Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 6

message: In Joseph_McCarthy#Censure_and_the_Watkins_Committee the direct quotation "Snow White and the 6 dwarves" was recently changed to "Snow White and the 7 dwarfs."
The statement needs a citation. Without a citation it is difficult to be sure what spelling was actually used. Since this is a direct quotation, it should use whatever spelling was used in the media or by McCarthy at the time.
The edit comment "this was presumably before Tolkien invaded the English language" is silly, as both "dwarfs" and "dwarves" are legitimate U. S. usage today according to the American Heritage Dictionary, and I am reasonably sure they were in the 1950s as well. It is not possible to guess which spelling was used, nor is it proper. The source should be cited, and the spelling used in the article should accurately reflect the spelling that was actually used in the source. If the source says "dwarves" and if someone has good reason to believe this usage was incorrect, the proper action is to change it to "dwarves[sic]," not to falsify the direct quotation.
Of course, if the original source says "dwarfs," so should the direct quotation. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the source I found and cited, it was indeed "dwarfs." KarlBunker 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dwarfs" vs. "dwarves" 

message: I agree - he was, simply put, a scummy witchhunter who deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity (violating the right of a person not to be persecuted or accused of actions on a whim).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.109.214 (talk • contribs) 12:51, December 5, 2006  (UTC)
:Please note that this page is for discussing improvements to the Joseph McCarthy article, it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. KarlBunker 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, thanks for your comments. My underst
anding is that what SENSAY911 said is vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. If so, should those remarks be removed? If you're not sure, let me know and I'll either remove the comments myself citing vandalism or ask an Administrator to handle it. Thank you for your help. Jtpaladin 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jtpaladin, SENSAY911's comments obviously aren't vandalism. Some might characterize them as trolling; but then, some might say the same about your comments on this page. KarlBunker 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, that was a cheap shot. Nothing I have stated on this page even remotely comes close to trolling and your assertion is nothing more than a personal attack that denegrates the work that people are doing to improve an article. I haven't referred to anyone as "scummy" or reasoned that anyone should be tried for crimes against humanity nor have I suggested anything along those lines. You accuse me of personal attacks and then carry out such attacks yourself. Hypocrisy serves no one and only cheapens the discussion. Jtpaladin 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil 

message: can this be made into a good article and then try feature article again? Hmains 23:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  good article/ feature article  

message: Talking about demonizing a little work needs to be done on the "Ongoing debate" section. The list of people whom "various authors have listed as correctly identified by McCarthy" needs to be reworked. Under those rules any mention by any writer is adequate to add someone to this list (for example, I could write an article for some minor right wing press listing the entire blacklist and all the names ever mentioned by McCarthy and HUAC could be added, appearing to totally vindicate the Senator).  The basis should really be the consensus of Cold War historians, that is, follow the usual Wikipedia policy of quoting the consensus of experts in the field.
There's quite a continuum of people in the list and it is grossly unfair to intermingle them. Examples of the range of people listed:
Mary Jay Keeney, of the Allied Staff on Reparations and a spy for the KGB (although McCarthy accused her of being a member of the Communist Party, not of espionage).
Annie Lee Moss, a cypher clerk and secretly a member of the Communist Party. The prime case where McCarthy was right but was not believed. This is not to say that Moss was a spy, but she was certainly unsuitable for the task of sending and receiving secret military communications.
Owen Lattimore, an outrageous communist sympathiser, a prime example of a "fellow traveller". Since Lattimore does not appear in the Soviet archives or Venona transcripts as a Soviet agent, the academic consensus is that Lattimore was falsely accused by McCarthy. Of course, the more radical of the US right wing are not happy with this consensus, so naturally there are a number of articles in polemic publications arguing otherwise.
Theodore Geiger, major US bureaucrat for post-WWII European reconstruction and, later, academic. Of course his role bought him into contacts with Communists, not just inter-governmental liason with the Soviets, but most of the figures in the continental labor unions were Communists. Preventing labor unrest in France and Italy from denegerating into a Communist coup was a major acheivement for the US and Western European governments and McCarthy was hypocritical in naming Geiger. 150.101.246.229 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 150.101.246.229, you make some interesting statements, but all of your points appear to be based on misunderstanding the purpose and content of the list of  people whom "various authors have listed as correctly identified by McCarthy." This is not intended to be a list of people who were actually correctly identified by McCarthy. The paragraph of the article that precedes the list makes this clear, as do the footnotes attached to each name. My point in including this list was to examine how "right" the authors who have said "McCarthy was right" are. There's no suggestion that the people in that list are "intermingled" because of any similarity between them as individuals; they're thrown together by pure coincidence. I suppose this would be more clear if the information on each person was in the body of the article rather than in a footnote, but I thought that would add too much bulk to a fairly minor point.  KarlBunker 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy's "identifications" 

message: Shouldn't this article at least mention Joe's relationship with JFK & RFK? I beleive he was godfather to one of Bobby's kids and Jack publicly defended him on at least one occassion.68.59.202.209 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From time to time people have added something about McCarthy's relationship with the Kennedys, and a while later someone else has removed it. I think some readers/editors are intrigued by the notion that the notably liberal Kennedys were friendly with the ultra-conservative McCarthy. In fact, however, apart from his actions around Communism McCarthy was not particularly conservative, so in that sense perhaps the relationship wasn't so surprising. Also, the relationship didn't have much of any effect on the course of McCarthy's life or career. RFK worked for him for a while (as is mentioned in the article), and some say JFK "arranged" to be hospitalized during McCarthy's censure vote, but IMO there's nothing really "missing" from the article on this count. KarlBunker 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kennedys 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
This article needs more inline citations. For a subject as sensitive as this one is, I think you need referencing after nearly every line. I don't see many at all in the opening paragraphs, for instance. --Bookworm857158367 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An odd analysis. The opening paragraphs survey the historically undisputed facts of McCarthy's early life and career, exactly as described by the section header. The blanket demand for "more inline citations" is entirely unhelpful to the editors working hard on the article. Please specify precisely what "sensitive" assertions the article includes that you feel require citation and I'm sure there'll be no problem in responding to that.—DCGeist 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have liked to see in-line citations in the first two opening paragraphs, but I see that this isn't favored in the feature article process, so I guess I was wrong. Other than that, it appears to be a good article and meet the criteria, so I will pass it. --Bookworm857158367 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA needs to be put on indefinite hold until the POV issues being addressed in part below are resolved.  That one of the editors could find calling William F. Buckley an "extremist" within the Wiki POV guidelines is beyond me. K. Scott Bailey 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The claims were NOT completely unsubstantiated, as the later evidence revealed.  They WERE "largely" unsubstantiated, but not WHOLLY.  McCarthy was certainly not a nice man, but one doesn't need to stretch the truth--even by inference--to show that in this encyclopedic article.  In my opinion--based upon the fact that some charges were in small part substantiated--inserting the word "largely" makes the statement more accurate.K. Scott Bailey 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence reads: Between 1950 and 1954, McCarthy became noted for [largely] unsubstantiated claims that there were Communist and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. He did not "become noted" for "largely unsubstantiated" claims, any more than a famous thief becomes noted for "sometimes stealing." A thief becomes noted for stealing, even if some of his possessions are acquired legally. It's a minor point, but one that has an influence on tone, or as you would say, TONE. Saying "largely unsubstantiated" would risk giving the article the tone of an apologia for McCarthy, which would not be in keeping with the position of the vast majority of McCarthy scholars. KarlBunker 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think this article runs ANY sort of risk of sounding like "an apologia for McCarthy."  That's what bothers me some about it.  It has such an ANTI-McCarthy tone that it almost risks engendering something of a backlash.  McCarthy was not a nice person.  He had an ax to grind, and he ruined a lot of innocent people's lives.  However, by treating his article COMPLETELY even-handedly--including making note of the fact that the claims were not COMPLETELY unsubstantiated (which the current wording implies)--the truth of what type of man he was will come out.  By allowing your personal biases to cloud your vision on this article (which is completely understandable), you are simply providing ammunition for the actual McCarthy-apologizers.K. Scott Bailey 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any evidence that the tone of the article does not accurately reflect the position of the vast majority of McCarthy scholars, I would love to see it. In particular, and in addition to the point I raised above and to which you have not responded, it is rare for any McCarthy scholar to give any attention to those few instances where his accusations eventually proved to have some merit. This article does mention those instances, in the Ongoing debate section. Finally, your persistence in accusing me of expressing a personal bias in this article is a personal attack; please desist. KarlBunker 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True panache, Mr. Bunker, true panache!  I am not attacking you personally.  After you basically accused me of being lazy, you accuse ME of attacking you personally, and then even send me a "warning."  Wow.  As for the issue of bias, EVERYONE brings biases to the table.  The challenge--often unsuccessful for anyone--is to keep those biases from clouding our judgement.  I don't think this article reads like an anti-McCarthy screed at all.  I'm simply saying that it has an anti-McCarthy FEEL to it.  If you really want me to pull phrases, paragraphs, etc. to "prove my point" to you, I will.  I wouldn't want you to feel like you needed to call me lazy again.  All I'm saying is that someone who's never heard of McCarthy before reading this article would probably know that the person writing it doesn't like him at all.  That's far different that calling this an anti-McCarthy rant.  I think it just contains a whiff of bias, and that there's still room for improvement.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As for personal attacks, the only one who has gotten personal in this discussion is you.  If anyone should "desist" from personal attacks, it's you. K. Scott Bailey 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not my edit, but what's the problem with "largely"? 

message: This addition of material to that section was complete overkill.  The rest of the article--as well as the qualifier "some conservative scholars" in the initial sentence of the section--make the addition of an unnecessary sentence regarding what a majority of scholars believe about McCarthy completely superfluous.  Everyone--even McCarthy's supporters--know what a majority of scholars believes about him.  And someone reading this article will know that as well, without adding unnecessary sentences to the "Ongoing Debate" section.K. Scott Bailey 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo of the Additional Material in "Ongoing Debate" 

message: I know its a bit late, but it seems I forgot to mention it, because this article appeared on a list of improperly passed articles, (It was given the GA template but never actually listed on WP:GA) and because it looks like there was a bit of controversy about this article when it was reviewed, I have opened a WP:GA/R on this article to make its status more clear. Homestarmy 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA/R

message: The sentence in question:
McCarthy authored a book titled America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall (1951); charged Marshall with "aid(ing) the Communist drive for world domination"; declared that "if Marshall was merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve America's interests"; and most famously, accused him of being part of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man."
The cite that follows:
My query:
There are three direct quotes in the sentence, but only one page cited in the source. Do all three quotes come from the same page? Does that mean they all come from the same speech? If so, the sentence should be recast to clarify that and to give the date of the speech. If not, obviously the other pages (or sources) must be cited.
Note:
I removed the unquoted phrase "accused Marshall of treason" (a) to improve flow, (b) to eliminate conceptual redundancy (in the term's rhetorical sense), and (c) to avoid presumption about such a serious charge (in the term's precise sense). If McCarthy ever explicitly accused Marshall of treason--a potentially capital offense--that should be made clear either by quote or unambiguous description and clearly cited per the query above.—DCGeist 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fixed now. I used <ref name=> and multiple page numbers in one reference, since using "ibid" can get messed up by later edits. One of the quotes ("aiding the Communist drive to world domination") I couldn't find in the reference I have access too, so I removed it. It may be that this was in McCarthy's Marshall book but not in the collected speeches book I have, or it may be that that's actually some author's paraphrase rather than a quote. It's not that striking that McCarthy used the word "treason" in connection with Marshall, since it was one of his favorite words for the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. KarlBunker 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it was one of his favorite words for the Democratic Party, yes? But an administration or a political party can't be legally tried for "treason," nor can it sue for slander when accused of it. An individual can and can. Not that McCarthy didn't make other statements about individuals that might have exposed him to slander suits. Still, I would have been quite surprised to learn that McCarthy directly accused Marshall of "treason." Without having access to the sources myself, the rewording seems just right.—DCGeist 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query on "McCarthy and Truman" section 

message: I am shocked to see that the article, which was looking so good and so NPOV when it won its GA status, has now deteriorated back to the extreme POV introduction of its FAC candidacy. This has got to be fixed. Suggestions? Some will be needed to help this keep its GA status. Judgesurreal777 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. A query and a comment: (a) Do you happen to know the date when the article won its GA status, so I can see the earlier version you're talking about? The link in the template that's supposed to go to the old version keeps automatically redirecting to the current one. (b) From the rise of the communist movement in the late 19th century through the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, suspicion of communist subversion was a running theme in American politics. Such suspicions were particularly strong during the 1950s (among other periods), and McCarthy for many represented the most extreme manifestations of U.S. anti-communism during that time. Those are, I believe, noncontroversial facts of history. I don't understand what is POV, let alone "very blatant[ly]" so, about that simple and historically accurate term of description.—DCGeist 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the article never actually made good article status. It seems that whoever launched that procedure didn't do it correctly. And since one of the criteria of GA status is "stability," this article may not get the GA stamp any time soon. I've heard there's an editor working right now on a 600 word addition addressing the question of whether McCarthy had toenail fungus. KarlBunker 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering if that is meant to refer to me, since elsewhere you express concern that my edits are disproportionately focused on trivia.  Is it? Kaisershatner 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article deterioration

message: Alongside the question of what is the proper amount of gross space to devote to this material (it strikes me that it's found a reasonable and informative level), its present organization simply adheres to no encyclopedic logic. There's no good rationale for such a section to be devised to follow Final years when the rest of the article is organized roughly chronologically. 
The second paragraph is easiest to deal with: the Robert Kennedy material clearly belongs in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee section and JFK's nonvote on censure in the Censure and Watkins Committee section. The "hero" quote could go either there or earlier...
The first paragraph could argually be maintained as its own section earlier on, but would perhaps more ideally be split up between Senate campaign, the U.S. Senate lead, and Fame and notoriety, as appropriate. Such a reorganization might help resolve the question of emphasis: in historical terms, the relationship with the Kennedys is clearly a running thread in McCarthy's career; it's not at all clear that it should be presented as one of the major themes.—DCGeist 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are there are good points to both types of organization, but on balance I agree with DCGeist. KarlBunker 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthy's relationship with the Catholics is a major topic in his political career (with full length books--like Crosby). There were many elements of that but Kennedys were at the center of it. Rjensen 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My original request to discuss the nature of the Kennedy additions was intended to allow us to discuss where and how to put the material. Now that it is about the Catholic vote and not just the Kennedys, my view has changed a little, but I think it should be in "Senate years" chronologically before "Wheeling" since it mostly deals with his pre-Communism-attack fame and now also deals with his electoral base. However, I was also thinking of pitching a "personal life" section as an alternative- with the electoral base material it doesn't work as well, but many bio articles have a section like this, where we would discuss his family life, marriage, notable friendships, etc. Kaisershatner 18:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is that the discussion merits its own section, it should still be moved to a place that maintains a rational structure. The first paragraph (plus "hero" quote), with its historically sensible emphasis on Catholic support, would fit in reasonably well between the Fame and notoriety and McCarthy and Truman sections. [Wrote this before KS's post above (now perhaps accidentally erased?)--putting the material before Wheeling speech is also reasonable. I'm personally not interested in seeing a "personal life" section--the essential facts are already in the article or can be added if something crucial is missing.] The Robert Kennedy and JFK censure material--which don't directly relate to Catholic support--should appear in their proper choronological places, as described above. The Kennedy thread will still be evident and the history clearer.—DCGeist 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your view of this works a bit better than mine, DCGeist; I would support a move of the para as it stands, after "Fame and notoriety" and before "McCarthy and Truman." Kaisershatner 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of Catholic/Kennedy material

message: Kaisershatner, I read a couple of the messages you left for other editors (I was looking to see if you'd entered a request for mediation yet), and I find myself questioning myself. I see in those messages the voice of someone who is making a genuine attempt to be fair. A little peevish and prone to ad hominem arguments, but making an attempt nevertheless. I'm also reminded of the list of editors you invited to add their comments to this discussion--you were fair, and contacted all recent editors without asking for comments only from those who were likely to agree with you.
This is in sharp contrast to the impression I got from your recent edits to the discussion here. There I saw someone whom I honestly (yes, honestly; no, I am not trying to piss you off; no I am not trying to insult you; no I am not trying to imperiously dismiss you, but honestly, honestly, honestly) thought was deliberately making arguments that you could not help but know were nonsensical. It looked to me like a blatant attempt to wear down an "opponent" with barely disguised sophistry.
But seeing this "other voice" of yours, I'm questioning that conclusion, like I said. So I'm going to make another attempt. I'm not going to go over or even reread your prior arguments; instead, let's try starting with a clean slate. Below is my argument, broken down. You can refer to any component point you disagree with by number:
#Certain sub-topics within an article cast a favorable or unfavorable light on the subject of an article.
#Therefore, unbalanced coverage of that sub-topic, even though factual, introduces a POV slant to an article.
#McCarthy's connection with the Kennedy family is such a sub-topic.
#According to comparisons with reputable McCarthy biographies, the amount of coverage of this sub-topic that you were/are seeking is unbalanced.
:KarlBunker 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KarlBunker, I thank you for your proffer of good faith. I will do my utmost to return it. I think your impression of me as fair minded is the correct one, and I have been frustrated, feeling treated otherwise. We can start with a clean slate. I will endeavor to be slower, more patient, and less excitable. I would hope in return you can take your finger off of the "revert" button and hear me out. As for "prone to ad hominem arguments..." I would say the same of you(!!), so maybe we can both just agree to put down our rhetorical guns and comment on the content, not the contributor. Not the motivations of the contributor. And not to infer any kind of insidious motivations either way. I think you have done much to improve this article- but I think I have as well. I will unilaterally pledge to do these deflationary steps; I think you are proposing to join me. To begin with, would you accept a reversion to the last instance of this page prior to my adding back of the WFB citation and prior to your removing of it along with the extra 1952 Senate material, at least while we talk about it? This would be not the version I would like, and not the version you would like, but maybe a fair resting place while we work it out? Kaisershatner 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KB, about your four points:  I agree with (1), about (2) I would agree that "unbalanced" coverage might alter the POV slant, while adding defining what is "balanced" is difficult. About (3) I disagree very much.  McCarthy's connection to the Kennedys should be reported as neutrally as possible, so as to avoid drawing any conclusions.  Let the facts speak for themselves, and the reader is free to draw his/her own conclusions. (4) I disagree and I think the standard of comparison you are using is problematic. Kaisershatner 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kennedys, particularly JFK, are very highly thought of by many and fondly remembered by even more. McCarthy is, to quote the title of one of his biographies, "America's Most Hated Senator." Insofar as the Kennedys supported McCarthy, that reflects positively on McCarthy and negatively on the Kennedys (except for those few who regard McCarthy more positively than the Kennedys; for them the positive & negative are reversed.) To deny this is to ignore the meaning of words like "highly thought of " and "supported." KarlBunker 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I am saying is whatever the implications may be regarding the McC/K relationship, it objectively existed and should be reported here without prejudice. Kaisershatner 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly! And part of "without prejudice" means in proportion to the amount of coverage the topic gets in reputable McCarthy biographies. If the amount of coverage is out of proportion, that makes it prejudicial. KarlBunker 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy/Kennedy, part deux 

message: DCGeist, can you have a look at my wording here?  I was attempting a neutral formulation- the source I cited suggests he was pushing the sugar thing because it was a Republican issue and that his critics linked it with the suspicious $20k loan.  I think it is that same source that asserts the guy who gave the donation didn't benefit from the legislation.  Mainly I'd just like to present the facts (1) he supported this legislation (2) he accepted a 20k loan (3) he got a bad nickname from his critics.  Maybe you can help me with the language?  I'm not trying to softpedal the issue.  Kaisershatner 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me.—DCGeist 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Red (né KB) might have been concerned about making clear that McCarthy in fact was never anything less than an officer. I've edited the previous paragraph to make that clear. Redundancy now eliminated.—DCGeist 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for looking, I also made a ce for syntax.  There's no doubt he just lied about it. Kaisershatner 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pepsi Cola

message: I don't think this should be very controversial but since we have things running smoothly I wanted to leave comments here at talk, also because this goes against a previous discussion we had about the Kennedys.  I would like to move the RFK godfather sentence into the support from Kennedy para, after "dated two of Kennedy's daughters."  I think the sentence goes to McCarthy's personal relationship with the family, rather than to the RFK job- where it is now slightly suggests the godfather thing was linked to the hiring of RFK as counsel.  Most importantly, he was godfather to RFK's child in 1951 and gave the job in 1952, so chronologically it belongs in the other section. Kaisershatner 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.—DCGeist 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Godfather

message: Article should be delisted due to POV pushing in the introduction, calling anti-communist Americans "extreme", and various other POV-pushing in the introduction which was already agreed to be gotten ride of in arbitration a long time ago. Also, sadly there is no where I can report several users claiming ownership of this article, and refusing to let me edit one single thing on this article, though perhaps I will explore my options. So, there it is. Judgesurreal777 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an elaborate system of dispute resolution. Personally I don't see other users claiming "ownership" of the article, however, and I don't know what arbitration you are referring to.--Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, perhaps my word choice was not the best, they aren't claiming ownership, they are simply OWNING the article, by refusing to let me fix the POV by reverting my edits, even edits that were agreed to in arbitration LAST TIME. But thank you for letting me know what further options I have. Judgesurreal777 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that by calling anti-communism "extreme" that the implication is that communism is good. I think the issue here is that some innocent people got hurt.Jimmuldrow 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling a whole period of American life "extreme", and a majority of Americans concerns about worldwide communist infiltration and insurrection, that was a major issue of the late 40's and 50's, as was demonstrated by the various show trials of church clergy in Central Europe, is itself extreme. Those who claim such a thing wish the past was different than it was. To call a American vigilance against communism, which is undeniably an existential threat to the west "extreme" is to imply over reaction, and since that is what some POV pushers are implying, the weight of proof rests firmly on them. And since they have no proof it was an over reaction, the world extreme should be stricken from the article, and the introduction composed with the help of those who have been shut out of the article, myself included. Judgesurreal777 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: Regarding the text beginning with "In the 1952 U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts...":
There is a reference to McCarthy striking a "deal," although in fact no deal is ever described. The word "deal" is a leftover from earlier versions of this text, in which an arrangement was described between JFK and McCarthy (and brokered by Joe Kennedy) that JFK would refrain from anti-McCarthy statements if McCarthy would refrain from campaigning for Lodge. This was deemed an interesting story, worthy of some attention, even if it was a rumor disputed by some.
There is no reference to any such deal in any McCarthy biography or other source (reliable or otherwise) that I've been able to find. It must exist, as a rumor, out there somewhere in the world, because I remember seeing it crop up in this article several times over. But no reputable biographer describes such a scenario--not even to dismiss it as a rumor. Some authors mention reports of Joseph Kennedy "asking" McCarthy not to campaign for Lodge; some authors mention reports of Kennedy contributing to McCarthy's campaign to encourage McCarthy to stay out of Massachusetts. No source I've been able to find accepts as factual or even probably that there was a "deal" in the sense of a campaign contribution in return for McCarthy staying out of Massachusetts. Various other reasons are given for McCarthy not becoming involved in the Massachusetts race.
No McCarthy biographer treats McCarthy's absence from the Massachusetts election as especially notable. There were many elections that year, and McCarthy involved himself deeply in some of them, but by no means all of them.
Specifics from various sources follow:
Oshinsky biography:
pg. 241: No mention of a "deal", only of Joseph Kennedy "asking" McCarthy to stay out of the campaign. Source for this is described as "none too reliable," story is disputed in detail based on Kennedy's denial and other points.
Herman biography:
pg. 205: No mention of a "deal";  brief mention of JFK/Lodge election: "At Joseph {Kennedy] Sr.'s urging, he declined to campaign for his fellow republican, Henry Cabot Lodge."
Reeves biography:
pg. 442: No mention of a "deal", only of Joseph Kennedy "asking" McCarthy to stay out of the campaign. This is reported as correct, but this request and Kennedy's "sizable contribution" to McCarthy's campaign "were not the primary reasons for the senator's decision." Rather, it is said that McCarthy believed that Lodge was "hatching a political plot of some sort against him."
Robert Griffith's The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate:
No mention of JFK/Lodge election at all.
Fred J. Cook's The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy:
pg. 284: No mention of a "deal". Quotes two Kennedy biographers as stating that Joseph Kennedy had contributed to McCarthy's campaign "not to keep McCarthy from coming into Massachusetts," but "because a mutual friend[...] asked [Joseph Kennedy] to give it to him."
Rovere biography:
No mention of JFK/Lodge election at all
Haynes Johnson's The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism :
pg. 250: No mention of a "deal". "Old Joe appealed to McCarthy to stay out of Massachusetts that fall. What kind of inducements he made to McCarthy remain lost to history[...]" Mention of Kennedy campaign contribution to McCarthy.
Thus we have 190 words of text in the current article (not counting the last few sentences of the paragraph, which are about JFK's attitude toward McCarthy) describing a non-event in the 1952 election, mentioning a "deal" where there is consensus that no deal existed, regarding an event deemed worthy of only the briefest--if any--mention in McCarthy biographies. Insofar as there is any consensus about what happened, that consensus is that a) nothing more than Joe Kennedy "asking" McCarthy not to campaign in Massachusetts occurred, and b) this request was probably not McCarthy's reason, or primary reason, for not campaigning in Massachusetts. In short, probably nothing of any note whatsoever happened here. The closest approach, by far, to reflecting the consensus among biographers is simply to remove the current discussion from the article.
In the last few sentences of this section, it is stated that "Senator John Kennedy remained friendly with McCarthy." That isn't correct; no biographer has described their relationship as "friendly." Rather it is said that for various reasons, Kennedy preferred to remain publicly neutral toward McCarthy, though he didn't like him either personally or politically. This needs to be corrected; though the "Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero." is valid enough.
RedSpruce 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did Kennedy deny that there was a deal if it was a non-issue?  And how does cutting the Buckley quotation about McCarthy's preference for Kennedy and refusal to campaign in Mass at the RNC's request help with your view that the "non-event" is over-addressed?  Kaisershatner 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I think we can find a compromise here.  At minimum, I think we can include McCarthy's statement to Buckley.  McCarthy, with his extreme dislike of the "treasonous" Democrats, actually preferred Democrat Kennedy to the Republican?  A Democrat whose family he was particularly socially close with?  Fascinating, no?  Kaisershatner 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st question: I don't know, you'd have to ask Kennedy. 2nd question: There wasn't any quote; there was McCarthy "suggested to Buckley that his preference was for Kennedy" which is too vague to be of any value. 3rd & 4th question: Mildly interesting perhaps, if it's true, but not very. Some of McCarthy's worst enemies were Republicans, and apparently he was afraid Lodge was going to become one of these. Anyway, it's never been brought up in any McCarthy biography that I know of. RedSpruce 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I would agree with amending the paragraph to reflect the consensus of the McCarthy biographers: that Joe Kennedy asked McCarthy not to campaign in Mass, although alternative explanations, such as his dislike for Lodge may also explain his decision, and that McCarthy privately expressed a preference for his friend John Kennedy.  Making it out to be a deal is not supported by the evidence you have presented.  However, you did leave out the book on the 1952 Senate election, which has a whole chapter on this subject (Haynes Johnson?).  And "too vague to be of any value" is a strange standard- the article is about McCarthy, and whatever his reasons, it's notable that he preferred Kennedy to Lodge, and mentioned in lots of places.  Why shouldn't we cite that?  Especially given the significance of the '52 Senate election in US political history, I find it much more interesting than "mildly," but we don't have to agree on that, just on the facts.  Thanks for doing the research.  Kaisershatner 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus among biographers is that Joe Kennedy may have asked McCarthy not to campaign in MA, but that this wasn't McCarthy's reason, or main reason, for not campaigning there. In other words, NOTHING HAPPENED. There were dozens of senate elections that McCarthy didn't campaign in that year; do you want to add 300 words to the article about each of them? RedSpruce 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy/Kennedy, part drei