce 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, the second book is, The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Medford Evans. He goes into the death of McCarthy more so than any other book I recall ever reading. He thinks charges of alcoholism are incredibly absurd and unfounded. McCarthy very simply had a liver that was damaged by disease years earlier. What you and I could drink with no problem, McCarthy could not since his liver had been so affected. Jtpaladin 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the book title. Just as an aside, I might point out that since alcoholism is generally defined as the continued consumption of alcohol to the point of profound negative consequences, you have just diagnosed McCarthy as an alcoholic. He knew he had serious liver damage, he knew that continuing to drink would kill him, and yet he continued to drink. Q.E.D. RedSpruce 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Alcoholism is an addiction to alcohol that is diagnosed by a doctor, not a biographer. In that sense, McCarthy was not addicted to alcohol. According to those that knew him, he probably drank as much as anyone else. But for him, any quantity may have been a big mistake. If you look at a picture of him holding his newly adopted daughter, he looked the picture of health. Someone who is suffering from liver problems would look pretty bad in the months or weeks before his death. That's why it's always best to report what is known and not speculate. The reality is that I have no vested interest in whether he is diagnosed as an alcoholic or not. Alcoholism doesn't make someone a bad or a good person. But I do have an interest in reporting known facts rather than assumptions by people who didn't know him or in the case of a number of authors, didn't like him even as a human being. Jtpaladin 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"That's why it's always best to report what is known and not speculate." And better still, if you want to protect your fantasies, to indulge in complete fiction, which is what you're doing. Enjoy it. RedSpruce 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know to you facts and fantasy are essentially the same. But to most people, they are not. I expect evidence in the form of documentation, reliable witnesses, etc. not speculation based on hate. I read Herman's accounting of McCarthy's health and it's laughable how he first asserts that until McCarthy's medical records are released, we won't know his true ailments. But then he goes on speculate on all sorts of absurd ideas. Herman does great when he bases his analysis on reliable facts but he so wants to be liked that he drifts off into unsupported opinion. There's more, but I'm short on time. Jtpaladin 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And if we go by the basis of what Herman asserts to be a possible a "bi-polar" disorder, then we might say that you might suffer from the same affiliction. How? Sometimes you speak to me very professionally and put forth a good argument. Other times you start ranting and raving and spewing all sorts of bizarre insults at me even though I've never insulted you and have always been polite to you. Possible evidence of bi-polar disorder? I guess we won't know until they release your medical records. But for some of the things you've said to me should result in your condemnation or censure (either one is fine). Why do you do that? Have you no sense of shame? At long last, have you no decency? Again, stop focusing on me and address the article. What is it about that Wikipedia rule that you don't understand? How many times do I have to remind you? Anyway, speculation is all that we have and that doesn't cut it for trying to write a factual article. But the "gang-writers" of this article continue to "molest-edit" this article and continue to exert their opinions in place of facts. Now, is it OK with you if we move on to other issues and leave this one alone since there are too many people here that prefer rumor over fact, making further discussion futile? Jtpaladin 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We are reporting what is known, as described by independent, third-party, reliable biographers. Speculation would be looking at a photo of McCarthy and saying, "Gee, he looks too healthy to be an alcoholic," and expecting that impression to trump his biographers'. MastCell Talk 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to McCarthy, the anti-McCarthy "biographers" don't know the meaning of the words, "fact-checking". You put too much faith in what are basically multi-paged op-ed pieces. I especially love when they put quotes around their imaginary conversations and don't give any footnotes as to the source of the conversation. That's my favorite. They also omit information that hampers their cause. Does the "Paul Hughes" incident mean anything to you? Rovere purposely left it out of his book even though he was well aware of it. Please don't kid yourself about the way the "fact-checkers" working on McCarthy books turn a blind eye when it comes to verifying simple details. Even after Herman goes on and on about McCarthy's possible illness, he recognizes the futility of such speculation by stating that until McCarthy's medical records are released, we will never know what is what. And an accusation of alcoholism is rumor/speculation unless it comes from a doctor who had diagnosed the person. So, there you have it. As far as I'm concerned, the anti-McCarthy people who control the editing of this article refuse to accept this reality so I would rather not waste anymore time discussing this matter and instead move on to other things. How about you? Are you done as well? Jtpaladin 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... these threads were dormant for a week until you came by to have The Last Word and proffer psychiatric diagnoses. So I think it's clear the rest of us are done and would be happy to have already moved on. MastCell Talk 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, goodness, I apologize I'm not as devoted to commenting here as often as you are. Forgive me for the intrusion. I just thought you wanted to hear back from me. Far be it for me to be rude. Jtpaladin 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "and that this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy"

In the article it says that

It has also been said that Venona and the Soviet archives have revealed that the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was larger than many scholars suspected,[79][80] and that this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy.

The two scholars cited there are John Earl Haynes (who often co-authors with Harvey Klehr) and Allen Weinstein. John Earl Haynes does not, in fact, believe that "this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy". See http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html. I added a Haynes' quote later to make this clear but this makes the article even longer. I also added an Ellen Schrecker quote to illustrate that, given Schrecker's clear hostility to McCarthy, it does not follow (from a recognition that the new evidence indicates that espionage activity was greater than most people thought) that the new evidence compels a general reassessment of McCarthy. But, again, this makes the section yet longer.

Here is a Britannica quote that could perhaps be used instead that should be sufficient for this whole section: "[Venona] provided strong evidence of Hiss's guilt. The Hiss case seemed to lend substance to charges by Sen. Joseph McCarthy of communist infiltration in the State Department"[2]. This would make it clear that in the case of those rightly accused (such as Alger Hiss), the new evidence may help McCarthy's historical reputation. But the new evidence also reinforces the contention that many others were baselessly accused by McCarthy (as argued by Ellen Schrecker). Many who believe

A) "the extent of Soviet espionage was greater than most appreciate"

do not believe the argument "if (A) then (B)" should be advanced where (B) is

B) "McCarthy was right"

since if "not (B)" is shown, "not (A)" would have to follow by their own argument. This "debate" section should be cut back some lest it give undue weight to the a minority of scholars would contend that McCarthy is in need of "vindication".Bdell555 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bdell555, I agree completely that Haynes and Klehr shouldn't be cited as agreeing with the statement that "this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy." However, I think the fact that the footnote that cites them is attached to the phrase "the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was larger than many scholars suspected," rather than the following phrase, makes it quite clear what they're being cited about. The Haynes quote was a good one, but it repeated points made elsewhere in the article, and wasn't a good replacement for the more relevant text that was removed--noting that attempts to "rehabilitate" McCarthy have not received much attention from scholars.
I think the Schrecker quote is also a good one, but the way it was placed didn't make it clear what the point of including it was. As for Britannica, I don't think that citing one encyclopedia in another is a good idea in general; longer, more scholarly, printed works carry a lot more credibility and are far preferable, IMO. RedSpruce 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as per my discussion of (A) and (B) above, they are being cited for (A) and not (B), however, within the very same sentence the conclusion (B) is drawn. This creates exactly the sort of confusion that historians like Haynes believes should be avoided, and I don't see anywhere else in the article where that point of drawing a distinction between (A) and (B) is made, contrary to your "repeated" claim. Where is the support for your "not received much attention from scholars" contention? Evidence against it appears immediately in the two authors cited, and in fact that Haynes quote you insist on cutting out is from an article that discusses Arthur Herman's "rehabilitation" of McCarthy.
re Britannica, Wikipedia needs citations because Wikipedia is a work by non-experts, unlike Britannica. Since when is Britannica un"scholarly" or without "credibility"? I suggest you try to find a consensus that Britannica is, indeed, an unscholarly and and non-credible work before reverting Britannica-sourced facts. In building your anti-Britannica consensus, you might want to start with getting those people who develop Wiki policies onside, since this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Undue_weight#Undue_weight says that not only are "commonly accepted reference texts" citable, they may be PREFERABLE to other sources. If Britannica is some sort of McCarthy fan, then why does it call attention to McCarthy's "truculent interrogative tactics" in its concise summary and end with a reference to his being "censured by the Senate for conduct 'contrary to Senate traditions'" (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371643/Joseph-McCarthy)? This highlights my general point here: just because McCarthy smeared people that does not mean someone like Alger Hiss was innocent, LIKEWISE, just because Alger Hiss was almost certainly guilty that does not mean McCarthy did not smear people. It is the very propensity of moralizing human beings to draw these sorts of false conclusions (of the "revert that "Hitler was kind to animals" line, you Hitler lover!) that motivates general skeptics like myself to get involved.Bdell555 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Bdell555, I agree with your current edits ([7]). I maintain that there's no confusion around the Haynes and Klehr reference. If a reader can't see where a footnote is placed that might cause confusion, but the article has to assume some ability to read plain English. Re Britannica, I'n not saying they're a "McCarthy fan"; I'm just saying that a scholarly book of several hundred pages has more credibility as a source than a Britannica article of few hundred words. RedSpruce 10:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is clear that the H&K footnote applies to (A) and not (B), the question is where, then, is the footnote for (B). My argument has been that you are not going to find a good one because (B) simply does not follow from (A). Hence the whole dubious argument, both (A) and (B), should go.
You are begging the question when you present "a Britannica article" as exclusive from "a scholarly book". Moreover, the Wiki "consensus" evidently disagrees with you, since the Wiki page on Britannica says it "is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopaedias".Bdell555 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's consider the logic of your contention that longer works are more "credible" than short ones. Britannica, taken as whole, is, in fact, a very long work, not "several hundred pages" but in fact several thousand. So by your own logic you have to concede that Britannica as a whole is highly credible. Not only that, but the Bible, given its considerable length, is more credible than pretty much every scientific article ever published. If your response is "but the Bible isn't scholarly", see my point about question-begging: what is scholarly or not is precisely the question at issue.Bdell555 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no footnote for "B" because it's presented as a part of the position taken by the authors mentioned in the previous paragraph. It's obviously not something that article itself is presenting as a correct or defensible position. The fact that it's correct to characterize these author's position this way is established by the articles and books that are referenced in the previous paragraph.
Re. Britannica, You're playing sophistic word games, and that's a pastime that doesn't interest me. Anyway, there's a discussion of encyclopedias as sources at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Encyclopedia articles are sometimes, but not always, considered to be reliable secondary sources.
RedSpruce 14:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So the reader is supposed to move back in the text AND hop H&K on the way? How is the reader supposed to pick up that "jump" signal, which if missed will lead to H&K being misidentified?
I am not the one making the absurd claims. I also I don't see anywhere in the Wiki policy where it says that Britannica sourced material may not be used and should accordingly be reverted.Bdell555 15:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I might add that if Talk board discussions don't "interest you" you can avoid them by moving on to some other article and leaving my edits alone. Nobody is forcing you to revert me.Bdell555 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Bdell, as much as I hate to agree with RedSpruce (I think he's trying to murder me via this Discussion page), he is right about the encyclopedia sources not being something that are normally used as a reference. Wikipedia has a number of bizarre rules that don't make much sense but what the heck are you going to do? Jtpaladin 03:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New evidence on communist figures

The Venona Papers indicate that Harry Dexter White, the secretary of the treasury under Truman was a Communist spy. They also provide new evidence against the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss. Declassified KGB files indicate that Annie Lee Moss was indeed one of their operatives at the Pentagon. While there is no new evidence against Owen Lattimore, his entire career in academia was one that was overtly pro-communist. These facts should be included with the list of people that conservative authors claim to show McCarthy correctly identified as Communists. It should also be noted that while Ann Coulter does maintain that Lattimore was a Communist, she does NOT claim that the Venona Papers support this view.

McCarthy had nothing to do with "identifying" Harry Dexter White, the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss. I don't believe that "declassified KGB files" have provided any evidence on Annie Lee Moss, although as the article states, some information indicates that she was a Communist Party member. And historians aren't in agreement that was Owen Lattimore "overtly pro-communist." RedSpruce 17:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Former Communist Party member and head of the Buben group of spies, Louis Budenz corroborated McCarthy's claims and detailed how Lattimore had been of service to the Communist Party in the Amerasia case. Lattimore was also identified by former Soviet Army General Alexander Barmine as a member of Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). In a unanimous report, the McCarran Committee classified Lattimore as a "conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy". Lattimore wrote a letter of introduction for Haakon Chevalier to KGB operative, Lauchlin Currie. Chevalier was attempting to obtain a Government job during this period of time. Chevalier is a known Soviet Secret Intelligence Service (NKVD) contact and was associated with numerous members of the Communist Party on the West Coast. Currie also recommended Lattimore to President Roosevelt to serve as a special advisor to Chiang Kai-shek. Indicted for committing perjury. In December 1952, Currie gave evidence in New York to a grand jury investigating Lattimore's role in the publication by Amerasia magazine of secret State Department documents. Do these things suggest an overtly pro-communist position? Jtpaladin 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says that there is and was no evidence that Lattimore was the "top Soviet spy" that McCarthy once said he was, and it says that "No new evidence indicates any covert Communist affiliation." Both of these points are correct. It is also true that Budenz's testimony regarding Lattimore was widely disparaged both at the time and since then. It is also true that Lattimore was exonerated in court of charges that he perjured himself when he denied holding pro-communist views. RedSpruce 02:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in response. I have been on vacation and been work-busy to post here. Yes, you're right that at this time there is no new evidence of covert espionage because all of his overt and covert pro-communist activties have been exposed long ago. That information is easily available to anyone who wants to see it online. Lattimore was hardly the "top Soviet spy" around the world, but as I stated above, Lattimore was a key person in the loss of China to the communists and in that regard, it's a matter of opinion whether he was the "top Soviet spy" in this case. And Louis Budenz's information is only discounted by communists, fellow-travellers, liberals, etc. and people who simply have not seriously looked into this case. From your comments, it just seems that you are merely not looking at all the evidence. Budenz has proved very reliable on many cases and is regarded by scholars as having been extremely helpful in exposing communist subversion in govt. Budenz was certainly accurate with regard to Lattimore. But Budenz's testimony is not even key to nailing Lattimore's espionage activities. Also, the info I posted right above your last response is all accurate and verifiable. As for Lattimore's perjury case, he was not "exonerated" at all. The charges were dismissed based on technical reasons. A far cry from being exonerated. Lattimore has been proven to have lied about his pro-Soviet activties. No one seriously defends Lattimore any longer because he's been identified by Soviet sources as a Soviet spy. Anyone who is interested in making this article more accurate would include this information. Jtpaladin 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"Lattimore was a key person in the loss of China to the communists" That is a statement that no respected and credible scholars agree with.
"it's a matter of opinion whether he was the "top Soviet spy" Only in the sense that some people are happy to hold opinions that aren't supported by any evidence whatsoever.
"Louis Budenz's information is only discounted by..." This statement is incorrect. There were many inconsistencies in Budenz's various testimonies that caused many, including staunch anti-communists, to discount him as a witness.
"No one seriously defends Lattimore any longer because he's been identified by Soviet sources as a Soviet spy." The first part of this is completely incorrect, and what Soviet sources are you referring to?
RedSpruce 14:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

this line "Below are listed the names that various authors have alleged were "correctly identified by McCarthy." As the footnotes show, in almost all cases this assessment is questionable or demonstrably incorrect." does not make any sense, most of the footnotes confirm that the people were involved with communism, by reliable sources. So can we change the wording to say something more accurate, i feel this really shows a bias and seems to be plain wrong. RedDragonPryde 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes show that it's incorrect to say that McCarthy "correctly identified" most of the people listed. In many cases McCarthy simply mentioned the names of people who had long been suspected of or known to have communist affiliations, and some current authors have seized upon these cases as ones where McCarthy "correctly identified" a communist. In fact all McCarthy was doing was rehashing old news. RedSpruce 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really Sad

I stopped in to see what has happened to the article in the last year. Simply amazing how obtuse the Anti-McCarthy side is. I am not going to bother pointing out all the flaws. They are very much the same as I pointed over the last few years. And no one read or discussed the points I brought up, so why bother posting them again. This article is a stain on Wikipedia... So sad.Mantion 09:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mantion, quite your whining and actually do something. To paraphrase, all that is necessary for lies to succeed is for those knowing the truth to do nothing. Jtpaladin 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I spent hundreds of hours researching and contributing to the article. All of my contributions including citing ones were removed in little time and with no reason or discussion. Largely all my discussions have been ignored. The most common reply to my points is "I am not going to read your statements" or "you are just repeating yourself". Never once would they actually address my concerns or suggestions. Why waste my time? My name is not Sisyphus. Good Luck Jt. I am impressed with the many lasting changes you have made. If I can help in anyway just let me know. I check the page every month or so..Mantion 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Mantion, I feel your pain, man. I've spent countless hours drawing out verfiable info on this article only to have it deleted by idealogically driven editors who refuse to accept F.B.I., Congressional Records, former Soviet Union files, and various other acceptable Secondary sources as evidence to support this information. Thank you for your kind words of support. It's just a shame that so many good editors depart from WP because they get tired of the absurd action of a few hardcore dedicated editors who refuse to consider verifiable sources that contradict their idealogical perspectives. My time is very limited and I simply no longer have the time to waste posting information here only to have it vandalized by a few editors. I know you feel the same frustration. We can only hope that new editors will come on board who are willing to devote sufficient time and effort to stand up to the idealogical editors. As for me, my work schedule has severly curtailed my time on WP. I wish I had the kind of time necessary to fix this article while fighting off the attempts by the editors who only want to include information that portrays Senator McCarthy in a negative fashion. Jtpaladin 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a laugh, every time Mantion or anyone else so much as breathes on the article they get reverted. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Murrow, See It Now corrections

I made a number of corrections and clarifications to this section because it was inaccurate and replete with an anti-McCarthy perspective. Here is the original with corrections and explanations:

The original claims, "In these clips, McCarthy accuses the Democratic party of 'twenty years of treason,'" without explaining why McCarthy made these statements. I added the reasons.

The original states, "...makes several misstatements..." none of which are described so I removed that comment.

The original states, "...including describing the American Civil Liberties Union as being listed by the Attorney General as a Communist front organization". That is a patent lie. McCarthy asked if the witness knew that the ACLU was, "a front for, and doing the work of," the Communist Party. In fact, the ACLU had numerous members who were listed as participating in communist-front organizations and that the California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report, page 107: "The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization. At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law." The House Committee To Investigate Communist Activities in the United States, report 2290 entitled, "Investigation of Communist Propaganda": "It is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to protect the Communists in their advocacy of force and vilence to overthrow the U.S. Government." And lastly, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, special commission to investigate Communist avtivities: "The ACLU, with its front of respectability and with its large membership of sincere, worthy citizens, has provided important legal talent and a camouflage of decency behind which Communist forces have agitated and promoted their campaigns."

The original states, "...and berates and harangues various witnesses,...". Anyone reading the text will see that McCarthy's questioning of witnesses is not beyond standard procedure in Senatorial hearings. So this is an exaggeration.

The original states, "...including General Zwicker." This does not explain why Zwicker was being so questioned. Zwicker by his own admission acted poorly and evasive and then stated that he would protect other generals who promoted Communists within the military.

In the final paragraph, I added (in italics here), "The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy, partly because of the deceptive nature of the program and partly for the selective anti-McCarthy imagery. To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on See It Now on April 6, 1954, and made a number of charges against the popular Murrow and attempted to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised.


I hope those with any sense of fairness to the truth will see the obvious need for the inclusion of the added info and clarification of the section in general, including the removal of the deceptive comment regarding what McCarthy said about the ACLU. Jtpaladin 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits took a straight reporting of facts and loaded it with the opinions of a blatantly McCarthy-apologist author. These opinions do not represent the consensus or majority views of McCarthy scholars. RedSpruce 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No, what I did do was take quotes from more than one author and removed inaccurate information. Regardless of what you think of Herman's book, it is scholarly and his info is based on other books including Reeves and Oshinsky. Why don't you address specifics instead of a wholesale condenmation of the changes? Including the blatantly lie about what Murrow said regarding McCarthy's comments about the ACLU. Try addressing specifics and show your devotion to verifiability WP:VERIFY, as well as my compliance with WP:CITE and WP:RS. Jtpaladin 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV generally. "The result was appalling" to give one glaring example. If you want to make such edits, write them so that both the opinions and the amount of coverage given to this sub-toopic represents the majority opinion of respected McCarthy scholars.
You're right that the article incorrectly stated that McCarthy described the ACLU as being listed by the Attorney General as a Communist front organization. It should read that he described it as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party". To describe this error as a "blatantly lie" is not only poor English, but a personal attack.
RedSpruce 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
My edits do not violate WP:NPOV because they come from multiple authors and are not my words. The example of "The result was appalling" came from Herman, not me. I used McCarthy critics to make my edits. Authors Arthur Herman, John Cogley, and Lately Thomas were quoted by me, all of which were anti-McCarthy critics (Herman was more balanced in his book). Also, official government sources are included, such as the California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, House Committee To Investigate Communist Activities in the United States, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, special commission to investigate Communist avtivities.
In fact, other than the See It Now source, there are no references other than what I added!! I'm the only one using footnotes in this section. Now, reliable information is available to any reader of the article. Prior to that, it was inaccurate, misleading, and blatantly anti-McCarthy.
And, thank you for at least recognizing the ACLU misstatement. And, yes, calling Murrow's ACLU comment a "blatant lie" is a perosnal attack on Murrow so I invite Murrow to rise from the grave and defend his blatant lie since he clearly knew that he was lying.
Lastly, keep the 3-revert rule in mind, which you violated in this issue. Jtpaladin 16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter whether the opinion is yours or that of a reliable source. If you use a source to present a minority view as if it was the majority view--or worse, and as you did in this case--as if it was fact, you are violating WP:NPOV. In general, it's best to report facts and avoid opinions, whether yours or a source's. The section (minus your edits) presents no opinions, other than noting that the Murrow report was a major cause of a popular opinion turning against McCarthy. As you probably know, this analysis of events is widely held among McCarthy scholars. Your version on the other hand, devoted considerable text to supporting McCarthy and attacking Murrow. RedSpruce 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I took your concerns into consideration and re-wrote the section with your change included. It now strictly reports facts with citation given. As for opinions by authors, isn't this what the entire alcoholism argument was all about? You can't have it both ways. If an author is making an opinion about an actual event, it can be cited as per WP policy WP:RS. Also you claim that the section contains no opinions however the section states that McCarthy "berates and harangues" witnesses. Isn't that an opinion? Noting that the Murrow report was a major cause of a popular opinion turning against McCarthy is true but again, it's an opinion. I've taken pains to remove any opinion on my edits so, like I said, it was re-written. If you still have problems with it, point them out and let's work through them. Jtpaladin 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Re. the alcoholism issue, you'll note that this is presented in the article as opinion: "an estimation that is accepted by contemporary biographers," and not as simple fact.
Re "berates and harangues" this is a statement of fact, as the transcript shows. A statement of opinion would be that the berating and haranguing was either deserved or undeserved.
If an article states an a minority opinion, it has to be presented as a minority opinion, with proportionally greater coverage given to the majority opinion. This is what WP:NPOV#Undue weight plainly states. The current article text criticizes Murrow and defends McCarthy. ("even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation", for example.) This is a statement of a minority opinion, with no balancing majority opinion praising the Murrow broadcast. As such it is a violation of NPOV. Adding further text that balances the article by quoting praise for the broadcast would be an improvement, but then an excessive percentage of the article would be devoted to this sub-topic, which would be a distortion of its importance. The only sensible solution is to return the article text to what it was, with neither praise nor criticism of the Murrow broadcast.
RedSpruce 10:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I realize that the alcoholism is presented as opinion but so are the comments by Herman. His thoughts that the See It Now program was "appalling" is his opinion but it is valid to add that to the article since it is the expert opinion of a McCarthy biographer. Have you ever read some of the opinions of the anti-McCarthy biographers and some of the bizarre things they have said about McCarthy? In many cases they compare him with Hitler!!
I'm not sure I understand your thoughts on the "berating and haranguing". Those are opinions. From my perspective, McCarthy was aggressively examining witnesses, much like what is found in the tradition of the Senate.
When I first looked at the topic in this article, every part of it was simply an attack on McCarthy and it let the reader believe that there was no one who disagreed with Murrow's program. And, as you correctly noted, the ACLU comment was false. I applaud your sense of fairness in this regard. As for the rest of my additions, all I did was take info from anti-McCarthy writers and show that Murrow's work was not the balanced episode that the article suggested it was. There isn't even a single quote from McCarthy about the program or what he said in his response. That's balance? You and I both know that such a episode could never be done today by shows like "20/20" or "60 Minutes". The McCarthy segment in of itself has no balance whatsoever. Also, I have found what McCarthy in his rebuttal said and also found Eric Sevareid and Murrow downplaying the role that Murrow played in McCarthy's loss of popularity but I have refrained from further changes to the article. McCarthy's rebuttal isn't even discussed yet Murrow's attack is discussed in detail. Is that balance? Rightfully, I would like to add McCarthy's comments but like I said, I will leave it alone with your agreement at the current state of the article. As always, I appreciate you working with me to improve an article. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made it clear that the current wording is in violation of NPOV, and I have explained why: it is not in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. You haven't responded to this point. Wikipedia is supposed to present the consensus or majority view of reliable sources, and the section with your edits does not do this. "Berating and haranguing" is not the most neutral of possible wordings, but it is entirely in keeping with the majority view, so it is correct. The various arguments you have inserted to criticize Murrow and defend McCarthy are representations of a minority view, but they are not presented as that. Therefor, as I said, they are POV and incorrect. I'm going to remove these POV comments; please don't replace them unless you can demonstrate that doing so is in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
RedSpruce 17:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As I detailed below for DC, the comments come from anti-McCarthy biographers even though for the sake of simplicity I used Herman's book. Either way, the info remains the same. Jtpaladin 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To underscore the wisdom of RedSpruce's position, let's take a look at the majority view that would have to be represented--and at relatively great length--if the minority opinion favored by Jtpaladin were included. We would have to quote Jack Gould, then the TV critic for The New York Times, and his famous line concerning the show: "Last week may be remembered as the week that broadcasting recaptured its soul." We would have to quote something like this latter-day description from a mainstream, establishment source, the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

Having reported discrete episodes in the Cold War, Murrow and Friendly decided to expose the architect of the paranoia, McCarthy himself. On 9 March 1954 See It Now employed audiotapes and newsreels, to refute the outrageous half-truths and misstatements of the junior senator of Wisconsin. In his tailpiece before the signature "Good Night and Good Luck," Murrow explicitly challenged his viewers to confront the nation's palpable fears. A month later, McCarthy accepted an invitation to respond and his bombastic rhetoric, calling Murrow "the leader and cleverest of the jackal pack," coupled with the later failure of his televised investigation into Army, left his career in a shambles.

And really, we would have to balance off Herman by giving the whole story as reported, say, by David Halberstam in The Powers That Be, which describes Murrow's long hesitation about doing such a show (see pp. 140-145). Halberstam sums it up like this: "The show, of course, was very good. Long overdue and very good.... Murrow let McCarthy speak for himself and then he added his own devastating epitaph.... On its most important test it passed without a blemish--it caught McCarthy for what he was, not for what he said he was. The finest achievement of the show was that twenty years later, in another era when civil liberties were far stronger and there was far greater willingness to defend them, the McCarthy show could be aired without any apology or explanation" (p. 144). We'd have to mention that the show garnered an "avalanche of supportive telegrams, 100,000, an exceptionally large number" (ibid.). And so forth. It needs to be understood that Herman's perspective is, in light of the broader historiography of the show and of the period in general, quite idiosyncratic and worthy of, at most, passing mention in this encyclopedia article.—DCGeist 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DC, again, you're ignoring the points I made. Herman is NOT the only source. Herman is merely one secondary source that is as valid as anything else listed in the reference section. He's just repeating what the anti-McCarthy authors have stated many years ago. Let's look at the section in question:
Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using."
The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose". In these clips, McCarthy accuses the Democratic Party of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the Soviet Union at the Yalta conference and Potsdam conference, describes the American Civil Liberties Union as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, Annie Lee Moss as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her Communist Party connection.
However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of Commonweal, "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."
This entire section can be footnoted by anti-McCarthy authors John Cogley of Commonweal, the Saturday Review, Oshinsky, Thomas Reeves, and Fred J. Cook. If you prefer, I can use those secondary sources in place of Herman, who is basically repeating what all these other authors stated.
The quotes you posted from Jack Gould and the Museum of Broadcast Communications are totally irrelevant because they are pure idealogical opinions by anti-McCarthyites that have already been stated repeatedly in one form or another throughout the whole article. If you like, I also have a quote from Murrow and Eric Sevareid that I can add regarding their assessment of the program. I'm already quoting info from anti-McCarthy biographers. How many anti-McCarthy biographers do you want to quote? I'll go ahead and remove Herman as the source and simply use Oshinsky, Reeves, Cook, etc. as the source of the footnotes. Then I guess we have no further problem, right? Jtpaladin 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing you persist in overlooking is that the vast, overwhelming majority of McCarthy biographers and historians are "anti-McCarthy." The consensus opinion of scholars is that he was a bad person whose role in history was negative and destructive. By Wikipedia rules, the article is obliged to reflect this consensus, or at least not to go out of its way to contradict the consensus. Suggesting that Murrow's show was, on balance, anything other than commendable would be at odds with the consensus view of scholars.
If your personal opinion (based on what, I can't imagine) is that McCarthy was not a bad person, that's fine; but you need to accept that that view is shared by only a tiny fringe minority, and that this article is never going to reflect that fringe view.
RedSpruce 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, what are you talking about? Why are you dancing around what I just stated? I'm not talking about my opinion or some minority opinion at all. All I said was that I would be happy to use Oshinsky, Cook, and Reeves instead of Herman as footnotes. Now, I don't think you can call Oshinsky, Reeves, and Cook pro-McCarthy, can you? In fact, it is commonly held that Oshinsky and Reeves hold the "overwhelming majority" views on McCarthy. If you have copies of their books, you can see very easily where Herman got his info. He didn't make it up, it came directly from those sources. Herman even gives those sources credit. Before responding, why not look these sources up so you can see what I'm talking about and where Herman got his info? Jtpaladin 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: Suggesting that Murrow's show was, on balance, anything other than commendable would be at odds with the consensus view of scholars--most assuredly including Oshinsky, Cook, and Reeves. Introducing POV bias to an article can be done by selectively reporting facts and opinions that support your POV while ignoring facts and opinions that support the consensus view of scholars. That is what you are proposing to do. I am pointing out that this is contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. RedSpruce 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, why don't we take this one step at a time? Do you consider Oshinsky a scholarly, majority view holder of McCarthy? Same with Reeves. Yes or no? This is very simple. Let's not make it any more difficult than it has to be. I am not proposing to do anything other than reporting what the biographer is saying. Jtpaladin 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You are proposing to add POV bias to the article using the method I have described. I am telling you that this will not be in accordance with WP rules on neutrality. RedSpruce 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing anything that take away from the direction of the article, only that reporting verifiable facts should be inculded. You can not dictate that a topic include info from only a sided perspective. That is a violation of WP:VERIFY. It clearly states, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Can you tell me how the addition of comments from a reliable secondary source that does not change the tone of the article would violate WP rules? Jtpaladin 13:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then you must be thinking of edits that are radically different from the ones you've made and discussed here previously, and I'm skeptical. But in any case the amount of coverage that this article gives to the Murrow broadcast is already more than sufficient. If you compare the percentage of this article devoted to Murrow with the page count that most biographies devote to the issue you'll see what I mean. So I don't think this section should be expanded. Still, if you would like to discuss some specific edits you have in mind, I'm all ears. RedSpruce 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How a rumor becomes a fact

Especially when dealing with the topic of "Joseph McCarthy", it is amazing how an unsubstantiated rumor becomes fact.

For example, in Herman's book on pages 30-31, he talks about McCarthy lying about his military record. His source? Oshinsky, page 32.

Oshinsky's source? Anderson & May, page 62.

Now, here we have Anderson, who was a vicious anti-McCarthy fanatic working as the assistant to Drew Pearson, a lying deceitful hatemongering yellow journalist hated by Democrats and Republicans alike, making up a story without any references. Yes, the Anderson book does NOT have any footnotes. All that Anderson and May say is: A reporter said..." and they don't say who. Nice scholarly work? Hardly.

And this is how most of this McCarthy article has been written. From one rumor to another without foundation. Congrats to those who have done such a splendid job. Jtpaladin 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the article be based on such noted unbiased truth-tellers as Roy Cohn and Ann Coulter, rather than "lying deceitful hatemongers"? MastCell Talk 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that much of this article is built upon one author basing his or info on what another author is saying and all too often, the original source is an opinion or an uncited source. Doesn't that concern you as well when working on an article that calls for scholarly sources? Jtpaladin 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell. --ForbiddenWord 12:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
FW, of course you're agreeing with MastCell. But not because you really agree with him. You are Wikistalking WP:STALK me and attacking me everyplace I go. Here [8], and here [9], and of course in this section where you did not help improve the article but just took an opportunity to attack me. Please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And please stop wikistalking WP:STALK me. Your actions may result in suspension of your account and I feel that would be a shame since I believe you do good work on WP. Jtpaladin 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Watching the edits of an editor who is engaged in an edit war is not stalking. And I do agree with MastCell. --ForbiddenWord 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not engaged in an edit war. That is a mischaracterization of what is transpiring and you know that. You are taking any chance you get to attack me. I really have no idea why you are after me like this. Have you and I had a disagreement prior to the Islamo-Fascism issue? If I have personally offended you without cause, I apologize for that. I don't see any reason for you and I to be at odds for no logical reason. If there's an article where we disagree, let's work that out but you and I going back and forth is just a waste of time.
Further, with regard to this Discussion topic, I can't see how you would disagree with the idea that using a secondary source who references another source who ultimately has no primary basis for the subject, is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia or for any other encyclopedia. Even with WP's loose standards on "verifiable truth" (or, better yet, WP is only concerned with verifiability not truth, please see WP:VERIFY), using such sources is not only wrong, it's also an abdication of our role as editors. Would you use a source that you know was only a rumor? I think I know you well enough to say that you would not.
Anyway, I hope we can work out any issues between you and I and for both of us to refrain from non-constructive comments. I hope you agree. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if it seems like I have been unfair to you, I just don't like seeing editors be nasty to other editors. I agree that arguing is generally unproductive. However, it is important to remember that WP:V is considered one of our core policies. One way that I would solve your above issue is attribution. What would otherwise be a questionable assertion can often be portrayed in the correct light given the person from whom the assertion originated. It's often correct to preface an assertion that could be disputed with the person that said it- just an idea. Hope this helps. I'll keep an eye on the talk page to see if there's anything else I can help with, don't hesitate to ask if there's anything. --ForbiddenWord 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
FW, thanks for working with me on this. I agree with your points. That's why I thought it was important to insist that the source be able to substantiate the information it gives. As I demonstrated in this case, this was an example of one biographer referring to another biographer where the ultimate source does not cite a valid primary source. The primary source can not be some rumor or some editorial. I think you would agree that it should be a quote or fact that can be verified. The problem in this situation is that it can not be verified. Also, in many cases, sources tend to rely on the opinion of newspaper reporters or anti-McCarthy media types such as Drew Pearson, in order to make some claim about McCarthy. There were many newspaper organizations that simply hated McCarthy and wrote whatever they wanted in order to sell copy. Some newspapers simply followed whatever the Daily Worker stated as fact. A great deal of this info is no longer even considered a legitimate source because it can't be verified. Again, these rumors can not possibly pass the test of WP:VERIFY. So, I think you'll agree that being careful as to what is used to support a perspective is important. Your additional thoughts on this matter are well appreciated. Thank you. Jtpaladin 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There might be some validity to Jtpaladin's point if, for example, Oshinsky's sole source for McCarthy's lies and exaggerations around his war record was Anderson & May. In fact, his sources include the Wisconsin State Historical Society, the Wisconsin State Journal, the Milwaukee Journal, various personal letters, the Appleton Post Cresent, and others. And while Anderson and May's book has no footnotes, it includes numerous direct quotes from newspapers and other sources. So: poor sources for the allegations of McCarthy lying about his war record? I'm afraid that's just an unfounded rumor. RedSpruce 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, I'm talking about one specific case. We can take each issue one at a time if you like but in the example I gave you, there is no primary source so it is nothing more than a rumor. And how do we treat rumors? You know the answer to that one. Jtpaladin 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, how much to I care about the opinion of someone who refers to facts he doesn't like as "rumors"? You know the answer to that one. RedSpruce 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Facts are rumors if they can not be substantiated. Check out: WP:VERIFY. Jtpaladin 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Redspruce? Simply stating you don't care about the options of others is not discussing the topic. Are you saying that JT's opinions and views are not valid because he feels that unsubstantiated statements are rumors? If I get all my friends to say you are the smartest person in the world, does it make it fact? You should always consider the source of information and if it is properly supported.Mantion 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to very actively work to take control of the article way from the leftist ideologues that currently stop any editing to this article and return this article to a history-based neutral presentation that this article is currently so far away from. Judgesurreal777 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, as I've pointed out many times before, what you would need to do in order to distort this article to be more to your liking is either to change Wikipedia's rules, or change the consensus opinion of scholars and historians about McCarthy. RedSpruce 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And as I have pointed out to you before, a mountain of liberal scholars cannot create a different reality, and the consensus is not nearly 100%, and the article does not reflect that. It should be about 75%/25%, not all demonization of him. Judgesurreal777 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay; document that 75%/25% ratio among reliable sources with regard to any statement in the article and we can get started making changes to reflect it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSpruce (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It will be a while, as I need to gather books and study up, but I'll let you know. By the way, though I am a conservative, I have no love of McCarthy, in fact he seems to me like an opportunist, but I just want a fair portrayal of him and his era. Judgesurreal777 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context of statements attributed to Senator Ralph Flanders?

The article offers the following text under the discussion of censure:

Flanders compared McCarthy to Hitler, accusing him of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."Woods, Randall Bennett (1995). Fulbright: A Biography. Cambridge University Press, pg. 187. ISBN 0-521-48262-3. 

The previous edit suggested that those quotations occurred during his March 9, 1954 speech to the Senate. The text of that speech, published in full in Flanders, Ralph (1961). Senator from Vermont. Boston: Little, Brown. , does not include any such statements. My question is when and where were those statements made, so they can be put in a proper context?HopsonRoad 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the cited book, this was in a speech Flanders gave (apparently on the Senate floor) on June 1, 1954. RedSpruce 01:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, RedSpruce. In "Senator from Vermont" there is no mention of such a speech. Flanders does mention inviting McCarthy to a hearing room on 11 June to "make another speech concerning your activities in the Senate." It was that date on which he reports "introducing Senate Resolution 261, charging the Senator with unbecoming conduct and calling for his removal from his committee chairmanship."Flanders, Ralph (1961). Senator from Vermont. Boston: Little, Brown.  Are we sufficiently sure of the June 1 date that we should add it to make a timeline or is the date possibly confused with June 11 date? I'd be surprised if Flanders made a 1 June date on the Senate floor without mentioning it. So, if the June 1 date is credible, it must have been in a separate venue.HopsonRoad 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that the date or location is important here. The only point of the Flanders quotes in this article is to give a sense of Flanders' feelings about McCarthy. RedSpruce 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make the Introductory Paragraph More Concise

The introductory paragraph reads more like a stub article unto itself than a "good" article. Much of the information contained in the current version is found below. This section should be trimmed so that only those elements that frame the significance of Senator McCarthy's life are summarized. An appropriately trimmed down introductory paragraph will also allow the structure of the article to be seen in the "Contents" box. Before editing, it's important to determine that any significant feature to be deleted occurs in the main article.HopsonRoad 22:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the introductory paragraph is just fine. In fact, by general Wikistandards, it's too short an introduction. See Wikipedia:Lead section; in particular, Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length. If anything, it should be expanded--no way should it be made more concise.—DCGeist 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear DCGeist, Before we enter into a discussion on this topic, I'd like to point out that, a few hours after I recommended greater conciseness, I followed the advice that I gave and trimmed the introduction down to its current size. So, it's unclear whether you think the the introduction is currently slightly too concise, or whether the long-standing version was too concise. That version was the longest that I'd seen in Wikipedia and prevented the reader from seeing the TOC without scrolling down. I guess that you can revert if you thought the subject required such a long introduction. If there are elements (especially references) from the previous version that you'd like back, I've preserved them and would be happy to supply them. Sincerely, HopsonRoad 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I think DCGeist has a good point about following the WP guidelines for intro section length. Having to scroll down to see the TOC isn't a real problem, whereas the arguments Wikipedia:Lead section gives in favor of the guidelines are pretty cogent. So I've restored the earlier introduction section. RedSpruce 15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy was right

Specifically, the google search "mccarthy was right" in its most restrictive quoted form still yields just under 10k hits as of writing. I think it's unsustainable to say that the book is closed on McCarthy or that the 1950s fears of domestic communist spying were extreme. The hardest core of the alternate is significant and there's over 2 million pages out there once you take the quotes off. Moving on to the idea that all scholars believe that the anti-communist impulse of the 1950s was extreme I give you Dr. Harvey Klehr as a example of an academic who disagrees, though he does find McCarthy's tactics reprehensible. TMLutas 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TMLutas, the first part your comment is so stupefyingly bizarre that I have no response--I'm simply stupefied. As for Klehr's article, it doesn't say what you say it says. RedSpruce 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Er... TMLutas, if you use the number of Google hits for a contrarian phrase as an indicator, then we also don't know if smoking causes cancer, if HIV causes AIDS, if we ever landed on the moon, etc. The number of Web pages dedicated to a particular minoritarian point of view is not a good indicator of its credibility, nor of the proper amount of weight it should be given on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being less easily stupefied than me, MastCell.  :-) RedSpruce 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the social sciences as opposed to the physical sciences, google hits are actually a fairly good 1st pass start at determining consensus. Feel free to point me back to the archives where consensus was determined that we didn't actually have a significant communist spy problem in US government around the McCarthy era. TMLutas 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be getting turned around here. Wikipedia functions by collating information that is verifiable in reliable sources. Google hits are not considered a good indicator of an idea's credibility or notability on Wikipedia. Ideas and viewpoints are covered in proportion to, and in the context of, their acceptance and representation among experts in the field. Basically, if you can provide a meaningful volume of reliable sources contending that "McCarthy was right", that will go a lot further than listing the number of Google hits obtained with various permutations of the phrase. MastCell Talk 23:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh I certainly don't think that one should end your search with google but it *does* help you avoid pauline kael syndrome in a quick and relatively painless manner. McCarthy's non-communist enemies were not, by and large, privy to the Venona intercepts and other evidence that later came to light regarding communist spying and planting agents of influence. They did not know or accurately portray the level of communist penetration in the government. Had they done so, McCarthy would not have gained so much influence. Giving the devil his due is not POV pushing. TMLutas 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Without debating the issue here, it would seem that the revisionist view of McCarthy is largely limited to the Ann Coulter wing. I may be wrong, and would certainly welcome sources indicating otherwise. While the VENONA transcripts have stirred some interesting discussion, I haven't seen much revision of the widely accepted view of McCarthy's impact on the American political and social landscape. MastCell Talk 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that McCarthy was mostly just attacking his enemies for political gain and did not have the evidence, but there still needs to be the talk of how a decent number of his accusations were proven right, the venona transcripts are a realieable source, but this does not change that McCarthy did what he did. RedDragonPryde 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The article does, already, give a significant amount of space to this aspect of McCarthy, in the section entitled "Ongoing debate". MastCell Talk 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between McCarthy's impact and the truth of McCarthy's charges. I think that the latter is very often lost in outrage over the former and that was the point of my interventions in this article. McCarthy was both justly and unjustly attacked in my opinion and separating the two is rather difficult, though it should be done. TMLutas 03:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between McCarthy's impact and the truth of McCarthy's charges. I think that's a valid point. Most who have tried to defend McCarthy are in what MastCell calls the 'Ann Coulter wing', and they've tried to pretend that many of McCarthy's specific accusations were valid. But another view of the issue is that, despite his loose-cannon methods, McCarthy had a positive overall impact by increasing the nation's awareness of communist infiltration. I would bet that W. F. Buckley would belong to that camp; perhaps Arthur Herman as well. Yet another side of this issue is the one raised by John Earl Haynes in the "Ongoing debate" section: that McCarthy did harm to the cause of anti-communism by giving it a bad name. Yet one more side to the argument, of course, is that there was never any threat from domestic communism that remotely justified the paranoia McCarthy encouraged or the methods he employed.
I think a well-sourced sentence or two expressing each of these views might be a good addition to the "Ongoing debate" section. It would have to be stated though, that the "no remote justification" argument is the one held by most current scholars. RedSpruce 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In view of the new book that has just come out (which I have also added to Secondary sources), I have added the following paragraph to the piece:

The controversy was launched again in November 2007, with the appearance of M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History (The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies), a 672-page book which, if Coulter is to be believed, "ends the argument on Joe McCarthy."[3] According to her book review, the "true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government. … In the face of the Democrats' absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting."

Incidentally, I have also changed the description of Coulter (as a "controversial right-wing author" to a "conservative author who has generated controversy"). That's kind of long, but it's an attempt not to delete the phrase altogether, although I think that is what ought to happen to that phrase (either way it is written); indeed, descriptions of Ann Coulter rightly belong on the Ann Coulter page, and not here (where it only looks like an attempt to pre-empt belief in, and acceptance of, the writer's views); as it happens, other authors mentioned on this page, well-known or otherwise, such as Kevin Drum, Johann Hari, and John Earl Haynes are simply quoted without a reference to their popularity or lack thereof — i.e., they are quoted as authorities — and that is how it should be for everyone. No double standards. Asteriks 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

...And I've reverted those edits. There is no source or support for the statement that "The controversy was launched again", or even that there is or ever has been a "controversy." For that to be a correct statement, Evans' book has to attract some attention, in scholarly and/or popular circles, and that hasn't happened yet.. The rest of the paragraph is a minority view given disproportionate coverage. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
Re your second paragraph, you've replaced "controversial right-wing author" with a longer phrase that means the same thing. Since she and her views are universally regarded as controversial, this description is appropriate and necessary to put the discussion of her statements into context. RedSpruce 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Twenty minutes!! It took only 20 minutes for edits that do not agree with the "politically correct" viewpoint to vanish! Bravo! Even the bibliography could not remain untouched; a 672-page book had to disappear from its entries!! As for Ann Coulter , she and her views may be "universally regarded as controversial", but offhand, this is an encyclopoedia: a description of another author or another subject should be on his or her (or its) page and does not belong here — unless (!) you are trying to skewer the information therein; i.e., it is "appropriate and necessary to put the discussion of her statements into context" so people are "vaccinated" beforehand and know to be on guard for her viewpoints (something that doesn't happen for other authors mentioned on this page, well-known or otherwise, such as Kevin Drum, Johann Hari, and John Earl Haynes). Let people read a person's arguments and make up their own mind, for Christ's sake!!! I'm removing the descriptive of Ann Coulter entirely — you can fire your broadsides on her own page, if you want — and putting the McCarthy book back in the bibliography. Asteriks (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, you're correct that this is an encyclopedia. Do you think the work of Ann Coulter would be cited in an article on Joseph McCarthy in any respected encyclopedia? Would Brittanica cite Ann Coulter as a source on McCarthy? Would it give this much attention to what remains a largely fringe view that "McCarthy was right"? I suspect the answers to all of these questions is "no", and that it has little to do with "political correctness". MastCell Talk 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter was cited as one of a number of "modern conservative authors" in… the previous sentence, for God's sake! Is that not good enough?! How often do the put-downs (indirect or otherwise) need to be repeated?! Let it stand at that! As for her "largely fringe view", that's easy for Westerners (living in the 1950s or a half century later) to state from the comfort of their living rooms in established democracies. I wonder whether the Poles, the Hungarians, the Estonians would think it was/is a fringe view to support someone opposing communism and the Soviet Union when the Kremlin was run by Joseph Stalin and when their countrymen (like Russians themselves) were being mercilessly hunted down and executed?! I wonder what the Lithuanians, the Romanians, and the Slovaks would think of the "innocent opinions" of Westerners smugly stating (again, in the 1950s as a half century later) that there was nothing to fear from communism (that at worse it was just a different system, at best it represented …the future of mankind!) and that fighting Soviet spies in America amounted to little else but paranoia?! (Oh, and PS: I wouldn't be surprised if whole nations in Eastern Europe mightn't fit in the so-called "Ann Coulter wing"; but, then again, they had to live through Westerner's pipe dreams.) Asteriks (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Asteriks, the Evans book is listed in the Notes section. Since it represents the view of fringe minority, it doesn't warrant more coverage than that. Coulter warrants and gets somewhat more coverage, as long as her views are correctly described as extremist, because she is a widely known personality. If Evans' book ever attracts enough attention to make it notable, then the coverage of it should be increased. RedSpruce (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not portray conservative views of McCarthy as some far out or fringe ideology, it only exposes your own adherence to a liberal ideology and portrayal of McCarthy. If people have facts that are valid about McCarthy, they should be allowed to put them in the article. What facts have they gotten wrong? Where is the actual disputing of the facts that are presented? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
By portraying Ann Coulter as "extremist", I am only repeating a near-universally accepted characterization. Most conservatives would soundly reject the notion that her view is a "conservative view of McCarthy". As for facts, the only point under consideration here is whether a particular recent book has caused some "controversy" in the field of McCarthy scholarship. RedSpruce (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And I am reverting it again, Red Spruce. To quote an Investor's Business Daily editorial (The Real McCarthy Revealed, emphasis mine): '"Surely the man who did the greatest damage to the cause of anti-communism was the American Senator Joe McCarthy," Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum casually declares in her 2003 history of the Soviet Gulags.

'British historian Andrew Roberts in his "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900" writes that McCarthy "did not in fact discover a single communist."

'But in 600 pages of text, backed up by 22 pages of scrupulous reference notes, veteran reporter and editor M. Stanton Evans, founder of Washington's National Journalism Center, proves that Applebaum, Roberts and countless others have swallowed whole a lie — because they never bothered to go back and check the facts.

'It's a lie that gets regurgitated today each time the word McCarthyism is used as an insulting epithet.'

The IBD editorial goes on to reveal the names of 10 people quoted in Blacklisted by History that were correctly ousted — by McCarthy — as "enemies within". If it is true that the Evans book "represents the view of [a] fringe minority" ("fringe minority, extremist", don't you love the way conservative books and pundits are dismissed out of hand?), then isn't it precisely because, as the Investor's Business Daily puts it, "Applebaum, Roberts and countless others [!] have swallowed whole a lie" (because they never bothered to go back and check the facts). Well, unless I am mistaken, the founder of Washington's National Journalism Center did go back and check the facts — where noone else did (and that, granted, includes a vast majority of people, in the U.S. as well as abroad) — and that deserves a mention. Unless, of course, you believe that the sloppy work of countless people (pundits, writers, and common citizens alike) — not to mention their interest in not having that sloppy work (or lack thereof) exposed (directly or indirectly) — ought to stand in the way of someone trying to hunt out the truth. Asteriks (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A close examination of the title of the journal "Investor's Business Daily" will reveal to you that this is not one of the more-noted journals of American History or cold war studies or indeed, scholarship of any kind. Stanton's book has been largely ignored by the historical scholarship community. What attention it has received from that community has been in the form of disparagement of Evans' agenda in "rehabilitating" McCarthy. Until that changes, his fringe view remains a fringe view. Whether or not mainstream historians have "swallowed a lie" (or whether it's Evans who is trying to cram a huge lie down his readers' throats) is not for Wikipedia editors to decide. The mainstream view is the mainstream view. It is emphatically not the job of Wikipedia to "hunt out the truth." It is the job of Wikipedia to report the consensus views of scholars.
Given that Investor's Business Daily is noted for their conservative and libertarian editorials (and not their historical scholarship), you could have just as validly quoted from Ann Coulter's rave review of Blacklisted. She called it "the greatest book since the bible," which is higher praise than Investor's Business Daily's resident wingnut ever dreamed of. RedSpruce (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Congressional Biography and the Wisconsin State Historical Society entries

I was surprise when I read the article about Senator McCarthy that the entries from the Congressional Biography and the Wisconsin State Historical Society-the Dictionary of Wisconsin History entry- were not included in the external links. I added the 2 entries unto the article in the external links section. My apologies if this creates any problems. The Wisconsin State Historical Society entry mentions the items the Historical Society has and its a lot of materials. Thank you-RFD 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Good additions. RedSpruce 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Who is this person called RedSpruce? And what is his status (if any) with Wikipedia? He presumes to have scolded me for being contentious and seems to have blocked my attempt to make the intoduction to the Joseph McCarthy article less inflamatory and partisan. He makes the astounding remark that Philby had no relevance to issues surrounding McCarthy. He criticizes me for including this reference to Philby and the Cambridge Five.

The current article on the whole is balanced and authoritative. My problem with the article was that the introductory paragraphs missrepresent the article as a whole. For example, the whole article refers to the recent Venova revelations about Soviet spying. Briefly the accusations about McCarthy were that he claimed that there were a large number of Soviet agents in America and specifically in the US government. McCarthyism is defined in the article as the practice of making unfounded accusations. Indeed at the time there is every reason to believe that McCarthy was making unfounded accusations. He almost certainly did not have access to hard evidence. His accusations seem to have been based on suposition and inference.

However with the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of the Venona transcripts it is pretty well established that most if not all of those accused of being Soviet agents were indeed Soviet agents. In addition the evidence is that there were more than 300 agents active in the US in the post-war period. McCarthy made quantitative claims but never did he give a number as high as 300. So in a sense he underestimated Soviet penetration.

In the fifties we had accusations of communist spying by McCarthy and others. In the sixties with the defection of Philby we learned that the British government had been penetrated by Soviet intelligence agencies. For twenty years we were tempted to believe that England had been penetrated but the US had not. In the eighties with Venona we learned that the US was not an exception. There had been a great deal of NKVD and KGB efforts to penetrate the US and US government from before WWII.

None of the basic facts is today in serious dispute, although political partisans differ on interpretation. The Wikipedia article on McCarthy relates most of these undisputed facts but the openning paragraphs summarize those facts in partisan manner.

Some of the contentious issues are:

  • McCarthy's character - The new minority view put forward by Ann Coulter is that McCarthy was an admirable and heroic person. The leftist view that he was some kind of evil and creepy character. Many mainstream conservatives view McCarthy as a rather clumsy politician.
  • McCarthy's tactics - Ann Coulter believes that McCarthy sounded a warning at an important time in history. Most liberals believe that McCarthy was just a political thug with low cynical motives. Many conservatives like David Horowitz think that McCarthy's tactics were counterproductive because they tended to discredited anti-communism.
  • McCarthy's sources - Some conservatives seem to believe that McCarthy had access to some Venona leaks. Most conservatives however think McCarthy's sources were more conventional and many were speculative. Some leftists speak as if McCarthy made everything up in a sadistic attempt to ruin the lives of the innocent.

Wikipedia should focus on facts and should describe contentious partisan political positions. It certainly should not adopt a partsan political language or tone. Yet that is exactly what the first paragraphs of the McCarthy article provide. Calling McCarthy's charges about estimates of Soviet spies unfounded is deceptive now that we realize with some certainty that there were in fact quite a few Soviet spys in high positions in the US government.

McCarthy may or may not have been vindicated by Venona. The proper interpretation of Venona is still in dispute but the openning paragraphs of the McCarthy Wikipedia article adopt a tone more appropriate to leftist blog. When I tried to tone down the partisan and out of date rhetoric I was censored by someone who calls himself RedSpruce. Is his name a clue to his political stance?

Patrickboyle 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrickboyle - Some of your points are based on an incomplete understanding of how Wikipedia works. WP has help pages that will explain things for you.
To address some of your other points:
  • You say that Philby and the Cambridge Five have some relevance to this article, but you don't explain what this relevance is.
  • "The Wikipedia article on McCarthy relates most of these undisputed facts but the opening paragraphs summarize those facts in partisan manner." I don't agree with that. If you give some specific examples, there will be a basis for discussion.
  • "In addition the evidence is that there were more than 300 agents active in the US in the post-war period." You're probably thinking of the 349 Americans whom John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr claim (based on Venona) had a "covert relationship" with Soviet intelligence. These individuals do not all correspond to "agents," and the Venona cables were intercepted between 1942 and 1945, not "the post war period." In any case, as the article states, there is very little overlap between the people McCarthy accused of being Communists or Soviet agents and those who have been shown to actually be such, either by Venona or other later evidence.
You make several other points that don't seem to be in argument with anything that's in the article, so I won't comment on those. Please try to be specific and on-topic with your discussion here. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss McCarthy or McCarthyism in general, nor to discuss other Wikipedia editors. RedSpruce 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, first post in this discussion. The issue that McCarthy's charges were "old news" or "predates his senate involvement" misses the point entirely of what McCarthy was trying to say. His point was attempting to find out why the people identified as communist spies, or at the very least, fellow travelers, were still working in the state department years after their political affiliation was questioned. McCarthy's aim wasn't to "out" anyone, but simply to attempt to get the state department to follow the guidelines and rules they were supposed to follow. The fact the list of names was old news was exactly what the entire problem was to begin with. This is the root of the whole controversy that gets lost in the partisan politics that occured and is still ongoing.Awpilot (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Awpilot, My point around some of McCarthy's charges being old news was in response to some current McCarthy defenders, not to McCarthy's own motivations. Some authors, in an attempt to vindicate McCarthy, try to list individuals that McCarthy "exposed," and in doing so they often include people that he had no hand in exposing, because they were already exposed before he came along. RedSpruce (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voice of America

It may be of interest that McCarthy wasn't the only one to take issue with Voice of America. A Democrat-chaired, Democrat majority House committee concluded in 1952 that "Testimony before this committee likewise proves that the Voice of America -successor to the Office of War Information - had failed to fully utilize available information concerning the Katyn massacre..." (Final Report of the Select Committee to Conduct an Investigation and Study of the Facts, Evidence, and Circumstances on the Katyn Forest Massacre, p. 10). One of the Republicans made further remarks concerning the cover-up of Stalin's crime: "One of the witnesses from the Department of State, which controls the policy of the Voice of America, stated that they did not broadcast the fact of Katyn behind the iron curtain was because they did not have sufficient facts on it. Yet the preponderance of evidence presented to our committee about the cover-up came from the files of the State Department itself" (page 14).Bdell555 (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "unsubstantiated claims" vs "claims he could not substantiate"

Wikipedia policy requires sources for claims. There is no source for Redspruce's claim that not only could McCarthy not substantiate "claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government", but no one else could have either. Where is Redspruce's proof of this impossibility? I note that when Redspruce provides this proof, he will further have to explain why PBS Nova contradicts him, since PBS Nova claims that "a massive Soviet spy network penetrated the U.S. government during World War Two" (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2904_venona.html). The narrator goes on to note the "irony" of McCarthy's largely false accusations given this fact, a point Professor Klehr underlines by noting that "there were so many people that if you threw a dart you'd hit more real spies by chance".Bdell555 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As with most statements in intro sections, the sentence is a summarization, and it is extensively supported within the body of the article. McCarthy made many hundreds of allegations, both specific and general. He said that there were 205 communists in the State Department. He said that Owen Lattimore was a "top Soviet spy." He said that Fort Monmouth was infiltrated by a spy network. He accused three presidential administrations of treason. And so on, and so on. None these, and virtually none of his allegations were ever substantiated. IF you use a lot of creative paraphrasing, you can pretend that one of his allegations was "there were, at some time, a lot of Soviet spies in the U.S.", then yes, that allegation has been supported by later evidence. But the overwhelming majority of his allegations were complete lies and fabrications that were not and have not been and never will be substantiated by him, or anyone, ever. And that, as the article states, is what he is noted for.
And I wish to hell you would get the fuck off this goddamn "PBS Nova" as your fucking source for everything. Even if it did support what you're saying (and it doesn't according to what you quote), it's a fucking TV show for chrissakes. Pretend you're grown up enough to read a book and quote a printed source once in a while.
RedSpruce (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I refer you again to what you are actually reverting, and whether that should be reverted, not something else. You are not reverting to "the overwhelming majority of his allegations were complete lies and fabrications that were not and have not been and never will be substantiated by him, or anyone, ever" AND EVEN IF YOU WERE SUCH A CLAIM SHOULD HAVE A SOURCE. It is YOU who are "paraphrasing" when you say you are reverting a claim about Owen Lattimore etc etc as opposed to the ACTUAL TEXT, which is that McCarthy "was noted for making claims he could not substantiate that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government". You evidently presume that the readers out there will promptly conclude that someone else might have been able to substantiate claims "that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government" and it is imperative that these readers be precluded from drawing any such conclusion, given that you have incontrovertible proof that the number of Communists was never "large". If anything, readers would be more accurately informed if they were advised of the opposite contention, namely, that in fact later evidence revealed that the extent of the espionage was more serious than appeared prior to that evidence being revealed; that is, that the possibility you insist is impossible (by your reversion action, whatever your words above might say) actually became more possible. But I'm not contending that. The extent of the espionage is a political issue, and bringing it into the intro would be contentious, largely because of the proportionality considerations which you vaguely make a point of here. However, your revert drags that extent of the espionage issue into it by insisting on an absolutist reading that precludes any possibility that "that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government". If you are so certain about that let's see your sources. After all, providing sources is the "grown up" thing to do, right?
PBS Nova is not my source for everything. I jumped on it because it was the one source I've seen you acknowledge as reliable. Pretty much every other source, from Britannica on the significance on VENONA to a first hand account of the seminar where Oshinsky made his "vast majority of historians" comment about Hiss' guilt you've rejected as somehow unreliable, biased, or, your favorite, irrelevant / undue weight. Problems that somehow only affect sources which claim that someone was a spy, like Britannica, and don't affect sources which claim that someone wasn't, like Hiss' lawyer. An argument can ultimately only be won by exposing an internal contradiction in the other's thinking, since even the most convincing references to external things can ultimately be slithered around if the other refuses to recognize any common rules for how to resolve the issue and stick to them. Even now, you can't stick to your own clear statements about source validity: I switched to quoting from the TV show AFTER you said the TV show was more authoritative that the pbs.org website!Bdell555 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
DCGeist, you say the "edit summary is false". The edit you are reverting is that McCarthy "was noted for making claims he could not substantiate that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government". I challenge you to demonstrate what is "false" about this edit. re "summary", is that supposed to mean that you concede that the text you revert is true if it said what it says, but that it does not in fact say what it says?Bdell555 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is your edit summary:

still no source for your claim that no one could have substantiated "there were large numbers of Communists..."

Here is what is false about it:

As you have repeatedly mischaracterized my position on related matters, so you have mischaracterized the position of RedSpruce (the "you" of your false edit summary). He does not and has not claimed that "no one could have substantiated 'there were large numbers of Communists.'" He claims and has claimed, correctly, that the famous assertions McCarthy made were made without substantiation (i.e., made without having been "establish[ed] by proof or competent evidence"); he claims and has claimed, correctly, that the article provides extensive, well-sourced evidence of this fact and its centrality to McCarthy's historical significance; and he claims and has claimed, correctly, that the language that you find so disagreeable in the lead paragraph accurately and appropriately summarizes this fact. You are being reverted again.

We could move towards a resolution if (a) we avoided fanciful arguments based on what hypothetical others could hypothetically have done and focus instead on the article subject, his life, and his actions, which in the present matter--despite our colloquy here--are in no significant dispute in the real world of published historians and (b) we agreed to be very, very careful henceforth not to mischaracterize the positions of those whom we are debating.—DCGeist (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Shouldn't Wiki users assume, as I did, that edits are reverted because the reverter thinks there is a problem with an edit as opposed to the comment that was associated with the edit? Even if my associated comment was false, it was never in the article.
(2) My comment was, in any case, not false. If someone says only that “I have two apples in my right hand, and two apples in my left hand” then they are claiming that they are holding four apples. According to you, such a contention would be a “mischaracterization" since at no point did the apple holder ever use any words that were even remotely like the word “four.” Complaining of “mischaracterization” is no argument at all; for a contrary argument, you need to show that holding four apples does not necessarily follow. When the sentence “… noted for making claims he could not substantiate that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government” is being reverted in favour of “… noted for making unsubstantiated claims …”, it is a logically necessary implication that the reverter believes that the claim “there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government” cannot be substantiated absolutely, as opposed to not substantiated by McCarthy. It claims more than what is being reverted, and accordingly requires sources.
(3) With respect to our “focus”, I suggest we focus on what is being reverted, which does not make any claims at all about McCarthy’s “life, and his actions” etc. The edit does nothing more than REMOVE the necessarily implied claim that “there were large numbers of Communists…” is absolutely unsubstantiable. I don't have a problem with the "language" of this claim, I have a problem with it being unsourced and moreover contradicted by other sources however it is styled. My edit accordingly claims NOTHING, which was why I asked, and ask again, what is false about it, given that what is at issue is the edit. Bdell555 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthering my theory that you don't know how to read, Bdell555, you seem to be confused about which article this is the discussion page for. This is the Joseph McCarthy talk page. Note the big fishhook-shaped letter at the beginning; that's a 'J'. Totally different from the tent-shaped letter at the beginning of "Alger Hiss." Keep working; maybe you'll figure it out eventually. RedSpruce (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of providing reasons why PBS Nova was an unreliable source, which would have been on topic, you expressed your wish that I stop using that source, which wasn't. I then joined you in going off topic by explaining to you why I kept using the source. In any case, I note again that what you claim elsewhere IS relevant, because it indicates what sort of sources you consider reliable. By making efforts to utilize those sources, it reduces the likelihood of this rather unpleasant arguing. Obviously, the argument broke out anyway, which is perhaps unsurprising since the number of edits that I make to any Wiki page related to the extent of Soviet espionage which you just let go unreverted is exceedingly low. Certainly your influence on those pages dwarfs the influence that I have had. But perhaps you could meet me halfway some day, by using sources and, more importantly, employing reversion tactics that I've indicated approval of in the past.Bdell555 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there some content issue underlying all of this that we could get back to discussing? MastCell Talk 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I owe some background here. This discussion started at the Talk:Ralph Flanders#McCarthy's "sensational, but largely unfounded, accusations?" topic where I had proposed using the Joseph McCarthy page as a source for verbiage in the lead paragraph of Ralph Flanders because I assumed that it was the best-vetted place to draw from. Bdell555 felt that a distinction should be made between whether McCarthy's charges were unsubstantiated or whether it should specify that McCarthy could not substantiate them (forgive me if I mis-characterize the discussion). RedSpruce felt that the words were fine, as they stood, for a lead paragraph in Joseph McCarthy. I asked this discussion to be moved to this page, since it was about McCarthy, not Flanders. It was picked up in mid-flight here, thereby causing your confusion.
A heated exchange ensued here, together with an edit war. An uninitiated viewer would have seen two seemingly synonymous sentences alternating on the screen in the lead paragraph of Joseph McCarthy. Only by following this discussion would that reader understand the distinction being made. My personal feeling is that the current wording in Joseph McCarthy is more concise and fully adequate, but Bdell's version is more focused. I personally would substitute "hundreds" for "large numbers," the former term being more accurate—the numbers under discussion at the time were a tiny fraction of the federal government even then.HopsonRoad (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever Redspruce and DCGeist's motivation may be for reverting "claims he could not substantiate" in favour of "unsubstantiated claims", a seemingly trivial distinction, my own motivation for opposing their version follows from my agreement with the historians Radosh, Haynes and Klehr, who believe that "if Americans are ever going to understand their history, it is essential that McCarthyism and anti-Communism be disentangled."Bdell555 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sadly your attempts to rewrite the straightforward language of the lede have nothing to do with "disentangling" McCarthyism and anti-Communism, not that such an ideological mission--however virtuous--should be allowed to command our encyclopedic diction. Reverted.—DCGeist (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I make that observation in response to your implication that this dispute is trivial (“no significant dispute in the real world of published historians"). It matters, and it matters to me because I share with professional historians a desire to "disentangle" the ideological missions from accounts of history. Your preferred edit is based on an ideological mission to try and attack anti-communism as well as McCarthyism. As I have illustrated, the edit I am introducing says NOTHING relevative to your preferred edit. It SUBTRACTS as opposed to adding. Your edit is an addition, making a claim of fact that remains unsourced, and it is a claim of fact about anti-communism, not McCarthy. My edit puts this article back to what it ought to be about, namely, McCarthy and whether he could substantiate his allegations. I refer you to Redspruce's unqualified declaration "...not and have not been and never will be substantiated by him, or anyone, ever". The material that belongs in this article should be about McCarthy, not "anyone". Do you agree with Redspruce's declaration or not? Your reversion behaviour indicates that you do, just as surely as 2 + 2 = 4. I note that even if Redspruce's absolutist claim was sourced, the TEXT AT ISSUE is specifically about whether there were "hundreds of Communists" or not, a point on which one can make the further observation that reliable sources contradict Redspruce's unsourced claim.Bdell555 (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - of the two, I think the simple "unsubstantiated" is much easier reading, and its meaning is clear. However, let me propose compromise wording: we could change the entire sentence or two to read something like this:

He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate.

This makes it clear that a) he was noted for his claims of Communist infiltration, and b) that he was unable to substantiate these claims, while not stepping into the minefield of retrospective or revisionist interpretations of what is or is not substantiated now. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with this, although some reason should be provided to HopsonRoad for why his preference for "hundreds" over "large numbers" should not be used. As an aside, with respect to "revisionist intepretations", people like the magazine editor Victor Navasky who essentially disagree with PBS Nova's view, which in turn reflects the view of Haynes and Klehr, amongst other academics, nonetheless concede that these academics are "consensus historians" and are "those we may call the COUNTERrevisionists" [my emphasis].Bdell555 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I like MastCell's wording, and I've put it in the article. Like all statements with specific numbers, "hundreds" is harder to substantiate than "large numbers". I believe the only time that McCarthy claimed there were "hundreds" of spies/communists in government was in his Wheeling speech, and though it's widely agreed that he used the number 205, there's no recording of the speech and he never admitted to using that number in later statements. RedSpruce (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to un-like it in the future, Redspruce, and take it back out? Elsewhere you have given an edit war the appearance of resolution by making an edit you deemed a "compromise" version, only to reverse your opinion that the edit (your own) was acceptable a month later with the explanation that "as long as no one's around actively lobbying for a poorer version of an article, I will make it better". If I and/or Mastcell don't post again on this Talk page for the next month, will that mean you will conclude no one is "around actively lobbying" for the compromise version, such that you will revert back to your ideal version?Bdell555 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I applaud MastCell for finding a solution to what had been a very contentious issue. I likewise applaud Bdell and RedSpruce for being able to find convergence. I observe that throughout Wikipedia, people find it difficult to:
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Be welcoming
I know that I find it hard when someone disagrees with me.
As to "hundreds" versus "large numbers," I would choose the words that come closest to what McCarthy actually said. "Hundreds" sounds like the closest he mentioned to an actual number, but if he consistently said something like "large numbers," then there it is. Phrases like, "crawling with," "infested with," etc. would suggest the appropriateness of "large numbers." As I mentioned above, "large numbers" is purely in the mind of the beholder. Objectively "hundreds" was a tiny number for the federal government at the time.HopsonRoad (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Wikilinks

There are dead Wikilinks in the sections labeled:

  • 2.8 Investigating the army
  • 2.9 The Army-McCarthy hearings

Should they be de-Wikied or left as beacons for the creation or restoration of their respective topics? HopsonRoad (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MOS#Red (internal) links, "If the link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to be a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article, then the link should be kept." I'm not sure all of the red links in this article qualify; the only one I'd really lobby for as definitely deserving an article is J. B. Matthews. RedSpruce (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] alleged POV wording in intro

The words "sensational" and "attacked" are blatantly biased. "Value judgments" are only allowed for such things as "the sky is blue". NPOV does mean devoid of any controversial value judgments, and since there's a new book out trying to save McCarthy's place in history, I'd say it is controversial. The Hybrid T/C 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way are these biased words? All McCarthy authors and scholars would agree with the wording you call attention to. Even the tiny minority who depict McCarthy as a hero would accept this wording. And there is no "controversy" to speak of. The Evans' book you refer to has attracted nothing but derision among the scholarly community. The vast, vast majority of opinion still holds with the traditional view of McCarthy. It is that view that Wikipedia articles are obliged to reflect. RedSpruce (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
All talk, no citations. There is no source listed for sensational, or attacked. Cite them, and I will be fine with the wording. Better yet, list them as quotes. The Hybrid T/C 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you must list them as quotes, as they simply reflect the quoted person's POV. I don't see how you can dispute the bias. Sensational and attack are obviously biased. Until a citation is provided, and they are listed as quotes istead not facts (which is where the problem is), they should stay out of the article. The Hybrid T/C 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You repeat that these words are biased, but you don't support this position. The use of these words here is simply in keeping with their dictionary definitions. Unless you are arguing that there is no such thing as "sensational" and no such thing as an "attack", then the words are not inherently biased. They describe things that exist in the real world. If there is some controversy around whether these words correctly describe McCarthy's actions, please document that controversy. RedSpruce (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sensational - producing or designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, intense interest, etc., esp. by exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements. [10] Suggesting that he was exaggerating, being superficial, or lurid is biased. It is a fact that he was wrong. It is POV whether or not he was a liar, or sensationalist. Attack, in the context of politics, would imply he was attempting to completely destroy an opponent, while supporters would claim he was simply trying to counter their attempts. It is also, and most importantly, a loaded word. That is why the wording is biased. The Hybrid T/C 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The words reflect the article content

I have to side with RedSpruce in this discussion. If the words “sensational” and “attack” were confined to the lead paragraph as a summary of the article, then they might not be appropriate. In fact “sensational” occurs once in the main article and certainly describes objectively the effect that McCarthy had on the nation at the time. “Attack” occurs six times in the main article. Examples follow:

  • Wheeling speech—With this background and due to the sensational nature of McCarthy's charge against the State Department, the Wheeling speech attracted a flood of press interest in McCarthy.
  • Senate campaign—In his campaign, McCarthy attacked La Follette for not enlisting during the war, although La Follette had been 46 when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
  • McCarthy and Eisenhower—In draft versions of his speech, Eisenhower had also included a strong defense of his mentor George Marshall, a direct rebuke of McCarthy's frequent attacks.
  • Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations—A group of senators denounced this "shocking and unwarranted attack against the American clergy" and demanded that McCarthy fire Matthews.
  • Investigating the army—A few months later, the army, with advice and support from the Eisenhower Administration, would launch a counterattack against McCarthy. It would do this not by directly challenging and criticizing McCarthy's behavior toward army personnel, but by bringing charges against him on an unrelated issue.
  • The Army-McCarthy hearings—When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" He then left the room to loud applause from the spectators, and a recess was called.
  • Edward Murrow, See It Now—One of the most prominent attacks on McCarthy's methods was an episode of the TV documentary series See It Now, hosted by journalist Edward R. Murrow, which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.

If the wording is appropriate within the article, then it's appropriate in the lead. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave attacked alone, simply because I don't think anyone would ever be able to agree upon a new wording for each individual instance, and some of them remove the loaded nature of the word with the context of its use, unlike the introduction, but I will not compromise on sensational. It could be taken out without replacing it with another word in both cases without losing the meaning of the phrase, or sacrificing accuracy. "He was never able to substantiate his --- claims". That speaks volumes, and I actually feel that sensational takes away from the credibility of the statement, rather than adding to it. "With this background and due to the --- nature of McCarthy's charge against the State Department, the Wheeling speech attracted a flood of press interest in McCarthy." That doesn't need sensational at all for it to get the point across accurately and completely. Sensational is a biased adjective, and one that it completely unnecessary to this article, so in the interest of a neutral point of view, it must be removed. The Hybrid T/C 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in the definition of the word "sensational" that requires that a sensational claim be false. In fact, as the article thoroughly documents, the vast majority of McCarthy's claims were false, but that isn't necessary to justify the word. The fact is that McCarthy attracted attention because of the sensational nature of his claims. If the article were leave that word out while stating, for example, that "the Wheeling speech attracted a flood of press interest", it would be incomplete. A reader would be justified in wondering why the article doesn't say why the press became so interested. RedSpruce (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the use of “sensational” in Wikipedia in two ways. 1) by searching on the word and 2) by looking at sensational events. I found that it occurred only in trivial situations in the first articles in the search for the word. In looking at phenomena that were more sensational than Joseph McCarthy I found the following uses of sensational or something like it:

I would have to conclude that, although I feel the word accurately portrays the phenomenon described, the story can be told without the word. Precedence suggests that it should be omitted. --User:HopsonRoad 13:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of those article topics is a valid comparison. Something like "sensational trial" would be more reasonable. But in any case, using other WP articles as "reference" in this way isn't a good idea. A search of the McCarthy biography "A Conspiracy So Immense" returns 10 cases of "sensational" being used in reference to McCarthy's actions, charges, etc. Even the staunchly McCarthy-defending biography "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator" uses the word in reference to him 3 times; "McCarthy was more explicit and sensational." for example.
Another instructive way to look at this issue is to imagine the sentence without the word, as The Hybrid suggests above: "With this background and due to the nature of McCarthy's charge against the State Department..." A reader might ask himself "what is it about 'the nature' of McCarthy's charge that the article is referring to?" After a bit of thought, this reader would come to the conclusion: "well, it must have been the ____ nature of McCarthy's claim," where the blank would have to be filled in with "sensational", or some synonym. RedSpruce (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The reader filling in the blanks is exactly what we want to happen. Let the facts speak for themselves, instead of introducing our own interpretations. As far as your claim, "There is nothing in the definition of the word "sensational" that requires that a sensational claim be false," I linked you to the dictionary.com definition of the word earlier, which reads that the word is most commonly used to describe things meant to evoke strong reactions by exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements. The part I italicized is the part that is biased. It suggests that he deliberately made false or hyperbolic claims, which is purely up to personal interpretation. It is biased, plain and simple. The Hybrid T/C 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If removal the second instance of its use bothers you, however, perhaps astonishing would be a good compromise. Thesaurus.com lists it as a synonym of sensational[11], but its official definition lacks the note about exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements. The Hybrid T/C 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The two definitions of "sensational" that you cited, Hybrid, read in their entirety: "Producing or designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, intense interest, etc., esp. by exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements" and "Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details." The core elements of both definitions fit the usage of the word in the article. Your objections appear to pertain to the clause of each that starts, "esp." "Especially" does not denote "necessarily," but implies the most often encountered instances. I recommend finding alternate wording not because the current wording is inappropriate, but because it requires so much time to defend it.--User:HopsonRoad 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if one accepts that "sensational" implies that McCarthy's claims were false, exaggerated, superficial, or lurid, that's as it should be, because every single one of his more extreme/sensational/astonishing claims were exactly that, as is completely documented in the article. "Astonishing" is incorrect for the same reason: It implies that the claims were correct, when they weren't. As such it is dishonest and unacceptable. RedSpruce (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear RedSpruce, Hybrid mentioned above that, if you included citations using the word, he would be comfortable with it. You appear to have a good supply of quotations at your disposal, would that not solve the problem by anchoring the use of "sensational" with a quotation or two?--User:HopsonRoad 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec x2) I'm not okay with that anymore; I refuse to give in to this irrationality. No, RedSpruce, it does not imply they were correct; it states that they were startling. As far as your comments about correctness goes, that shows that you are biased. It is your opinion that they were exaggerated, superficial, or lurid. The article only documents that they were incorrect. The Hybrid T/C 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
TH, if it's only "my opinion" that the vast majority of McCarthy's claims were false, it should be very easy for you to document that. All you have to do is document a few significant claims he made that, according to reliable sources, were correct. Currently the article cites many, many sources that indicate "my opinion" is correct. If "my opinion" is incorrect, then there are serious problems with the whole article. Please cite sources showing I'm incorrect so the article can be fixed. RedSpruce (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I apologize for calling you irrational. Edit conflicts frustrate me to no end, and I shouldn't have taken it out on you. Anyway, the issue I have is not with correctness; it is with neutrality. Like I have said multiple times, and what you seem to be skipping over in my comments, is that he was indeed incorrect, and that should be noted. However, we cannot say he was exaggerating, superficial, or lurid, as that makes a judgment about what his intentions were. We can judge his actions, but we cannot judge his motives without breaching the boundaries of neutrality. The Hybrid T/C 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
the reader can judge the authenticity of his claims, i don't like the use of "sensational" which imo is a very loaded word with a negative connotation. the reader should see evidence that his claims were false if thats the case, not words designed to lead readers to that conclusion outside the evidence SJMNY (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil apology, TH. I don't mean to skip over your point about neutrality. If it were the case that "sensational" made some kind of unequivocal statement about the (supposed) nature of McCarthy's motivations, then I'd agree with you that it should only be used as part of a quoted statement of opinion. However, as the definition you cited shows, any statement about motivation is not at all a necessary or central part of the definition of the word.<BR< SJMNY, If the word has negative connotations (which is open to question), it's entirely established in the article that such connotations are justified. So where's the problem? RedSpruce (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i just think the bias in the introduction is not necessary. evidence should speak for itself and adjectives should be left out when they aren't necessary. let the reader judge if the claims are "sensational" "astonishing" or "completely factual according to McCarthy's supporters" by reading the claims he made and the evidence for and against them.SJMNY (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Fact is not bias. That McCarthy's claims were sensational is a simple matter of fact, as is supported by the dictionary definition of the word and the fact that McCarthy biographers commonly use the word. To leave the word out is to leave out fact and to encourage a misreading of the facts of the case. RedSpruce (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm impressed! When I left I saw the hot-button word "irrational" being used and expected the conversation to head south and need referral to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But instead I see a sincere apology rendered and accepted. Bravo! Unfortunately, as a past doubter of "sensational" myself, I now feel it's still the most appropriate word. I don't feel that "astounded" or "astonished" were prevalent emotions of the era. If I were to offer a second-choice word for me, it would be dramatic. McCarthy was certainly seeking attention with his charges and casting them in terms that addressed fears of Americans. I hope that this helps more than my previous suggestions. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The use of the word "sensational" is not only acceptable, it is also accurate, useful, and the most appropriate term to use in the contexts in which it currently appears. While both sentences work reasonably well without it, each is better (i.e., clearer and more informative) with it. "Dramatic" is certainly among the best imaginable substitutes, but I think it is not quite as precise nor as idiomatic in this context as "sensational."—DCGeist (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to understand why (apart from frustration) Hybrid changed his mind about whether a quotation with "sensational" in it, reinforced with multiple citations that employed that term, wouldn't secure the appropriateness of the word and allow all of us not to find ourselves here periodically defending it. An explanation of the choice of "sensational" could occur in a footnote to the word in the lead section.--User:HopsonRoad 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with a quote now that I've taken some more time to get my head back, but I still don't understand why a less "flustering" synonym for the word is unacceptable. Even if astounding isn't satisfactory, there isn't a shortage of synonyms that could surely satisfy both parties. I repeat, the article proves a lack of correctness, but does not prove motives. The Hybrid T/C 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And when I read over this again, it appears that in my frustration I put some words in the wrong places, which could easily cause some meanings to be misinterpreted. For the record, I am fully aware McCarthy was incorrect, when in my last comment on the 14th I accidentally asserted that he was correct, when I meant to assert that I know RedSpruce is correct about McCarthy's claims being sensational. The whole reason I'm trying to get it changed is because I don't feel like the article has any business claiming he was. It just isn't neutral; I've already explained why it isn't. I'm simply asking for a synonym to be used instead, or for the word to be used in a quote to tone the sentences down to a neutral level. This is a perfectly reasonable request, and I fail to see where the problem is aside from personal bias. The Hybrid T/C 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There may still be some mistakes in your wording, because now you seem to be saying that the article doesn't have any business making a statement that you acknowledge is factual. Is that what you meant to say? Stating fact is neutral, even when it reflects negatively on someone. And the word "sensational" is correct and factual, according to the dictionary definition of the word and according to documented historical fact. Instead of saying "it just isn't neutral" (which doesn't have any concrete meaning), perhaps you could document, with concrete facts, some way in which the word is incorrect or misleading. RedSpruce (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
My comments are sounding completely incoherent when I read over them. *Sigh* I'll come back tomorrow, and try again :P The Hybrid T/C 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Position of footnote

Dear DCGeist, While I recognize that the MOS recommends that footnotes be in the main body of text, it allows them to be in the lead section (there are already some there). I opted for the lead section because that's where people first encounter the word that they find so "sensational." If we were able to do a controlled study, I'd predict many fewer talk page discussions in the case where the footnote is in the lead. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the footnote is of questionable appropriateness, since it's obvious when reading it that it's only there to try to smooth the ruffled feathers of would-be McCarthy apologists. As such, the less attention it calls to itself the better, so putting it in the body text rather than the lead is preferable, IMO. RedSpruce (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree in essence with both of your observations. In general, I believe that where lead content--even when challenged--is supported by well-sourced main text, no footnote should be given in the lede except in rare and carefully chosen circumstances. While I do believe you are right that we may continue to get a little discussion on "sensational," HR, I would say that putting the note in the lede might also encourage others to go after every single adjective--and even other word types--they take the slightest issue with. Whatever the overall merits of the present case, I think a note in the lede is too big a concession and may well promote rather than allay tendentious nit-picking.—DCGeist (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "censured" vs. "condemned"

The article states over and over that the Senate "censured" McCarthy but the actual resolution says they "condemned" him and that word is only mentioned once. Is there a difference between the two? (does the Senate routinely "condemn" people and does this have a different meaning at all from "censure" in this context?)SJMNY (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article covers this issue pretty well. Some McCarthy defenders have tried to make an issue out of the fact that the word "censured" is not used in the motion that was passed by the Senate. But few people claim that there's any significance to this. Both scholars and senate documents usually use the word "censured" in referring to the motion. RedSpruce (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Censure: "strong or vehement expression of disapproval; an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members; to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner; to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame. Synonyms: condemnation, reproof, reproach, reprehension, rebuke, reprimand, stricture, animadversion." [12] Condemnation is a synonym of censure, so there is no issue here. The Hybrid T/C 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks, i think my question was a bit unclear, i wanted to know if the two words had any different meaning when used by the senate (not a dictionary) in a motion against someone.SJMNY (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a legally significant term like the difference between "petty larceny" and "grand larceny". A senatorial motion to censure is just a way for the senate to express its disapproval of one of its members. There's no penalty or legally binding action attached, and there's no law on the books stating exactly what a motion to censure is or how it has to be worded. The "meaning" of the motion is only symbolic. A motion to censure McCarthy was introduced to the senate, and after some wrangling over the wording it was passed. After it was passed, a McCarthy supporter in the senate pointed out that the word "condemned" was used in the final motion rather than "censured", so it shouldn't be called a motion to censure. Virtually no one, inside or outside of the senate, has agreed with that point of view. RedSpruce (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

so the senate, whe condeming or censuring someone in the past, has not given any different meaning to the two and has used them interchangeably? thanks, that what i wanted to know. SJMNY (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of "settled" issues?

Would it be useful to maintain a section at the front of this talk page with issues that have been raised, their resolution and a link to their discussion section? It might streamline the process of addressing the concerns of newcomers whether they are concerned about NPOV or are McCarthy apologists.--User:HopsonRoad 17:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea. At the top of the United States article's Talk page, we banner and link to something like that. Other formats are possible, of course.—DCGeist (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That looks like a good model. I would suggest, however, posting the proposed summary in the section where the controversy occurred for a while (e.g. a week) to allow confirmation that it's settled, before migrating it to such a page.--User:HopsonRoad 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm drafting such a page.--User:HopsonRoad 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please look over my draft at (the draft is now implemented on this page and at the FAQ link, above). There's a banner for posting on this page a proposed FAQ page, and a discussion area for placing on this page (perhaps at the top of the current discussion topics). You're welcome to work on it there or to bring it over to a different venue until it's ready to post. Perhaps placing "under construction" would be appropriate, if it's ready to introduce, but still needs refinement. The intent is to have some text to refer new arrivals to when they suggest edits on matters that have been thoroughly discussed.--User:HopsonRoad 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Was just able to give it a quick look for the moment. Really impressive work.—DCGeist (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's excellent work. As you can see below however, it may not go far in quelling the repetitive objection-raising of the uninformed. RedSpruce (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
there is a liberal/anti-mccarthy bias even in the way you've summarized things. you refer to "modern conservative authors" yet you never refer to mccarthy's detractors as "liberal authors" instead naming them. neutrality would be better served by naming his supporters (Coulter? Evans?) instead of givig htem a label when you don't label their opponents. i still have other concerns but other than that your proposes page does accurately reflect the discussion on here to date SJMNY (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
SJMNY, this is not a liberal bias, it's a "mainstream view bias". The mainstream view of McCarthy is supported by the vast majority of authors of both liberal and conservative leanings. As an example of this, see the links listed in the McCarthy article under the heading "Reviews of Ann Coulter's defense of McCarthy, Treason:" Two of the three authors are described as "conservative" in their respective WP articles, and yet they are emphatic in their condemnation of Coulter's book. Many other examples of conservative authors holding "anti-McCarthy" views are available. Defenders of McCarthy are a tiny minority, and are invariably radical arch-conservatives, like Coulter. To leave this information out would be deceptive and incorrect.
It would be more accurate for the article to describe such authors as something stronger than "some modern conservative authors", but terms like "far-right-wing" etc., seem too politically loaded and open to challenge. RedSpruce (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm not arguing about majority/minority right now, i'm arguing about the "minority" being described a certain way and not named while the "majority" is not described but is named SJMNY (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In that case, you've neglected to mention what is wrong with the thing you're arguing against. As I see it, it's simply factual; the minority view is held by a few arch-conservatives, while the majority view is not exclusively held by any identifiable group, such as "liberals". RedSpruce (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm saying name the authors on both sides of the debate instead of just labelling those in the minority, labelling people without naming them is, imo, a way to marginalize and ignore them. SJMNY (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The authors are NOT "invariably radical arch-conservatives". I provided an example here on the Talk page, Redspruce (and then removed it when you declared the example to be inappropriate for this discussion page). I fail to see why the authors in question cannot be named, if it is necessarily to be more specific about the authors in question. Are there too many to be named? There is no more a necessary link between conservatism and being a McCarthy apologist than there is between liberalism and, say, being an Alger Hiss apologist. As I've noted before, the linking of McCarthyism with broader ideologies like anti-communism creates a link that does not necessarily follow.Bdell555 (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input everyone. SJMNY, I've tried to reflect the state of the article and how it came to be. Your concerns are appropriate to this discussion page since they pertain first to the Joseph McCarthy page, and, if they hold sway in a consensus, would then be reflected in the FAQ page. As to including signatures, that's something that's readily apparent to those that follow the links to this discussion page. I used Talk:United States and Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions as a model. There's signatures and even signed votes in the former, but not in the latter. That model seems to work. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm not concerned with signatures in the FAQ, the FAQ should link (or point out the location of) discussion that reached that particular point of consensus. anyone who wants to challenge either the consensus itself or the FAQ's summary of that consensus can easily find that information.SJMNY (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, SJMNY, I have indeed made links to the talk areas where the discussion was found, both in the titles of the topics and the ending paragraph of each section. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following form for edit summaries when a new arrival makes an edit on "plowed ground" that requires a reversion: Pls review Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions and use Talk page before editing.
This might be a friendly, but firm way to inculcate new arrivals. This of course does not apply to vandals. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

footnote 4 appears in the article between footnotes 77 and 78. would someone a little more techically proficient than me be able to re-number them or would this require a ton of work? i wouldn't know a way of doing it other than re-doing each individually which wouldn't (imo) be worth the effort to have them in order. thanks. SJMNY (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While for this very reason I was long resistant to the "ref name" citation coding that produces the result you observe, it is in fact proper Wikipedia style.
Under the "ref name" system, a citation that is referred to identically at multiple points in an article is given a brief coding "name" (in this case, "causeofdeath"--you can see that when you go into edit mode). After its first appearance in the article, where the full citation info is provided, all subsequent appearances are simply given the short name--producing the visible result: each iteration of the cite appears with the same number in the main text. You can see down in the Notes section that cite number "4" is followed by the letters "a" and "b". Click on the "a" and you'll go to the first appearance of the cite callout in the text--near the beginning of the article. Click on the "b" and you'll go to the spot where you found that understandably confounding "4."
I have made my peace with this system, mostly because it reduces the amount of coding in the main text, making editing a bit easier. But an observation like yours always stirs my old doubts.—DCGeist (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the explanation SJMNY (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation moved from FAQ

It's a fact that US and British code breakers did amazing work on the Japanese and German codes and yet when it comes to their work on Russian codes, namely the VENONA intercepts suddenly their work is called into question. McCarthy was a Senator and had worked in the intelligence community and was probably privy to information unavailable to others, possibly even the VENONA intercepts. If the VENONA information had been made public in the late 40's or early 50's McCarthy never would have been censured but that information came out only after his death. An interesting thought occurs here. What if McCarthy was aware of the VENONA intercepts and kept his mouth shut about that secret information even though it cost him his reputation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.167.14 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting thought... What if McCarthy himself was a Soviet plant intended to expose how quickly the U.S. would abandon its putative core values in the face of an vague and unsubstantiated external threat? I bring this up only to point out that "What if..." questions and hypotheticals are generally not useful here, as Wikipedia functions on verifiability. MastCell Talk 00:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
i generally don't bother responding to unsigned comments because i get the feeling that their author's generally dont read any responces, but here goes anyway: nobody here is doubting the authenticity/accuracy of the VENONA information, but if mccarthy didn't know about it the best it can do is prove some of his claims were true, it cant prove that he had evidence of them... as for your "what if" wikipedia isnt the place for such speculation without a source.SJMNY (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever read the actual papers of the McCarthy trials? They were released over a decade ago. I have read over 300+ pages so far, not once have I found anything that showed McCarthy as unfair or a demagog. He was attacked because it was politically expedient to discredit him and his work. The anti-communist movement gave the democrats a black eye and their response was to personally attack key players. Most of the key players actually had fruitful political careers despite the attacks. It is pure speculation but most believe that McCarthy would still be in office today if he were still alive. Sadly he died and his work was kept from the public. You really should read the transcripts, much of it is interesting and there are a number of funny parts. Most of this information was held from the public for 50 years and after it's release a number of very valid books have taken an accurate and fair look at McCarthy and largely discredited the previous scholarly view. Why they sealed the transcripts is still unknown. Most people suggest that it was for intelligence purposes as we still had an ongoing struggle with the communist. Of course this doesn't really fit because all of the defendants had lawyers many of whom were linked back to communist and soviet organizations. Most credible sources I looked at state they were sealed for political reasons. After understanding the nature of McCarthy's work, most all of his sources would of been classified and clandestine. It has been suggested that many of the people involved in the "VENONA" papers would of had access to McCarthy. Also once you understand his work you realize that his claims were that previous anti-communist work were ignored or missing.

In any case it is sad that McCarthy was treated so badly and continues to be treated poorly. I know the truth because I actually took the time to look into it. I spent countless hours trying to make this article accurate. All for not, I had a couple extra hours during the holidays and wasted them dealing with this. If you want go through the archives and read the discussions I tried to have. I keep thinking someday I will check this page and see something worthy of Wikipedia.Mantion (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthyism

Mantion, how about a source for "McCarthyism" being originally used to discredit the senator? lets not play edit war guys SJMNY (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So let me understand now you all want to talk? I have spend countless hours trying to have discussions here, and all people would do is attack me and insult me. I once went through the process of witting a proper lead explaining every flaw in the lead and citing wikipedia standards and guidelines. I was then told I needed to cite all my statements. After carefully researching everything and re-writing it a couple times having everything cited and proper. It was then removed with out the slightest discussion. So why don't you source where the term McCarthyism was used to describe McCarthy's tactics. From what I can figure most people agree the first use of the term was in an editorial cartoon by Herblock who was highly partisan and staunchly anti-McCarthy. Ann Coulter coined the term "The Felon" for Bill Clinton, should we put that in the lead of Bill Clinton's article? Of Course she actually wrote an entire book on the subject and explained exactly why she called him this. And though most in the media attack Ann Coulter personally, they never disputed her conclusions on Bill Clinton. On the other hand Herblock drew an elephant and buckets of tar with word "McCarthyism" written on one. Not a whole lot of explanation there. Kind of vague, and baseless. But of course that is worthy of acclaim and the term being repeated in news papers, books and broadcast to attack McCarthy.

So simply stating that the term McCarthyism was coined to "undermine" McCarthy I think is accurate and obvious to all. If you want a different word maybe we could use; attack, discredit, insult, marginalize, distort, or slander. That is why the term was coined. Then it was used to describe the larger anti-communist movement, not the tactics. Then it was given a definition. Political name calling should be needed in Wikipedia, and certainly shouldn't be in the lead. But if you must put it in the lead lets be accurate about why it was coined.Mantion (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

when have i refused to talk with you mantion? i have neither attacked nor insulted you. i'm asking for a source to try and prevent an edit war by discussing sources. i think the current sentence

The term "McCarthyism", coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe ...

adequately describes the origin and meaning of the term. if Herblock used it first (i have no idea if this is true/false or disputed/undisputed) where is a source as to his meaning? thanks. SJMNY (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. But we do know that Herblock constantly attack McCarthy personally. It has been unclear when the term was first used. But most people who have studied the subject concluded Herblock comic was the first. This isn't my opinion this is the generally accepted view. At least 3 books I have read say this. In anycase where is the source for the line about McCarthy and why it was actually coined? The whole thing has no place in the lead. If you want to discuss the term and it's various usage in the body of the page that is up to you. We can have a whole section debating if the term was used to attack and discredit McCarthy and his work or "reference to McCarthy's practices". I think it is fairly clear to anyone, that a political comic strip about an elephant not wanting to stand on a buckets of tar was most likely an attack on McCarthy. In any case I used the term "undermine" which I think is the best word to describe it. Should we put it to a vote? I think we should remove the entire line from the lead, it isn't relevant, it was and is a political attack word. Finally the sentence as it stands isn't sourced and goes on a tangent about the larger anti-communist effort that started before McCarthy and last long after his death. There is an entire article McCarthyism and one on anti-communism and the red scare. Not to mention articles on the cold war, soviet espionage in the US, HUAC and Subversive Activities Control Board. If you google Wikipedia and McCarthyism the lights dim in all of California because of the extra sever load.Mantion (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantion, You edit read: "the term "McCarthyism", coined in 1950 to undermine McCarthy's work..." and this is not sourced or correct. The term was coined to criticize his methods. Referring to his "work" implies that McCarthy was genuinely committed to some cause other than self-aggrandizement, and that is not a view that is shared by the majority of authors and scholars. You also changed "Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate." to "Ultimately, McCarthy's conduct led to his being condemned by the United States Senate." This is a less-complete description of events, and revives the spurious debate over whether McCarthy was "censured" or "condemned". Lastly, you removed "and elsewhere" from "...Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere.", which is simply incorrect.
You also argue that a discussion of McCarthyism is "irrelevant." This is incorrect, as McCarthy is primarily famous as the source and inspiration of the term. An article introduction that doesn't mention the primary reason for its subject's fame is a silly idea, and it isn't going to happen.
If you could stay on the topic of your actual proposed edits in your comments here on the talk page, rather than rambling all over the map about extraneous subjects, that would be helpful.
RedSpruce (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this discussion about McCarthy or McCarthyism? It appears to be the latter. In which case, this discussion should be at Talk:McCarthyism. Even so, I see nothing in the discussion that provides a scholarly supportable source for the assertion that the term McCarthyism was coined to "undermine" McCarthy. That assertion appears to be "obvious" only to a subset of people interested in the topic, not to "all" or even the majority of those interested. If it were obvious, we wouldn't be talking about it. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantion, you say that "most people who have studied the subject concluded Herblock comic was the first" can we have sources instead of the weasel phrase "most people"? i don't think anyone here would have a problem wih a properly sourced statement in the article that says "the term McCarthyism first appeared in a Herblock comic on X date" with a link to Herblock or some short statement, if accurate, about the guy.SJMNY (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The article already names Herblock as the coiner of "McCarthyism", and gives a date for its first use. This point isn't currently referenced, presumably because no one has considered it likely to be challenged. It shouldn't matter much exactly who first coined the term, because it quickly became commonplace, with a commonly accepted meaning. RedSpruce (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm not sure what we're arguing about then? SJMNY (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


I changed the line

The term "McCarthyism", coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits.

To

The term "McCarthyism",(was) coined in 1950 to undermine McCarthy's work then applied to similar anti-communist pursuits.

My line is more accurate. You would have to be obtuse not to realize that the cartoon (Herblock, Washington Post, 29 March, 1950) which is the first known uses of the term McCarthyism was used to attack McCarthy’s new found popularity. McCarthy was on the front page of every newspaper and a handful of newspaper editorial pages took shots at anyone who stood up against the communist infiltration. I notice that there is no source for the statement that I replaced. The statement I replaced IS NOT accurate. There have been a number of people who were fighting communism in the US. People were found guild in courts of laws for treason and sentenced to death. McCarthy was (not) the first to hunt communist, the reason why they called it “McCarthyism” and uses his name was a personal attack at him because he was on the front page of news papers. So either find a valid impartial source that says that McCarthyism was first coined to describe McCarthy’s tactics or remove the line completely. As is it is opinion and speculation and misrepresents the reality of the time.

I did drag up this statement from

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/about.html

---When asked if he feels he played a role in checking McCarthy's rise to power, Herb Block quietly responds, "I sure tried to."----

So according to Herb Block (pen name Herblock) he tried to check McCarthy’s rise to power.

I am sorry I don’t have day after day to sit around and reply to all your concerns, I tried that before and it was a waste of my time. I was only attacked and insulted and had my cited and accurate work removed with out reason or discussion.

In conclusion Herblock admits his motives were to check McCarthy’s rise to power and he coined the term McCarthyism in a comic that is vague but clearly a personal attack on McCarthy, thus the reason for using his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual Mantion, you type out a lengthy comment that makes no sense, has no point, and doesn't respond to the stated reasons why your edits were reverted. Your comment doesn't even defend the edit you made--that "McCarthyism (was) coined to undermine McCarthy's work" Instead you argue that the word was coined as an attack on McCarthy. The article already makes that clear, so why do you belabor the point here? And by the way, McCarthy was far from being "the first to hunt communist[s]". If you would learn something about the topic at hand and learn to discuss things coherently, you might find that your comments on this article aren't such a waste of time and you might get insulted less often. RedSpruce (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The article right now says that "Block and others used the word as a synonym for demagoguery, baseless defamation and mudslinging". Spruce says that this makes clear the term was an attack on McCarthy, do you disagree with that Mantion? I'm on the fence myself but leaning towards thinking that the current sentence is explanatory enough. SJMNY (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I simply feel the term was coined to attack and undermine McCarthy effort to expose communist influence in our government. So yes I agree that it was coined to attack McCarthy but I see no evidance that Herblock used McCarthyism as a synonym for demagoguery, baseless defamation and mudslinging specifically, as for "others" I can't say because "others" is very vague.
This all started over an edit I made to the a sentence in the lead. Since we agree that the term McCarthyism was used and thus coined to attack McCarthyism I will correct the sentence in the lead. Thank you SJMNY for being reasonable in discussing things. As for RedSpruce I know a great deal on the topic, I made a typo and left out "not". I am sorry. Thank you for pointing out my typo, next time don't be rude about it.Mantion (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The description of McCarthyism should follow the description at the page of that name, which currently reads: "Originally coined to criticize the actions of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, "McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone." Please achieve a consensus there instead having an edit war here. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] definition of "consensus"

Imagine a small group of editors who hover over a Wiki article, essentially acting as gatekeepers by changing, reverting and commenting on edits that are largely by editors who are new to the article. These new editors don't stick around to follow-up on whether their edits are reverted or changed, and generally don't engage much on the Talk page. Is it correct to exclude these come-and-go editors and restrict the definition of "consensus" to just the regulars who can be counted on to always express their opinion through reversion and/or Talk page comment? Is it possible that the gatekeeper group consists of even-handed experts who are defending the citadel of knowledge from the daily mob? Yes, it is possible. But suppose the article's editing history reveals a distinct pattern or common perspective amongst the "raiders" beyond a propensity to vandalism. What if those with a "left wing" political propensity outnumbered those with a "right wing" propensity 10 to 1? In my view, that would suggest that the community of editors feels that the article has too much of a right-wing slant, and it would accordingly not be correct to assert that a consensus amongst the article's self-appointed guardians that the article is balanced is the true editor consensus. As I noted earlier, it is possible that the Talk page regulars are, indeed, non-partisan. But it is rather contentious to assume that if an article is under regular "harrassment" by editors who seem to share a political view that the attackers are ignorant barbarians such that there should be no cause for concern over whether an entrenched defence of the article isn't entrenching an ideological POV as opposed to just the "correct" expert view.Bdell555 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would discourage any reference to a "consensus among editors" in the FAQ page. As Bdell555 tries to point out (I think this is what he's trying to point out), such a consensus is just a reflection of which editors happen to be active at any moment. The real determiner of content should be a correct application of WP rules rather than the current consensus among editors.
Luckily, with regard to all the major issues in this particular article, the consensus view of reliable sources is clear and overwhelming. This makes the correct content for the article--at least in its broad strokes--a relatively simple matter to determine. The debates that arise are generally caused by editors who aren't aware of the generally accepted facts and opinions about McCarthy among reliable sources, or who don't know about or agree with the WP rules about neutrality, undue weight, etc.
RedSpruce (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that is supposedly open to editing by anyone, apparently won't allow that "Meanwhile, less flamboyant government agencies actually did identify and prosecute cases of Communist infiltration", yet this sentence is precisely what Britannica allows in its short McCarthy article. When, in arguing for an edit that could potentially open the door a crack to something like this, your response seemed to revolve around the contention that "his allegations were complete lies and fabrications that were not and have not been and never will be substantiated by him, or anyone, ever". My point here being that I believed my contrariness to be nonetheless informed and it is accordingly contentious to generalize your opponents as ignorant "of the generally accepted facts" and/or WP rules. The latest debate "causer" is this Mantion person, and I note that he claims to have actually read a lot of the primary materials. You wasted no time in dismissing Nicholas von Hoffman as "stupid" when I noted his views on McCarthy, and now you seem inclined to extend that characterization to a general group. Maybe these people ARE ignorant, a possibility I allowed, above, before arguing that maybe they aren't.Bdell555 (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The content you say "apparently isn't allowed", i.e. a reference to actual communist infiltration, is already in the article. Apparently this article goes further than Britannica by noting that "the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was larger than many scholars suspected". Something the article doesn't do is to pretend that this fact somehow contradicts the well-documented fact that most off McCarthy's allegations were unsupported and fabrications. I doubt that Britannica pretends this either.
As to whether people are ignorant, that isn't a matter of opinion; it's a point easily established by whether or not their comments and edits are contradicted by well known facts. Stupidity, on the other hand, is a matter of opinion--something to which we're all entitled. RedSpruce (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The article does not note that. The rest of the sentence reveals that the article merely notes that someone has claimed that ("..it has also been said that...") and the rest of the paragraph indicates that "THESE AUTHORS [my emphasis] frequently cite new evidence, in the form of Venona...", immediately after the paragraph in which Coulter's claims are featured. A reader unfamiliar with the cited Haynes, Klehr or Weinstein is accordingly led to believe that their research is tendentious such that someone claiming that "a massive Soviet spy network penetrated the U.S. government during World War Two" is likely a partisan like Coulter as opposed to a non-partisan source like PBS Nova, which would be the actual source for that "massive" claim. Put any of these three lines, PBS Nova's, Britannica's, or the one "already in the article" (sourced to Haynes, Klehr, and Weinstein), whichever you prefer, into the introduction, unqualified, unhedged, and uneditorialized, and I would withdraw my objection about what "apparently isn't allowed".Bdell555 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Your reading of the article is, in my humble opinion, stupid. RedSpruce (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
theres really no need for name calling. wouldn't it be more constructive to say "you read the article as saying X, i don't see it that way, it clearly states Y"? SJMNY (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

when they don't want or can't dispute your points, they just say "stupid". You should be able to say this is the way I see it and if the other view really was "stupid" then it would be obvious. I stopped working on wikipedia when I was accused of Fascism and no one seemed to care. That is what I got for discussing thing.Mantion (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckley's book

My apologies forhaving edited this talk page 10 times in the last few minutes, i was tryin to put 2 quoted paragraphs inmy post and it was not cooperating.

2 recent, and very different, versions of the same paragraph have recently been reverted:

the 1st: Another recent defense of McCarthy is William F. Buckley, Jr.'s sympathetic fictionalized biography, The Redhunter: a Novel Based on the Life of Senator Joe McCarthy.

the 2nd: Another recent book on McCarthy is William F. Buckley, Jr.'s sympathetic fictionalized biography, even though Buckley has said that McCarthy did more harm than good. His is book The Redhunter: a Novel Based on the Life of Senator Joe McCarthy.

which is it folks? is Buckley's book a "defense" of McCarthy or does it claim he "did more harm than good." the second quoted paragraph seems inconsistent to me even if it is true because the words "even though" don't need to be there unless the book is being refferred to as a "defense."

someone please make a defense of either edit or i'm going to change it to something that espouses neither point of view like this: "Another recent book on McCarthy is William F. Buckley, Jr.'s fictionalized biography. His is book The Redhunter: a Novel Based on the Life of Senator Joe McCarthy. thanks. SJMNY (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've RV'd the change. It's not clear whether the comment about McCarthy doing "more harm than good" comes from the book in question, and if it doesn't, then it doesn't have any bearing on whether the book was a defense of McCarthy. In general, I'm thinking that the mention of this book could be removed, since it received very little attention. It could be replaced with some mention of the new M. Stanton Evans biography, with a summary of the critical response that book has generated. I'll probably get to that soon. RedSpruce (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
i havent read the Buckley book, though from the description "fictionalized biography" its fair to say it may have no place anyway. Evans' book seems pretty well written and sourced to me, what scholarly critical response has it generated?, i'm always happy to read more SJMNY (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Far-right websites are happily fawning over the book; [13], [14], for example. Few more-mainstream sources have given it any attention; those that have done so have been quite negative; for example the Publishers Weekly review quoted on Amazon. The most interesting review I've seen is this one from National Review. RedSpruce (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
that review (the last one) does a good job of summing up the factual content of Evans' book but seems to me pretty partisan in glossing over what Evans did right and attacking what he did wrong. But back to the Buckley book... if it is a fictionalized biography what does that even mean? if its not meant to be true why does it have any place here at all? has anyone here read the book? SJMNY (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
See Roman à clef. The book is a defense of McCarthy written by a noted and at least somewhat-respected author and scholar. As such it's rather unique in the world. It isn't a work of scholarship, but that alone doesn't prevent it from being notable. RedSpruce (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Should I point out that most of the books and newspaper articles used to write this article were either far-left or based on far-left books and newspapers.Mantion (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Since that would be laughably inaccurate, I'd say no, you shouldn't say that. Thanks for asking. RedSpruce (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
why do i have a feeling that the two of you will never agree on a source that is "centrist" and instead call everything you don't like "far left" or "far right"? SJMNY (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to accuse me of calling everything I don't like "far-right", start by explaining to me how that characterization is inaccurate for Ann Coulter and RenewAmerica.us. RedSpruce (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
my point was that you will characterize anything Mantion puts forth as "far right" and he will characterize anything you put forth as "far left". i'd be happy to be proven wrong and see the two of you agree on at least one biographer that you both consider balanced. SJMNY (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because an author is far left of far right doesn't mean their work is invalid. Centrist don't write books and if they do no one reads them. Second when describe someone as far right I am not saying they are extremist only their views are mostly conservative. A person could be a centrist, Right or Left leaning, Far right and left or unreasonable extremist who mostly go un-noticed.

I am not concerned with finding centrist sources, only balancing the sources and their impact on the articles tone. It is obvious to all that McCarthy is extremely polarizing. This article should fairly and accurately portray the opposing view of McCarthy and the conflict that has surrounded him. I don't like how the article seems to go tit for tat over everything. This "he said she said" stuff has got to stop. You can say "McCarthy never successfully identified a person as a communist, (and in the same line say) yet he was right about communist influence in out government". That is a balanced statement.

This article is unbalanced in its sources and tone. Yes there is an increasing number of modern or non-leftist authors. Sadly they are almost always out weighed in tone are unfairly marginalized. While older or leftist authors are propped up as the only reliable sources. I not against the work of leftist authors, I am against this article being the current leftist view. As it stand the tone and conclusions of this article is that of the far left. It needs to be more balanced.Mantion (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of persons alleged to be "correctly identified" by McCarthy

I'm considering removing the list of names that appears in the paragraph that begins Below are listed the names that various authors have alleged were "correctly identified by McCarthy"
The list is one I put together from names that appeared in various right-wing sources, and while it's an interesting response to some of the right-wing mythology around McCarthy, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to this article. Furthermore the list invites endless debate, as there's always likely to be some evidence from somewhere that this or that person was in some sense communist-affiliated or left-leaning or a fellow traveller or whatever. It's also been debated why other "known" spies or communists--such as the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss--aren't on the list even though their names were at some point mentioned by McCarthy. While the obvious answer to that is that McCarthy didn't "identify" such people and was only repeating old news, the same thing is true, to some degree, of most of the people on the list. McCarthy rarely uncovered new evidence against anyone; most of his accusations were repetitions of accusations that were already somewhere in the public record.

Comments, anyone? RedSpruce (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have no attachment to a list, provided that it is solely the list and the sentence above it that are being removed. SJMNY (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that once it was no longer possible to state McCarthy was wrong about these fifteen people, the only thing to do was delete the list rather than admit he was right. ATCZero (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct, ATCZero. The list is as correct now as when I added it. As your edits illustrated, however, the list is a magnet for contention by editors who don't read the article carefully enough to understand the point of it.
The point you and others have missed is that some authors have said that "new evidence" has shown that McCarthy "correctly identified" these people. In some cases (Annie Lee Moss and one other, I think) this is arguably correct. In all other cases either the "new evidence" part or the "correctly identified" part, or both, are false. In the cases you edited, for example, neither Venona nor any other "new evidence" has added to the case against the individuals named since McCarthy's time. In the case of William Remington for example, he was identified by Elizabeth Bentley and put on trial for perjury by the time that McCarthy mentioned his name. So it makes no sense to say that he was "identified" by McCarthy. RedSpruce (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
i see a list of names, some of which were proven guilty and some of which were exonerated (and all of which you have to check the footnotes to see which are which), as unnecessary in the article. if you feel it necessary there'd be nothing wrong with a properly sourced sentence about people who were correctly identified by mccarthy- bearing in mind that if you did so i think NPOV would require a sentence about the wrongly accused as well. this theoretical paragraph should also indicate the relative amounts of innocent, guilty, and "not sure" people named by mccarthy to contain the correct historical perspective. SJMNY (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that while there were scores proven guilty by Venona, which is about as definitive as it gets, there were almost none who were "exonerated." McCarthy was not trying to put these people in jail and was not trying to prove his case as a matter of law. His contention was that these people had enough evidence against them to be considered security risks and should not be employed in sensitive government positions. For example, if someone was identified as having contacts with known communists it does not prove that the person is guilty, but is does raise questions serious enough that the person probably shouldn't be employed in the code room of the Pentagon. Thus, when someone says this or that individual was exonerated they mean that the individual was not positively identified as a Soviet agent although it was proven that contact with Soviet agents occurred, which is not the same thing at all. ATCZero (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you, Mantion, for bringing back the list without discussion or consensus. I can see now why everyone gets along so well on this article SJMNY (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see such a list, recognizing that the strength of evidence against each is variable, verging on weak. I note, however, that upon cross-checking with List of Americans in the Venona papers, an article whose neutrality is disputed, Solomon Adler appears as someone whose name is not in the Venona project, but only inferred, and William Remington does not appear at all. Both names should be excluded from being characterized as identified in Venona. In this case, the sentence introducing the topic should read, "As the footnotes show, five of the fifteen names appear in Venona indicating possible Soviet espionage activity, one appears in CPUSA records, and one appears in Vassiliev evidence indicating possible Soviet espionage activity." Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 16:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate article for "McCarthy Revisited"

I have no problem saying Coulter is far-right, that doesn't mean she is wrong. There is nothing wrong with opposing views on any subject. My problem with the article isn't that it shows people opposed McCarthy. It is well known there were many people who opposed McCarthy. The problem is there was an equal amount of people that supported McCarthy and his work. Unfortunately this article is very much one sided. The article is terribly slanted and very much inaccurate. The same lies that were told then are being repeated. If McCarthy's actions were so bad it would be easy for you to show that by his actions, not a word coined by political cartoonist made up terms to insult McCarthy's work. Or quoting some book or newspaper that inevitably contain hearse and opinions. Newspapers and Books make money catering to their readers views. Yes a left of right leaning newspaper can have accurate information, but when it comes to the description of politicians and their "tactics" it is purely opinion. Sadly as I said most of this article pushes the "anti-McCarthy" view. Time and time again this is show to be simply not true.

The article points out that McCarthy's approval rating plummeted during the Army McCarthy hearing. Of course it did he was on trial for his negative views of some Generals. Mostly he said they were too soft on communism or incompetent. Could you imagine if today if senators were put on trial for saying bad things about a general? Senators criticize Generals on a regular basis. Yes McCarthy's approval ratings dropped but not much. According to this article his approval ranged from 35-50% in the year he became a house hold name. I have read a number of books that his approval rating rebounded after he was condemned by the senate. now 35% may seem low, except that Truman's approval rating was about 22% when he left office and we don't point out that he was hated and unpopular. Look at today, Maybe the most visible senator is the majority leader Harry Reid, who's high was 30% after election and dropped to 19% in June. Does this mean that Reid is far worse then McCarthy or that Reid's tactics of surrender and defeat is unpopular. Yes. That is fair to say, should it be the only thing he is known for.. NO.. Like it or not he is an elected representative. Like it or not McCarthy was twice elected and died in office and buried with full honors. Was he out spoken yes. Was his motives genuine, YES. He didn't do it because it was politically popular, he actually believed that his opposition was soft on communism and that communist had influence in our government. It is well documented that most people felt that there was communist influence in the Government. We now know they were right. McCarthy would of gotten re-elected simply by stating what most people believed. Yet he took on the cause because he desperately thought someone needed to do something.

McCarthy may of exaggerated his war stories, common for most veterans. Still as judge he was deferred from service. He could of stayed in Wisconsin in a cushy judge using his degree that he worked so hard to get. Instead he volunteered for the military. He didn't shy away from danger either. He was in bombers that flew into harms way, he was shot at and yes he shot back. You could say that he exaggerated his service, he did. But it must be stated that he loved his country and care enough to risk his life to protect it. He was an American patriot, I am sorry this is true.

As senator he saw a problem and spoke out about it, he was right it was a problem more then even he might of known. He did what he could to solve the problems and was politically and personally attacked. He was called gay even though it was well known he had dated JFK's sisters on a number of occasions and had dated other women. He was called unclean and unshaven when all sources showed him as clean cut with records of him shaving twice a day. He was said to be mean and spiteful when most who knew him said he was extremely likable and friendly. And the biggest lie was that he was unpopular and that simply isn't true. He was popular, very popular, he was a star of his time. He was mentioned in almost every newspaper people came in record numbers to hear him speak. Maybe the most popular senator of his time.

The truth is simple he hated communist and didn't want them in our government. McCarthy's enemies attacked him daily, but they almost never spoke out against communist. Herblock as I mentioned before was not a republican or a democrat, he attacked pretty much everyone. He disliked Reagan's macho image, he hated carters indecisiveness, he showed Nixon as a Crook, he had opinions on everything and shared them with everyone. He showed the CIA as misguided villains, he spoke out against racism, lack of education spending, corporate influence... He spoke out against many things, but I never found an article where he spoke out against communism. Say what you want but he was far more concerned about McCarthy work to eliminate communist infiltration then the millions of people who died at the hands of communism or the lack of civil rights, freedoms and prosperity in communist countries.

This article views McCarthy almost entirely though the opponents. McCarthy was often either loved him or hated. He was polarizing not unpopular. But many people did love and support him and saw him as an American hero.

My views are not my own, they are well documented through the years. Like it or not they are accurate. There have been many people who have tried to include similar information, but anything that doesn't conform to the Anti-McCarthy view must be marginalized, disputed or simply deleted. You don't allow favorable views on McCarthy based on the view that there are no favorable views of McCarthy. You say historical view is one way, and any different Historical Views of McCarthy shouldn't count because... of course.. they don't support your current view. In the last decade a lot of information has become available and many experts have looked at the information and has forced them to give an opposing historical view, which simply won't allow.

I suggested this before, there should be 2 article. This article can be the traditional anti-McCarthy point of view. The second article can be "McCarthy Revisited", which will be a more complete article where a view can form their own opinions based on actual events.

Wikipedia standards frown-on but do permit 2 articles on the same subject. This is a very special situation, it is rare that huge amount of information become available all at once which shows the historical view to be inaccurate. Imagine if 3 thousands of years ago you had evidence that the earth was round. You allow experts to look at it and confirm this. You then go to the people and say "the earth is round" and they say "no it's flat". And you say no look I have this information that recently became available. And they say we won't look at your information because we already told you the world is flat.

There have been a number of valid authors that have revisited McCarthy and they have shown with out a doubt that your historical view is wrong. They base it on factually information much of which was not available till recently. They also show that information that was available that was ignored. Then go on to explain how the false view was made and allowed to persist. No current experts are able to dispute the revised view. Yet still you say, it doesn't conform to what the previous experts told us. Well my friend stop saying the earth is flat. We know the earth is round stop fighting it.

It would be best if we had one single article, but you won't allow the purely anti-McCarthy article be altered significantly. So lets just have 2 articles and then in a year we can look at possibly merging them. If you want we can simply rename "Ongoing Debate" ... "McCarthy Revisited". Then that can be a small section of the larger article of "McCarthy Revisited". Then we can spend a year working on "McCarthy Revistied". Then after a year we can look at both articles to see which is based on verifiable, and more factually based. I think you would be surprised what might be created.

There is an article on "anti-communism" "red Scare" "McCarthyism" "HUAC and Subversive Activities Control Board".. McCarthyism and Huac are parts of the second red scare which was part of the red scare which is part of the general anti-communism effort. Most all the information in these articles overlap. In fact they should all be combined in the "anti-communism" article. "soviet espionage in the US" is part of the "cold war" but there is 2 separate articles.

There are many articles in Wikipedia that cover the same subject matter. This is a very unique situation and Wikipedia guidelines would normally allow the views of current experts and previous experts, but this isn't being followed for this article. As such a separate article expanding the "McCarthy Revisited" section into a larger article.Mantion (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

this sounds to me like a clear-cut violation of WP:POVFORK. two articles on the same subject to express seperate point of views is pretty much not allowed SJMNY (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
First off the article would be an expansion on the section of Ongoing debate(renamed). Second I agree there shouldn't be 2 articles. I also believe that historical view of recent experts should greatly out way older views, especially considering the wealth of information previously un-available. To that end we must revamp the Slant of this article as Modern Historians have revisited McCarthy and have show the previous "earth is flat" view to be no longer valid. This is ultimately what should of happened long ago.Mantion (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Re your first paragraph Mantion: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if someone's views are "fringe", as are Ann Coulter's, that means that her views must be presented as "fringe", if they're presented at all, in the article. Fringe views, even though they may be right, are not supposed to be given equal coverage. See (as I've suggested to you many times before) WP:Undue, Wikipedia:Attribution, etc. You're correct that this article is largely one-sided. According to WP rules, this article is required to be largely one-sided, because the current view of reliable sources on McCarthy is largely one-sided. If you believe that this is incorrect, then document your argument by presenting a review of the literature on McCarthy.
I've made these points to you many times before Mantion, but you choose not to hear them. Therefore I haven't read past the first paragraph of your "novel" above. I'm sure the rest of it consists of points that you've made before, and that I or someone else has patiently explained the problems with those points to you before. RedSpruce (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


We have had this discussion before, I bring up many points, and you choose not to read them. So if you don't want to discuss them you don't have to respond. For a person who spend so much time on this page you have never taken the time to address my concerns. Please at least respond to the entry before yours, then read my previous post completely then read this post completely. If you are to lazy to read and address my concerns then maybe you need to stop contributing to this page. You and others like you are largely responsible for the poor state of this article.

that being said

Why is Ann Coulter "fringe" because she is conservative? Does that mean all liberal authors are "fringe" if so we got a lot of labeling to do. I understand your desire to marginalize Ann's work, but she still is a valid author. She is considered controversial but so was Rev Martin Luther King Jr, Lincoln, Hamilton, and Tecumseh Sherman. Yes Ann Coulter is different, she is a conservative, there aren't many published conservative Authors. I think the fact that she has so many best selling books is a concern to you. I think you need to take a look at your personal bias here and accept the fact that their are going to be authors that you disagree with. On that note, She isn't the first controversial author in history. She wasn't the first to re-examine historical figures and she certainly wasn't the first to re-examine Joe McCarthy. I understand the political views as invalid because you can't dispute her work. She is a popular and well established author. If there were significant errors in her books they would of been vetted by experts. That being said I have never brought up Ann, mostly because she didn't write a book about McCarthy, she wrote a book about the inability of liberals to confront communism and terrorism. I am not entirely sure why she keeps getting brought up except for the false belief that she was the first to revisit McCarthy. If how ever we want to coin a term say "TrumanCarterClintonism" to describe "the inability of liberals to confront communism and terrorism", then Ann Coulter book Treason would be a good source for that article.

ok Mantion (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Balance of article

NOW, you stated article must reflect "current view of reliable sources on McCarthy". That is exactly my point, the "current view of reliable sources" have re-examined McCarthy and have shown the "Flat earth" view you keep supporting is grossly in accurate. Below is a list of reliable expert sources on McCarthy. They have studied the subject more then any of us here. As such my point is simple, current historical views of McCarthy is not being represented. Below are books you may want to read to get caught up on the subject matter.

Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, Arthur Herman, 1999 (maybe the end all book on the subject matter in my opinion, if you must only read one book, this would be it)

Assassination of Joe McCarthy, Medford Evans, 1970 (an early revisit and possibly bias perspective of McCarthy and MacArthur)

McCarthy And His Enemies, William Buckley, 1995 (I only read parts of it for content)

A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, David M Oshinsky, 2005 (really interesting similar to Herman's book, I never finished it)

Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies, M Stanton Evans, 2007 (not yet had a chance to read, but might someday)

The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, 1982 (I can't remember if I read this, it sounds familiar)

McCarthy: The answer to "Tail gunner Joe, Roy M Cohn, 1977 (not for factual information but for personal perspective of Joseph McCarthy, his motives, His relationship with Eisenhower and most the army McCarthy hearing)


In addition you may want to read some books on Venona BEFORE you read books about McCarthy. It will give you a more accurate perspective because it has been suggested that McCarthy had access to some of this information, but could not use it as evidence for obvious reasons. It certainly give credence to McCarthy's concern about the communist influence on Truman and FDR.

The best thing to read, in my humble opinion, is actual court transcripts, I think after reading the testimony you understand that people were not unfairly badgered, or abused, or falsely accused of wrong doing. It also shows the up hill battle McCarthy and his colleagues had because so many witnesses choose to obstruct the investigations and avoid answering direct questioning. If you don't like McCarthy you will enjoy them because you get the impression how frustrating it was for McCarthy. Keep in mind most were closed hearings, this information wasn't available to the public, until recently. I understand the family has some audio recordings of the proceedings, but they will never be released. Sad. Remember I never claimed McCarthy was a saint, only an American patriot and genuinely nice person. I never met McCarthy, but I believe all reliable sources support my views.

Below are some links to Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations (McCarthy Hearings 1953-54)


http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate12cp107.html

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83869.html http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.html http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83871.html http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83872.html http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83872.html

In any case happy reading

Remember my preference is to bring this article in line with WP:Undue, Wikipedia:Attribution by removing the current one sided view. It is no longer the opinion of reliable sources on McCarthy. If RedSpruce, SJMNY or others need time to review the current "reliable sources on McCarthy" then we should make a second article to reflect the current Revisited history of McCarthy.Mantion (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of sources you give above is incomplete by several hundred volumes, and some of the items in it are obviously biased. However, A Conspiracy So Immense and The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: are both good sources that are representative of the majority view of McCarthy among authors, so I'm glad you included them in your list. Now simply note any points where the content of the article is contrary to what's in these books, and we'll have some grounds for discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes absolutely the list is incomplete. With the exception of Assassination of Joe McCarthy these are modern works and are more accurate and deserve more weight then books written before 1980. I included assassination of Joe McCarthy only to show that there were books before venona that had a positive view of McCarthy. You said "If you believe that this (the leftist slant of this article) is incorrect, then document your argument by presenting a review of the literature on McCarthy." In any case I don't need to give a book report for each book, these books show differing views of McCarthy but all of them are more favorable then this article.
I think the most accurate source is Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator. I think its conclusions are the most reasonable. After reading it you come to realize that McCarthy's tactics were not the norm and he was overly punished for them. You also realize that his motives and concerns were legitimate. In addition you find he was a likable and a fair and reasonable person. I personally think that he was simply an out spoken, in your face person, who used tactics he felt reasonable to get results. I also feel he was the victim of the "anti-communist" which hunt. I think his historical view has been revisited many times and this article should reflect a current view of reliable sources.Mantion (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's nice that you approve of Herman's "Reexamining the Life and Legacy...", because that's the most often-cited single book in this article, with 13 footnotes. Herman is a good source for facts; it's only when he starts giving his personal opinions that his book becomes an expression of a minority view. This doesn't matter much to his value as a source for this article, because the article avoids giving opinions except when it quotes some notable personality.
So if you have any complaint that any points of fact in this article are incorrect, I'm waiting to hear about them, with cited sources supporting your correction. If you don't have any such complaints, then stop saying that the article is "inaccurate".
If you want to argue that the overall "tone" of the article is not representative of the current view of reliable sources, then you're going to need to do more than tell us what your personal favorite book is. One good way to evaluate the overall tone of reliable sources is (as I said before) to present a review of all the major reliable literature on McCarthy, with a brief "critical or supportive" note on each source. That's a big job, but not impossible. If you do this, I'm confident you'll see that that the current tone of the article is correct and appropriate. If you don't want to undertake this task, then you have no grounds for your repeated contention that the article is biased. RedSpruce (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removed mccarthyism???

why was "mccarthyism" removed from the lead paragraphs with no discussion? SJMNY (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to save the discussion page before saving the article page.Mantion (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so now I will again remove the sentence of McCarthyism.Mantion (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mccarthyism in the lead

Herblock and his like may have used McCarthyism as an attack, but others including McCarthy said it meant being pro Americana. In any case it is an irrelevant insult or slogan. It has it's own article and is covered in the body of the article. Its usage and meaning is opinion and doesn't need to occupy space in the lead any longer. This article is about McCarthy, not McCarthyism, lets keep the lead about McCarthy the person. Thank you.Mantion (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will quote RedSpruce from the extensive thread on this matter above:
You [Mantion] also argue that a discussion of McCarthyism is "irrelevant." This is incorrect, as McCarthy is primarily famous as the source and inspiration of the term. An article introduction that doesn't mention the primary reason for its subject's fame is a silly idea, and it isn't going to happen.
I agree. Not going to happen.—DCGeist (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussing McCarthyism IS RELEVANT, and there is an entire article for that. You suggest that McCarthy is best known for McCarthyism. Others could say McCarthy is best know for his vocal opposition to communism. I feel that that McCarthy is best known for his polarizing nature and the conflicts that have surrounded him. The Term McCarthyism is merely one aspect of the conflict that surrounded him and should be discussed in the body of the article not the LEAD.Mantion (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
i believe mccarthyism should be mentioned in the lead, i'm of course open to any suggestions as to what should be said about it in thr lead. it should remain a brief mention (1-2 sentences) and not come to encompass the lead of course. SJMNY (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Mantion, YOUR SHOUTING makes your argument, such as it is, considerably less compelling, not more.
Indeed, McCarthyism is sufficiently important that we have an entire article devoted to it. And it is sufficiently important--just as it is sufficiently significant that Joseph McCarthy is one of those rare human beings who has inspired a widely known eponym--that it warrants two sentences on it in the three-paragraph lead of this article, which also happens to address those other aspects of his career and legacy that you mention. The two sentences we have now do the job quite nicely. P.S. Why haven't you been on the Karl Marx Talk page, arguing for the elimination of all references to "Marxism" in the lead of that article? P.P.S. Why haven't you been on the Ronald Reagan Talk page, arguing for the elimination of the reference to "Reaganomics" in the lead of that article? P.P.P.S....oh, but you get the idea. You do get the idea, don't you?—DCGeist (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that "McCarthyism" belongs in the lede. DCGeist's argument highlights the appropriateness of this. I also feel that any discussion defining it or describing it belongs at the Talk:McCarthyism page, before any consensus-based change to McCarthyism is reflected here. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tydings/Browder Composite Photo

This article falsely states the McCarthy and his staff were heavily involved in the creation of the composite photo of Tydings and Browder. The Butler/Tydings campaign was investigated by a Senate Committee that concluded that McCarthy himself had nothing to do with the composite. The Syracuse Post-Standard ran an editorial blasting McCarthy for creating the composite, and McCarthy successfully sued the Post-Standard for libel and a retraction was printed. --72.191.31.112 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

the article says: "McCarthy's staff was heavily involved in the campaign, and collaborated in the production of a campaign tabloid that contained a composite photograph doctored to make it appear that Tydings was in intimate conversation with Communist leader Earl Browder" the article says "his staff" not "him" though i suppose that could be made more clear. i'll look into these court proceedings tommorow if i get the chance, do you by chance have a legal citation if this went to court and was decided? a copy of the original article and retraction wouild be nice too. finally, if anyone would like to defend this particular sentence in the article a source would be nice now that it has been challenged by someone. SJMNY (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a reference regarding McCarthy's staff's involvement in the photograph. McCarthy himself was certainly involved in the campaign against Tydings and was said to be obsessed with "figuring ways to get revenge" on Tydings (Oshinksy, pg. 175), but the article doesn't claim he was directly involved with the photograph. RedSpruce (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
anonymous users, they make a comment and never come back to discuss it. thanks for sourcing, i'll let you guys know if i come up with anything else but i may not bother unless 72.191.whatever comes back with something SJMNY (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"anonymous users, they make a comment and never come back to discuss it. thanks for sourcing, i'll let you guys know if i come up with anything else but i may not bother unless 72.191.whatever comes back with something SJMNY (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)" jiminy christmas, its been a whole 72 hours since i posted that. Forgive me. Syracuse Post-Standard, Sunday, March 15th, 1953.--72.191.31.112 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i apologize, my comments reflect what 90% of anon. guys do, i'm glad you came back and look fwd to discussion. i'll check out that article when i get the chance i dont have access to old newspaper archives from here. SJMNY (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did McCarthy have names or not?

"In fact, McCarthy had no actual names; his evidence for this particular list came from summaries of State Department loyalty review files, from which the names had been removed.[20] Eventually McCarthy moved on from his original list of unnamed individuals and used the hearings to make charges against nine specific people:"

Ok, either McCarthy had "no actual names" or he made charges "against nine specific people" These two sentences are self contradictory and one of them needs to be changed.--72.191.31.112 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As it's written, the passage doesn't contradict itself, as it says: "Eventually McCarthy moved on from his original list of unnamed individuals..." However, although the cited source says that McCarthy didn't know the names corresponding to the "case numbers" on this list, most sources don't commit to whether he knew them or not, and one recent source says that he provided documents to Tydings that contained these names and more. So I'll update the section shortly. RedSpruce (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] irrelevant

from the trivia section: "The video game Postal 2 contains the "Joseph R. McCarthy Public Library"." you can't tell me anyone here actually considers that relevant information? i'll delete tommorow if there are no serious defenses of this useless info SJMNY (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I've rv'd the addition. RedSpruce (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 08/09?

some random IP just changed mccarthy's birthday from 1908 to 1909, it was reverted. the books i have available say 1908, CNN (see here: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/mccarthy) puts his year of birth as 1909 a quick google serach for "mccarthy "1908-1957"" returns 13,000 results, the same search with 1909 returns 1,200 searches. does anyone have a print source that says 1909 or can we consider this matter closed? SJMNY (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, thank you. SJMNY (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ann coulter reviews

why is this even in here? also frontpage.com is a hate site, why include it?--70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary comment, I think these articles are interesting in showing some of the responses to Ann Coulter's attempt to revise current views of McCarthy. This is a broader and more interesting issue than simply reviews of Coulter's book. And these responses are especially interesting when they come from right-wing sources, as with David Horowitz's article on frontpage.com. Do you have some compelling reason why these articles should not be linked? RedSpruce (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inaccuracy in "have you no decency" event during Army-McCarthy hearing

In this article there is the following text at the end of the "army-mcCarthy hearing" section...

"McCarthy stepped in and said that if Welch was so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, which Attorney General Brownell had called "the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party." In an impassioned defense of Fisher that some have suggested he had prepared in advance and had hoped not to have to make,[78] Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]" When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" He then left the room to loud applause from the spectators, and a recess was called."

This is not what took place during the hearing. If you listen to the actual hearing there was no loud applause after the "no sense of decency" quote and no recess was called. Here is a link to an mp3 of the hearing...

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/politicalspeeches/mccarthywelchexchange121.mp3

This section should be edited to depict what really happened and not the sensationalism of the events that have been distorted in the ending section of this article. Kledsky (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Kledsky

The exchange between McCarthy and Welch actually continued a little beyond the "no sense of decency" quote before the applause. Your link didn't work for me, but this one does, and includes the applause, though it ends before the call for a recess. The applause and the call for a recess are described in all the major sources on the subject. The article might be edited to clarify that the word "then" shouldn't be interpreted to mean "immediately", but this is hardly an egregious inaccuracy. RedSpruce (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style concerns

Would it be at all possible to slim down the footnotes in the article? When a text is given a full bibliographic write-up in the "References and further reading", isn't it a bit excessive to also give it a full write-up every single time it is used in a footnote? It's only an aesthetic issue, admittedly, but I believe it would make the footnote text a bit less oppressive to the eye if texts cited in the footnotes were given in some form of Author-Date-Page or Author-Title-Page. All the best, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume that there would be no objection to the implementation of this system? (Or would "stability" trounce all?) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're proposing to use WP:Harvard referencing for the sources that get repeated use, I think that would be a fine idea. RedSpruce (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote format

Also, I'd like to propose that the current use of the "cquote" system be replaced by the more commonly accepted "blockquote" form. There is only three segments of text in the article significant enough to merit such a distinction: the comments of Senators Susan Collins and Carl Levin on the recently released records of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Murrow's summation, and the comments of journalist Richard Rovere on McCarthy's alcoholic tendencies. I had made the change to one of the sections, but failed to do the same for all instances. It is a fault for which I give my most heartfelt apologies. Now, WP:MOSQUOTE issues a strongly worded complaint against the use of "cquotes": "Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for "call-outs", which are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles)."

The user DCGeist has twice reverted my changes, on a rationale of preserving "stability", and on the grounds that the style is "perfectly acceptable". I must say that it only becomes an issue of "stability" if DCGeist wishes to dispute what should be a simple issue of full and complete MOS compliance. It is not "perfectly acceptable", either, but a situation strongly militated against under the MOS' current wording. Should this article wish to attain FA status (and it's quite far along the way) the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria require that it "[follow] the style guidelines". This is merely a brief request that those guidelines be followed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with replacing all of the cquotes with blockquotes. I would only object to mixing both styles in the article without a clear reason for doing so. RedSpruce (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. Stylistic consistency is paramount. Geuiwogbil, your apology for inconsistently altering the style is accepted. If all of the cquotes are replaced with blockquotes, there shouldn't be a problem.—DCGeist (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting the changes! I hadn't realized the problem on my first run-through. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whittaker Chambers

From http://reason.com/news/show/124398.html:

"When asked to provide a jacket blurb for Buckley’s apologia for McCarthy, Chambers declined, responding that McCarthy’s 'inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objectivity for the momentary effect, will lead him and [the anti-communist cause] into trouble.'"

Bdell555 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatitis v. Cirrhosis

If a reliable source conflicts with the information, dont delete it. If there are two reliable sources used as references, that give two causes of death. Both should stay, unless someone orders the death certificate as a primary source. Even then, its important to know what exact word was used by the media at the time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hepatitis is both the more commonly reported cause of death and the one that various sources refer to as the "official" cause or the one listed in the death certificate. Since the preponderance of evidence is clear in this case, there's no need to cover both sides on what is a fairly trivial point. (Far less trivial is the point that the ultimate cause of his death was alcoholism, as is documented with some care.) RedSpruce (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me at all, thats why I added it. I have not seen the death certificate, but from ones that I have seen and requested copies of, you can list up to three causes of death. You have an amazing command of human knowledge and don't require multiple sources for information, but I need them, and I write for others that need them. If two reliable sources, differ, don't flip a coin and choose one over the other, or in your case just delete whatever one you didn't add. Keep both and let the reader have a better understanding. Don't write for you that already knows, write for the reader that doesn't know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Including a reference with an error in it does not "let the reader have a better understanding." I am not "flipping a coin"; as I made clear (though not to you, apparently) above, I have read from many sources on this issue, and the consensus of these sources is clear: Hepatitis was a cause of death, and Cirrhosis was not. If there were a controversy here, then absolutely both sides should be represented. Based on my research, there is no controversy, but just a small error that appears in one out of many sources. If you know of evidence that shows my research is wrong and there is a controversy, please present that evidence and I'll look into it. RedSpruce (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Here is what the two most respected biographies of McCarthy say:
"The official cause of death was listed as acute hepatitis, or inflammation of the liver. There was no mention of cirrhosis or delirium tremens, though the press hinted, correctly, that he drank himself to death"
A Conspiracy So Immense, Oshinsky
"Hospital officials listed the cause of death as 'acute hepatic failure' and the death certificate read 'hepatitis, acute, cause unknown.'"
The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy, Reeves
I've seen a couple of sources mention the fact that Time Magazine reported the cause of death as cirrhosis, but this is done in the context of noting the widespread belief that McCarthy was an alcoholic and had drunk himself to death. No source I've seen mentions any evidence to support Time's assumption, nor does any source mention cirrhosis as ever being officially listed as a cause of death.
My inexpert understanding of the diseases is that they aren't exclusive, so there isn't really a clear-cut contradiction here. Cirrhosis is described as "a consequence of chronic liver disease" with particular anatomical characteristics present in the liver, and hepatitis is a general term that "implies injury to the liver characterized by presence of inflammatory cells." Thus, hepatitis can result in cirrhosis. But for McCarthy, as the article states, "the official cause of death was acute hepatitis."RedSpruce (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats why I moved to the sentence that discusses that very point. Just a few sentences earlier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. All I can see is that you are giving prominent coverage to a source that, as I have pointed out, is in error. I don't understand how this improves the article. RedSpruce (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
WP is a tertiary report of secondary sources. It sounds like the debate is over whether the inclusion of minority opinion secondary sources is appropriate. It is in fact appropriate. It should be presented in the article as a minority opinion and accordingly given less emphasis. However, it should be included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis that this is a question of a minority opinion, TtT. Whether or not the amount of coverage given to this minority opinion is in keeping with WP:UNDUE is another question, and one that isn't particularly well-covered by your imperious "ruling" above. However, given the corrections that RAN has made to his original edits on this point, I'm willing to accept the current article content. RedSpruce (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

← Cirrhosis is a chronic liver condition which occurs in some heavy long-term drinkers. Acute hepatitis is a catch-all term for liver inflammation; specific causes of acute hepatitis include viruses (Hep A, B, C, etc), toxic ingestions, and alcohol. Alcoholic hepatitis, a form of acute hepatitis caused by alcohol consumption, is a not uncommon cause of death among alcoholics. People with cirrhosis may be at higher risk of alcoholic hepatitis (and of death from it), because they have less functional liver reserve. What I'm getting at is that McCarthy could certainly have had both cirrhosis (a chronic condition) which contributed to his death and fatal acute alcoholic hepatitis. These are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. I'm not entirely clear what this dispute is about, so perhaps that's not helpful, but I thought I'd chime in. MastCell Talk 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)