Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Extreme anti-communist suspicion"

Lets get this settled once and for all, because it has been driving me crazy for a long time. First question; where in the article is this asserted, after all the lead is a summary of the articles contents. And second, what is meant by this? The suspicion was extreme? The decade was extreme? The people being suspicious were extreme? Republicans, McCarthy, who does this refer to? I'm not being sarcastic either, I really want this cleared up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the language is so difficult to grapple with. I read "a period of extreme anti-communist suspicion" as serviceable shorthand for "a period marked by extreme anticommunist sentiment and fear of leftist subversion." The sentence is followed by a citation referencing three excellent sources supporting the description.

In answer to your other basic question, there are many elements in the article that support the description. Here's just one paragraph:

At the time of McCarthy's speech, Communism was a growing concern in the United States. This concern was worsened by the actions of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, the fall of China to the Maoists, the Soviets' development of the atomic bomb the year before and by the recent conviction of Alger Hiss and the confession of Soviet spy Klaus Fuchs. With this background and due to the sensational nature of McCarthy's charge against the State Department, the Wheeling speech soon attracted a flood of press interest in McCarthy.

The wording of the lead sentence in question might possibly be reworded along the sort of lines I've suggested for greater clarity, but it doesn't seem a major concern.—DCGeist (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No I agree, its not, but I think you should add a bit more clarity along the lines that you described. How would "intense" work instead? That way it is "extremely" clear. :) I want to get this cleared up because I believe it has improved tremendously since its last FA nom, has a robust section on the reassessing of McCarthy, very well referenced throughout, and if we can just get a different adjective, I would give my full support to a new FA nom. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Intense anti-communist suspicion" seems okay to me. It doesn't seem to do any harm, anyway. RedSpruce (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's accurate enough and potentially less contentious.—DCGeist (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cue the choirs of angels, muuuuuch better, thank you for being fair minded and understanding. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FA nom?

What would need to be done to get this article ready for another FA candidacy? As I said above, it looks very good, very NPOV now, so it seems star-worthy, that's why I ask. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be nominated as-is, via Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, or a Wikipedia:Peer review could be initiated to see what comments that generates. For various reasons (laziness prominent among them), I'm reluctant to take these steps myself, but anyone can do so. RedSpruce (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is terrible, it reflects a view that has long been shown inaccurate by a large number of experts. So if you want to make it a FA candidate, I think you should delete it and write it based on the current view of current experts on the subject, not the bias view of his opposition.Mantion (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

I don't see how the New York Times is erroneous in reporting his death. If it was they would have reprinted a retraction. Why are you deleting it? What exactly is "erroneous" as you wrote in your edit summary? That he died on that date, or that he died of a "liver ailment", or the age of 47? Or do you just not like the New York Times as a reference?

Joseph McCarthy died at the age of 48.—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the footnote is unnecessary. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source." No one will have any reason to challenge the date (or fact) of McCarthy's death. Also, the footnote quote is redundant and pointless, as it simply repeats (except where it's inaccurate) the information already in the article. If the NYT obit was available online without a subscription, then it would make an excellent "external link," but it isn't. RedSpruce (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't all the footnotes repeat what is in the article? Isn't that their raison d'etre. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um.... no, they don't (except for most of the ones you add to Wikipedia, that is). The purpose of a footnote is to give additional information, often for clarification of the footnoted text. In the case of Wikipedia, their primary purpose is to add references that show a reader where certain statements can be verified. Since the bulk of your many thousands of contributions to Wikipedia are in the form of adding footnotes, it's just a teensy bit surprising that you have so little understanding of what a footnote is supposed to be. Perhaps you should stop adding them until you've educated yourself on this point. RedSpruce (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a footnoted reference citation vs. a footnote factoid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a footnote factoid? RedSpruce (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnoted references use the "{{cite" transclusion, a "footnoted comment" or "footnoted factoid", or a "footnoted additional fact", also goes to the bottom of the page but only uses the "<ref" html coding, both appear at the foot of the article, yet, are used for different purposes. The footnoted additional fact introduces new material, the footnoted reference citation doesn't introduce new material, it uses the actual quote from the cited material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a footnoted reference citation usually does not introduce new material, and no, I was not confusing the two. Saying that a reference citation "uses the actual quote from the cited material" is your own bizarre practice, however, and is not at all a part of standard citation practice (as I've tried to point out to you many times before). It obviously should not be done when the quote serves no purpose, and merely repeats information already in the main text. It should only be done when when you are combining the two forms of footnote you describe. That is, you are both providing a reference citation and introducing some new information that clarifies or expands upon the main text. Sometimes this clarification and expansion is done with a quote from the source. But if you aren't using the footnote to introduce new information, you don't need a quote from the source.

The general rule here is a simple one: The reader doesn't need or want to have the same information thrown at him twice. If you're repeating information, you're doing something wrong. RedSpruce (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, by moving the encyclopedic fact to the text of the article and properly using the footnote, this becomes a properly attributed encyclopedic fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the "encyclopedic fact"? That an NY times typesetter hit the wrong key? I don't think you'll find that trivia covered in any McCarthy biography. RedSpruce (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny section

"McCarthy died in Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 2, 1957, at the age of 48. The official cause of death was acute hepatitis; it is widely accepted that this was brought on by alcoholism."

I think that the correct expression is not alcoholism, but murder, or hurry into doing suicide. --Mazarin07 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"The evil flee where no man pursueth." I don't think he needed to be hurried along by anyone else -- especially long after he had ceased to have the power to injure anyone. P0M (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Peralta

umm... I'm not sure but I don't think Carlos Peralta is Sen. McCarthy's brother... (see Early Life section) this looks like a prank edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.58.32 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A missing incident?

My favorite part of the Army-McCarthy hearings seems not to have been included in the article. Welch was questioning McCarthy about the State Department members on the fabled list. He makes a request or two and gets no satisfactory answer. Then Welch says: "What happened to the list, Senator? Did the elfs get it?" The expression on McCarthy's face is burned into my memory. Of course as a 12 year old I had no idea which "elfs" the wily lawyer probably had in mind. P0M (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The great, decent actor, Joseph Welch, should have said "elves," not "elfs." Lestrade (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

You're right. My mistake.P0M (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberal partisanship

This article, while for the most part factual and accurate, shows considerable liberal bias in the later sections, particularly the See it Now section and the analysis of McCarthy's motives. The see it now program was as selective and slanderous as any of mccarthy's own attacks: it selected purely clips of Mccarthy in his worst light, even one where he was picking his nose, and was, as almost every liberal media source from the time, inherently liberally biased and partisan. McCarthy was not a monster or a tyrant, he was merely a demagogue who craved nothing more than respect and admiration; he had no secret power agenda and his actions and methods were little different from many other American politicians during the time of the Red Scare (ie. Pat Mcarran, Karl Mundt, John Parnell Thomas. Sources which support this are numerous and all from a modern and unbiased perspective free from the political liberal partisanship of the historians at the time (Hermann, A (2000) Joseph McCarthy. Free Press, Boston), (Wicker, T. (2006) Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joseph McCarthy. Harcourt, USA), (Oshinsky, D (2005) A Conspiracy so Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy. Oxford University Press, UK) . The Venona Decrypts have proven McCarthy was at least a little bit correct, however, I am not arguing his innocence; Joseph McCarthy was one of the most prolific and destructive liars in the history of American politics. However, what has been unfairly omitted is the fact that his actions were akin to almost every other politician during the 1950's and that he worked exclusively on the state department and the army and had nothing to do with the censorship or stifling of free speech perpetrated by others during the Red Scare. He also had no interest in personal power or a secret agenda, merely publicity and popular admiration, and retained a colossal support base amongst liberals, republicans, academics and working class americans alike right until his death. It is only due to the privileging of the liberal and incorrect view of McCarthy in primary history sources of the time that he is so unfairly slandered and demonized in American popular culture. This Liberal and biased view has been privileged unfairly in this article, especially in the see it now and army mccarthy hearings section as well as the analysis and, as any responsible historian would agree, should be rectified immediately. (Ed2975 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

You express a lot of opinions here. Some are demonstrably incorrect: that he "had nothing to do with.. censorship or stifling of free speech", some are unprovable: "He also had no interest in personal power...", some represent a minority view among scholars in the field: That Herman's biography is "unbiased", and that the See It Now episode was "as... slanderous as any of McCarthy's own attacks". In any case, all you present is opinions, with no specified reference or source to support them.

If you'd like to propose any specific changes to the article, and can show that such changes are in agreement with the majority view of modern McCarthy scholars, I'd be most interested in seeing them. Simply claiming that the article is "liberal and biased" isn't very useful.

RedSpruce (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

give it up Ed I tried for years and wasted hundreds of hours trying to improve the article. The liberal bias is here for good. There is a conservative wiki that has a much better article about him. Just don't waste your time you will only be insulted and or ignored.Mantion (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"a minority view among scholars in the field" and this is completely relevant how? Given that no one in their right mind argues that some 90% of academics (i.e., "scholars") are strongly left-leaning, you've got a blatant universe of biased observations. The only way to accurately analyze that would be to do a study of reasonably evenly balanced scholars. It's amazing how it's somehow important to have equal representation across a vast array of cultural and social patterns... excepting political views. The hypocrisy it takes to have that viewpoint, that equality only matters where some people want it to matter -- e.g., "except for political views" -- is nothing short of mind-boggling.OBloodyHell (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I specifically removed some explicit and irrelevant uses of the identifier "conservative" -- if you're not going to expressly identify expressions and people as "liberal" then it's hardly unbiased to expressly identify conservatives in most cases. I seem to recall a specific rule regarding overt bias in wiki entries... Identifying one without identifying the other, in places where the identification isn't relevant to the specific discussion of the instant (such as noting "universal condemnation from scholars", including "many conservatives", quietly ignoring the fact that most of the "universal" scholars in question are blatantly left-leaning, and then on top claiming far more support from known conservatives than is even called for by the evidence presented) is just so ridiculously biased it's pitiful, and is the sort of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Either identify them all or don't identify them, and let the reader figure out where their politics dwell.OBloodyHell (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Mockingbird

From reading the lemma "Operation Mockingbird" I would assume there should be a link. The article contains important information i.e. "Wisner unleashed Mockingbird on McCarthy." Abe, 4.11.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.135.191.250 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fried chicken??

"Hoping to mend the increasingly hostile relations between McCarthy and the Army, a group of Republicans, including McCarthy, met with Secretary Stevens over a luncheon that included fried chicken and convinced him..."

How exactly is that relevant? -- megA (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The meeting became known as the "Chicken luncheon", and that sentence explains why.Manning (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Woltman

He is described as a "long standing" anit-communist and then quoted in criticizin McCarthy following th Army-McCarthy hearing. Two things I wanted to bring up. First the citations are to a TIME article commenting on Woltman's articals. If any can pull the original articles and cite, that would be much better. Granted it's a primary source on what Woltman said, but it's a secondary source on the topic of this article. In this case, straight from the horse's mouth is better.

Second, the link for Frederick Woltman is dead, so the "long standing" communist bit seems unsupported. I did a quick look and saw that he won a pulitzer on a five article series on communist infiltration in America, so the label is probably true, but it should be verified and if anyone has the energy, given the above, Woltman does appear to be notable enough to warrant his own article. IMHO (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How many Communists exactly?

I've read the article, and I've read the FAQ, but I still find no mention of how many people McCarthy accused of being Communists actually were Communists (other than non-specific passing phrases of "many", "few", and "very little overlap"). Is this kind of concrete information really not obtainable? | Loadmaster (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here for the same reasons. I would like to know this myself, or maybe I'll try to find it elsewhere. Nimnoms (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate article - Senate career of Joseph McCarthy

This article is awfully long, and would be reduced substantially if we made this a seperate article. Just some food for thought.--Levineps (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. As McCarthy's career in the Senate constitutes virtually the entire period of his notability, such an article would constitute a highly undesirable content fork.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist. The subject is known only for his senate career. I can't see any point in having a shorter biography that omits the most important part of his life.   Will Beback  talk  18:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Godfather to Kathleen Kennedy

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Kennedy_Townsend it says: "Her godparents are her aunt, Jean Kennedy Smith, and Danny Walsh, one of her mother's teachers at Manhattanville College." Is that just a "current" statement where this on is historical or is one article mistaken. Meaning was McCarthy her godparent and now he's not (because of death or other reason) or is one article wrong? Reboot (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My single space edit to citation of see it now murrow-mccarthy

When DCGeist created a named reference then reverted it on realizing that they were two different pages, the references at the bottom did not re-update to reflect unique citations. To fix this I added a space ot the title and then removed it. Seems to be a mediawiki bug. Anyhow the article is fixed now wrt this citation Reboot (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT?

Why did he never take legal action against Hank Greenspun or his newspaper for stating that McCarthy was a homosexual? If he was straight and there was no evidence of any homosexual involvements, surely he would have taken action against such (potentially) damaging claims from the media? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a single serious biographer of McCarthy accepts that it was "probable" that he was homosexual. An individual political opponent of McCarthy's who owned a newspaper happened to make the charge during his lifetime. It is not incumbent upon a person falsely accused in the media to pursue legal action; in fact, it is perfectly reasonable to avoid doing so, as legal action can bring much more attention to a false accusation than it has garnered under its own power. Given that not a single national media outlet picked up Greenspun's claim at the time, McCarthy's decision not to sue Greenspun is very, very far from proof that he was homosexual.—DCGeist (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God. This is a serious argument from Nietzche2? The fact that someone doesn't sue for libel proves they're gay? Have you no sense of decency? (For the record, I think DCGeist summarized the issue very well). MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a similar claim was also made in the HBO Movie Truman ... hardly a proper citation. It got pretty rough during the Korean War so the claims regarding homosexually were dismissed by most as political dirty tricks. Hutcher (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper Lead Article?

I'm not happy with the Lead. My reading of the style guideline WP:LEAD leads me to wonder why the lead gets into his early life (which is repeated in Early Life). McCarthyism definitely belongs in the lead because he was noted for it but it's mentioned twice. Hutcher (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the lead as per Wikipedia:Lead which calls for "concise overview of the article" while still "explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". I'm confident info removed still exists in the main body of the article but it reads much better then it did previously. Hutcher (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of censures correction

The final sentence of the section named 2.12 Censure and the Watkins Committee originally read as: "The Senate had invoked censure against one of its members only THREE times before in the nation's history."

I have corrected this to FIVE, based on List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured#Censured_senators. Manning (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Joseph McCarthy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I tagged several images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons, if you have an account, consider moving them over so that other language Wikipedias can benefit from them. It looks like File:Lafollette dynasty.gif is a copyrighted image so I tagged it to be reduced. In addition it is lacking a license so be sure to add an appropriate one. Consider making another attempt at FAC if you're interested. This article could probably make another attempt at FA with additional sourcing, addressing the image issues, and several copyedits. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis and Alcoholism

"The official cause of death was acute hepatitis; it is widely accepted that this was brought on by alcoholism"

Widely acccepted? Not by the Medical community. All three variants of hepatitis (Types A, B, and C and about 13+ subvarients) are caused by viruses. Alcoholism itself does NOT cause hepatitis.

Maybe you are confusing hepatic disease with cirrhosis? Both hepatitis and alcoholism will cause cirrhosis.

kip bassophonic@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.158.2 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just noticing the same problem. It may be that the alcoholism exacerbated the hepatitis, but "brought on" sounds like it is saying it is the cause of the hepatitis which is impossible. I'm going to edit that line to say something to the effect that the alcoholism worsened the problem (but didn't cause it directly). Mantisia (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Kennedy

This bio says McCarthy was Kathleen Kennedy's godfather. Kennedy's bio says her godfather was another guy. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you no shame???

...That this article does not contain the have you no shame quote that ended McCarthy's career??? 74.233.164.23 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote is actually "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" And the article, of course, does include it: see the Army-McCarthy hearings section.—DCGeist (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"salvaged the nation"?, Ann Coulter

I am a newbie here (first post), so please forgive me if I mess up. I have two problems with the article: the first paragraph where it says McCarthy "salvaged the nation", and under Ongoing Debate, there is a reference to the "respected" Ann Coulter. This seems to be discussed previously so I won't bother to rehash. Someone made the changes earlier today (just an IP address). Carrie38 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition of NYTimes article

Why was my addition removed??? CaptainNicodemus (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a passage to the intro of this article stating that the NY Times confirmed that Rosenberg had given secrets to the USSR. I am still learning how to add a reference to passages, but will do so once I learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

McCarthy never made a single claim about Rosenberg, and the two figures are unrelated (though the Rosenberg case is considered significant to the history of the cultural moment now known as McCarthyism). Your edits are entirely inappropriate to this article on Joseph McCarthy, particularly to its lede.—DCGeist (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused

The response to Coulter's views among scholars has been all but universally negative, even among those generally regarded as conservative.[107] Other authors who have voiced similar opinions include William Norman Grigg, formerly of the John Birch Society,[108] and Medford Stanton Evans.[109]

Does the foregoing statement mean that Grigg and Evans agree with Coulter--or that they agree with the scholars "even among those generally regarded as conservative"? Rammer (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Try it now. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

widow and daughter

In case anyone was wondering, McCarthy's widow died in 1979 and his adopted daughter Tierney Grinavic is still alive and is very active in animal rights' issues.

Length of Intro

If there are no objections I will shorten the last two paragraphs of the intro because they are too in-depth and repeat material which is said very soon after. Best wishes ValenShephard 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I object. The intro is not too in-depth; it's length and content are perfectly appropriate for an article of this size.—DCGeist (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The information about where he was born is repeated two paragraphs later. If any information from that is not included later, I'll move it there. Thats all. ValenShephard 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

On further reading I retract my desire to shorten it. ValenShephard 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Reverted changes to lede graf

Here's why:

• The addition of "while not providing any evidence" is redundant. The lede refers to McCarthy's "inability to substantiate his claims" in the very next sentence.
• To say of a serving senator that he "largely retreated from public life" is incongruous and not well supported.
• The fact that he was "shunned by his former colleagues and the media" is important, but is not so central to an understanding of McCarthy and his significance that it belongs in the first graf. I could see adding it toward the end of the third one.—DCGeist (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)