Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Joseph McCarthy article.

This page should summarize the current consensus surrounding the questions' answers.

Please:

Contents

[edit] How did the article get the way it is?

Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found at Talk:Joseph McCarthy and its archives

[edit] Questions about the lead section

[edit] Were McCarthy’s claims substantiated?

Why does the article say “McCarthy's … inability to substantiate his claims…”?

McCarthy never succeeded in substantiating specific claims about numbers or names of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers that were inside the federal government and elsewhere. Other investigators have been able to identify the existence and names of such people.
Counterpoints and answers concerning “McCarthy's inability to substantiate his claims:”
  • Since others did find spies and communists, doesn’t that make McCarthy correct?
Just suggesting that “there are criminals out there” doesn’t mean one knows who they are and what they did, even though the statement is literally true. See the discussion below under "Wasn’t McCarthy right?"
Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#"unsubstantiated claims"?, Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#"and that this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy" and atTalk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#"unsubstantiated claims" vs "claims he could not substantiate". If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Discussion of FAQ page. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

[edit] McCarthy’s “sensational” claims

Why does the article refer to McCarthy’s “sensational charges?”

”Sensational” is a term widely used by McCarthy biographers, both sympathetic to him and critical of him, to characterize his charges. See, for example, Oshinsky[1] where it is used ten times and Herman[2] where it is used three times.
Counterpoints and answers concerning “sensational”:
  • Isn’t the word “sensational” biased because it emphasizes “exaggerated, superficial, or lurid” aspects of the charges?
The core definition of “sensational” emphasizes that it produces or is designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, or intense interest; hence the word aptly describes the reaction that it achieved at the time.
  • How about “dramatic?”
“Sensational” says it best.
Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#alleged POV wording in intro and at Talk:Ralph Flanders#McCarthy's "sensational, but largely unfounded, accusations?". If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Discussion of FAQ page. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

[edit] McCarthy’s “attacks”

Why does the lead paragraph use the word “attack” in reference to his investigations of those whom he suspected of communism, communist sympathies, or disloyalty inside and outside of government?

The main body of the article uses the word or a variant six times.
Counterpoints and answers concerning "attacks":
  • Isn’t “attacked” a loaded word and inappropriate for Wikipedia? Doesn’t it imply destruction of opponents?.
”Attack” is a term commonly used by commentators at the time (e.g. Acheson[3]) and in recent coverage of the period.[4][5]
Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#alleged POV wording in intro. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Discussion of FAQ page. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

[edit] Cause of death

Why does the article say “The official cause of death was acute hepatitis; it is widely accepted that this was brought on by alcoholism.”

The death certificate reports the cause; numerous reliable secondary sources blame his death on alcoholism.
Counterpoints and answers regarding McCarthy and alcoholism:
  • Isn’t it wrong to speculate beyond what the death certificate says on cause of death, if there is no medical evidence?.
Multiple reliable biographers agree that alcoholism was the proximate cause.
  • Isn’t the term “alcoholism” pejorative and therefore not appropriate to Wikipedia?
Alcoholism is a recognized term to describe a condition that causes a person to drink sufficiently to cause negative health consequences.
Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Cause of death and Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Comment from adminstrator MastCell. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Discussion of FAQ page. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

[edit] “Censured” versus “condemned”

Why does the article state that the Senate "censured" McCarthy but the actual resolution says they "condemned" him? Is there a difference between the two?

There is no legal distinction between the two in Senate tradition. A senatorial motion to censure is just a way for the senate to express its disapproval of one of its members. In doing so, the Senate used the word “condemned.”
Counterpoints and answers concerning “Censured” versus “condemned”:
  • If the final resolution said “condemned,” why isn’t that how it should be referred to?
The two are viewed as synonymous. After the resolution 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.
Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Tactics and censure? and Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#"censured" vs. "condemned". If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Discussion of FAQ page. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

[edit] Wasn’t McCarthy right?

Why does the article not endorse the view of some modern authors that McCarthy's place in history should be re-evaluated?

Some writers who have tried to defend McCarthy have claimed that specific accusations were valid. Others suggest that McCarthy had a positive overall impact by increasing the nation's awareness of communist infiltration. Most current scholars agree that McCarthy was incorrect in the specifics of his allegations.
Counterpoints and answers concerning new views on McCarthy:
  • Don’t the Venona project files, or evidence from Soviet archives, prove that McCarthy was right about there being Soviet agents in the United States?
Some authors claim that there were ca. 350 Americans who had a "covert relationship" with Soviet intelligence, based on their interpretation of the Venona project. Those referred to were not all characterized as "agents," and the Venona cables were intercepted between 1942 and 1945, not the post-war period of McCarthy. There is very little overlap between the people McCarthy accused of being Communists or Soviet agents and those who are described in Venona or other later evidence.[6]
Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Recent edits and Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#McCarthy was right. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7#Discussion of FAQ page. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Oshinsky, David M. (2005), A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-515424-X 
  2. ^ Herman, Arthur, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, Simon & Schuster: The Free Press, ISBN 978-0684836256 
  3. ^ Acheson, Dean (1969), Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department, W.W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393304124 
  4. ^ Crozier, Barney (September 29, 1979), “Vermont Senator's Speech Heralded McCarthy's End”, Times-Argus (Randolph, Vermont) 
  5. ^ “Milo Radulovich, fought back against McCarthy attack”, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), November 23, 2007, <http://www.cleveland.com/obituary/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1195810663231580.xml&coll=2> 
  6. ^ Haynes, John Earl (2006). Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona. Retrieved on 2006-08-31.