Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 2

message: This article appears to be truelly a colloborative effort from various viewpoints (if such a thing indeed exists in Wikipedia).  It has not changed substantively in several months, despite all the editing activity.  I propose it be renominated as Feature Article.  nobs 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand fully all of Taxman's objections to the original candidacy...but if you feel they've been addressed or are irrelevant, then have at it.  TomerTALK 22:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to do it.  Maybe somebody with a brain can.  nobs 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel his concerns have been addressed?  (see the previous WP:FAC template on the top of the talk page.)  If so, I'll see what I can do to get it renominated.  If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do to help fix it up to meet or refute his objections.  TomerTALK 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  User:Taxman lists 6 objections, all of which I believe have ben addressed.  "Witch hunts", expand "Venona", expand Truman & Eisenhower, combine some sentences & paragraphs, citations (including information on the The Crucible), and draw on more than online cites.  Basically more NPOV, and given the input by dozens of editors over months from a wide span of outlook, I beleive it represents good NPOV for a Wikipedia article regarding a particularly controversial figure.  It truelly is amazing, that given extensive daily activity in this article, not more than a sentence or two (and not very controversial at that), has changed in over two months.  We should be proud of this colloborative work.  nobs 18:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I'd like to do, or see done, before nominating the article for FA is to write articles, or stubs at the very least, for each of what are now red links.  TomerTALK 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I'm requesting peer review (the appropriate next step to get the article to FA status).  TomerTALK 20:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There.  Peer review requested.  TomerTALK 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: "In addition to being a heavy drinker, Senator McCarthy may have been addicted to morphine. In his 1961 memoir The Murderers, Harry Anslinger, U.S. Commission of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, admitted to regularly supplying morphine to "one of the most influential members of the Congress of the United States." The story strongly suggests that the Senator was Joseph McCarthy. This theory was supported by Anslinger's biographer, John C. McWilliams, in The Protectors."
This line (within the "Fall of McCarthy" section) seems to be hearsay at best, and libel at worst. I realize that it says he "may have been", but since our basis is only on guessing that he is the influential member of Congress mentioned in the quote, that's not much to go on. I suggest this be removed. Courtarro 17:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morphine? 

message: This section is awkwardly written, IMO. It consists largely of a discussion of the actual espionage activity in the US by Soviet agents and sympathizers, but it isn't very well written, nor is it well tied in with either Truman or McCarthy. The name "Elizabeth Bentley" is dropped in with no explanation of who she is other than the link to her Wikipedia article.
The sentence "McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who, unaware of decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing, considered McCarthy 'the best asset the Kremlin has.'" makes the unfounded assumption that if Truman were aware of Bentley's account of Soviet espionage activities, this would have changed his opinion of McCarthy.
:I agree, but there's been quite a bit of conflict over this section and similar material elsewhere; see Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 1, especially the segments on "McCarthy and Truman" and VENONA. If you can come up with more even-handed wording, please give it a try and see if we can get consensus. (btw, please consider getting a login name) ←Hob 07:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "McCarthy and Truman" 

message: I would like to object to the sentance that begins with "Although McCarthy's activities did not result in any convictions or criminal prosecutions for espionage..." I think this is a misleading sentance. McCarthy was never tasked with prosecuting or bringing charges up on anyone, and the Senate couldn't if they wanted to. He aim was simply to expose Communists or other security risks working in the government, and once identified make sure they were fired or at least moved to a non-sensitive area. He also looked into what types of books the State Department libraries were carring overseas (to make sure they weren't helping to spread Commumistic propaganda). The sentance is also a little misleading because it implies that no Communists were ever found working spying, which we all know is not the case.--CReynolds 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone comments, I am going to reword the "Although McCarthy's activities did not result in any convictions or criminal prosecutions for espionage..." line.--CReynolds 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what concrete results did he achieve in that area? Can we quantify how many communists he exposed and had removed from government work? -Will Beback 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You noted earlier that McC. was "never tasked with prosecuting or bringing charges". With the exception of serving on his committee, he was never "tasked" with pursuing communists in any way. He gave himself that task (as he had every right to do). The fact that none of the people he pursued were prosecuted for espionage makes a legitimate statement, IMO, about his lack of effectiveness in this job which he so emphatically and publicly "tasked"  himself with. (Boy this "Talk" page is a mess, huh?) KarlBunker 22:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He was notorious to some people, who perceived his actions a certain way. This perception was widespread. Therefore, it is indeed neutral to report on this perception. He might not be persecuting people for his beliefs, perhaps, butpeople suspected him as so. Oh by the way, yes, people have rights to office if they are elected that way (and can be similarly impeached), as mandated by the constitution. -- Natalinasmpf 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: GMB, I'm still learning about McCarthy, so I can't confirm this, but I'm not certain that he even knew about Venona.  If he did, and was acting on the knowledge in the project without indicating his sources, then the sentance "intercepted Soviet communications from the now-declassified VENONA Project indicate that some of the individuals he pursued did in fact have hidden Communist associations" should probably have more forceful language in it. However, if he didn't know about Venona, and just relied on DoD, FBI, etc sources, then the statement is neutral because it indicates some were actually guilty of spies. Remember, though, that McCarthy wasn't just hunting Soviet spies. He was also looking for any potential security leak, which could cover a wide range of threats (including those with drinking problems, which were previously identified by the DoD).--CReynolds 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What, do you have proof these accusations were unwarranted? Does it even imply they were unwarranted? Furthermore, "accusations" is a neutral, it simply puts uncertainty as to the conviction of the accused. It's always innocent till proven guilty, and therefore, it makes accusations rightly so. Even if there's a huge chunk of evidence it is up to the magistrate or jury to deem it so. Therefore, accusations it should remain. -- Natalinasmpf 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Section

message: The last paragraph in this section, which begins with "McCarthy attempted to engage in the political destruction of his critics,... " doesn't belong. If anything, it should be moved to the 'Senator' section since it is a comment on the McCarthy himself. This section should only discuss the Tydings Committe, it's findings, and the aftereffects of it's findings.
The first part of the last sentence in the last sections, which begins with "McCarthy attempted to engage in the political destruction of his critics,...", is subjective and biased. I suggest it be reworded or removed.--CReynolds 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthy was also prone to physical violence, and assaulted one journalist, Drew Pearson, in a Congressional rest-room. McCarthy admitted the assault, but claimed he only "slapped" Pearson. Pearson said McCarthy "kicked me in the groin. Twice."
It was added by an anon at 69.171.147.156 in this edit on 12-Sep-2005.  That section was just vandalized and as I was about to revert it, it struck me as odd.  It looks a lot like something a POV pusher or vandal would fabricate.  I did a search on Google for the Pearson quote in particular and it only turned up references to Wikipedia itself.  Is it legitimate? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There are numerous corroborations of this attack. According to some, Richard Nixon was a witness. It also appears to be an understatement that McCarthy claimed he only slapped Pearson. There are reports that McCarthy bragged about kicking Pearson. KarlBunker 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'The Tydings Committee' Section

message: I think it's amusing that the bit about McCarthy believing Forrestal was murdered rahter than committed suicide while in the throes of clinical depression keeps reappearing - it makes McCarthy sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. How many serious scholars believe Forrestal was murdered?68.193.148.80 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Anti-Communism' Section

message: "The declassified Venona papers later proved that Peress was in fact running a Soviet Spy ring within the US Army."
Really? I don't see this mentioned in the Venona section or in any other related articles - I suggest removing it unless it can be substantiated or expanded on in a relevant section.68.193.148.80 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Investigating the Army' Section

message: The link to Fred Fisher is linked to the wrong Fred Fisher, linked to a singer instead of a lawyer.  You can get there but it is the wrong link. --216.244.120.125 29 December 2005
:I fixed the link --Censorwolf 16:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'The Army-McCarthy Hearings' Section

message: I changed the comment that McCarthy became a full blown alcoholic because I found a comment from someone who knew him socically that refuted that charge.--CReynolds 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'McCarthy's Final Years' Section

message: The sentence "McCarthy, having no evidence with him, ignored Lehman, as did the rest of the Senate, testifying to other Senators' fear of McCarthy's political attacks." is awkward. Did McCarthy and the reset of the Senate ignore Lehman? Did Lehman and other senators testify to their fear of McCarthy's political attacks? The phrasing is awkward and should probably be clarified by breaking this into 2 sentences. Since I can't find any specifics on this exchange I'll leave this up to others to decide what the phrasing should be.--CReynolds 16:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Evidence' Section

message: "Wartime log entries list eleven missions under McCarthy's name as an aerial photographer and tail gunner, and he was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross in 1952, although opponents who have investigated McCarthy question the Navy's decision to make the award. McCarthy was commended by Admiral Chester Nimitz for flying despite an injury, but others who served with him told investigators working for his opponents that his injuries (a broken foot) resulted from a shipboard hazing incident."
This sentence is clumsy and long-winded. It is in grave violation of neutrality. And the motives behind it could not be more obvious. It is a clear attempt to undermine McCarthy's wartime service. There is no need to go to wartime log entries. That is arbitrarily raising the evidence bar sky high. And it shows the lengths that people will go to, to ethnically cleanse anything favourable out of McCarthy's profile. Something close to this would be better:
"McCarthy served as an aerial photographer and tail gunner during the war. He was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross in 1952, McCarthy was commended by Admiral Chester Nimitz for flying despite an injury."
A lot shorter and less tendentious. These constant violations of neutrality on the part of leftists is one reason why the article is way long GMB 23:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early Life" Section