Talk:McCarthyism/Archive 1

message: *The first irony is McCarthy went on a crusade against leaks of government information when it appears his knowledge of 205 known Communists came itself from a partial leak of classified information. Another irony is that while innocent persons may have been "persecuted", many of the truely guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".
I think we should avoid drawing our own conclusions about McCarthyism. If these are true, maybe it would be better to include them in the relevant places in the article, and let readers spot the irony on their own. Do we doubt some people we persecuted by McCarthy? If not, we shouldn't use that term in quotes. Also, are we sure that guilty people went free due to an overreaction against McCarthyism? That seems like a surmise that would be difficult to prove. -Willmcw 00:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, it's an attempt to put the past 50 years in perspective in lite of Venona, cause the true significance of Venona itself I don't think is clearly understood.  It does not necessarily "vindicate" McCarthy, it is certainly does not vindicate many of the high level accused.  To a limited extent, Venona does vindicate the Truman administration regarding McCarthy's (and the other accusers) charges that it knowingly persisted in allowing Soviet espionage agents to occupy positions like the head of the International Monetary Fund.  While by rights Truman should have known that allegations appearing in FBI memorandum where factual, yes, it's true he had cause to be suspicious of J. Edgar.  But the material did not originate with J. Edgar, it was filtered through him to conceal the work being done on decryption within the Army.  McCarthy did in fact realize at somepoint, that is wasn't the FBI engaged in a "cover up" to conceal Communists, that the Army was hiding something.  Now we have a much clearer picture of the whole affair, and the big disappointment is, it doesn't really feed rabid partisans on either side. Nobs01 00:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ironies

message: In response to inquiry:
:Is it not true that the statements by Mr. Welch were made during the Army-McCarthy hearings and not during any hearings held by Sen. McCarthy
That is correct.  McCarthy did not Chair the Army-McCarthy Hearings. pg. 8 nobs 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Army-McCarthy

message: *While innocent persons may have been persecuted, some who may have been 'guilty' walked away free under the cloak of being McCarthy victims.
Which people walked away free under the cloak of being McCarthy victims? It'd be better if we named them. Otherwise this sentence shold probably be removed. -Willmcw 19:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:It may be a process of subtracting names from this list,  (by no means complete) from this list,  on a case by case basis, with a fair, close attention to detail (there are "unwitting" agents who were assigned code names). As you once said, Wikipedia is a work in progress.  nobs 20:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloak 

message: Would someone educated in the history of the US please tell me if it would be adequate do call the McCarthyism era a fascist-like period in the US?LtDoc 03:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A partisan McCarthy-hater would say yes; it should be noted, Senator McCarthy was only 1 Senator of 100 in half of the Legislative branch which is only 1/3 of the government, hence his power was limited, and I don't beleive anybody was arrested, sent to a gulag, labor camp or exterminated, as was the case under both fascism and communism.  So in that sense, no, the McCarthy era was not akin to an American fascist era.  However, since the release of the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy report in 1997, and other recent releases of classified government documents from 50 years ago, we discover much of American history dating back to at least the 1930's needs a thorough revision, including the subject of Joseph McCarthy, because as it turns out, his basic charges were in fact partially true.  McCarthy just took it upon himself to do the job  the FBI should have done, but he probably did so because he may have suspected  the FBI was infested with Communists and was only covering up, too.  Truthfully, there are much, much larger issues that must be reassesed than Joseph McCarthy in light of the new evidence. nobs 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some help 

message: The Note on the page is not properly referenced or sourced to the text and needs to be done so.  It may be regarded as extraneous at this point if it is not properly cited and clarified as to relevency. nobs 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: :Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito is included in the list. He was, however, born in 1950. It comes to something when people are naming infants to appease the McCarthyites. Seriously though, has the wrong Samuel Alito been listed, a completely erroneous entry made or did McCarthyism last longer than I thought?
:: I think this is a right-wing attempt at humor, alluding to the fact that Democrats had the temerity to actually ask questions of Alito during his confirmation hearings, so that makes him a "victim of McCarthyism." Quite the rip-roaring, knee-slapping joke once you get  it, ain't it? KarlBunker 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Samuel Alito Blacklisted

message: Perhaps laying out some basic ideas will help gain some understanding of the magnitude of the problem.  Let's begin with the difference between CPUSA membership and espionage.  Also, persons employed in government and government contractors vs private citizens.  Also wartime activities vs pre-War & post-War activities.
Membership in CPUSA was never legal among government employees, or employees of government contractors, pre-War, wartime, and post-War.  However, membership does not imply espionage, unless a person had some knowledge of it without being actually involved.
The extent of Soviet espionage in the United States, and CPUSA secret apparatus assistance, spans a timeframe of at least 27 years (1921 - 1948).  The number of persons involved over that timespan was somewhere between 800 and 1200.  The number of known cases of Americans who had some sort of covert laiasons with Soviet intelligence is 523.  The number of Americans identified, as of 2005, who engaged in espionage activity on behalf of the Soviet Union, is ~ 311.
Now, the various Congressional and Executive branch investigations of the 1940s and 1950s present a host of problems.  While membership in the CPUSA does not constitute espionage, it does not absolve a person employed in government or employed by a government contractor.  In fact, they are to a limited extent complicit, in that often times the purpose of their involvement in various Communist front organizations was simply to confuse counterintelligence investigators and consume resources, to aid & assist those actively involved in espionage by confusing the trail for investigators.  Too often, the various investigative bodies focused too much on membership, and those involved in espionage escaped detection.  This is a testament to the effectiveness of Soviet, and Communist subversion; that they were able to send counterintelligence investigators spinning in circles.
These are some basic points to consider, by no means all. I invite criticism & refutations, which I'm sure will happen.  But if we can agree upon a method of approach, then deal with each claimant to "victimhood" or "persecution" on a case by case basis, it may be time saving for all interested parties.  Thank you.  nobs 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted for the record: As excised from above, User nobs wrote, "...(though he probably did go berserk in the end). So in some limited way, Joseph McCarthy's name will be partially rehabilitated". nobs 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parameters of discussion

message: The user nobs writes: It would be a shame to spend too much time on repeating these lies only to have it all deleted as the documention emerges, which it will.  
Even though the user doesn't have sufficient information at present to exonerate McCarthy, he is cocksure that such information will emerge. While his/her enthusiasm is understandable to a certain extent, the user doesn't stop there. In his/her attempt to white wash McCarthy, the user maligns through convoluted arguments, in true McCarthyite fashion I would say, every individual associated with not only CPUSA but even its frontal organizations! Have a look at the user's words:
In fact, they are to a limited extent complicit, in that often times the purpose of their involvement in various Communist front organizations was simply to confuse counterintelligence investigators and consume resources, to aid & assist those actively involved in espionage by confusing the trail for investigators
What evidence the user has to claim that the very purpose (often times!) of people joining these groups was to confuse investigators and actively assist those involved in espionage? Nothing. But it will emerge! 
No doubt, McCarthy's name should be cleared if he were not guilty. But as things stand today, historical evidence is heavily loaded against him, inspite of nobs.  MANOJTV 07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted for the record: As excised from above, User nobs wrote, "...(though he probably did go berserk in the end). So in some limited way, Joseph McCarthy's name will be partially rehabilitated". nobs 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Informed judgement or Gut feeling?

message: The political cartoon on the page was so NPOV, it was disgusting. Portraying McCarthy or "McCarthyism" in a bad light is not only POV, its also wrong.  Its strange how nobody ever points out that mccarthy was trying to (and did) do a GOOD thing for america. Nobody points out that the people he suspected turned out to ACTUALLY BE SOVIET SPIES. nobody points out that mccarthy didnt want to go public with his info, that he was virtually forced to. Nobody points out these things.
If your gonna put a picture in an article, make sure it objectivly relates to the article. That one didnt, and now its gone.
--NightDragon 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthy the person and McCarthyism the term are two different things. "McCarthyism" does not refer to prosecuting spies, it refers to using innuendo and associations to perscute people. -Willmcw 19:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV image 

message: This article is now 25% fiction.  So if we take the 37.5% POV, 37.5% NPOV, and 25% fictional allussions of McCarthyism, the neutral reader knowing nothing of its background, can clearly see it for what it is.  nobs 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There;s one paragraph on The Crucible, is that what you are calling fiction? -Willmcw 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, the Crucible bidniss makes the article now  ~62.5% fiction & POV; so depending on your POV, when a neutral reader sees it, they're gonna wonder why the distinct lack of facts, and the overreliance on make believe to make a point.  nobs 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthyism is a political and cultural phenomenon, so inclusion of literary commentary on it is justified and possibly more important than the scholarly articles that no one reads. -Willmcw 03:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine with me—I'm not protesting.  I just think having to rely on the world of invented facts vs real world facts doesn't do anything to further whatever ideas are trying to be presented.  Just a personal view.  Cheers.  nobs 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique

message: An anonymous user 65.25.223.175 has made a series of edits to the Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism articles. I showed up at some point in the middle just to read the articles, fixed a couple of  spelling mistakes, and then noticed that I "interrupted" this user. I had a look at the edits and there are a lot of spelling mistakes and some statements that do not seem to be from a NPOV. There are probably people more qualified and knowledgeable than me on this topic, so when this user has finished his/her edits, perhaps someone can have a look at them and either just fix the spelling, or decide whether there needs to be discussion about POV. Thanks! --Craig (t|c) 10:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Alerts 

message: Reverted Anon and placed here,
:These people were questioned in The House of Un-American Activities Commitee.  People were jailed or lost their jobs if they did not answer questions, admit to being a communist, or turn others in for being involved with communism.  People who turned others in were let free.
Sourcing is required that any name on the list (or for that matter anyone else) was "jailed", etc.  Also, note: the above reference is to the pre-McCarthy HUAC, and not to either Joseph McCarthy and/or the PSI.  nobs 02:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jail

message: I removed some irrelevant information from "contemporary use of the term." NotSuper 19:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You blanked that Ann Coulter wrote extensivly on this topic; hardly irrelevant. Please don't start adding PoV to this article. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let me say first that I am not generally a fan of Ann Coulter--she is much too contentious for me--but a good proportion of the times I've heard the word McCarthyism in the last two years has been when someone is referencing Ann Coulter's book.  She wrote (and I read it) on modern day McCarthyism, anti-conservative conspiracies since day one, and how liberals always want to play down real threats (my high school history class showed McCarthy as a sinister buffoon, and never mentioned the number of real communists/socialists/whatever-this-week's-word-is-for-it running things, then and perhaps now.) And she's one of the few who wrote from a non-historiographical yet post-Venona paradigm.  Mrcolj 00:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In this case, she is working less like a pundit. Just because she uses a inflammitory stype on articles and speaking, doesn't mean books by her can be dismissed out of hand. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 02:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary use of the term

message: I don't really have any comment on whether the material that Pokey5945 copied from the Churchill article to this one is really useful here.  I think it might indeed be a good example of some recent events, but it probably needs some more context here and backlinking.  But unfortunately, the abovementioned editor really seems to have put it here as a ploy to impose a "no dissent, all anti-Churchill" agenda over on the Ward Churchill article.  He's been very active with putting in largely POV material there, and recently deleted the same material he put here, in an effort to prevent the Churchill article from containing any material that puts Churchill's reception in context, or that might be seen as not anti-Churchill enough.
Anyway... if I can tempt any editors of this page over to that one, I would really welcome the help over there.  It attracts a lot of POV warriors, as you might expect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ward Churchill]] affair 

message: direct sources are needed for nearly all information in the Soviet Archives section.  ASN 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources needed - Soviet Archives 

message: This article needs to make clear exactly which of McCarthy's accusations were true and which were not ... --Nerd42 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. PhatJew 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent that we know exactly what his accusations were (some were vague), and whether they were demonstrably true of false, yes. However that information might be better included in the article on McCarthy. "McCarthyism" goes well beyond the man or his allegations. -Will Beback 08:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not very good 

message: McCarthyism wasn't only internal US problem and this Wikipedia isn't an internal US text. I have presented the point of view of many in Eastern Europe:
"From the viewpoint of many people living under Soviet regime the main problem of McCarthyism was that it was ineffective. Soviet spies and sympathizers in the United States acted against victims of Soviet oppressions, slandered them, helped to finance the crimes and wars e.g. by transfering technologies. Several anti-McCarthy movies have been produced. I don't know any one showing crimes of the evil system the US Communists supported - Collectivisation, Holodomor, forced deportations, mass executions."
This text was removed as "silly". What is silly - millions of Soviet victims? US politicians supporting Katyn lies? Walter Duranty's prize?
Xx236 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My silly comments 

message: "McCarthy began with a half truth, that a large foreign espionage ring existed within the government and the Truman administration was doing nothing about it; the other half truth was that the Truman administration was doing nothing about it because it did not know of the existence of the Venona project." This makes no sense to me. Someone please revise this sentence so people can tell what it means. TheTruth12 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack. That paragraph was utter garbage; thanks for pointing it out. I've rewritten it to focus on the speech that began McCarthy's involvement with anti-communism. KarlBunker 10:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  half-truth 

message: The "Tensions of the times" section seems a bit long at 360 words. Do we need that much detail about the Cold War? -Will Beback 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tensions of the times 

message: What makes this page so inviting for vandals?  I mean, I can understand fuck, poop, and other such words, but McCarthyism!? PrometheusX303 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression from some vandalism of articles like this one that the subject has been assigned as a research topic to high schoolers. They do their reading, and then take some revenge (for having to do actual, you know, work) on the article by vandalizing it. KarlBunker 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious