Talk:Annie Lee Moss

message: In the section entitled "Case against Moss," several "sources" are presented as supposed historical support for the claim that Moss was a "communist operative."  Two of those supposed sources, "Accuracy in Media" and Ann Coulter, are well known for having political agendas and their neutrality is extremely questionable.  Their neutrality is not questioned because the author of this criticism has political opinions that are different from the other forementioned authors.  It would not matter whether the sources of the purported historical information were politically "conservative" or "liberal" in regard to their respective opinions; the fact is that they are well known for being politically motivated and therefore are not good sources to support claims of objectivity.  Historically, very little evidence was ever discovered that actually impeached Moss, and what was presented was based solely on uncorroborated hearsay (not to mention the fact that she was forced to defend a constitutionally protected activity).  The authenticity of the supposed list of Communist Party members was very much in question and could never be verified by the accusers. To cite persons like Ann Coulter, a person well known for her very extreme political opinions, as supposed historical support only casts more doubt on the veracity of the claims.  If sources are to be alleged, they should adhere as much to the actual historical record as possible without regard to their own personal opinions. Lottamiata 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case against Moss

message: This section reads like it was an argument between two sides. They style is poor and uncyclopedic.
I propose that the for and against Moss be synthesised into one coherent section--Ernstk 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case for Moss

message: I want to thank Lottamiata for his insight with regards as to how one 'proves' or disproves that your not a communist. I entirely agree with his comments that it is up to the accuser to give proof in order to acertain the facts in the case and the witness - in this case Ms. Moss , should have had the ability to cross examine any witnesses the senators brought forth. The problem lies not in the theory but in the practice. The 'control board' seems entirely morally equal with his later example of Noam Chomsky in that - at least according to him. Mr. Chomsky is "well known for his activist opinions". Respect where it is due there is a serious factor in the left/question of what happened to Moss, if one is going to use the example or Chomsky for the supposed left, and thereby brining into doubt the position held by what some call the left. Its equally valid to paint with the sme brush the actions of Mcarthy and all of thier hearing and thier veracity because of Mcarty's activism.
DRCarroll 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proving a negative

message: I think this article is due for a rewrite. The "case for"/"case against" format may have been okay when the article was much shorter, but I think it no longer works. It should probably be replaced with a chronological account of the various accusations, hearings, revelations of evidence, and notable writings about the Moss case. It looks like the Andrea Friedman article may something of a "last word" on the case, so anyone interested in undertaking this rewrite should pony up the $10.00 for that. Don't look at me, though; I'm willing to offer comments, but at the moment I'm not interested in embarking on such a project myself. RedSpruce 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article format

message: I've completely rewritten the article. It now focusses on the aspect of the Moss case that most books that cover the case focus on: the damage it did to Joseph McCarthy. Although this version doesn't spend as much space on the question of Moss's guilt, it covers the evidence quite thoroughly. According to my research, this version presents the likelihood that Moss was in fact a member of the communist party in terms that reflect the opinion currently held by most scholars who have studied the case. RedSpruce (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rewrite

message: Outside view via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts: the moot point here is reference format. I agree with RedSpruce that these verbose references, with article lead sentences, are inappropriate. They'd be fine in a scholarly biographical paper, but they aren't used in comparable general-readership biographical works such as the ODNB (and are in minority usage here on Wikipedia). If the precise text of a quote is crucial, it's important enough to go verbatim in the article; otherwise it's quite sufficient to know where verification can be found. I also agree that lead sentences are especially distracting when they're irrelevant (i.e not verifying the fact referenced). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette alert reply

message: "The highly publicized case was damaging to McCarthy's popularity and influence, although some writers now believe that Moss had in fact been a member of the Communist Party." What exactly are the quotes used by the scholars. I cant find the exact wording used by Coulter.
:As I made clear in the reference you deleted, RAN, this is entirely documented in the "Later evidence against Moss" section. Coulter isn't a valid scholarly source,  and the article can not use her in support of the statement you quote above. Your confusion was caused by looking at the wrong section ("Current views" rather than "Later evidence"). RedSpruce (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not "standardize the format"; you inserted an incorrect reference. The edit you are currently RV-warring over makes no sense whatsoever. Coulter's book is not a valid source for the sentence you quote above. You seem to agree with this yourself in saying that she isn't a "scholar". There is a valid reference for this sentence, and it's the one I added and you are deleting. Referring to the article section is the best way to cover a complex topic. Just using one reference to one source doesn't really work here. But even if it did, you used the wrong source. The best single source would be the Friedman article, but the whole discussion in the "Later evidence" section is much better. Whether or not you've ever "seen this before" isn't really relevant. RedSpruce (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, now that you're in the article's Talk page, please answer the question addressed to you in the section above. RedSpruce (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moss was communist according to current scholars

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Annie Lee Moss. 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/20071103160336/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/94.2/friedman.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/94.2/friedman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified