Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 4

message: Article is very biased against Joseph McCarthy, and per the FAC, I wanted to say that the lead should be rewritten, and soon I'm going to put up a NPOV tag. :) Judgesurreal777 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article is biased, why not make specific comments and suggestions (preferably not just rehashing arguments that have been gone over before--see the Discussion archives). FWIW, there are others who have voiced the opinion that this article is very biased in favor of McCarthy. It's a controversial subject, and one in which true neutrality is difficult to define. KarlBunker 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think if you've got people from both sides saying it's possibly biased, then you've done a pretty good job of splitting the difference.  I know I've looked at material in the entry and thought about changing some of it, and then decided not to, even though I may not have cared for it myself.  When you get to that point, then you've probably about as close as you can get to a NPOV on a subject this controversial, I think. BTW, I think the Judge may be pullin' your leg, too. :-) --Dh100 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that bias is one of the reasons this article is failing Feature Article candidacy, it is not difficult to argue. The lead of this article is biased against McCarthy, as I stated in the FAC, and the article needs to mention important information like McCarthy's popularity. Judgesurreal777 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that the article is not FA quality, and something on McCarthy's popularity would be a good addition. As for bias, it is my opinion that the lead of the article is appropriate. Most of the world is "biased" against McCarthy. It's important that the article not jump on the bandwagon and become part of the jeering crowd, but also not to cover up the fact that the man was someone whose name has become an epithet. Furthermore, there are facts involved--it's not purely a case of "some people feel this way and other people feel that way." By any rational standard, McCarthy's accusations and methods were, at best, "freewheeling." KarlBunker 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Adolf Hitler is far less biased than this one. People dislike Joe McCarthy, but it is not NPOV to parrot left wing bias against him, witch hunts and all that...perhaps I will try to rewrite the intro. :) Judgesurreal777 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: is there any reason why it shouldn't be noted that the 'list 57 communists' in McCarthy's hand on his feb 9th 1950 speech was actually a laundry list (a receipt i suppose)? is this a rumor? i seem to remember my 7th grade history teacher saying he used to wave that thing around all the time, keeping it and a bottle of bourbon solely in his briefcase. but that was 10 years ago since 7th grade. can anyone confirm this 'laundry list' fact? JoeSmack Talk 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a real rumor, as shown here, though the best book-citation available online is from a book called Hatemongers and Demagogues, the title of which might lead some to suspect a teensy bit of bias on the author's part.  :-)  KarlBunker 10:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the list" 

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

message: As no effort has been made to address bias issues, I have no choice but to label the article as it is, biased. Judgesurreal777 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A great deal of effort has been made to make and keep this article as neutral as possible. "Neutral" is not synonymous with "in agreement with your politics" however. Point out specific complaints, please. KarlBunker 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I added some additional books and articles that will help the reader find more information on this subject and related subjects. Frankly, this entire article needs to be re-done to remove what I call "Left-Wing Folk-Lore", made-up and malicious stories about Senator McCarthy. I have spent considerable time today on this article and we all have to come back and clean up anything that can not be sourced by a scholarly reference.←--Jtpaladin 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, needless to say, right wing folklore stories too, and some of them come from come from scholarly sources; as you demonstrated with your edits. KarlBunker 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Karl, that's called, "proof". I provided evidence that can't be disputed but instead is removed by people who can't address the facts. --Jtpaladin 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know that I'd describe anything coming from the "New American" as a "scholarly source." --Dh100 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dh100, be as critical of the "New American" as you like but at least have the ability to argue the facts not spew personal hatred. --Jtpaladin 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me put it another way: the materials that come out of 'The New American' have zero scholarly standing.  ZERO.  That particular journal serves primarily as the mouthpiece of the John Birch Society and its political OPINIONS.  If you find that to be 'hatred,' I'd say that OPINION exists only between your ears.  When you can point out when even more right leaning, genuinely scholarly outfits like the Hoover Institute take 'The New American' seriously, then you will cease to be sans point.  Until then, however, I suggest you learn the difference between 'hate' and disdain based on a consideration of their merits (or rather, lack thereof).  Furthermore, it's a little difficult to have 'personal hatred' for a magazine.  My advice to you in this regard is simple: get a grip. --Dh100 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further books, articles, and sources 

message: Again, I have no wish to fight over this, so I suggest we attempt to find some kind of compromise, and improve the article together. I wish to improve this article, and make it neutral, that is my only concern; not being right, or insulting you. If I am passionate, it is because I have tried to give suggests that appear to have been ignored. 
Why not start fresh.
:I'm assuming the above was again written by judgesurreal sans signature.  There isn't a need for 'a fresh start,' which I take to mean a complete rewrite of the entry.  If you give substantive suggestions, that address the factual content of the entry, and don't make ideologically driven assertions, or assertions about the content that reveal more of a 'reading between the lines' than an actual reading of the content, then I'm certain things will be looked at. --Dh100 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: improving the article

message: I know there are people here who hate Senator McCarthy to the degree that they are willing to lie and remove factually accurate information and articles that support him. All I asked is that if someone is going to remove all the evidence that I provided, that it be shown that the info is not correct. So what do I find? The same old undocumented, non-footnoted "Evidence" section is reposted. Why is unscholarly info being allowed to be posted? Why are articles and books listed that are positive towards Senator McCarthy removed? What are some of you doing to historical facts? You come here and remove provable facts and real articles and books and then post info that is not even documented? Why was the book by William F. Buckley, "McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning" removed? What is wrong with some of you? Unless I am prohibited by an Administrator, I plan to re-add all FACTUAL and DOCUMENTED information and remove info that is not factual or at least given some basis in footnotes. So, whoever is posting that "folk-lore" in the "Evidence" section, please post a source for that comment or barring an Administrator telling me not to do so, I will delete that info and re-post the evidence that is provable. In other words, if you're going to post lies, at least have the courtesy to post the name of the liar who told you that lie. --Jtpaladin 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All else aside, if you're going to use the word "folklore", please learn how to spell it. Thanks. KarlBunker 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, you have an amazing ability to focus on the irrelevant and ignore the main issue. I'm less concerned about exact spelling here than on the article itself. You should be more concerned about the fact that unsupported anti-McCarthy stuff is being posted and references to articles and books that are of scholarly content, i.e. William F. Buckley's book, are being removed. --Jtpaladin 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Unsupported anti-McCarthy stuff'?  Then I have a very simple challenge for you: identify it and clearly state what's wrong with it.  I'll warn you now that tinfoil hattery about the insidious 'liberal bias' doesn't make the grade for this task, either. --Dh100 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing: STOP fixating about wanting things 'that are positive towards McCarthy' added.  The idea is for the entry to be as factual and NPOV as possible.  The fact that you feel a need to add 'positive' things about him speaks volumes about your actual motivation.  Either things are factual, historically supportable, and not from sources with an axe to grind or they aren't.  If you feel a need to read and write 'positive' things about the subject of this or any other entry, well, that's what blogs are for. --Dh100 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not posting any opinion. I am posting pure FACT. I have posted the info, given citation, and then returned to find it removed. I even posted William F. Buckley's book as a source, and that source was removed from the listing of books about Senator McCarthy. Why? Obviously because there are people here that do not want FACTS posted, even source material from well qualified authors. By the way, I spoke to Mr. Drummey about his article, specifically about the evidence, and everything he wrote came right out of the Congressional Record and sources like Buckley's book. I took the time to actually contact one of the authors of the sources listed here because I'm interested in getting as much fact into this article as possible. I would think that this would be your goal as well. Lastly, where is the citation for the silly little story in the "Evidence" section? All the evidence I provided, which was cited, was removed and that silly little story was left there. Can you explain? --Jtpaladin 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence & article links removed? 

message: As I find all too common in Wikipedia articles, this has a slant favoring the opponents of conservatives. McCarthy's accusations were the furthest thing from baseless. When VENONA was declassified in the 1990's, it clearly proved the vast majority, if not nearly all of his accusations correct to a certain extent. For more information read Slander or Treason, both by Ann Coulter. I find this a much more reliable report than that of mainstream journalism because her research has been proven almost always impeccable. Deepdesertfreman
*Does anyone have a copy of  Treason? We should use her sources and start adding information to this article, it is in great need of it Judgesurreal777 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief.  Again, reality doesn't have a 'bias.'  And if Coulter's book was worth two hoots in hell, it would be used as a primary source in actual scholarly settings.  As it is, I seriously doubt they use it as one even in more conservative scholarly organizations.  That you folks continually whine about this ideologically and keep reaching towards ideological sources, this time in a blatant effort to simply graft them onto the entry, makes plain your agenda.  And I'll warn you now, I have ZERO patience for this sort of crap, and I don't care if it comes from you or a bunch of people wanting to graft on 'McCarthy is the great satan' junk from the pages of the Worker's Daily. --Dh100 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, judgesurreal, my days of 'cooperation' with you are at an end.  Now that a compatible ideological playmate has show up, you've fully revealed your true motivations.  As it was, despite your bluster and endless complaints, once they were addressed one by one you were left with next to nothing of substance when they were examined critically.  If you have further complaints, I suggest you address them substantively UP FRONT, rather than endless rounds of appeals to ideology and tinfoil hattery, after which you have to fold because there was nothing behind them to begin with.  I've come to believe that you're like most ideologues, and you're simply looking to have people waste time on pettiness.  If you honestly belive this entry is so 'biased' it requires arbitration, have at it; I am extremely confident as to what the outcome will be.  In the meantime, with your new playmate, you can run off and consider ideological material from Hitler, Stalin, William Jennings Bryan or William Tell, but you will NOT be posting baloney here.  If you want to get into ideology peddling, the two of you can start a blog, which is where such advocacy belongs. --Dh100 15:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny Dh100, Using using Coulters sources, not the book itself, is perfectly fine, she is well known for her extensive research. And second, you need to START cooperating, since you have yet to add that sentence we discussed to help fix the lead. Judgesurreal777 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is well known for partisan hackery.  Again, I'm not aware of her 'extensively researched' materials being used anywhere as a genuine text is scholarly settings.  Mentioning using a book of hers like some sort of Rosetta Stone of research on the subject is preposterous.  And which 'sentence' are you referring to?  The last changes that were discussed and AGREED TO being made were indeed made, to wit: the word "freewheeling" had quotes placed around it, and the word "paranoid" in reference to the red scare period was removed.  Outside of that, you are again, as usual, sans point. --Dh100 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing; given the sorts of subjects you and 'desertfremen' have the bulk of your experience editing in the past, I can understand your itch to remake something more substantive to suit yourselves.  However, the jump from scads of entries on the world of video games and fantasy books to one on one of the most incendiary figures of 20th century politics is a bit much, and when arriving there demanding those changes be made to meet your 'standards' is likewise especially rich, even given your chronological inexperience in life.  A good place to start might be some requisite experience and intellectual rigor, rather than slavishly following a partisan source. --Dh100 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed that another sentence would be added citing his censor by the senate. Judgesurreal777 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is CENSURE.  Why it needs to be added to the intro escapes me.  The intro currently is as intros are supposed to be, namely brief, succinct, and to the point.  We have briefly discussed it with no good reason put forth as to why it's needed when the entire matter is discussed at length deeper in the entry. --Dh100 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a critical aspect of his political career, and the lead needs to be made more comprehensive as we have discussed above. Judgesurreal777 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, guy... leads aren't supposed to strive for comprehensiveness.  That's why they're LEADS.  Otherwise the lead winds up being the entire entry unto itself.  This is very simple stuff, and works the same whether you're talking about journalism on the high school paper or all the way up to entries in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.  BTW, it's your assertion that the lead needs 'comprehensiveness.'  You can discuss that until you're blue in the face and it still doesn't mean it really needs it. --Dh100 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leads need to cover the major relevant topics of the article, and that is a major part of his biography, and the article becomes unbalanced with an incomplete lead. Judgesurreal777 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dh100, please watch your personal attacks. I don't comments on other editors experience or age are useful. Remember, WP:AGF. Nloth 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dh100, AGAIN, the word is "CONDEMNED" not "CENSURED". Stop putting inaccurate information on this page. --Jtpaladin 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an odd thing to make a big deal out of, since "condemned" obviously sounds a lot worse than "censured," even if it is technically less of a punishment within the obscure lexicon of the Senate. And in fact, scholars do not universally agree that it's a "lesser" form of punishment.
I've removed the NPOV tag as the list of issues seems to have been mostly resolved. Please consider using NPOV or WW on sections rather than the whole article if there are specific sections that need changes Nloth 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Slant 

message: User:KarlBunker seems adverse to this paragraph:
Three days after the committee dismissed McCarthy's claims, the FBI arrested Julius Rosenberg on charges of espionage for assisting the Soviet Union in obtaining information from the Manhattan Project to develop an atomic weapon. Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared all the personnel, but within one year the State Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy's list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.
204.56.7.1 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am, and I left an edit summary explaining why: I believe it's irrelevant to the section. The mention of Rosenberg is unequivocally irrelevant (he didn't work for the State Department, and he certainly wasn't on McCarthy's list). The rest of the paragraph is an argumentative attempt to suggest that McC was "right," and it does this by innuendo rather than clearly connected facts. The meaning of "instigated proceedings" is unclear, and saying that 81 had left their jobs "by dismissal or resignation" says nothing clear or specific about anything.--KarlBunker 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, you are adverse to anything remotely stating that there were communists found in the government of the U.S. Why is that? Do you know why Venona and the Rosenberg's are important to the article? Because there are many Americans who are under the impression that there were NO communists or security risks in govt. at the time Senator McCarthy was making his case. I have the facts that show that such security risks existed and Venona is part of my source. The point about that info you don't like is that even though the highly biased Tydings Committee cleared all the personnel, the State Dept. did its own investigation and found that they had security risks on their hands. That is relevant. Can you understand that? --Jtpaladin 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tydings subcommittee

message: I've remove the following paragraph:
:In his book Joseph McCarthy, Arthur Herman asserts that McCarthy correctly identified: Owen Lattimore,  Edward Posniak, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, (the second-highest official in the Treasury Department), Mary Jane Keeney, Gustavo Duran, and John Carter Vincent.
The problem with it is that it doesn't distinguish between people who were simply mentioned by McCarthy as possibly disloyal or security risks, but whom had already been identified as such by other investigators, and those whom McCarthy identified through his own efforts and sources. For example, it was pretty easy for McCarthy to name Alger Hiss as a security risk after Hiss had been accused of being a communist by Whittaker Chambers, investigated by HUAC, and brought to trial for espionage (and acquitted, in his first trial). McCarthy can hardly be given credit for "correctly identifying" someone in a case like that. If someone can separate out those who fall into the two categories, we can put the paragraph back. KarlBunker 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now have a copy of Herman's book. The list, which doesn't include all the names shown above, comes from a quote by J.B. Mathews (author of "Reds and Our Churches", see the article), not Herman himself. Herman does not give an explicit opinion on Mathews' list, but doesn't point out the errors in it either. Some of the people named have never been shown to be remotely Communist or pro-communist, and the degree to which McCarthy could take credit for "revealing" some of the others is more than a little questionable. Hiss isn't included, but Owen Lattimore, a long-standing target of the conservative "China Lobby" when McCarthy came along, is. KarlBunker 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Herman book 

message: Mantion -- 2 things: 
#I'm starting a new section just to make this easier to keep track of and edit.
#Your last comment was too long and I'm not going to read it. Please try again; I'm sure if you just choose one or two points you want to make, and stick to those one or two points without repeating yourself or using elaborate analogies you can make your comment much briefer and undoubtedly clearer and more compelling too. Thanks. 
KarlBunker 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine you don't need to read it, The point is simple, the lead is not proper, I systematically explained why.  Would you like to dispute the lead line by line? I don't.
Mantion 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality, continued