Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 2

Republican?

I can find nothing to support the statement that McCarthy ever switched parties. In fact, it was Republicans such as Sen. Smith, Pres. Eisenhower, and future Pres. Reagan who brought McCarthy down. I suspect the author just presumes all corruption has to be associated with the Republican Party.

Featured article

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)

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. Tomer^TALK 22:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it. Maybe somebody with a brain can. nobs 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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. Tomer^TALK 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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. Tomer^TALK 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That said, I'm requesting peer review (the appropriate next step to get the article to FA status). Tomer^TALK 20:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There. Peer review requested. Tomer^TALK 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi:

A link to The Investigator, a famous CBC radio play that parodied the senator and gained wide circulation as a bootleg LP, even apparently played for Eisenhower apparently could stand a mention. And, while we're on the subject, a link to the Manchurian Candidate might be à propos.

Radio Satire and MCCarthy

The radio play you're looking for is called the Investigator and somewhere in someone's memoirs there's a cite for it having played for Eisenhower. Someone will have to look this up for me but I recall that comedian Stan Freiberg released a satire of the MCCarthy trials and it made it to the top 20 at the time.

Morphine?

"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)

"McCarthy and Truman"

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)

• "if Truman were aware of Bentley's account";

Truman was aware of Bentley's account, and called it a "red herring", i.e. denied it's veracity. The point is, if Truman was aware of the the Venona project, which corroborated Bentley's account, he probably would not have refered to Bentley's charges as a "red herring", which then led to trashing Bentley and what was percieved as uncorroborated charges, and a colossal partisan divide. nobs 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Section

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)

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)

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)

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)

"During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy and his staff became notorious for aggressive investigations of people in the U.S. government and others suspected of being Soviet agents on grounds of their political beliefs as Communists or Communist sympathizers."

This sentence is inaccurate, a violation of neutrality and pretty obvious as to its tendentious motives. Plus it's a long-winded and sloppy sentence. He wasn't notorious for the aggressiveness of his investigations. He was much admired for removing security risks. The interviews were behind closed doors in any case. So we here have the magic of leftist extra-sensory perception at play. He wasn't persecuting people for their beliefs. As is later made clear when its mentioned that he didn't want to name these people but was harrassed into doing so by callous people on the left in the Senate. He was not persecuting people for their beliefs or inhibiting free speech. He was simply removing people from the public tit. No-one has a divine right to the public tit in any case. And it is an established practice of all functional governments to remove security risks from sensitive positions. (GMB)

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)

"intercepted Soviet communications from the now-declassified VENONA Project indicate that some of the individuals he pursued did in fact have hidden Communist associations."

This is not a neutral statement. In that it implies that McCarthy made unwarranted accusations which he didn't. Even the constant drumbeat of the word 'accusations' is really not acceptable. In order to find security risks you have to accumulate evidence on people and subpoena people to be interviewed. Its a bit rich to always be characterising this as MAKING ACCUSATIONS. Who are the people he asked to be investigated without reasonable cause? There are none. He has been entirely vindicated and the article should reflect his spectacular vindication GMB 22:45, 26 December 2005

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)

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)

'The Tydings Committee' Section

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)

I'm curious about this edit:

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)

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)

'Anti-Communism' Section

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)

'The Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee' Section

The last paragraph of this section deals with McCarthy's alleged behavior during the hearings. It has been widely believed that McCarthy was an evil browbeater of witnesses. Here are two direct quotes from people that appeared before his Committee that refute this impression. I believe this section will help to separate the facts from the myths, but if anyone can a refuting POV we should discuss it.--CReynolds 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been going through the CReynolds additions. I haven't finished yet, but would like to remark on the edit time-stamped 14:31, 23 December 2005. I believe this addition is strongly slanted. For example, some witnesses are referred to as "hardened Fifth Amendment pleaders or persons about whom there was a strong presumption of guilt." I'm trying to avoid inflammatory language here, but that's pretty outrageous. This wording assumes that pleading the 5th amendment is an admission of guilt. Obviously it isn't; one could use the 5th as a protest against an investigation one believes to be inappropriate and immoral. As for "persons about whom there was a strong presumption of guilt", I don't have to point out what's wrong with that language or the thinking behind it. The rest of that paragraph is an attempt to make the hearings sound more palatable, essentially by pointing out that the suspects weren't simply imprisoned or shot, but were allowed some legal rights. These people were almost literally paraded in front of America as probable spies and traitors. Whether they could confer with their lawyers as they were victimized in this way is hardly relevant.

The next paragraph of this addition points out that some of the investigated people held or had held government jobs or defense-related, some of them possibly sensitive. This can only be read as an attempt to justify the hearings, but it doesn't truly examine the question of whether the hearings were justified. Later, 19 of the investigated people are referred to as "well-known communist propagandists." It shouldn't need pointing out that this is non-neutral language. The passage reads as if this was proper justification for calling people in front the Senate hearings. In fact, most contemporary Americans would find it outrageous for an author to be called to defend himself in front of the government simply because s/he had written books advocating socialism or communism.

KarlBunker 21:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh...Karl...NONE of those named by McCarthy was shot, and damned few (if any) were ever imprisoned. So for you to say "weren't merely imprisoned or sho, but were allowed some legal rights" is a total mischaracterization, and, seems to indicate a strong desire to spread, or even make up, anti-anti-communist (which resolves to pro-communist, by the way) disinformation. Akulkis 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right on the 5th amendment statement. To plead the 5th should not be considered an admission of guilt, and the sentance as it stands is inflammatory. I'd agree to a change.

The following paragraph, which lists the various government agencies, goes to the heart of McCarthy's commission. He was tasked with investigating the government (as specified in an earlier paragraph), so naturally those that were brought before him naturally worked for the government or had some sort of tie to the government (like authors whose books were distributed in government libraries overseas). Wikipedia's own entry on Herbert Aptheker describes him as a "U.S. Marxist historian and political activist", so I think that label is correct. Wikipedia describes Earl Browder as an "American socialist and leader of the Communist Party USA". There is no entry for James S. Allen yet, so perhaps he shouldn't be listed, but since he was grouped with the other two it's probably an accurate label as well.--CReynolds 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Re the authors: I don't argue that they weren't socialist or communist authors. My point is that the fact that they were called before this committee for no other reason than that they were socialist or communist authors is simply outrageous by the standards of American values. (The fact that their books were carried in government libraries doesn't seem relevant; it seems more like an excuse to harass these authors.) And lastly, calling them "propagandists" is obviously slanted towards justifying McCarthy's decision to investigate them. KarlBunker 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contention that they were called before the Committee simply for being Communists is incorrect. If this was the case then I'm sure they could have called a LOT more people. They were called exactly because their books were carried in State Department libraries overseas. In fact, I'm pretty sure this was the case because Roy Cohn and David Schine went around to those libraries, removed the books, and burned them (and act Cohn later regretted greatly because he "unwittingly handed Joe McCarthy's enemies a perfect opportunity to spread the tale that a couple of young, inexperienced clowns were bustling about Europe, ordering State Department officials around, burning books, creating chaos wherever they went, and disrupting foreign relations"). Cohn's trip and subsequent hearings by the committee provided information that led to the removal of more than 30,000 communist and pro-communist books from U.S. Information Service libraries in foreign countries. The presence of such books was in obvious conflict with the stated purpose of those libraries "to promote better understanding of America abroad" and "to combat and expose Soviet communistic propaganda."--CReynolds 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You still don't make a case that these authors were called before the committee for any reason other than to persecute them. The fact that their books were included in those libraries gave McCarthy an excuse to persecute them, and it also gave him an opportunity to ridicule the state department and administration for helping to distribute "communist propaganda" abroad. Your opinion that the presence of these books was "in obvious conflict with the stated purpose of these libraries" is just that: an opinion. One which I personally believe to be 180 degrees opposed to the truth. But in any case, the presence of the books was hardly the responsibility of the authors, so why were they brought before the committee? KarlBunker 23:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, whenever someone in government disagrees with a Communist, he's being PERSECUTED...but when someone is put in a gulag, or even shot, by Communists on trumped up charges, that's Rehabilitation. Karl, it's pretty obvious that you're a Marxist zealot, who is STILL campaigning to smear McCarthy in any way you can concoct. If you had any honor, you would recuse yourself from this discussion...but then again, if you had any sense of honor, you wouldn't be actively spreading agit-prop for the most dehumanizing ideology this planet has ever seen. Please go away until you can open up your mind and grow up enough to notice that Marxism is, AT BEST, nothing more than trading one aristocracy for another, and that in this country with healthy popular governments, has the added evil of putting both economic AND police powers INTO THE SAME HANDS... Akulkis 08:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

CReynolds said: "Re-added comment about the impact of the death of Forrestal on McCarthy. McCarthy's own words best sum up him motivation on being anti-communist:

I disagree with quoting these comments by McC. in such length. To repeat these statements in full is to argue that they should be taken at face value. There are two problems with that: First, these comments are something that most people would dismiss as obviously speech-making bull. The kind of bull that all politicians (left, right or otherwise) feed to audiences and that no one takes seriously ("I still believe in a town called 'Hope'!"). To suggest (by quoting in such length) that these comments _should_ be taken seriously makes the article look naive and silly. Second, the fact of the matter is that the conventional wisdom about McC. is that his motivation for pursuing communists was that it got him publicity, it gave him power, and it gave him the opportunity to bully people. That is the conventional wisdom, right or wrong. By positing that his "this is why I crusade against communists" speech should be taken seriously, you are attempting to argue against that popular wisdom. You are attempting to "rehabilitate" McC. You are more than welcome to do that, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. KarlBunker 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So it's your assertion that McCarthy was just demagogue-ing when he stated his motivation for pursuing Communists. I'd say you are ascribing motivations to his speech that can't be supported with any evidence, just your opinion. And "popular wisdom" is a crutch for those without facts. You say I'm trying to "rehabilitate" McCarthy. I'd say I'm trying to set the record straight with facts, not the fuzzy meanings of "popular opinion", which Wikipedia strives to eliminate. I say let his comments stand on their own without you trying to second guess his motivations. I'm going to add the statement back and if you want to censure direct quotes from people because they don't fit your preconceived "popular opinion" then I suggest you are adding your own POV to this article.--CReynolds 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my assertion that it will be the popular perception that McC. was just demagogue-ing when he made that speech, and that the Wikipedia article isn't the place to be arguing against that perception. In cases like this, where there are no scientifically provable facts one way or the other about McC's motivation or honesty, the closest approximation to a neutral point of view is to go along with current popular perception. Not to go out of one's way to reinforce that popular perception, and not to argue against it either. What you're doing is arguing against the popular perception. I won't delete your edit, however. KarlBunker 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Karl I'm glad you are going to leave his edit, but I want to address your objection briefly. It seems to me that you are arguing that when truth isn't 100% clear, superstition (popular opinion) trumps facts (actual statements from witnesses). That seems bizarre to me. In fact, wikipedia is not the place to hold onto old beliefs just because they are comfortable. Sorry.

Karl replies: It's not that popular opinion trumps facts, it's that some selection of which facts to present has to be made, or the article would be of infinite length. Because that selection of which facts to present unavoidably supports some point of view, the closest approach to "neutral" is to make sure the supported point of view matches current popular opinion. KarlBunker 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But by trying to enforce "the supported point of view matches current popular opinion" you are adding POV to the article. As many have stated, the "current popular opinion" is not necessarily always right. Perception is not always based on facts, and McCarthy may be one of the most controversial figures in US history because of this. We should strive to remove biased adjectives like "freewheeling" because they imply POV as to the nature of the accusations, which may or may not be historically accurate. I agree the selection of which facts to present is powerful, which is why this is a community effort. --CReynolds 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

CReynolds -- I feel like we've been over this before, and we're both repeating ourselves. As I've said before, if you remove all negatively-weighted language from an article about McCarthy, the article would not reflect popular opinion, and it would therefor be (correctly) perceived as biased in favor of McC. The article on Hitler, to use an extreme but illustrative example, uses negatively-weighted words like "genocide" and "holocaust." It would be an outrageously biased article if it didn't use those "biased" words. Yes, (as I've said before) this article inevitably presents a POV. "Neutrality," with articles that are to any degree controversial, doesn't mean "NO point of view". It means a POV that avoids trying to promote any minority opinion. Yes, (as I've said before), the majority opinion might be wrong. Nevertheless, with controversial issues, the job of an encyclopedia is to present a snapshot of current majority opinion. If you want to "correct" the majority opinion, the place to try to do that is almost anywhere EXCEPT an encyclopedia. KarlBunker 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

'Investigating the Army' Section

"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)

'The Army-McCarthy Hearings' Section

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)

'McCarthy's Final Years' Section

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)

'Evidence' Section

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)

protected

G'day guys,

I have protected the page from editing until you blokes can sort out how to get a neutral version out there without making drastic changes to each others' versions. It's clear to me that User:GMB isn't actually vandalising, but is merely pushing his own POV. He would probably say that the original article is more POV than his changes. Fair enough.

Anyway, this page will probably remain protected for a few days, so I'd respectfully suggest y'all hunker down and try to thrash out a compromise, preferably without using the words "vandal" or (especially) "leftist counter-offensive". Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on this subject, so I don't know how much I can contribute. I simply saw multiple extreme point of view edits made and reverted them, I don't know what if any info User:GMB added that can be used in a neutral POV version of this article. VegaDark 11:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellas. You have to stop spitting on this guys grave. Civilised men only kill someone once or there is a comeuppance. As folks like Hector and Achilles found out when they humiliated the already dead. The reason the article is so long is that tendentious left-wingers keep on adding extra stuff to put the young patriot down. That is why it will be largely by cutting out a sentence here and a sentence there that you will have a better, crisper article.

He was the whistleblower in the greatest whistleblowing case in all history. And when a dysfunctional institution is beset with a scandal it tends to reinforce its mistakes. Unfortuantely this whistleblowing scandal seems to have taken over the entire Western World. I consider McCarthy therefore to be THE central figure in post-war American politics. And we cannot really understand modern politics without understanding McCarthy and the nature of the scandal and the behaviour of those WHO REMAIN on the wrong side of it. GMB. P.S. About not using the words "leftist counter-offensive".......... Can't do it fella. Because that's exactly what it was. In fact even the term "McCarthyism" was coined by the communists.

Do you mind backing this up with sources? We have other articles to support this, which you so blatantly omitted. Personally, I think the protected version is currently in the wrong state. But that's me. Natalinasmpf 15:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GMB that McCarthy's article wasn't as compelte as it should have been, but I disagree with many of the changes he's made. However, I think we should start talkig about these changes instead of getting into an editing war.--CReynolds 20:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OF COURSE I MIND. SINCE NONE OF YOUR CHANGES ARE BACKED BY SOURCES YOU ARE SIMPLY PUTTING AN ARBITRARY HIGH BAR FOR US NON-COMMUNISTS TO JUMP OVER.

The sources are included in the references section, as well as other links. You however have preferentionally deleted the other links in order to support your view. There is more support for the previous revision than your current. -- Natalinasmpf 16:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should have a new tag:

"The content of this article is politically loaded, and therefor there is no chance in hell that this article is ever going to be any where near 'neutral' to the satisfaction of more than a few readers. If you want something approaching unbiased facts, you're shit out of luck here. Go buy yourself a real encyclopedia."

Personally, I haven't got the time or energy to continue arguing this.

KarlBunker 14:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

YEAH YOU DO THAT PAL

The bar should be put up very high. This chap caused the United States a lot of damage which it is still recovering from. To put it simply, the man did not act in a Christian way. Wallie 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the bar should be high, but who sets that bar is what we need to settle. As it was, I think the article was too slanted against the man and was very short of historical facts and context. However, I totally disagree with 2 points in your statement. 1) I don't think he did the US a lot of damage. He in fact did a huge service to the US by trying to make an issue out of Communist infiltration of our government, a fact which was being largely ignored (sometimes willfully ignored, other times just partisian-ly ignored); 2) The definintion of how "Christian" one should act is VERY subjective. He was doing what he thought was right for the country, even if some objected to his methods (and that's also VERY open to interpretation).--CReynolds 20:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, though, I consider myself a conservative and I find it very EASY to argue that he did damage to the country. Most reputable historians, even the so-called conservative ones who uncovered the fact that his accusations did in fact have merit, agree that he was a reckless demagogue who did real damage to the anti-communist cause, by providing a nice fat target for opponents of the cause and trivializing the fight against Communism. Also, the issue was hardly being ignored in the government to begin with, if not in Congress then surely not in the FBI and actual counter-espionage agencies.

I'm a conservative too, and I pretty much thought he was a demagogue as well, until I started looking into the specifics of what he said and did, and not just read it about in the "official" books. That isn't to say he wasn't a demagogue, just there may be more to it than we've been told. And while the law-enforcement agencies were looking at specific instances of spying, like Aimes and the Rosenbergs, we now know from Venona they missed an awful lot. At the time, all McCarthy was trying to do was keep known Communists (and if they weren't known were they actually trying to cover up their Communistic ties for some reason) out of the most sensitive and classified areas of the government. And while the FBI and DoD were able to identify a great deal of security risks, it still took a political decision to exclude these risks from the government. McCarthy received his famous 57/205 member list, but his point was that no one was actively working to get these accidents-waiting-to-happen out of the figurative code rooms. Without him, would it have become the major issue it did?--CReynolds 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, and vigilance against espionage is always a valid goal for any US Senator. But there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way, and witch-hunts and black-balling are definitely the wrong way. -Kasreyn 06:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And that, my friend, is a POV statement. :-) Tomer^talk 08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've semiprotected instead of completely locking - GMB created an account today and promptly started edit-warring in various places. He's also under a 3RR block - David Gerard 17:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Kasreyn, you are correct there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. I don't doubt McCarthy was pretty hard nosed about being anti-Communist, but many of us weren't around then to objectively observe whether the "witch hunts" were an honest descriptor or not (then, like now, the liberal media was very much against him, and they're the ones who wrote have happened). Undoubtedly there were many who were opposed to investigating Communist infiltration of the government, and unfortunately it was the left wing that spear-headed that opposition (this is not the say there weren't Democrats that were anti-Communist, though). Also, McCarthy didn't "blackball" anyone, unless you mean trying to get the government to exclude those with security problems from sensitive government jobs (today it would be like allowing someone who father is in Al Queda to work in the CIA Bin Laden unit).--CReynolds 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

the links to Hebrew Japnese Chinese and Korea are broken - please fix it

he:ג'וזף מקארתי

ja:ジョセフ・マッカーシー

ko:조지프 매카시

zh:约瑟夫·雷芒德·麦卡锡

"Early Life" Section

"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)

May I remind you - using ad hominem attacks as an excuse to dispute content is a logical fallacy. On the other hand, unbalanced emphasis is indeed is POV, but I see nothing wrong in the use of emphasis in this paragraph (note the word although). It is not clumsy and long-winded. Sheesh, it is only the use of a conjunction. It's not a run-on sentence, for one. Also, you are misusing the term "ethnic cleansing". -- Natalinasmpf 23:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't committed ANY logical fallacies. Get it right. The phrase ethnic cleansing is used here only by analogy. I don't need an excuse to clean up an outrageously written article or a clear violation of neutrality within that article. And there are no ad homenim attacks here. We all know what's going on here. And why the article is a line by line violation of neutrality.

What problem do you have with my draft proposed revision? Now are you going to comment on the content? Or are you just dogging my every step. Hoping to hold up the process of correcting this vile essay? GMB 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What? Are you assuming bad faith again? I have every right to comment respectfully on your proposal. I already have outlined what is wrong with the revision, namely in my replies to all your proposals above. I do not currently have any outstanding problems with the existing content, so I do not make a comment on it, although I defend it.

As for your use of logical fallacy, you have indeed committed one by pre-emptively attacking the content of editors based on their political affliation, not the content itself. -- Natalinasmpf 00:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No no. Its YOU that has been guilty of faulty logic. Not me. You will find no logical fallacies in anything I've written here. Now how is my version inferior to the original? GMB 00:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are begging the question. And I have explained how it is inferior with the rebuttals above. See each of my comments directed against your proposals. -- Natalinasmpf 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No I'm not begging the question. This is just more illogic on your part. And no you haven't explained why the original version is superior. That was just you misapplying logical fallacies in an illogical way.

What you are doing is violating neutrality by arbitrarily predjudicing the old entry over the proposed entry. The old sentence isn't cut in stone or pulled out of a burning bush. No matter what special priveledges you might like to confer on the leftist who wrote it. You should be comparing one against the other without favouring either.

That would be neutrality. GMB 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

But this is discussion. I have right to rebut a proposal as I see fit. NPOV policy applies to articles, not discussion and this is not soapboxing either (which is discouraged on talk pages). We are discussing over what in the article is neutral, and it is not a requirement that the discussion over an article's neutrality be neutral, because otherwise then this very discussion of the neutrality of the discussion of the neutrality of the article would have to be neutral. Then therefore the discussion of the neutrality of the discussion of the neutrality of the article would too, have to be neutral. Then the discussion of the neutrality of the discussion of the neutrality of the discussion of the neutrality of the discussion of the neutrality of the article, would too, have to be neutral, leading to infinite recursion. Therefore, only article neutrality is required, although it is advised that one is not antagonistic, which I am not doing, although I am not being fairly mediative at the moment. -- Natalinasmpf 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Golly. Now you're just being silly.

I never contested your right to discuss this matter. What a horrid libel.

Now might I trouble you to actually focus on the two entries. Without predjudice to either. Instead of getting bogged down in all this sophistry. GMB 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already replied above, recheck the complaints you wrote and how I replied to them. I am not applying prejudice - I am merely discussing your proposal, and opposing it with reason. Libel? You did contest my right to discuss this matter, you called it "violating neutrality" and "harassment". What irony. -- Natalinasmpf 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope.

Some of that was over at my talk page for other reasons. You haven't even begun to analyse the alternatives in a neutral manner. And instead have gotten bogged down in sophistry. Which sort of implies that you don't have a valid critisism of the proposed text. GMB 01:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would actually respond to my rebuttals, then you would have the authority to say that. I rest my case. -- Natalinasmpf 01:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Concentrate on the text. If that's the end of your case then I should be able to go ahead and edit. Since you haven't attempted a neutral comparision between the two potential entries. GMB 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Natalina, on your OWN PAGE you describe yourself a radical communist. And your behavior is consistant with someone who is promoting an aggressive communist agit-prop operation. STOP IT -- we can ALL see what you're up to. Akulkis 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some recent changes to this article are strongly slanted in favor of McCarthy and dismissive of those who opposed him. The neutrality of the article is gone, so I've added the "neutrality" tag. KarlBunker 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Name one person he falsely accused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redman1936 (talk • contribs) 22:24, December 21, 2005 (UTC)

How about Owen Lattimore, for starters?

Owen Lattimore was named by 13 different witnessess under oath as being a Communist. Although the Tydings Committee cleared Lattimore of all charges, another Senate committee, the SISS, vindicated Joe McCarthy when it declared in 1952 that "Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy."--CReynolds 17:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How specifically is it slanted? It seems a lot more factual.

So it seems the facts have been censored out of Wikipedia. The "even handed" revision is anything but! That is part of the problem with discussing McCarthy. The myth has overshadowed the facts, and when the facts are presented they are scrubbed out.

The article (for the moment) has been reverted to a level of neutrality that was accepted by readers for many months. There's no such thing as absolute neutrality in an article like this. The changes I refer to and object to above were predicated on the opinion that McCarthy's actions were justified, based on the fact or belief that most or all of the people he specifically accused have been shown to be actual communists or communist sympathizers. The majority of Americans and historians in particular do not believe that McCarthy's actions were justified. Whether or not the people he specifically accused were actually communists is not the only issue. Other issues include the morality of his methods, his motivations, and the effect his actions and his methods had on American society.

For what it's worth, I believe that the story of McCarthy is more complicated than most people recognize, and that he has been made something of a scapegoat for something that was much larger than he was. But that's too long and argumentative of a story for a Wikipedia article. KarlBunker 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just gotten a Wikipedia account since I don't want anyone to think I was trying to hide behind an anonymous IP address. I want to have an honest discussion of this topic, but I feel the article 'as is' is not neutral. I've been adding additional information to the article, complete with quotes from a great deal of people, that directly refute some of the assertions and impressions presented in this article. While I am new to Wikipedia, it seems this is not allowed. I'm not saying McCarthy was the greatest guy or anything, but sanitizing the article from opposing points of view, even if you think the article had "a level of neutrality that was accepted by readers for many months" doen't mean it really was neutral. Rather than get into an editing war, why don't you explain why, on a point by point basis, the additional facts I'm presenting shouldn't be included?--CReynolds 16:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)CReynolds

Let me just insert for inexperienced users thinking of bringing facts or balance to this discussion: I'm currently facing a two year ban for attempting to do exactly that by the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) good ol' boy network [1][2] that allows Political Research Associates to target and harass users on Wikipedia who imagine any such heresy. nobs 16:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

CReynolds -- My main point of objection to the recent changes is given above. That the attitude behind them was: if the people McCarthy accused were actually communists, then that shows that he was "right" and is critics were/are "wrong." Not many people would agree with that opinion. My other point is that there's no such thing as true neutrality with a subject like this. The best that can be hoped for is for the article to be acceptable to the majority of those who read it and especially to those who know something about the subject. No, being accepted by readers doesn't mean that it's truly neutral. But that's the best we can do. KarlBunker 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

KarlBunker -- I understand. I will attempt to refrain from adding subjective language that may indicate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of McCarthy's accusations. However, I do not believe adding statements that add context, like stating the Venona files actually do show some of those McCarthy was accusing of being a Communists were in fact working for the Soviet Union or Democratic opposition to McCarthy helped color the results of commissions, are too biased. Facts alone do not paint an accurate picture of history. Context is needed. Other than that, citing facts like the number of people called before his committe, both publically and privately, do not represent an attempt at slanting the story. They are only facts and the readers should be able to interpret them as they like.

That being said, I would like to reintroduce some of my postings. I'll do them one at a time so they can be address individually. I'll also start new sections in the Discussion area so we can discuss the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the post, if they are too biased, and if so should they be removed or reworded. As the article currently stands, I believe the current article is missing a great deal of information on the The Tydings Committee, The Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, McCarthy's Army investigation, the retalitory Army-McCarthy Hearings, and the Watkins Committee.--CReynolds 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

CReynolds : Any suggestion McCarthy was a flawed human being who put his pants on one leg at a time will not be tolerated; McCarthy was a crazed monster who ate live babies for breakfast, despite what modern scholarship and/or declassified documents reveal. The standard is "verifiability, not truth" (see: WP:V), and efforts to bring facts or balance to this article will only get you sent packing. nobs 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)