Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Neutrality (part 2)

Nobs01: Hello you socialist scumbag "Although McCarthy's activities did not result in any convictions or criminal prosecutions for espionage, intercepted Soviet communications from the now-declassified VENONA project, as well as the opening of Soviet Archives, indicate that some of the individuals he pursued were, in fact, Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers."

I dispute the neutrality of the article simply because it portrays McCarthy in a far too favorable light while glossing over the enormous damage he did, the lives and careers ruined, the trampling of individual freedoms, abuse of power, etc. The above quote is a case in point. The simple fact is that it was not against the law in the United States at that time to be a Communist. Neither has it ever been proven that any of the "spies" passed on information relating to national security issues to the Soviets. It also makes no mention of the McCarthy's exaggerating his wartime service record during his campaign for the Senate in 1946, nor of his smear campaign against his primary and general election opponents. Before McCarthy began his crusade, he was considered the worst Senator in Washington, due to his taking lobbying money (excessive even by Washington standards). The anti-Communist crusade was a way for him to rescue his declining political fortunes. A Senate committee investigated, then refuted, McCarthy's claims, but this got scant mention in the newspapers at the time because it wasn't sensational enough to grab the public's attention. Finally, the health problems that led to his death were indeed caused by his alcoholism. The fact that laws of evidence and Constitutional guarantees were suspended under his opportunistic, political reign of terror leaves me totally outraged that there are those who defend him to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodnik (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 March 2006

Vodnik -- I'm inclined to agree with you. I think "laws of evidence and Constitutional guarantees were suspended..." is a nice turn of phrase, too. I'd like to see you do some edits on this article, but I ask you to be circumspect as you do so. Document your sources, be careful about NPOV language, and all that stuff. It's easy to set off an edit war on an article like this one. Also, note that you can sign and date-stamp your comments in a Talk page by typing four tildes: "~~~~" KarlBunker 21:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Vasili Mitrokhin's documentation on KGB Penetration of US State Department.

Added reference which is FAR more credible than Ann Coulter -- a KGB official who was Chief Archivist of the Foreign Operations and Foreign Subversion Directorates for over 20 years, and defected with CUBIC YARDS of documents about KGB operations against the west, INCLUDING material directly relevant to McCarthy's complaints about KGB penetration of the US State Department.. My edit should probably be reviewed by someone else for better wording (I'll admit that I'm one who thinks McCarthy has been basically smeared by a press that was, even at that time, strongly manipulated by KGB Agents of Influence -- which Mitrokhin also discusses as standard procedure against any person who called attention to any operations which the KGB was actually running, including other prominent figures such as FBI head J Edgar Hoover who I personally dislike, but who was definitely attacked through KGB disinformation campaigns ) Akulkis 07:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

take off nuetrality disputes???

I feel that it has covered all viewpoints and it is very accurate. It's the best most detailed article about McCarthy that I have found online. I vote to take off the nuetrality sign.

Removed the neutrality tag, as the tone of the article is IMO better than it was even before non-neutral material started being added. In some recent edits I've removed text that seemed either excessively hostile toward McC, or unrealistically defensive of him. Naturally, the neutrality tag can be replace by anyone who thinks it belongs there. KarlBunker 12:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Venona files?

If you read the VENONA files subheading, there lists a statement that says most of the people McCarthy accused were in fact soviet spies, yet a paragraph down it concludes by saying most people he accused were not spies. What is the truth? (comment by anonymous editor 65.165.15.253)

This is the subject of numerous ongoing edit wars; some editors believe that VENONA proves all sorts of things, others don't. But the sentence "VENONA supports the view that nearly all of the individuals accused by McCarthy were indeed Soviet agents" is, in my opinion, very bad in two ways:

1. It uses the weaselly phrase "supports the view that...", which could mean anything from "is excellent evidence for..." to "could be used as ammunition by those who believe that...".
2. It asserts that everyone implicated by VENONA was a "Soviet agent", which most people would take to mean someone who knowingly worked as a spy. This is quite controversial; all that can unequivocally be said about everyone appearing in the VENONA files is that Soviet intelligence agents were interested in them. However, certain editors here have had no qualms about flatly stating "X was a Soviet spy" in dozens of biographical articles, without acknowledging the controversy.

I've gone through several rounds on this section, and started an RFC on VENONA references in general, but the latter unfortunately went nowhere except a failed mediation between the two most vocal editors. This badly needs a sustained group effort - I think much of this material is at best confusing, and at worst libelous. But in this article, I think there is no need to provide any kind of detailed scorecard for McCarthy, and really no way to do so given the often nebulous nature of the accusations, let alone the evidence. I think it would be fine to simply say that McCarthy fingered a bunch of people, including notably X, Y, and Z (simple links would be fine, no need for all the titles - those were added by a currently banned editor who was very fond of lots and lots of background information), and that he was often unable to produce any evidence, but that the VENONA project later turned up references to them from Soviet intelligence. It's beyond the scope of this article to say what was specifically alleged or proven about any of those individuals; that can be dealt with in their articles or in the VENONA article. This article is about McCarthy.

Looking at that section again, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to retitle it something like "Evidence"; the part about Lehman holding out his hand is noteworthy, and has nothing to do with VENONA. ←Hob 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with renaming that section. As for what VENONA really says, it may be a controversy. I'm not sure becasue I'm still learning quite a bit about it. However, I think the push to include a statement to the effect that "some of those McCarthy accused were in fact Soviet agents" is due to the fact that for so long, many people believe McCarthy was demonized for something that he was ultimately right about. We want that bit of information out there. I think we need to strike a balance between those that think McCarthy was right about everyone he investigated and those that think everyone he investigated were innocent of being Communists.

And to just say that "all that can unequivocally be said about everyone appearing in the VENONA files is that Soviet intelligence agents were interested in them" is a bit too...blasé about those mentioned in VENONA. Keep in mind the files are intercepted transcripts between Soviet agents in the US and those in the Soviet Union. If you were mentioned in the files directly (not just being talked about by agents), odds are that you were a spy. Maybe they were just discussing turing someome to become a spy, but I haven't seen anything (and maybe someone can confirm this) about how many people listed in VENONA were actual agents or just those thinking of being turned.--CReynolds 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted before, it's a common misconception among those seeking to improve popular opinion of McCarthy that he's been unfairly demonized for pursuing people who weren't actually communists. In fact, he's been demonized for his methods, his rhetoric and his personality. In the U.S. today, people are generally unimpressed to hear that some/many/all of the people on McC's various lists were genuinely communists. KarlBunker 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it was ok for McCarthy to investigate communists, he just shouldn't have been such an a**hole while doing it? The fact he was right, that there were communists in our government working to undermine the US, that they had done and were doing damage to the US, doesn't matter, just so long as you're nice?--CReynolds 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, roughly speaking, that's what I'm saying. A person's reputed cause may be technically correct, but if the way that person pursues his cause is evil, then that person is going to be characterized as evil. In the case of McC. specifically, a complication to opinions about him is that the popular perception of him (except among his relatively few supporters) has always been that there was no sincerity to his fight against communists. Rightly or wrongly, he is perceived as being an evil person who pretended to be an ardent communist fighter for his own selfish purposes. KarlBunker 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth trumps manners, and McCarthy's attackers are hardly paragons of virtue. In fact, most of them are FAR more vicious than McCarthy was. Your very behavior in this forum is indicative -- you're smearing a man's word because you don't like HOW he said it, accusing him of being a liar. Akulkis 14:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be about "popular wisdom" or perception. It should be about the fact. If the facts are known, perception will take care of itself.--CReynolds 16:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

CReynolds: And to just say that "all that can unequivocally be said about everyone appearing in the VENONA files is that Soviet intelligence agents were interested in them" is a bit too...blasé about those mentioned in VENONA. --Well, call it blasé or what you will, but it's still all that can unequivocally be said. If we say "they were all spies" we are making judgments an encyclopedia has no business making, and giving people a false impression of the nature of the evidence. A number of government analysts and historians have concluded that various people were spies, based on a considerable amount of analysis which we should not gloss over in this way - certainly not in the McCarthy article - and there are strong opinions on both sides with no apparent consensus. The fact that espionage is a serious matter doesn't give us an excuse to be sloppy. ←Hob 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside of a few hangers on, the concensus is that most people mentioned in the VENONA cables were not just persons of interest, but were actively colaborating with the NKVD/KGB. DTC 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

SO let me get this straight, it's perfectly fine to make baseless accusations against McCarthy in this article but the second you try and defend him with VERIFIABLE TRUTH in the VENONA files it's off-topic? Give me a break. This is Wikipedia, not Libopedia, not Commiepedia.

Anonymous editor: throwing around insults without even signing them is a good way to get people to ignore you. And no one said it was perfectly fine to make baseless accusations against anyone. Be willing to collaborate and improve the article, or go away. ←Hob 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what KarlBunker says. As long as the facts support "popular wisdom" they should be included. If the facts go against "popular wisdom" then they should be purged. Now we know how "popular wisdom" is created - the right people decide what is popular and we have to accept their wisdom.--CReynolds 16:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To an extent, yes, that's what I'm saying. With a topic like this there are many known facts, but the answers to the key questions cannot be answered with facts. We don't have access to such facts as McCarthy's true motivations, nor is there any fact-based answer to such questions as "did he do more harm than good?" or "were the distasteful aspects of his methods necessary and justified?" There are no fact-based answers to questions like those, there are only opinions. Of course, one can support either "side" of questions like these by selectively choosing the facts one presents. Since this article can't be of infinite length, it can only present a limited number of facts, and selection has to be done. If the balance of information presented leans too far (in either direction) from supporting popularly accepted opinions about McCarthy, then the article is going to look biased to the majority of readers.

So the closest approach to "neutrality" is to to avoid arguing against popular opinion. Unfortunately, for those who disagree with the popular opinion, when the article reports the existence of the popular opinion, and avoids arguing against the popular opinion, this inevitably sounds like the article is arguing in favor of the popular opinion. KarlBunker 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Karl, that's called propaganda, and you're NOT going to be allowed to get away with it here. Akulkis 14:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use full caps at me. I frighten easily. KarlBunker 14:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I even agree with most of it to an extent. I didn't want to sound too harsh, and I'm afraid after rereading my comments it may have sounded like that. However, the problem arises when we encounter a situation where history, or popular opinion, may be wrong. How do we objectively set the record straight (if that's what many of us think should happen)? Opinion is such a fuzzy concept to try and change, even if the facts are on your side.--CReynolds 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a little muddled due to multiple conversations going on at once, but - CReynolds: All I'm trying to say about the VENONA text is that we should not make any sweeping statements that we don't back up. If it is true that all the individuals mentioned are strongly implicated as spies, then that should be spelled out in their articles and in the VENONA article. Right now, if you look at those articles, there's mostly a lot of vague material whose sources are still being strongly disputed; I'm sure you're aware of the multiple edit wars that Nobs, Cberlet et al. were carrying on until Nobs got banned. And it sounds like you don't have the sources either, since you said above, "I haven't seen anything (and maybe someone can confirm this) about how many people listed in VENONA were actual agents". So, if we can't say anything without guessing, we shouldn't say anything. It's better to leave holes in the article to be filled in with solid sources, rather than leave bad material in. And, again, this is the McCarthy article; I don't see why it is crucial to name so many names if we're not even going to give the specifics of what McCarthy accused them of. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the investigations themselves. ←Hob 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, rather than trying to say something to the effect of 'we don't know the status of those mentioned in Venona, so nothing should be said', why don't we go with the stance that those caught communicating with communist agents in the Soviet Union were in fact soviet agents? Unless you can provide good (ie no original research) evidence that refutes the identification of these people by the FBI, then "popular wisdom" says they were, ultimately, guilty of what McCarthy was accusing them of. And it's important to name the names because those people were held up as innocent victims during those times, but have since proven, via VENONA, to be traitors.--CReynolds 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then name the names for the cases where you can describe the proof - which is basically what's been done with the current list, if you look at the individual articles, although some of those articles still have really bad sourcing. But the evidence on each of those people is not equal, so if you're going to make a blanket statement, it has to be the least common denominator. And you still have no support for the old wording, "nearly all". If you insist on saying "nearly all" instead of "many", then get some sources and numbers. The "nearly all" statement was utterly unverifiable and meaningless, lacking any context as to how many people McCarthy accused of what. ←Hob 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to contest the names of those Soviet agents listed in this page and on this VENONA page, I say it is up to you to cite contrary evidence. As for the "nearly all" wording, I would support changing that to "many".--CReynolds 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I was contesting names. You seem to be assuming that because I disagree with your emphasis, I'm trying to get rid of all the material you value. Here's what I said in my original message above: I think it would be fine to simply say that McCarthy fingered a bunch of people, including notably X, Y, and Z (simple links would be fine, no need for all the titles - those were added by a currently banned editor who was very fond of lots and lots of background information), and that he was often unable to produce any evidence, but that the VENONA project later turned up references to them from Soviet intelligence. It's beyond the scope of this article to say what was specifically alleged or proven about any of those individuals; that can be dealt with in their articles or in the VENONA article. This article is about McCarthy. ←Hob 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

CReynolds: I appreciate your willingness to consider to my views. Yes, popular opinion might be wrong. Heck, name any issue and chances are good that I disagree with popular opinion on that issue. But (trying to) "set the record straight" on issues that are more ruled by opinion than by fact is what media and outlets other than encyclopedias are for. KarlBunker 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

my NPOV changes

1) The word "notorious" has negative implications and does not belong on the first paragraph.

2) Your opinion may be that McCarthy's accusations were "freewheeling" but it is not fact and belongs in the criticism section with the above.

3) Accusations were not made against "anyone who opposed McCarthy", I can give you a list of people who opposed McCarthy and were not accused by McCarthy. Therefore this statement is not factual.

4) The 50s is not popularly known as the "Red Scare". Go outside and take a poll, ask people "what were the early 50s known as" and "red scare" is not going to win.

5) 46 is NOT "in fact" too old to join the armed forces. There are many 46 year olds that served in WWII.

6) That neo-nazi bit serves no purpose other than to discredit McCarthy and is a baseless accusation offered without evidence. This does not belong in the article.

7) Clarified evidence section to reflect reality.

The reason this article was rejected by the front page is because of obvious bias like the above.

"Red Scare" was a popular term that predates McCarthy's fame. Saying that it was used only by McC criticis would be incorrect. -Will Beback 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Did the military accept 46-yr old volunteers in 1941? Surely La Follete was too old to be drafted.12.109.186.150 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Notorious" does have negative connotations. Just as the name "McCarthy" has negative connotations. Whether or not you believe that that attitude is just and correct, its existence is a fact. It's the job of this article to make note of the fact that McCarthy has negative image in the eyes of contemporary society. To write the article in a way that suggests that only "his critics" (by implication, a minority) have a negative image of McCarthy would not be "neutral." You can read my discussion in the section above this one regarding the fact that with articles like this one, the attitude of the article has to reflect popular opinion or most readers will perceived it as biased.

Oh I see you made a typo. What you meant to say was that "McCarthy has a negative image in the eyes of LIBERAL society." Contemporary society at large does not hold McCarthy to be a supervillian like you lefties do, and if you disagree then I think you need a reality check.

Then you try and make the point that the only way to have a fair article is to include obvious anti-McCarthy bias. In other words, the only way to be neutral is to be non-neutral. Frankly I believe this is 100% socialist doublethink BS. You think McCarthy is a bad guy? Fine, make the point in the criticisms section by citing your sources that call him "notorious" or whatever. Including it in the lead is editorializing and it's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Just stick to the facts and let the reader decide, is that too hard? --TruthDetector 12 January 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy, at various times accused two administrations and the entire Democratic party of being, at best, dupes of the communists. I'd say that fits "freewheeling" and "generally anyone who opposed him" pretty well. KarlBunker 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the fact that they weren't merely dupes, but in fact COLLABORATING by keeping these people (ex. Alger Hiss even AFTER being fully exposed by Whittaker Chambers) in high-level, sensitive positions, is supposed to be besides the point... because, heaven forbid that the McCarthy or Chambers or anyone else reveal the truth about active Communists in the (cryto-Marxist) Democratic Party. Akulkis 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the Whitehouse was crawling with KNOWN (and VERIFIED by both VENONA and KGB archives) Communists working in league with the KGB under both the Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman administrations, and that even when informe that these people were working for the KGB, both presidents PROMOTED these KNOWN Communists, and that McCarthy himself was a Democrat, what, prey tell is wrong with the accusation, other than that you Communists wish that nobody would ever know this truth? Akulkis 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1 and 2) I would support the change of the terms "notorious" and "freewheeling." Both have an implied POV to them. More neutral language should be used.

3)The phrase "anyone who opposed McCarthy" should also be changed to more neutral language unless it is 100% certain that everyone that opposed him ended up being accused by him (and it's reasonable to assume that is not the case). Just like we have frequently changed "all" to "many" or "some".--CReynolds 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with two points above. To use exclusively neutral language to describe McCarthy is not neutral, because his position in history is not "neutral." He is remembered as being a villain. If you use language that avoids any mention that he is widely regarded as a villain, you may be using neutral language, but you're adding non-neutrality to the article. (Imagine an article that described Hitler or Stalin with purely "neutral" language.) Also, saying he accused generally anyone who opposed him is factually correct. KarlBunker 21:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

After all, neutrality would undermine one of the biggest communist agit-prop smear campaigns that the left has ever conducted, and if McCarthy is rehabilitated, the psychological threat of permanent and everlasting smearing of one's name won't hold quite as much force if this 5-decade long propaganda and brainwashing campaign against McCarthy were allowed to be overturned by the truth. Akulkis 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that you compare McCarthy to the two biggest murderers in the history of humanity. I think it shows the mindset of you and your anti-McCarthy cohorts. Since you brought it up, take a trip over to the Joseph Stalin section of Wikipedia and have a read. Note the absence of non-factual editorializing in the lead and sections where it doesn't belong. Note that he is never called "notorious" or anything similar. Oh but we need to make a special exception just for this article to include dirt on McCarthy. After all, McCarthy at worst accused a few people of being communists who may not have been communists, that is a far worse crime than murdering 30 million people. --TruthDetector

Umm, guys? ...hoping not to get flamed here... with all due respect, throwing insults at each other isn't going to get the article fixed up. I think that both sides have valid points here -- McCarthy probably wasn't absolutely nutso, but neither was he completely in the right. He did do serious damage to more than a few people's lives, but he was not a mass murderer either. As for opinions on what contemporary society thinks of him, what each of us thinks society thinks of him is probably strongly influenced not only by our own opinions of him (people tend to pay more attention to information and input that reinforces their own beliefs), but by the people who were around us when we grew up. Can we all assume that people are in good faith trying to revise this article to be the best it can be, and can we be civil about discussing differences of opinion? Hbackman 04:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy had only two faults: His manners weren't nearly as atrocious as those who attacked him, and 2) He UNDERSTATED the problem by at least a factor of 10 (According to KGB Records, as reported by KGB chief archivist Vasili Mitrokhin Akulkis 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin were poor examples for me to use, as it's possible to point out just how evil those men were purely by siting facts that only a fringe few would deny. In the case of McCarthy, there are really only opinions, such as: "he attacked people and destroyed careers for his own selfish reasons" or "he helped save the country from destruction by communists." And both of these opinions can be supported with numerous selected facts. Since the balance of opinion in America is that he was a bad person whose motives were selfish, the closest approach to "neutral" that the article can make is to avoid trying to "correct" that opinion. KarlBunker 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe your statement about the opinions being able to be backed up with facts is right, but other than apparently being a mean SOB I haven't seen many facts stating that those McCarthy were targeting were not valid security risks (and remember he wasn't necessarily going after communists, although he did that with zeal, but people who were security risks and should not be given access to sensitive or classified material). That being said, the "balance of opinion" is a very subjective basis on which to write a supposedly NPOV entry. I still think we should strive to remove biasing statements or adjectives and let the facts speak for themselves (as they do in the Hitler and Stalin entries).--CReynolds 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do the "facts speak for themselves" in the Hitler and Stalin entries? Aren't words like "genocide," "holocaust," "purges," "state terrorism" value-laden words? The fact is that when people argue with the use of such "biased" words in those articles, it's easy (and correct) to dismiss those people as a lunatic fringe. Because McCarthy is a far less "extreme" case, we have a more delicate balancing act in this article. There are people who disagree with the current balance of opinion regarding McCarthy who can't be dismissed as a lunatic fringe. "The balance of opinion" is not so nebulous a thing, however. The word "McCarthyism" and phrases like "McCarthy-style witch hunt" are a reflection of that balance of opinion. However much some people may disagree with that attitude, and believe it's based on ignorance, it's the majority opinion. Because the facts in this case don't definitively "prove" that this majority opinion is wrong, the article has to reflect that opinion. If it doesn't do that, then it's biased. KarlBunker 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just finished watching "Point of View" which is the documentary put together from the kinescopes of the Army-McCarthy hearings. In those hearings, McCarthy inferred that the Attorney-General of the US was possibly a communist. No further accusations against Herbert Brownell, Jr. were made since then, as far as I know. If that's not "freewheeling" then what is it?

Also outside of the small circle of Ann Coulter fans, yes McCarthy does have a negative image, hence the term McCarthyism and its negative connotations. Should this entry, in its endeavor to be NPOV, not show that a majority of public opinion since after that time period has viewed McCarthy this way? Every man will always have his defenders, but pointing out that McCarthy DID actually get it right about some security risks does not disqualify the valid viewpoint that McCarthy was and is viewed as a freewheeling accuser. If you stood up against him, you or your colleages risked being accused, such as what happened to Joseph Welsh and others. --Censorwolf 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, remember, McCarthy wanted the matter to be handled descretely. It was the Communists themselves who wanted the names to be made public. WHY? Simple -- so that if even one of the suspected was not a Communist, they could point at him, so as to remove the scrutiny from the many, MANY who were, in fact, Communist agents knowingly working for and with the KGB and the Soviet Union. So, even assuming that Brownell Jr. was not a Communist, and even assuming that there were a couple others who were not Communists, the remaining 95% + WERE IN FACT COMMUNISTS COMMITTING ACTS OF TREASON within the machinery of the U.S. State Department and other agencies of the executive branch. Akulkis 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

who exactly?

"Many charged the Senator had been duped or influenced by neo-Nazis." Many? who exactly? Kingturtle 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Communists. They use Nazi as a scare-word. Anyone who opposes them is smeared with the Nazi epithet. Its kind of iconic, when you consider how many things that Hitler pioneered--'national health care' and outlawing private ownership and posession of firarms that are now the heart of the left's political culture, as well as the very tight ties between the political left and Fortune 500 companies (regulations impede small businesses much more than small businesses) that, lately, the closest thing to a Nazi party in America is, in fact, leftists. Akulkis 15:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

--- Wouldn't that be because Nazi is actually "National Socialist". In itself National Socialism (politically speaking two opposites - right wing nationalism, left wing socialism - however the 'socialism' was only a means to an end) isn't much to be afraid of - it's the extremes to which it was taken by Hitler, and its intentions and purposes that have 'tainted' its original source inspiration. S'why it's known predominately as 'Nazism' now (and then) to avoid confusion. Also would like to point out: A - gun law in Europe has never been so 'free' as in the US, so comparisons between Hitlers 'gun laws' and the perceived 'lefts' gun laws is defunct unless you're arguing the Nazi's were not a bunch of right wing lunatics. B - private ownership stayed distinctly in German hands. The Germans just took it out of the hands of foreign investors and centralised their economy creating an instant 'wealth' in order to build their army and rebuild their country. C - last I noticed 'socialists' and 'leftists' in America don't mix. Particularly if you in particular refer to the Democratic party as being those 'leftists'. D - are you suggesting the 'left' (traditional socialists who believe in open borders and freedom for all workers) is so nationalistic as to pick a particular race and have them herded up and executed? If so that's clearly just silly because the Democrats don't even qualify as being 'left' by traditional 'leftists' values. E - you miss off a heck of a lot of 'other' things that Hitler pioneered - such as Gas Chambers, the SS, Concentration Camps, stylish uniforms, flashy propaganda, a funny salute and some very nice footwork on the dance floor. Are these too "the heart of the left's political culture"? Yours sincerely, Koncorde (realistic Lefty, England)

St. Mary's Parish-Appleton

I started an article St. Mary's Parish, Appleton where,Joe McCarthy was buried.This is for future reference.Thank you-RFD 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC) CorrectionRFD 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC) RFD 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks adding this to the articleRFD 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The List

Does a list of people named by McCarthy exist? Has anyone compiled a complete list based on who was asked to testify? So far I have read about named people and lists, but not seen one. There is a list of people named in the VENONA transcripts, but I no way to see if they were really named by McCarthy. Can anyone help?

Tydings

Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup, Esther Brunauer, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, Gustavo Duran, John Stewart Service, and Owen Lattimore),

VENONA

Mary Jane Keeney, Lauchlin Currie, Virginius Frank Coe; William Ludwig Ullman; Nathan Gregory Silvermaster; Harold Glasser; Allan Rosenberg, Cedric Belfrage

• the article on Mary Jane Keeney mentions her being named by McCarthy
• I dont see any names in common on the two lists. And by having Nathan Gregory Silvermaster in the article we are crediting McCarthy with uncovering the Silvermaster spy ring. Is this correct? Or do the names on the VENONA list have nothing to do with McCarthy and are just there to show who was uncovered by VENONA?

Can someone help verify that McCarthy uncovered the Silvermaster spy ring. Otherwise the VENONA names should be removed except those with a connection to the Tydings or other McCarthy hearings such as Mary Jane Keeney. What do you think?

Accuracy in Media a conservative group reports that Owen Lattimore was uncovered by McCarthy as was Annie Lee Moss and no others [1]. So I am going to remove the VENONA list, as no one on that list was actually named by McCarthy and its inclusion in the article gives the appearance that he uncovered the Silvermaster spy ring. If you disagree, leave a message here.

I disagree. The list leaves open the question as to whether McCarthy was right and actually had a list. It's relevant to the article and it makes the reader think.--Mr j galt 18:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As a casual reader, I found the section on "Actual Soviet activities in U.S. Government" confusing and out of the flow of the article. Who cares who's on the list "Among the more prominent people identified in VENONA," if McCarthy didn't name them? It would be much better to just link to a VENONA page, and mention that McCarthy may have correctly identified a small number (but was he even accurate at a greater than chance level?).

Sorry, Mr J galt, but "leaving open a question" and "making the reader think" are not a laudable goal, unless the question is actually open. Informing the reader is a worthwhile goal. --kwud 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with kwud, and I've removed that list. KarlBunker 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

False

Today User:DKalkin wrote "rv - not only POV, just plain demonstrably false. VENONA/Soviet records proved there were spies, and that McCarthy didn't know who they were."

Couldn't agree more. Also, the list only showed only more than 300 people, not the army of thousands McCarthy and Congress claimed were involved in a conspiracy to overthow the government. -- Jason Palpatine 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Truman & stuff

Recently added to "References in the Media":

"In the 1995 television film Truman, the early rise of Senator McCarthy is touched upon, including the refusal of President Truman to end the Senator's public career by leaking the Senator homosexuality, to the press."

I wonder if this should be removed the article. It sounds like a scene that would be made up for a movie, rather than something that's likely to have occurred. Does anyone know any corroboration that Truman ever considered doing such a thing? KarlBunker 23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody removed the above quote on 6 Feb 06. I tried tracing the reference or source down and couldn't get anything, so I suppose that it can't be substantiated. TGC55 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a TV movie named "Truman"[2] (USA - 1995), but I see no reference to the above passage in any comments about the movie on "IMDb". I would try to get a DVD of the movie, but it's not available here. Even so, I don't think a "biopic" would be considered a "secondary source". Maybe the original book might have some reference to such an incident -- if it really occured.`19:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whith all of the smearing and lying that was going on at the time, it's possible that, even if the scene were a true event, the charge was a fabrication. I recomend keeping it out of the article. -- Jason Palpatine 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How many on the list?

Is it "i have here a list of 57..." as this article claims, or is the number actually 205, as claimed on many Web sites? Note that this[3] CNN site says 205 for that particular quote, and 57 for another (and 81 as well). Gni 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As is says in the article, this is a subject of some dispute. If you follow the link at footnote #10, you'll see a document where McCarthy says that the figure he named in that speech was 57. KarlBunker 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As the article correctly states, it probably started at 57, but McCarthy was all over the place with the number of alleged Communists. He said there were 57 and 81, as well as other numbers. His downfall could at least be partly attributed to a so-called secret list he never divulged and the sometimes changing number of names on it. Many people began to believe no such list ever existed. It is interesting that Soviet files later revealed 349 US citizens were actually working with the Soviets in some way, including Lattimore, and the big question is whether McCarthy actually knew something. This is a great and surprisingly balanced article. It should be a featured article.--Mr j galt 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently studied McCarthy for a school research project. After researching this particular dispute, I determined that the original number was definitely 57 (as confirmed the same day by a reporter present at the speech) but McCarthy did in fact change the number multiple times later. 20:57, 10 April 2006

So, if McCarthy recieved more data, both incriminating and not, the man should not have been allowed to update his figures to correlate with his most up-to-date information at the time???? That's a rediculous standard to hold ANYONE up to Akulkis 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Freewheeling", 3rd paragraph re. ongoing dispute

I recently removed a 3rd paragraph to the introduction of the article which read:

To this day, McCarthy remains controversial. Some feel that he provided a great service to his country, while others (most likely a majority of Americans) feel that his legacy was a dark spot in American history.

I actually have no objection to the political content of this paragraph. I just think it's awkward and badly written. Something the McCarthy article should have, instead of this paragraph, is a short section somewhat like the section "Continuing controversy" in the McCarthyism article (though more focused than that section). That is, a paragraph or two that discusses things like contemporary defenses of McCarthy and the rebuttals to those. I'm currently in a phase of WikiLaziness, so I don't know if I'll get around to writing such a section myself.

I also put back the article's use of the word "freewheeling" in reference to McCarthy's accusations. The word is accurate by any objective standard. KarlBunker 10:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Meta-comment on VENONA debates

It's quite funny that the pro-McCarthy editors here have gotten into trouble for inserting poorly-sourced, unequivocally judgmental "lists of Communist spies". Learn from your idol, boys. If you're going to throw around lists like that, make sure you can back it up.

--kwud 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Freewheeling" Again - Not Objective

From dictionary.com:

free·wheel·ing

  1.
        1. Free of restraints or rules in organization, methods, or procedure.
        2. Heedless of consequences; carefree.
  2. Relating to or equipped with a free wheel.

The point that I am trying to make is that some people can study McCarthy's life and come to the conclusion that he was not freewheeling, but rather that his detractors painted him to be that way. It is subject to debate whether his accusations were freewheeling.

To accentuate the fact that McCarthy is controversial, I re-added the 3rd paragraph, having removed the parenthetical note--for better readability--as per CReynolds' edits.

I don't dispute that freewheeling is a good word to use. I do dispute, however, its use as though there is no controversy surrounding the matter. If we must use the word "freewheeling", I suggest it be used in some way to modify the newly added sentence "Many of his detractors felt that there was little basis for the accusations."

I realize KarlBunker has spent an enormous amount of time and talent on this article, and I mean nothing personal by my edits. He definitely knows more about the life of Joseph McCarthy than I do. I simply think that both sides of an issue should be told. After all, lack of bias is a hallmark of wikipedia.

Thanks for the kudos; they're appreciated.

The problem with "Many of his detractors felt that there was little basis for the accusations." suggests that there is no generally accepted position on McCarthy -- some agreed with him, and some didn't. That isn't accurate. The truth is that he is generally regarded as being a villain, and if the article hides that fact, it isn't doing its job.

I mean no disrespect but I don't accept that as a valid statement. I've seen too many people say "the truth is" with no supportability whatsoever. It's often accompanied by phrases such as "as any reasonable / intelligent person can see". It is most commonly used as a simple technique to attempt to end discussion. Weeweeble 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, McCarthy's actions do fit neatly into the definition of "freewheeling"; he considered himself free of the restraints of proper procedure or common prudence, and he was heedless of the consequences of his actions. Certainly there have been some who have studied his career and have come to disagree with that conclusion, but that's true of essentially any commonly held conclusion, from the earth not being flat to the Holocaust being a reality. KarlBunker 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ on the issue... I like the word "freewheeling," and that tells me it needs to be reexamined. It use in the article appears sensationalistic. Sulfur 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Freewheeling" has been applied to McCarthy's behavior by the Senate itself:

• "His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings." EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS[4]

In that light it does not appear to be an unreasonable word to use. -Will Beback 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because it appears on a 'Senate' webpage does not guarantee review by anyone in the Senate, a lack of political bias by the author of that page, or indeed any kind of factual accuracy. Since when did the internet become infallible? Come on. Do you believe everything your government tells you? I can't imagine so, and if not why should you imagine a single webpage should be the only source of information you need to 'prove' something? It is an unnecessary opinion in both cases. Weeweeble 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the source before denigrating it. The reference is an official publication of the Senate, and the specific text is in a preface signed by Carl Levin and Susan M. Collins, the senior members from both parties. -Will Beback 23:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected with regard to the Senate review (maybe not see belowWeeweeble 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)) but I note that Senator Collins (Republican) was a baby at the time of the McCarthy hearings (born Dec 1952) while Senator Levin (the Democrat) was not yet out of College - obviously neither was there. Not that that invalidates their words but as it is unlikely that either Senator would find any political capital in attempting to defend a man who has been vilified by the media for the last fifty years, why would either of them rock the boat? I also direct your research to http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=689 where you will find that the editing of the accounts is called into question - "In addition, he has been remarkably free with negative statements on McCarthy in dealing with the media, who have with few exceptions taken these as gospel.". My comment with regard to it being an unnecessary opinion stands.

After a little more digging I may retract my self-correction on the 'Senate review' question - "http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=474". I know this is a conservative publication but let's be honest a liberal publication has no interest in challenging the validity of comments against McCarthy - so where else are you going to find it? "In their preface, Levin-Collins assert that "Sen. McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed the careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government." Similar statements have been made by Senate Historian Ritchie in comments to the press, and numerous stories have repeated these charges as uncontested fact. But when asked to back up this sweeping and inflammatory statement, neither Senate office could do so. Trying to check the matter out, I called the offices of both Levin and Collins and asked if they could provide me with the names of any innocent victims of McCarthy whose careers had been ruined in this manner. Neither office could provide me with a single name."Weeweeble 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And none of what you have done is usable in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to use it in the text of the article, I'm using it to suggest that perhaps your source for the word freewheeling is not unbiased, that the its use is deliberately pejorative and is unneccessary in this article and you still have not explained why it must stay. Weeweeble 15:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the policies, you would see that we do not use original research to 'prove' sources wrong. Please understand, we can only repeat what is said in reliable and reputable sources. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And, quite obviously, you can't get it through YOUR head that the sources that use the term "freewheeling" have been, upon investigation for corroboration, shown to be NOT RELIABLE. Therefore, the "freewheeling" term FAILS the "reliable and reputable source" test. Akulkis 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that a Senator's editorial is a reliable and reputable source but a journalist's enquiry into the extent of that Senator's actual knowledge is not? Are you actually going to tell me that you have never questioned anything one of your Senator's has ever said, that you've never believed a journalistic account that contradicts a politician? The whole damn thing is about whether or not you believe journalistic accounts of a Senator's actions! It is a single unnecessary word that should not need to be proven wrong because it is just not necessary unless your goal is to slant the story. Weeweeble 22:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mackville, Wisconsin

I started an aricle about Mackville, Wisconsin which 3-5 miles north of Appleton, Wisconsin. The family and ancestors of Joseph McCarthy had lived in and still live in the Mackville area. There is a McCarthy Road in the area. I wanted to pass this information along.Thank you-RFD 20:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy a communist himself?

Although there isn't any credible evidence for this, shouldn't there be a 'rumors' section where the possibility of McCarthy being a communist himself should be discussed? After all, why else would he be so fervently anti-communist?

If there are credible rumors for which you have a reliable source then certianly we should add them. However this seems to be a rumor that you are making up. That isn't aceptable. -Will Beback 21:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "communist" is only a label. If you're suggesting that he was actually a member of, or sympathetic to, the Communist Party, then the answer is no. However all of his actions fall under the guidelines of the doctrines and ideologies of The Communist Manifesto. If we define him by his actions, then (and this is the basis of) the "McCarthy a communist himself" argument is valid. Murrow himself said that, because of his actions, McCarthy was an "aid and comfort to out enemies." That's straight out of the treason statute! -- Jason Palpatine 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "freewheeling".

Looking down the edits I am not the first person to remove this word from the article and the "watchdog"-like way in which it has been replaced suggests that some folks feel it necessary to use the term.

The fairly obvious truth is, however, that it is an expression of an opinion, as confirmed by one of the re-editors "some of us feel that it is appropriate" - Dalbury. A fairly clear expression of opinion.

The question I would ask of Dalbury is why "some", whoever that some may be, should impose the use of words which serve no purpose other than to express an opinion in what purports to be an encyclopaedia and not an editorial.

The implication of the word "freewheeling" is obviously that he acted without regard for the rules - this may be the case but one could equally say that he acted out of love for his country. Both are editorialising and I would argue that neither is necessary, particularly in a summary paragraph, and the presence of one without the other smacks of bias. What value is lost in the piece by removing that word and eliminating the expression of an opinion?

What is your objective, to try and build a historical record or to editorialise? If you cannot give up that word then the answer would seem self-evident. Weeweeble 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying "some of us feel that it is appropriate" is not the same as saying "it is an opinion that I happen to agree with." Those are two entirely distinct statements. Yes, one could say that he acted out of love for his country. That would be the opinion of a minority, however, as is the opinion that the earth is flat (though admittedly not to the same degree). It is necessary and appropriate to give some sense of what the generally accepted opinion on a subject is in the opening summary to an article. This is true even with subjects that are more controversial (i.e., the two sides are more equally balanced) than this one. KarlBunker 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way are the two statements you quote entirely distinct? You are of the shared opinion that the phraseology is appropriate. How do you not see the link? Furthermore, you cannot indisputably state that it is a matter of fact that saying "he acted out of love for his country" would be the opinion of the minority and to follow it up with an example such as "the Earth is flat" is a little silly, is it not?

This is my concern with Wikipedia. It seems that "historical fact" can be determined by nothing more than the opinion of the last person to make an edit or the person who rounds up the largest number of his friends to support him.

What stays in an article is what a consensus of the editors that work on that article want in it, subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not the only editor that has reverted to keep 'freewheeling' in the article. If a consensus emerges here after discussion that 'freewheeling' should not be in the article, that will be fine, but no one gets to make that decision by themself. You can add anything you want, and you can delete anything you want, but if another editor reverts or otherwise protests, then you have to take it to the talk page and see what consensus developes. It is best to propose major changes on the talk page before proceeding, and even minor edits should have an edit summary. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone who makes a change is de facto "an editor", as such it appears that what you have described is nothing other than I feared it might be. As a matter of logic popular opinion should not be unquestioningly used to define any truth other than what popular opinion currently is. It cannot be assumed to be a statement of fact. Further, the concept of the majority of people editing determining the truth may sound quite democratic but it can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy if people refer to this source for knowledge on something they previously knew little or nothing about. In that event they could quite ignorantly add to the "majority" opinion. This is why I maintain the position that expressions of opinion such as the use of the word "freewheeling" are completely unnecessary and actually weaken the value of this material as a reference source. If the facts are so clear - as Mr. Bunker appears to maintain - then why should anyone be afraid to lose a single word and let the facts speak for themselves? I repeat my earlier question, what is lost by removing that one word? Weeweeble 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you want the 'truth' in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth. 'Truth' is too elusive, and too often bound up in a particular point-of-view. All we can do is repeat what has been published in reputable and reliable sources. What we include and how we present it is determined by a consensus of editors, subject to the restraints of the policies on verifiability, no original reasearch, and neutral point of view. That's the way it is in Wikipedia. If you are not comfortable with that, you don't have to participate. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you mention NPOV. I continue to maintain that the use of the word "freewheeling" is unnecessary editorialising and I ask you once again to tell me what is lost by removing that word?Weeweeble 14:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be lost is the same thing that would be lost by removing words like "dictatorship" from the articles about Hitler and Mussolini, or "purges" and "state terrorism" from the article about Stalin. These are also pejorative words, non-neutral sounding words, words that one could say (and some have said) are based more on the whims of current opinion than on pure fact. As I've noted elsewhere in this talk page, it's the job of an encyclopedia article to reflect current "conventional wisdom" on many topics, not to determine the truth, or to change popular opinion. This is especially true with articles about historical subjects, where iron-clad facts are rare, and much depends on how one interprets actions and events of the past. KarlBunker 15:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just nonsense and comparing McCarthy to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin is childish beyond belief. Absolutely nothing would be lost by removing the word and your obvious attachment to ensuring that McCarthy is described in editorial terms that you deem appropriate is surely now beyond dispute. It is not now nor ever has been the job of an encyclopedia to editorialise, your stating it as fact does not make it so. Notably missing from your description of the evil Joe McCarthy are that he was he godfather to Bobby Kennedy's first child and that neither Bobby nor JFK ever spoke out against him. Indeed when hearing that a speaker had likened McCarthy to Soviet spy Alger Hiss, JFK rose to his feet and declared "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" and walked out. John Kennedy was the only Democratic Senator not to declare support for McCarthy's censure and none of these facts are mentioned anywhere in this article. You are clinging to a single word that is completely unneccessary only because you wish to exercise control. You cite 'verifiability' rather than 'truth' as if somehow that makes it okay to editorialise simply because someone else (whose comments have been called into question) did it first. The fact that your source is an editorial on a Senate document can surely not be the only grounds for establishing credibility especially in an article that accuses a Senator of reckless, rule-breaking behaviour! Can you not see the double-standard? This Senator says that about another Senator he didn't know and you take their word as all you need. It is opinion and nothing more and if you can't see that then you are blind, plain and simple. Well here's another, documented opinion for you - ""You know, considering McCarthy is such an SOB, he's a very interesting personality. You know, I enjoy him in the locker room." - Democratic Senator J.W. Fulbright. Hardly a compliment we would expect from any of Hitler's opponents and nowhere to be found in your "verifiable" version of events. Weeweeble 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have reputable and reliable sources for information that is pertinent to the article, you can put it in yourself. However, I would say that someone failing to criticize McCarthy may not be worthy of inclusion. More pertinent would be report of prominent defenders. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I will gather my sources and do so but, not to sound like a broken record, I have to say I don't agree with the idea the someone not criticizing McCarthy would not be worthy of inclusion. I agree that when the entire opposition party save one vote to censure a Senator, one doesn't sound like a particularly significant number. But I think that when that 'one' is a rather famous future President and the darling of the party that has just voted for the censure his choice not to toe the line is worthy of mention as it shows that a fairly significant someone did not agree. In any case I'm fairly sure the JFK quote I used above would count as a defence. Oh, and I continue to object to the use of the word "freewheeling" as simply unnecessary. Weeweeble 14:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to use "freewheeling", we could use other words like "careless", "negligent", "with little regard for truth or accuracy", but "freewheeling" seems more NPOV and has been used by notable critics. If you can suggest a better alternative to desribe the lack of care exhibited by the subject in his investigations then please let us know. -Will Beback 20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point to be made about "freewheeling" is that it's a lot more neutral than words that would be used by his true critics. They would use words like "vicious", "utterly self-serving", "malicious", "cynical and dishonest" and so on. "freewheeling" is a word that doesn't pretend to know McCarthy's motivation; it only describes the nature of his actions. It's a word that only his staunchest defenders would object to. And his staunchest defenders are a fringe minority. KarlBunker 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that most of his critics were actively trying to the public AWAY from the truth, then their characterization is relevant how, exactly? Akulkis 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? They were? So, Murrow and Welch and Gen. George Marshall "were actively trying to [steer] the public AWAY from the truth"? I'm curious what you base this on. --Dh100 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making it wonderfully clear just how little you care about neutrality. Weeweeble 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's silly, but I'll weigh in on this; "freewheeling" is probably a bit of a stretch for an adjective to apply to an influential/infamous 20th century political figure, but it makes for a dandy one for a Dylan album (sorry, I've been meaning to say this for weeks now) ;-).

Seriously, I think there are any number of adjectives that can be applied to McCarthy's "methods" that are more in keeping with encyclopedic entries and are still wholly accurate. Words like cavalier, perhaps, or even a phrase like "not based in evidentiary fact." In fact, there not not a SINGLE case where any of McCarthy's "lists" were actually published for scruitiny or any other purpose, not is there a scrap to indicate that he received actual intel from VENONA or any other source. The way McCarthy and other like organs, such as HUAC, operated were no more than the evidentiary equivalent of a bad game of telephone. --Dh100 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mccarthy's acceptance of communist funds in 1946 election

This following item was removed from the article and dismissed with the extrme POV claim that it is of no import. It maybe of no interest to the person who removed it. However, when opportunism and hypocrisy is revealed about any politician, it is always of public interest.

Although McCarthy is best known for his crusades against communism, a little know fact about him was revealed in 2003 by Arnold Beichman, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, in an item in Human Events Online. Beichman wrote that McCarthy accepted Communist Party support in his 1946 Senate race. [5]

I note also that another contributor refined the above contribution and I am okay with that. That too was removed by the editor pressing his personal viewpoint over the public interest. Wikipedia is not a unitary venture. I am therefore putting a factual and viewpoint dispute tag on this article until this is resolved, not unilaterally but with respect for all contributors. skywriter 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the revert by Dalbury. If this item is again unilaterally removed, the dispute tag will be affixed to the page. skywriter 17:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make the item as neutral as I could when I re-worked it. I think it is useful in showing that McCarthy was not considered 'anti-communist' when first elected to the Senate. I would point out that the source I quoted does not say he accepted money or other support from communists, it simply says that a union characterized as 'communist-controlled' supported him in the Republican primary because he was an unknown, and La Follett was 'anti-communist'. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that your last version was neutral. I removed it because I don't see how it's significant to the article. Is there any evidence that McCarthy even knew about this particular contribution? Or that he knew this union was 'communist-controlled'? Is that characterization even valid? If yes to all of the preceding, what does that necessarily say about McCarthy? Does it prove that he wasn't a "real" anticommunist in the '50s? The citation link provide with the edit addresses none of those questions. If one assumes for the sake of argument that his anti-communism was honestly motivated, that assumption isn't in any way contradicted by this data point. One could argue that he just changed his opinion about communism. KarlBunker 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, I'm willing to accept the edit in its current form (with slight changes for better English). KarlBunker 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

While I wasn't there, and don't have a detailed account of McCarthy's campaigm avaialble, I would be very surprised to find out that McCarthy was not aware that the state organization of the 3rd largest union in the CIO was supporting him, or that he was not aware of the charges of communist influence in that union. Also, I have reverted your edit because you changed the text inside a direct quote. I very carefully placed the "[sic]" after "cio" to indicate that was the way it was presented in the original. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

While McCarthy would appreciate the spin KarlBunker provides, PR is beside the point. Present facts and trust readers to decide. skywriter 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Skywriter, you're the first person in the history of the universe to accuse me of being a pro-McCarthyite. How are things on Planet Bizarro, anyway? As for my edits to the quote, Dalbury, I did not edit within the quote. I made it more readable by starting the quote one word later, and corrected the capitalization of "CIO." Correcting capitalization doesn't change the meaning or content of a quote. KarlBunker 10:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, KarlBunker, you do have a penchant for distortion. I found your comments yesterday revealing. I once suspected you were fairminded. Please do not falsely say I "accuse" you of being pro-McCarthy. I have no idea whether you are, or are not. It is beside the point. I stated McCarthy would appreciate the spin, that facts are facts, and all that was in reaction to your two attempts to revert factual entries. Have a lovely day. Skywriter 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't accuse me of being pro-McCarthy; I withdraw the comment (and the insult).

I submit that saying something is a "fact." is meaningless. One can't include every "fact" about a subject and then say "let the reader decide." The article would be of near-infinite size and be unreadable. The balance of an article is determined by a) not including incorrect information, and b) deciding which information to include. Facts have to be selected based on whether they contribute to a balanced and reasonable article. This fact doesn't do that. As it stands it doesn't say anything in the least meaningful about McCarthy, for the reasons I listed above. Its only purpose is to provide point-finger-and-snicker material. KarlBunker 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

nuetrality?

I think this article has slipped way off to the liberal side. I think it should be balanced side.

What specifically do you object to? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For starters, the continued villification of a man for doing nothing other than telling the truth....OH...that's right...telling the truth about Communists is an unforgiveable sin...pardon me, I forgot that little rule. Go right ahead, Donald Albury... your side slipped in the 2000 elections by publicly revealing that it's not only a right, but a duty of all "progressives"/socialists/Marxists to lie whenever it will advance "the movement." Guess what....we're NOT going to let you get away with it. Akulkis 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

why I'm linking to rotten

"25 Oct 1952 "Joe McCarthy is a bachelor of 43 years. [...] He seldom dates girls and if he does he laughingly describes it as window dressing. It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities." Hank Greenspun, Las Vegas Sun. McCarthy briefly considered a suit but took no action, because it would have meant testifying." 132.241.246.111 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actual Soviet activities in U.S. Government

The 349 people listed in this section - were they in fact ones that McCarthy was after or not? If not, why do they appear here? If they were ones McCarthy was after, why not say so?