Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 5

message: This is a baseless, uncited and highly unlikely opinion.  Regardless if a historian could be found to say this, he could only be speculating on the personal motivation of Joseph McCarthy.  Those that know him best, who worked with him might know is personal movations, but even then it would be only opinion.Mantion 08:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not baseless, and rather  than being unlikely, it's an obvious fact it you look at the body of current literature on McCarthy. The fact that it's a speculation on McCarthy's motivations was specifically stated, so that's not a criticism. However, it was uncited, so I accept your removal of it. KarlBunker 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the opinion of most historians [etc.]" 

message: I know he blacklisted individuals other than celebraties..  Does anyone have a copy of McCarthy's blacklist?--Vercalos 01:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  You know Joseph McCarthy and his committee blacklisted people?  Are you confusing Joseph McCarthy with HUAC?  Joseph McCarthy did question authors who worked for and wrote for government agencies, but I don’t recall ever reading he “blacklisted” people.  I could be wrong, if you find that list make sure you tell me about it ok?Mantion 08:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, I do not believe even HUAC blacklisted anyone. People who were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers by HUAC and, possibly, McCarthy were blacklisted by various entitites. Any reports of blacklisting resulting from McCarthy's actions would, of course, have to be properly supported by reliable sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know that my grandmother was liberal enough to be put on McCarthy's blacklist without being an actor..--Vercalos 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what particular privilege, service, or mobility was denied to your grandmother by McCarthy? McCarthy was not in a position to actually deny much to most people. Other entities may have blacklisted people that McCarthy named, but that is not the same as saying he blacklisted them. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a discussion of blacklisting, see McCarthyism. KarlBunker 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthy never Blacklisted anyone. He had no power to do something like that. That is an utter lie perpetrated by the Communist Party U.S.A. Anyone that is still falling for that nonsense is living in the revisionist nonsense of the crackpots who lie about what McCarthy did and did not do. Jtpaladin 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy's Blacklist 

message: I came here to review the article and reluctantly decided not to pass it.  Although it's comprehensive and well referenced, the continuing controversy section presents only one side of the controversy it describes. Durova 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the other sides view of McCarthy is the WHOLE REST OF THE ARTICLE :)The other side, that McCarthy was wrong about Communists, is the prevailing view. Judgesurreal777 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even apart from Judgesurreal777's comment, I don't see how this criticism applies. The continuing controversy section very clearly presents an opinion held by some authors, and mentions problems with a part of the basis for that opinion. Not knowing your politics Durova, I honestly don't know which "side of the controversy" you think is presented and which side you think isn't. Perhaps you could clarify. KarlBunker 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well thank you for your comments, and I would suggest that everyone proceed with caution if this overall sense is written, since the point of the section was to express an opposing view, not be commented on to show how they are false by those who disagree. :) Judgesurreal777 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks from me also for your comments. I didn't mean to suggest that your politics were relevant; I was only saying that they would have given me a clue as to which side of the argument you thought was missing. Your clarification answers that question, and I think you have a good point. Currently there are some facts noted in the section that are partial rebuttals of the opinions stated, but some opposing opinions might be good too. Also, I don't think Judgesurreal777 was saying the rest of the article violates WP:NPOV; he's only pointing out that the "anti-McCarthy view" that is the prevaling opinion of society at large is reflected in the article. KarlBunker 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying Karl :) Judgesurreal777 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am shocked someone would consider this an article let alone a good one.  I it poorly organized, generally lacking reliable sources, has a specific agenda to attack McCarthy and his work as he was attacked in his day.  Though it allows views common of the time in support of McCarthy, it quickly attacks them and dismisses them.  The article has no basis in history, and does not reflect the man.  It starts off attacking his work and continues through out the article.  Someone reading this article would think McCarthy was hated in his day and thought to be a evil and ineffective politician.  The entire article needs to be re-written from a NPOV with out an agenda and it should contain.  It is ok to site his critics and their views but it should not be the point of the article.  The article should only contain relevant information, which are of little dispute.  Constantly citing Books and Newspapers who had an agenda is not a way to teach, learn or understand history.Mantion 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article candidacy 

message: The term "right-wing" or "controversial" should not be needed.  Should we go through and describe authors who attacked McCarthy as "left-wing" or "controversial"?Mantion 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. The right wing authors in question are so extreme that it may be deceptive and POV to leave out any characterization of their position on the spectrum. I'd be curious what other people think about this. KarlBunker 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine going through and labeling all the authors, reporters and politicians who attacked McCarthy as "left-wing" or "controversial" as most of them were or are exactly that.  I would prefer it actually.  It would be nice for people to know the nature of all the people who attacked McCarthy in his day and today.Mantion 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author Label 

message: I would like to review this article, but at this stage there has been too many recent changes and the article would not pass based on the stability criterion. However, I see a lot of work has been done and it is approaching stability. I recommend that you self-remove the nomination right now and finish the current set of work. Then when you renominate, please leave a message on my talk page and I will review it right away.
By the way, in order to avoid the anonymous vandalism, you may want to consider semi-protection. That way more productive work can go along without worrying about all those reverts. RelHistBuff 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judgesurreal777, since you made that nomination, I'll leave it to you to remove it if you want to. KarlBunker 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I guess we'll put if off, shame though since its getting so good, despite what some people are saying. Judgesurreal777 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing changed on this ever again, are you seriously thinking it could be a good article?  It is just a bunch of liberal dominated ideas attacking a man for no reason.  It would be like letting Ann Coulter, New Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and every concervative writing the article on Bill Clinton?  I mean isn't it clear by now that McCarthy wasn't hated or feared in his day as all the liberals make him out to be.  Come on people lets look at history as it really happened, not just in the very one sided views of the liberal controlled newspapers and ultra liberal publishers.  No reasonable person could say this is a good article.  I will be changing the lead as I said I would a number of times with out objection.Mantion 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mantion, by "history as it really happened", you mean "history as you would like it portrayed". Unfortunately for you, no historian or biographer, with the exception of Ann Coulter and some and ultra-right-wing bloggers, has written anything like the "history" you would like to see. And since Wikipedia relies on the existing work of outside authors for its facts, and Coulter and blogs are not valid sources, you will not be able to rewrite the article to suit your POV and still have it be correctly referenced. KarlBunker 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Mantion, your comments on this article are endlessly, endlessly, endlessly repetitive. Wouldn't it be easier and less trouble for you if you just copied and pasted your comments of a few days ago? Why do you spend all this time typing out the same few thoughts over and over with slightly different wording? I've already rebutted everything you say here several times before, so I'm not going to do it again. KarlBunker 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your objections never get addressed because virtually no one agrees with them. If you try to make sweeping changes to the article with the type of slant that you're suggesting, every editor for miles around will be jumping on the article to RV it. KarlBunker 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: "During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy gained notoriety for making "freewheeling"[1] accusations of membership in the Communist party or of communist sympathies. These accusations were largely directed towards people in the U.S. government, particularly employees of the State Department, but included many others as well."  
Don't need "During his ten years in senate" Redundant  
"Freewheeling" - Was a term of politically motivated democratic senator, be like saying 'Bush is "incompetent" in the lead to bush article, just because a democratic senator said it doesn't mean it is accurate.  Instead of calling McCarthy names, give actual examples of what he said or did and let the people decide if he was "freewheeling" in his "accusations".
"Accusations" - Investigation is more appropriate, because that is what he gained notoriety for his investigation of Communist in the government.
"Communist sympathies" Not sure this needed, if a person has sympathies with an ideology then aren't you a part of that ideology just to a lesser point?  I mean is there something called a "republican party" and a "of republican Sympathies".  Plus McCarthy wasn't investigating claims about Communist in the government... 
"People in the U.S. Government, particularly employees of the state department....." Kind of long.  McCarthy was investigating Communist in the U.S. or Federal government.. If he found people in the state department that is fine, it wasn't the only place he was looking.  If in his investigations he found other communist in other areas, that is fine, but he gained notoriety for his work, which was focused on Communist in the Government.
"Spy", McCarthy used this term, almost all politicians used this word, spies have been a concern though out history..  Why is it not used.  Wasn’t McCarthy looking for spies or operatives?
"Soviet".. No mention of soviets, Even though there were Soviet operatives or spies in the government and McCarthy work and work of many politicians revolved around this threat.. It was a major concern of the time, people were executed for being soviet operatives... why is it missing..
"Aggressive" most books, newspaper articles, radio and TV broadcasts and other politicians used the term aggressive when referring to McCarthy.  Some people felt his aggressive style was good, many in the media felt his aggressive style was bad.  It is a completely accurate adjective to how McCarthy behaved, it does not pass judgment good or bad.  Lets describe the actions of McCarthy with out bias and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion.
....
the new Paragraph
"McCarthy gained notoriety for aggressively investigating claims of communist and soviet operatives inside the Federal Government"
This is an accurate line, it is to the point, it does not suggest that he was soviets operatives or communist only that there were claims of it and he was investigating it, just like member of the house were doing before McCarthy was a senator.  I did not pass judgment condemning his actions or giving it praise, it is what he did and that not saying it is good or bad.
Because it is only one line it does not need it's own paragraph and I will attach it to the previous paragraph.  
Sorry for the long explanation, I just want people to see the logic and reason behind the change instead of just calling it POV and reverting it. Mantion 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You surprise the heck out of me, Mantion. That edit is far more reasonable and rationally defended than I ever would have expected, based on some of your previous comments. I don't think it gives anything like an accurate picture of how McCarthy is remembered by history, but it has some good points. KarlBunker 09:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead changes 1 

message: Though the content of this article is lacking, I still think it is too long.. To many words are used to say a simple idea.
For example the Lead, why bother putting "During the last seven years of his career in the Senate, McCarthy gained notoriety... I mean I think the last 7 years of his life was ok, becuase it at least tells the reader he died in the thick of it.  To be honest McCarthy gained notoriety in 2 or 3 years of his career in the senate.  The rest of the time he was attacked and called names.  So really as it stand now it is inaccurate and will give the reader a false impression.  I figured 2 terms was ok as well.. I mean FDR was the only 4 term president event though he died a month into his 4th term.  So 2 terms at least told the reader McCarthy served 2 terms in the senate, as many people don'tt know how long a senator is elected for.
SO.. seeing that nothing is gained by "during the last 7 years of his career in the senate...." is both misleading and inaccurate I will remove it to the original form that I wrote.  Please be considerate of those who actually read these articles for information.  They don't need extra words, that are misleading and Inaccurate.  Mantion 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that nothing is gained with this phrase, and that it's misleading and inaccurate, but you don't support those opinions, except to suggest that reducing the article by 10 words is somehow important. It would be more accurate to note that his career was only notable for about 4 of its last 7 years, but I can't think of a way to phrase that without making it hopelessly awkward. Meanwhile, more information is better, even it it costs 10 words. KarlBunker 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, there is a simple alternate wording that's both brief and accurate, which I've inserted: "In the years 1950 through 1954..." I like having the exact date range of the notable portion of McCarthy's career in the introduction, because it's surprisingly brief. McCarthy is often unfairly blamed for the entire historical period known as "McCarthyism," when in fact his role in McCarthyism, while major, wasn't essential or all-important. He's just the person who had the "ism" attached to his name. KarlBunker 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mantion, there's a difference between supporting your opinion and repeating your opinion. All you've done is the latter. In fact, since you're arguing about an edit that saves seven words, any mention of article length is pretty silly in that context. The only thing I see with too many words here are your pointlessly repetitive comments. Writing words like TTTTThis isn't helpful either. If you want people to pay attention to you, try to write like an adult. KarlBunker 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter is better.   

message: User:Rjensen takes objection to the phrase "McCarthy gained notoriety…" I believe that phrasing is correct and neutral.
"Notorious" is defined as "famous for something bad." The definition does not imply that one is universally hated or that the notoriety is fair. Furthermore, the article is written from a current (2006) point of view. By today's standards, there is no question but that McCarthy is "famous for something bad." There is no serious scholar or biographer of McCarthy who would disagree with this characterization. Even those few who defend McCarthy would agree that he is "notorious." For proof, you need look no further than the title of the most defensive McCarthy biography in print: Arthur Herman's "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator." When an opinion is agreed to by every notable scholar in the field, it is not "POV" to reflect that opinion in an article. KarlBunker 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...gained notoriety"

message: I have been discussing the lead for months now.  None of my points had been disputed or even addressed. I have only been personally attacked or said I just repeat myself.  I gave every attempt to allow input, feed back and suggestions.  The Lead was vague not on topic and largly irrelivent.  It set the tone and had an underlining agenda.  I have made these changes for the benifit of the reader, I feel it is fair and accurate.  It is relivant and conveys information about the man.  It is a breif summary of the man and gives the reader a perspective with out bias.
PLEASE DO NOT VANDALISE my contrabution, as it has been in the past.  There is a history of simply destroying ones work with out discussion or reason.  Much of my contrabutions have been flat out deleted even after careful researching and citing the information.  
My work is not final, I don't think it is my best work but it is far better then the ramblings it replaced.  It is on Subject but please help me make it better.  DO NOT JUST DELETE IT karbunker.  This is NOT your article.  I have brought up all my points many times asking for input, you choice only to insult me, that is fine.Mantion 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, what you've changed the intro to is very poorly written, contains uncited opinions, has added POV, and is not particularly unencyclopedic. It isn't far better, it's considerably worse than what it replaced. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the paragraph beginning "McCarthy is one of the most divisive people in recent US history," This opening sentence is incorrect--opinion about McCarthy is quite uniform. The fact that you and a few other right wingers happen to disagree with the opinion of the vast majority doesn't alter that. If you can cite a reliable source that agrees with that statement, I'll agree to including it in some form. If you can even find a right-wing blogger who's said such a thing, I'll be darned impressed. Apart from that, this paragraph simply repeated material that's covered later in the article. If you think the article is too long, repeating information in it doesn't seem like a good way to make it shorter. KarlBunker  im12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KarlBunker seems unaware there is controversy about McCarthy, and that everyone shares his personal judgments. Wrong. (he should read say, National Review) Indeed there is disagreement right here on this page among editors.  Wiki can do without particular POV wording (like "notoriety")  inserted in an important article. Rjensen 14:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, I responded to your edit re. "gained notoriety" above, in the section "...gained notoriety." If you disagree with the points I raise there please respond to them. KarlBunker 14:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraph you added is badly written and consists mostly of repetition of material that's already in the article. If in fact any reputable source ever did refer to McCarthy as "one of the most divisive people in recent US history" that would be interesting and worth adding to the article. If you can provide an actual citation, I'd be happy to put the statement in, with a correctly formatted reference and written in adult English. Meanwhile, you've got me curious, so I'll do some looking for a valid source myself, starting with the one you named. KarlBunker 02:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not Vandalise 

message: Communist in the goverment describes both communist party members and sympathizers.  Mantion 06:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sympathizers  

message: As I stated before and must repeat myself again, leads give a summary of the subject matter.  Almost all the information in the lead will be addressed in more detail later in the article.  example
"George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001. He was re-elected in the 2004 Presidential election and is currently serving his second term. He formerly served as the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. A Republican, he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families, being a son of former president George Bush and elder brother to Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida. Supporters and detractors alike refer to him by the nickname, Dubya, playing on a stereotyped and generalized Southern pronunciation of the letter W. Bush is known as the fifth Methodist president in the United States, in terms of religion.
Bush was an entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas, and owned an oil-drilling company called Arbusto, which means bush in Spanish. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, and after working on his father's presidential campaign, he purchased a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team. In 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas where he worked on education reform, school finance reform, tort reform and sponsored the largest tax cut program in Texas history. He was re-elected as governor of Texas in 1998. Bush won the 2000 presidential election as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest. Although he did not secure a majority of the popular vote, he did win the required number of electoral votes after a very close battle in the state of Florida. As President, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act, and has made efforts to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives, the Palm Sunday Compromise and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global War on Terrorism and ordered the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan which he publicly stated was in order to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda and to capture Osama Bin Laden. In March 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force.[1]. Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Bush committed the U.S. to establishing democracy in the Middle East, and specifically in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the short term.
A self-described "war President",[2] Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority vote in 16 years.[3] Since his re-election, he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals, as well as domestic issues such as federal funding of stem cell research, Hurricane Katrina, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, record budget deficits, the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, and a number of scandals, such as the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal and the Plame CIA leak controversy. According to opinion polling, his popularity has declined."
This is the lead for George W. Bush. Though I think it is long I am not the final say in such things.  But all things mentioned in the lead are repeated in the body of the work.
second example
"John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), also referred to as John F. Kennedy, JFK, John Kennedy, or Jack Kennedy, was the 35th President of the United States. He served from 1961 until his assassination in 1963. A member of the politically prominent Irish-American Kennedy family, he is considered an icon of American liberalism. His leadership during the saga of the ramming of the PT-109 during World War II led to being cited for bravery and heroism in the South Pacific. Kennedy represented Massachusetts during 1947–1960, as both a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He was elected President in 1960 in one of the closest elections in American history. He is the only Roman Catholic so far to serve as President of the United States.
Major events during his presidency included the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, early events of the Vietnam War, and the American Civil Rights Movement.
John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Official investigations later determined Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin, though numerous conspiracy theories exist. His assassination is considered to be a defining moment in U.S. history due to its traumatic impact on the nation as well as on the political history of the ensuing decades, his subsequent branding as an icon for a new generation of Americans and American aspirations, and for the mystery and conspiracy allegations that surround it."
Again almost everything in the lead is covered in the body.
third example
"Adolf Hitler (help·info) (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933, and "Führer" (leader) of Germany from 1934 until his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party.
Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crisis after World War I, using charismatic oratory and propaganda, appealing to economic need of the lower and middle classes, nationalism and anti-Semitism to establish a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship. With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"). He ordered the invasion of Poland, after which England and France declared war on Germany. The conflict came to be known as World War II. At the height of its power, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe, but it and the Axis Powers were eventually defeated by the Allies. By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.
In the final days of the war, Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker in Berlin with his newlywed wife, Eva Braun."
Now I shouldn't have to give examples of these things but Karlbunker seems to think this is his article and it should fit his format and not normal format of Most Wikipedia articles.
Please Discuss changes, especially when destroying other contributors workMantion 06:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: This is the biography article. McCarthyism is used by historians to designate a much broader activity involving many other people besides Joe McCarthy. Using a college dictionary as a major source is discourages by Wiki rules on reliable sources.Rjensen 16:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make two statements here, neither of which supports the edit you made. The first statement is true, and your edit removed the information which noted this fact from the article. The second statement is not true. When a person's name has been made into a word, an obvious--even necessary--source is a definition of that word. And you don't even attempt to justify your removal of the paragraph describing McCarthy's physical attack on Drew Pearson. This is obvious POV-pushing, and "is discourages by Wiki rules." KarlBunker 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not delete the McCarthyism section only moved it toward the end where it belongs.  A college dictionary is inadequate compared to the much more advanced resources (like Safire's New Political Dictionary). Wiki warns against using these tertiary sources. As for the "physical attack" -- get real, this shoving match section was humor maybe?  Rjensen 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As for the "physical attack" -- get real..." If you believe that, you should probably read something about this subject that you mistakenly consider yourself competent to edit. No serious scholar, including McCarthy's strongest defenders, has ever suggested that this attack was anything other than very real and very serious. KarlBunker 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: very serious attacks leave people in the hospital--see the new Huey Long movie! Rjensen 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, if some drunk kneed me in the groin, I'd consider it a pretty serious attack. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthyism is distinct subject 

message: It seems like something about The Crucible should be added.  If I remember correctly, didn't Arthur Miller write it to compare the hearings to the Salem Witch Trials? 75.47.112.82 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered in McCarthyism. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Crucible