# Talk:Ralph Flanders

User:HopsonRoad 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done a major augmentation of this article, relying on Flanders's autobiography, "Senator from Vermont," plus other sources. Please review this effort critically, offering additional sources. Additional photographs are requested.
While Flanders has a strong reputation for integrity, one must realize that any autobiography is subject to unconscious self-aggrandizement and lapses of memory, among other issues. Nevertheless, "Senator from Vermont" helps address the major aspects of Flanders's life.HopsonRoad 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Excellent expansion, with quality referencing. Reading this makes me realize that I have got to bump Senator from Vermont  further up the priority scale on my books-to-be-read list. Re the perennial biographical problem of the fact that autobiographies are inherently biased: Then again, they often provide information that is difficult to get anywhere else. Certainly a good autobiography doesn't hurt a balanced biographical effort, even if it is only one component of it. Thanks for improving this article. — Lumbercutter 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree; very good work. One nice addition would be to use "Harvard" references for the footnotes that all link to "Senator from Vermont." This would allow you to give page numbers for each reference, while still keeping things fairly compact. See Elizabeth Bentley for an example. RedSpruce 21:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement, everyone. I have footnoted my MS Word working draft with the page numbers, so I could follow RedSpruce's suggestion. I think that I'll let the project lie fallow for a period before assessing that option and see if there are any substantive issues that need addressing.HopsonRoad 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There are now many references. I'm open to discussion whether RedSpruce's suggestion to use "Harvard" references for the footnotes that all link to "Senator from Vermont" would still keep things "fairly compact."HopsonRoad 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
What you have now is very good and can certainly stay as-is. However, the style used at Elizabeth Bentley is even better, because you can cite an individual page number for each citation. But it's up to you, if you have the time to do the converting and supply the page numbers. Even if not, we are still lucky to have all the expanded content that you provided. — Lumbercutter 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that Senator From Vermont is available on Questia.com, and I have a subscription there. So if no one has any strenuous objection, I may convert the footnotes myself some time when I have a couple of hours to kill. RedSpruce 20:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No objection here. However, since my MS Word drafts have the page numbers already annotated, you might want to give me until 31 October to do the conversion and then follow up with a check for accuracy. I appreciate your interest in and support of this page.HopsonRoad 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Will do. I don't know when I'd get to it, and Questia's text search isn't working right now anyway (grrrr). RedSpruce 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There's been a death in my family, so I'll need a week's extension. HopsonRoad 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Condolences. — Lumbercutter 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
See  Further upgrade of article, below.  HopsonRoad 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a popular misconception that McCarthy was censured, however this is historically incorrect. The resolution in question can be found here.Although the title here refers to the action as a "censure", the resolution itself states "condemned". Unless someone presents something to the contrary, I'm changing this aspect of the article. Jtpaladin 00:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the actual resolution used the word "condemned" rather than "censured," no historians place any significance on the distinction. Historians and Senate documents (see here, for example) generally refer to it as a "censure." And in any case, the word "censure" was used in Flanders' original motion. RedSpruce 10:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If you could produce a reliable secondary source that states that McCarthy was not "censured", or states that there is any real significance to the use of the word "condemned" rather than "censured," then you might have a case for the edits you've been making on this subject here and elsewhere. The Herman biography passage you have used doesn't qualify; it describes some McCarthy-supporting senators saying that there is, or might be, some significance to the word, and other senators dismissing the argument as laughable. Your attempts to avoid the simple and factual statement that Flanders "introduced the ultimately successful motion to have McCarthy censured" is an insertion of POV that is contrary the writings of reliable sources. RedSpruce 15:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In the next day or three, I plan to make two passes at this article: First to incorporate style improvements suggested by a non-Wicki reviewer and second to implement Harvard-style references.HopsonRoad 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented, but not proof-read the style improvements. Harvard-style references come next. HopsonRoad 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented Harvard-style references. There may be technical problems with how I've done it. The article requires further proof-reading and style editing. HopsonRoad 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Good work! I've done some tinkering and cleaning up. When you click on a Harvard reference footnote, like "^ Flanders 1961, p. 194", it's supposed to hop you down the page to the full information on that book, and that currently isn't working with all the footnotes. The multiple "Flanders 1909" books is confusing it, for one thing. I'll probably tinker some more later. RedSpruce 15:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your inspiration and help, RedSpruce. Is there a way to make the Notes into two columns (I've seen and lost track of a system that works for Mozilla)? Alternatively, since the notes can be reached by clicking to and fro the text, would it be preferable for them to follow the References?  I'd next like to get a peer review after the dust has settled on cleaning up the piece. Sincerely, HopsonRoad 16:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Using "{{reflist|2}}" (which is used since my edit) puts the footnotes in 2 columns on the current FireFox and Safari 3, though not on Safari 2.x or IE 6.x. Putting footnotes before References seems to be the standard format on WP, though I'm not sure of that, or if there's some style guideline on that. RedSpruce 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Your fixes are most helpful. Thank you. I couldn't find any examples of References before Notes either in guidelines or practice. Now that the Notes jump to the Reference properly, it's less of an issue. HopsonRoad 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've proof-read, style-edited, checked reference content and corrected reference order and linkages. I'm going to ask for a peer review. HopsonRoad 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote my review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders. Simply awesome! — Lumbercutter 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to leave your peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders.—HopsonRoad 12:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


### Update, based on peer reviews
I have expanded the lead paragraph and made extensive wordsmithing changes throughout, based on the peer review. Please review my replies to the peer reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders.—HopsonRoad (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The automated review of this article found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2007#Requests#Ralph Flanders makes makes the following suggestion that I request your input on: "Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article."
Review of the guidance suggests that this article has grown to where a two-paragraph lead would be appropriate. I'm prepared to do this, pending your input. HopsonRoad 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph originally described Flanders as having been “noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy for his sensational, but largely unfounded, accusations that many public figures, especially those in government, were Communists.” User: Billy Hathorn revised this to read “noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy for his accusations that many public figures, especially those in government, were Communists.”
While “sensational” is probably accurate, “widely publicized” would be more neutral. There was a problem with “largely unfounded,” though. No-one knew, including McCarthy and Flanders, how many communists there were in government nor the extent to which their actions endangered the government. The problem was to have an accurate method to answer these questions that was fair to individuals who were subject to investigation. Flanders problem lay with McCarthy’s methods, which sensationalized accusations, based on often flimsy evidence, against individuals in a national forum, who in turn were in a poor position to defend their innocence. In most cases, McCarthy’s accusations were unsubstantiated. In addition, there were communists in government that his techniques did not uncover. Consequently, he placed the nation in a state of dread over false threats, while either overlooking or ignoring real threats.
Consequently, the lead sentence in question should probably read: “He was noted for two 1954 speeches on Senator Joseph McCarthy’s widely publicized, but largely ineffective methods, for uncovering communists in government that incorrectly accused many of being communists, while not detecting others who were, and for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy for his Senate behavior.” HopsonRoad 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more correct to say that he's noted for initiating the censure of McCarthy than for any particular speeches. That's what I glean from my readings of McCarthy biographies, anyway. As for McCarthy making "sensational charges," I think that's perfectly accurate and therefor neutral. Probably McCarthy himself would agree with that word. Similarly, "unsubstantiated" is a simple fact of history. Regardless of subsequently revealed communist infiltration, McCarthy made charges he couldn't back up.
In terms of the writing, the sentence you propose above is awfully long. I think it would work better to break it into two: Flanders is noted for initiating the censure of McCarthy [or whatever], full stop, and a second sentence about why this is seen as a good thing and what was wrong with  McCarthy.
RedSpruce 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with your advice, RedSpruce. I propose: "He was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had made unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. Ultimately, his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate." The first sentence is undisputed, the second and third ones have stood the test of time in Joseph McCarthy.HopsonRoad (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. RedSpruce (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not "undisputed" that claims by McCarthy (or anyone else) "that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government" were "unsubstantiated".  Good sources indicate otherwise.  VENONA alone indicates that there were at least 300.  Change it to "McCarthy had made a large number of unsubstantiated claims that particular individuals in the federal government were Communists and Soviet spies" if this needs to be used. Bdell555 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not "undisputed" that the Earth is not flat. Nevertheless scholars have come to a fairly solid consensus on this issue. There are no good sources (or even poor sources) that indicate that McCarthy's allegations were anything other than unsubstantiated. He made allegations (and not just against "particular individuals") that neither he nor anyone else could substantiate. Therefor they were unsubstantiated. The fact that Venona shows that during the war years (prior to the time of McCarthy's fame and allegations) there were a lot (not "at least 300"--that's a popular misconception among the ignorant) of Soviet agents in government does not have any bearing on whether McCarthy was able to substantiate his allegations. RedSpruce (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
At issue is whether (1) McCarthy alleged that "there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government" and (2) that this allegation would be true.  Whether (1) is true or not, re (2) there is indeed a solid consensus amongst scholars, and that's that McCarthy smeared countless people with unfounded accusations AND that "a massive Soviet spy network penetrated the U.S. government during World War Two" to use the wording of the PBS Nova transcript, a source YOU YOURSELF stated elsewhere had a "good reputation for fact-checking".  Even far left academics like Ellen Schrecker concede as much, despite your obsession with purging Wiki of all evidence that people like her are either left ("card carrying member of the ACLU") or conceded anything of the sort ("the espionage, which unquestionably occurred...." "... too much evidence from too many different sources to make it possible for anyone but the most die-hard loyalists to argue convincingly for the innocence of Hiss, Rosenberg, and the others").  Also, "Ultimately the code breakers found cover names for more than 300 Americans who spied for the Soviets in World War Two," was a direct quote by the PBS Nova narrator on air.  If you want to take back your remark about "good reputation" and instead declare the public broadcaster "ignorant", to use your words, I suggest you provide a source for why this latest opinion of yours is correct and your previous opinion incorrect.Bdell555 (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Bdell and RedSpruce. All that I said was "undisputed" was the fact that Flanders "was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy." The following two sentences merely reflect what the Wikipedia process has arrived at on the Joseph McCarthy page. The discussion of those sentences belongs at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. If that discussion results in a re-characterization of facts surrounding McCarthy, reported here, then that's the time to change them here. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia considers itself a reliable source, there should be a statement to that effect somewhere in the policies.  Otherwise, you cannot cut and paste from another Wikipedia article and consider it unchallengeable simply because it comes from another Wiki article.  Fact is, you've got a claim in there right now that is directly contradicted by PBS Nova.  If you look at the Nova transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2904_venona.html) you'll see that McCarthy's allegations were sufficiently contemporaneous to VENONA to remark, "ironically...".  There ought to be some indication that this irony exists in this Ralph Flanders article if the wording I suggested when I first commented in this thread is to be rejected.Bdell555 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
At issue is whether (1) McCarthy alleged that "there were large numbers of Communists  inside the federal government" and (2) that this allegation would be true. No, that is not the issue. The article states that McCarthy made unsubstantiated claims, and that he got into trouble over this. Even if you distort the facts sufficiently so that you believe that McCarthy was "right", that doesn't alter the fact that McCarthy made claims that he could not substantiate, and this brought him into disrepute. This fact is not contradicted by PBS Nova, or Dancing With the Stars, or any other TV show. I suppose one could add to the article some comment to the effect of "Ironically, some people are sufficiently stupid that they're willing to believe that later evidence has shown McCarthy to be 'right'," but I don't think that would be a correct use of the word "ironically". RedSpruce (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the issue, BECAUSE THAT"S WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS!  If that is not the issue, then why don't you change the article to what you say is the issue, namely that "McCarthy made claims that he could not substantiate" full stop.  In the mean time, your observation that Dancing With the Stars wouldn't contest such a reading is entirely irrelevant, since that reading isn't in the article.  I note that you now dismiss PBS Nova's credibility because it is a "TV show", whereas elsewhere you dismissed the pbs.org website's credibility because it was NOT a TV show!  I don't know who you are arguing with with respect to whether "McCarthy was right", but it certainly isn't me.  McCarthy was wrong, but he was wrong because made accusations against many people that he could not substantiate, not because there were no communists.  However, it is unnecessary to argue over the commie count because a more minimalist reading could be used here instead.  There is simply no need for this article to push either your political agenda or mine.Bdell555 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


### Please take this discussion to the Talk:Joseph McCarthy Page
Dear Bdell, Your pursuit of the historical truth is appropriate, however it belongs at the Talk:Joseph McCarthy page. That's where the debate about alternative historical interpretations on that topic can take place. If what's written there changes, then it can reflect back here, if necessary.
Whether Wikipedia is a "reliable source," really depends on the reader's ability to assess that question through inspecting whether a page is well referenced, whether its history has become stable, and whether the talk-page discussions about the topic have become resolved. By this measure, a reader should recognize that the Joseph McCarthy page is still subject to lively debate. If a reader of the Ralph Flanders page is interested in McCarthy, it's amply linked.
As to the statement in the lead paragraph, it should stand until the debate changes something substantially at McCarthy. For the time-being, I believe that the topic is settled, since that wording at McCarthy is stable, despite the interest of others with a broad spectrum of views about McCarthy.HopsonRoad (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about "historical truth", this is about adequately sourcing claims, and particularly the claims that are made in this article, not in the McCarthy article.  Are you going to go back and change this article everytime the McCarthy page changes?  Every article has to stand on its own.  Again, where is the Wiki policy that would support the conclusion that there need not be a source anywhere in Wiki if the entire encyclopedia simply referenced other articles within itself, as your assumptions would have to lead you to conclude?  It does not help if some of the claims in the McCarthy article are adequately sourced if the particular claim you are copying into this article is not one of them.  For what it is worth, the relevant "wording at McCarthy" is most certainly NOT settled, since Redspruce has yet to even present his argument there for why the wording should preclude any possibility that there might have been large numbers of communists in the government (as opposed to being agnostic about that possibility).Bdell555 (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your very legitimate point, Bdell, and the answer to your question is yes, I do watch the McCarthy page and would be glad to reflect stable changes back here. I'd like your help in reminding me, if I fail to do so. Nevertheless, I continue to feel that the best place to discuss the point remains at Talk:McCarthy. Doing so allows the most engagement by people interested and knowledgeable on the topic. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One doesn't have to be "interested and knowledgeable" to recognize that the claim in this article (to the effect that no claim that there were large numbers of communist sympathizers in goverment can be substantiated) is unsourced and moreover is contradicted by valid sources.  The Alger Hiss article currently provides the views of Hiss' lawyer concerning the VENONA evidence but not the summary view of the Encyclopedia Britannica, because Redspruce and a couple of his political fellow travelers maintain that Britannica, with its contrary view, is an inferior source.  This sort of thing persists in Wiki articles because most editors think like you, Hopson, i.e. thinking that surely it is not so straightforward; let some supposed expert correct it.  If the experts aren't there, the article is hijacked by whichever political group can better intimidate other "ordinary" editors into leaving their pet article alone.  I agree with you the discussion should be sent to the McCarthy article, but for that to be rightly done the material that was cut and pasted from that article needs to be sent back as well.Bdell555 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bdell, I share your concern that an article can be hijacked by people with a POV. In such cases, I believe that there's a referee process to help restore objectivity (I'm having trouble putting my finger on it just now). There's also peer review and A-class article nominations that can come back with independent insights about the scholarship and the process of discussion within the article. Ideally, differing approaches to the question can converge; if not, they can be covered in contrapuntal paragraphs. Occasionally, the differing scholarship is sufficiently lacking that it should legitimately be excluded. Your concerns regarding McCarthy appropriately deserve attention, but will be poorly addressed by people primarily interested in Flanders.
Unless that I see that you've already done so, I'll try to set up the discussion at the Talk:McCarthy page, starting with the verbiage of concern and then with the discussion thread up to the point where we discussed where to have the discussion. It'll probably be this evening before I can do so. If you have a different approach, you can either implement it or make a recommendation to me. Sincerely,HopsonRoad (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


### We can successfully address Bdell's point about "if not B, then not A" thinking
OK, I hesitated to add two cents to this discussion, but here goes: After reading Bdell's analogy (about Hitler, evil, and animal cruelty) on his user page, I think that we can successfully address his point here about "if not B, then not A" thinking. What he is pointing out is this: Just because McCarthyism was a witchhunt doesn't mean that there weren't Soviet agents compromising the U.S. government. (This is somewhat analogous to the quote that "Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.") Maybe we could solve the whole problem by saying something to this effect: "Flanders moved to censure McCarthy because he had turned a legitimate fear of Soviet penetration and domestic communist subversion into a libelous witchhunt." — ¾-10 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that you gentlemen indicate an appreciation for a subtle but important perspective held by most professional historians.  See Radosh, Haynes and Klehr, for example, who wrote in 1998 that "if Americans are ever going to understand their history, it is essential that McCarthyism and anti-Communism be disentangled," and John Earl Haynes' elaboration at http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html.  One could also note comments by Sam Tanenhaus and David Oshinsky in this respect.Bdell555 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you’re on the right track, 3/4 ton. I’d like this article to be about Flanders and not about McCarthy. Of course, the two intersect.
You recommend including a motive for Flanders’s censure. In Flanders’s autobiography (P.254), he writes, after being questioned about McCarthy by reporters in Aukland and Melbourne on the other side of the world:

I suggest the following, which does not appear to contradict either RedSpruce’s or Bdell’s position on McCarthy:
"Flanders was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had made dramatic claims that there were hundreds of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government, which included televised attacks in McCarthy’s senate committee on people whom he falsely accused. Flanders felt that McCarthy’s attacks distracted the nation from a real communist menace both at home and abroad and that they had the effect of creating division and confusion within the United States, to the advantage of the enemy. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate."
HopsonRoad (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While it might not be relevant (since material that merits inclusion should not be excluded just because it is likely to be challenged), I'd note that your reading is less likely to be disputed, HopsonRoad, since you indicate that "Flanders felt ... [there was] a real communist threat" as opposed to claiming that there was "a real communist threat" regardless of whether Flanders felt that or not.  In any case, I would not object to either your proposal or 3/4's.Bdell555 (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

With the dust settling on this topic at Talk:Joseph McCarthy, I suggest the following for Ralph Flanders:
"Flanders was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had made claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere. He used his Senate committee as a nationally televised forum for attacks on individuals whom he accused. Flanders felt that McCarthy’s attacks distracted the nation from a much greater threat of Communist successes elsewhere in the world and that they had the effect of creating division and confusion within the United States, to the advantage of its enemies. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate."
This incorporates the language from Joseph McCarthy. It acknowledges that Flanders realized that there was an internal threat of communism, but reflects his opinion that it was dwarfed by the progress communists were making abroad that would leave the U.S. and Canada as islands of democracy. It also reflects his concern that McCarthy's tactics smacked of the totalitarianism that our country so rightly abhorred in Communism and Nazism. I'll await suggestions here and any further developments at Joseph McCarthy before implementing a revision. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revision sounds fine to me. — ¾-10 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy discussion of the word, "sensational," as appropriate to the lead section of Joseph McCarthy in Talk:Joseph McCarthy#alleged POV wording in intro. The result has been adding a footnote to explain the appropriateness of an apparently loaded word. That word was included in Ralph Flanders, but deleted as part of the discussion with Bdell, above. In the McCarthy article, the word was shown to be appropriate in a footnote, as follows: “Sensational” is a frequently used term by chroniclers of McCarthy. See, for example: Oshinsky, David M. (2005), A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-515424-X where it is used ten times and Herman, Arthur, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, New York: Simon & Schuster: The Free Press, ISBN 978-0684836256 where it is used three times.
I propose to bring it back, as follows:


### Proposed revised paragraph in Ralph Flanders lead
Flanders was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had made sensational claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the  federal government and elsewhere. He used his Senate committee as a nationally televised forum for attacks on individuals whom he accused. Flanders felt that McCarthy’s attacks distracted the nation from a much greater threat of Communist successes elsewhere in the world and that they had the effect of creating division and confusion within the United States, to the advantage of its enemies. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate. 


#### Footnotes
### Input below
I solicit your input. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 04:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no objections. I'll make the proposed change. Since the McCarthy portion of the lead reflects the lead at Joseph McCarthy, one can find an explanation of word choice at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions.--User:HopsonRoad 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much McCarthy crept back in the lead. This wound up being summarized for the portal that Flanders was driven from office because he couldn't substantiate his claim against McCarthy!!!!
Really need to shorten this so it is Flanders oriented not McCarthy-oriented. "Flanders submitted motion. The Senate agreed with him (ptr to McCarthy article)." Student7 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article, it was really interesting, about someone I'd never really read much information about.
Quick overview - 

It is well written. In this respect:  A few minor tweaks I've detailed below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.  Looks good! Only quibble is listed below.
It is broad in its coverage.  Very broad and well covered.
It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 
It is stable;  No recent edit wars
It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate  Only quibble is below, but it's not enough to fail the article.
In more detail:

General notes—Wikilinking years. Be consistent. I lean towards not linking dates that are by themselves, but either way, the whole article should be consistent.
 Done All years in the form of [[19XX]] have been changed to 19XX. --User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not enough to fail, but the article relies on Flander's autobiography quite a bit. I would guess that if the article goes to FAC, that the reliance on an autobiography might be an issue there
 Done I have bolstered highlights of Flanders’s career with references from the Vermont Encyclopedia. --User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There are more fair use images than free in the article, which isn't enough to fail the article, but might be a stumbling block at FAC
 Not done Images come from long out of print books. --User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Biographical section - does footnote 2 refer to the entire paragraph?
 Done I have added more support from his autobiography. --User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section - the first few sentences are choppy, perhaps "The oldest of ten children, Flanders was born in Barnet, a town in northeastern Vermont, but spent much of his childhood in Rhode Island. In his autobiography, Senator from Vermont, he described his life on his family's subsistence farms before he left to work in the machine tool industry, where he worked for most of his life."
 Done I have combined sentences in a similar manner to that suggested. --User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
US Senate Career - second paragraph. I'm not sure that saying Senator Warren Austin (R) is the best way to explain that Austin was a Republican, but I don't write on modern political figures so I'm not sure that how I'd write it would be better. I'd use "...to complete the term of Republican Senator Warren Austin."
 Done The suggestion is consistent with MoS. --User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, might Wikilink Republican again, as it's been a while since the lede, but that's a stylistic thing that doesn't impact on the pass/fail of the article.
 Done Made the link.--User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, Senate record and committee assignments subsection, the first sentence is awkward. Maybe "Flanders' voting record in the Senate was more conservative than his senior colleague George Aiken and resulted from Flanders' business orientation." Or something similar....
 Done Made smoother language.--User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, Cold war era subsection. Try to merge the one and two sentence paragraphs in this section.
 Done Eliminated what was intended as a tie between the Cold War and McCarthyism. Retitled and promoted subsections on those topics.--User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There you go! I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so these small issues can be addressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions, Ealdgyth. I hope that you will find these responsive. If you see any other issues, please feel free to be bold and do edits that you feel are appropriate.--User:HopsonRoad 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an idle question for anyone with an interest in Flanders genealogy: Talk:Walter Flanders#Cousins?. — ¾-10 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the Legacy heading, I propose to add the following:
In his May 24, 2001 speech announcing his departure from the Republican Party, Vermont Senator James Jeffords cited Flanders three times and spoke of him as one of five Vermont politicians who, “spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in.”  In speeches to Georgetown University Law Center and Johnson State College, Senator Patrick Leahy cited Flanders as one of three Vermont politicians who showed, “the importance of standing firm in your beliefs,” “that conflict need not be hostile or adversarial”  and who, “rose up against abuses, against infringements upon Americans' rights when doing that was not popular.” 

User:HopsonRoad 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound pro-Flanders, as it is supposed to sound! :) Student7 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, because it helps to show the continuing relevance of this article's subject, but does so in a neutral way (quotes both [ex-]Repub and Dem without endorsing either). — ¾-10 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This items is not notable. There is no article. It seems to me to muddle things talking about it. Okay for a real bio, of course, but this is just a summary for a reader. If the lathe ever gets an article, fine. Otherwise we should avoid references to it. The article is supposed to be about Flanders, not about an obscure, long forgotten piece of now-obsolete machinery. Describing it is another matter - "sophisticated machinery" or whatever. Student7 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Student7. I feel that the phrase that I suggested,  'for "the automatic turning of work held on centers"' is accurate, since it came from a cited source, but baffling. It is preferable in my mind to "sophisticated," which isn't an objective statement, especially if the machine is obscure and long-obsolete. Fortunately, the reference has pictures and descriptions for those who are both baffled and motivated. I would be comfortable with marking Fay lathe as a potential article, except I don't like red ink! I suggest that succinct words to replace 'for "the automatic turning of work held on centers"' might be a solution. That's probably what 3/4-Ten was trying to do in the first place! --User:HopsonRoad 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Added new article, Fay automatic lathe, and removed dubious text. --User:HopsonRoad 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, all. I totally get what Student7 was saying, but to me the right solution for the identified problem is what has now happened (rather than just deleting the info)—a separate article on the Fay automatic lathe and only a wikilink to it from this article, so interested readers can drill deeper while uninterested readers are not inconvenienced or distracted. I would defend, however, the keeping of an intermediate state in some instances—that is, when a one-sentence explanation of what-the-thing-is continues living in the original article (as opposed to being obliterated for digression) until such time as someone gets a chance to create a decent stub for it to be moved to. This is an important concept and is not just a triviality; redlinks get deleted just for being red (although good redlinks should not, but many users don't know that), and scant stubs get deleted by immediatists with enough time on their hands to argue WP:AfD cases. The intermediate state that I mentioned is important to provide hooks for the content development of the encyclopedia in coming years.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ralph Flanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005223330/http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/evf/rflandersmccarthy.html to http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/evf/rflandersmccarthy.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ralph Flanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804122410/http://www.jsc.edu/NewsAndEvents/NewsArchive/2007-2008NewsArchive/LeahyCommencementAddress.aspx to http://www.jsc.edu/NewsAndEvents/NewsArchive/2007-2008NewsArchive/LeahyCommencementAddress.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)