Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 6

Right Wing Authors

Over the next couple days I will try to add the Adjective "Left Wing" to journalist and authors included in the article where appropriate, so that people know who attacked and still attacks McCarthy.Mantion 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political leanings of the media should be left out. Also, what's with the mass Eisenhower bashing. It wasn't his fault, yet the phrasing of the sentences seem to imply thaqt only he could have stopped McCarthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.179.50 (talk • contribs)

Debate over. (not)

For months I have been pointing out obvious flaws in the entire article. I have tried to Fix the lead. I will be removing the bias that currently exist. The article will be based on facts about the man and not attacks made by people appose to the man. I will start with the lead and go from there. If you have a problem with my changes you are free to DISCUSS THEM. I suggest that you review previous archives before commenting on changes. I am not going to repeat myself anymore and have my points ignored.Mantion 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mantion. Looks like you finally had a chance to get to the library. Were you able to verify regalseagull's famous claim: "Almost EVERY SINGLE charge he [McCarthy] made has been verified!"? If we can evidence that from reliable sources, alteration in the lead would certainly be called for. I was also wondering about your thoughts about getting Arthur Herman's perspective into the article.—DCGeist 07:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! What happened there, Mantion? I thought we were about to make some real progress...but then there's this assault on the lead that hardly seems aimed at composing an inviting, accessible introduction to the subject and his significance. What got into you? Calling Herblock "left wing"? He's about as middle-of-the-road as they come...maybe slightly liberal from today's perspective, but still...have you ever read a single historian or any sort of scholar who called old Herblock "left wing"? A lot of the changes you made were also completely ungrammatical--it's like you lost your temper all of a sudden and started making edits without really thinking them through...let alone discussing them. I thought you were going to report the fruits of your research, so we could figure out how best to bring in well-sourced, fact-based alternative perspectives into the article. What happened with that? The quote from the Milwaukee Journal, by the way, is great, and certainly has a place in the article in discussing reactions to McCarthy's death, but it's not really authoritative enough to center the lead around, is it? I'm also totally in favor of referencing Herman, but I think it can be done much more powerfully in the body of the article. For instance, you cited him to support the statement that McCarthy "continued to speak out against communist but was largely ignored"--the statement's not controversial, but the transcript of Herman's interview doesn't actually give a basis for it. Anyway, there are things that Herman has stated explicitly that may well be worth quoting directly.—DCGeist 09:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantion, I support your efforts to bring true fairness to this article. I once posted Buckley's book from the 1950's as a source and someone removed it!! That is a key source for this article yet someone didn't want that listed. I guess showing McCarthy was correct was a problem for that "editor". Anyway, do you have a copy of the executive sessions of McCarthy's committee? Because I have it in PDF format and would glady send it your way if you want it. I'm looking for the Public sessions on-line but have had no luck. If anyone has those sessions, I would appreciate getting a copy in some format. Again, I hope you can get the job done on this article. Let me know if I can help in some way. Jtpaladin 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jtpaladin. You certainly sound like a man on a mission. When you talk about getting "the job done" on the article, what exactly is the "job" you've got on your agenda? Is it too much to hope that it's supplying the evidence that the charges that made McCarthy one of the best-known political figures in American history were actually supported by the facts? If it is, I must say I'm very excited. Can you please provide us with your well-researched sources that demonstrate that McCarthy was, as you put it, "correct" in his accusations? That'd be great. We can finally get this vital, fact-based information into the article! Indeed, "true fairness," no less or more, is what we're asking for. All the best, comrade.—DCGeist 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DCGeist. I'm on a mission but it's only in hoping others can fix the issues with this article that it needs. I simply don't have the time and, all my best materials are locked in storage because of a recent move. But you don't have to look far for the answers. Alot of the material is listed. You simply have to look at what was said and what the facts are, even though in some cases, it has taken years for the clarification. The article lists a number of people who the Senator mentioned and the fact that were identified at one point or another as security risks. The reality that security risks existed in the U.S. govt. is not a novel question. It's a fact. It has been firmly established by various sources. Surely you don't question that much? Buckley's book from the 1950's has many of the facts in question. When I first came to this article, oddly enough that book wasn't even listed as a source!! Odd, that it wouldn't be, don't you think? Certainly a well documented book by a well known author and intellectual couldn't possibly have been mistakenly overlooked? Could it? Even after I listed it, some devious comrade in his agenda to deception, decided to remove it. Proving once again to what level enemies of the truth are willing to stoop to maintain a vicious and deceitful perspective of the Senator. So please, do not feign a desire to document the facts when such clear verifications to the truth are eliminated with the click of a mouse button. Or, perhaps I'm wrong and I've missed your outrage at such dereliction of duty to honesty. Clearly, I don't know you or your intentions but your initial communication to me in such a delightful and witty style only serves to alert one to skepticism or perhaps even malice in your intentions regarding the truth of the Senator's profile. Of course, in a gesture of optimism, courtesy, and even intelluctual obligation, I will assume that your interest is nothing more or even less than documenting the truth that such a critical profile so dearly requires. So, I too, wish you all the best and success with this endeavor. Jtpaladin 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpaladin, when you get your copy of Buckley's "McCarthy and His Enemies" out of storage, you might want to try reading it. You'll see that its premise (made at excruciatingly tedious length) is that yes, there were security risks in the State Department, but that McCarthy lied about his lists of "card carrying Communists" (Buckley, in an attempt to apologize for McCarthy, calls it "an egregious blunder" as if it was an accident), that McCarthy "deserves to be censured" (this in reference to acts long before the Army-McCarthy hearings), that he "smeared Drew Pearson", that some of his charges "had no apparent foundation whatever", that he "was "guilty of a number of exaggerations, some of them reckless", some of them "reprehensible."

Is this the book that shows that "McCarthy was right", and whose alleged removal as a reference was such an deceitful act of "enemies of the truth"? You've been waving this book around like McCarthy waving around one of his lists, hoping that the act of waving it around and proclaiming that it held some momentous "truth" would be sufficient to impress your audience. But like McCarthy with his lists, it doesn't say what you claim it says. KarlBunker 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I have the 1995 version of the book in hand. Give me the page numbers of those quotes and let me look at them in context. Nevertheless, you still ignore the reality of that book being deleted on purpose from the list of sources. I would very much enjoy you addressing that at your earliest opportunity. Jtpaladin 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpaladin, I don't know or particularly care when or if that book was removed from the list of references. I'm not personally responsible for every edit in the history of this article. The fact is it doesn't matter, because this book isn't considered a particularly important source by McCarthy scholars. It was originally written in 1953, and no one since then has pointed to this book and said "well, I guess that wraps up all the debate about McCarthy, because the whole truth is right there in Buckley's book." Even Arthur Herman, in his arch-conservitive biography of McCarthy, only cites McCarthy and His Enemies 7 times out of roughly 700 references. Rather, most scholars seem to agree with Richard Rovere when he called the book "a masterpiece of irrelevance."

As for the page numbers of the quotes I mentioned, I don't have them. I didn't take notes when I read the book, and I got those particular quotes from here (note that the source of this article is National Review; the conservative magazine founded by Buckley). If you skim the book yourself, you'll see that it contains a great many criticisms of McCarthy. I can tell you that the Rovere quote I give above is repeated by Buckley in his 1995 preface to the book, on page viii. KarlBunker 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I guess you missed the point that I made which was that a book relevant to this topic was removed because it supported McCarthy. And there's no way I would call Herman's book "arch-conservative" either. I have read Buckley's book and although there are reasonable criticisms, Buckley still points out that the Senator was basically correct, more so than his contemporaries who did much to discourage his work. I appreciate you posting the article reviewing Buckley's book but it was not helpful in putting those few words in their proper context. I'm eagerly awaiting the upcoming McCarthy book to be released in 2007 written by M. Stanton Evans. Jtpaladin 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jtp. I'm sorry for the way my hermetic sense of humor got in the way of my being clearly understood. Your latest message raises a number of questions that I, and I'm sure many others, are very interested in getting the answers to...so I'll try to phrase them as clearly and straightforwardly as possible:

When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that? Could you provide the date of the edit that removed it, so we can at least determine what editor did that and if he or she explained the decision in the edit summary?
When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about one of his most famous charges, made in February 1950, that there were 57 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say they were (or, whatever the "basically correct" number would be--who 50 of them were)?
When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous charges, made later in February 1950, that there were in fact 81 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say the additional 24 (or, let's say 20) were?
When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous series of charges, those he made against Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service and Philip Jessup at the Tydings Committee hearings? I don't expect you to go into detail on each case at the moment--just let us know how many of those ten American citizens Buckley adduces evidence against that demonstrates McCarthy was basically correct in their case. Could you provide page numbers, please?
When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous charges, that diplomat John P. Davies had attempted to "put Communists and espionage agents in key spots in the Central Intelligence Agency"? What evidence does Buckley adduce?
If Buckley does not, in fact, show that McCarthy was "basically correct" about his most famous charges, how does he define what McCarthy was truly saying and demonstrate that he was "basically correct" about it and that his critics were, I assume, basically incorrect?

Thanks very much. I'm sure the answers to those six questions will go a long way toward making the article truly fair. Best, Dan—DCGeist 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, I have answers for all your questions but as I mentioned to Karl above, I'm going to help update this article in 2007 after Evans' book is released. I have lots of info but very few footnotes to go with them. I hate when people post info without citations so I don't want to be accused of the same thing. If you will be patient with me until that time, I promise to answer all your questions. Otherwise, if you don't need citations now, I can do my best to answer your questions without footnotes.

When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?

Simply because if your read the book, it takes every allegation that McCarthy made up until the book was published and compared it with the record. Buckley found McCarthy's statements on the whole accurate, considering that he did not have the benefit of the F.B.I. and the Venona documents to back him up.

Could you provide the date of the edit that removed it, so we can at least determine what editor did that and if he or she explained the decision in the edit summary?

I'm not as good as searching my way through background history than perhaps you might be. All I can say is that I added it as a source in the appropriate section and it was subsequently removed.

When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?

Process of elimination. Why remove a book that was essential reading for understanding what McCarthy said and what he did not say? Why else would someone remove such a valuable book?

When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about one of his most famous charges, made in February 1950, that there were 57 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say they were (or, whatever the "basically correct" number would be--who 50 of them were)?

Let me quote James Drummey on the question of numbers: In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals - the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.

When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous series of charges, those he made against Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service and Philip Jessup at the Tydings Committee hearings? I don't expect you to go into detail on each case at the moment--just let us know how many of those ten American citizens Buckley adduces evidence against that demonstrates McCarthy was basically correct in their case. Could you provide page numbers, please?

That's pretty detailed stuff and some of your answers I believe are on the website article. I'll better answer that when I get more of my notes and documents in 2007. As for the Tydings Committee, let me respond by using the conclusion reached by Buckley: "The Committee's hearings and its Report demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the Tydings Committee - determined from the first to vindicate the State Department - consciously set out to destroy McCarthy and make of him an example for all who, in the future, might feel tempted to agree that the Democratic Administration was jeopardizing the national security by harboring loyalty and security risks in sensitive agencies." That is the essence of the attacks on McCarthy. First, under the Democrat Administration and then under the Republican Administration.

There's a lot of great info in that book and would love to get into greater detail but time and resources are limited and would like to do greater service to your inquiries when I have all my sources. Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues with me. Jtpaladin 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpaladin, I took a few minutes and found the edit where your addition of Buckley's book was reverted. See here. I removed it in the process of reverting an edit of yours that violated WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Copyright violations. Removing the Buckley book was an unintended bit of collateral damage, but not an important one, since, as I've pointed out above, this book is not considered an important reference by McCarthy scholars.

As for the rest of your response, citing valid sources is indeed a requirement for the article. When one evades that requirement, as you do in your response, it allows you to quote the misinformation and opinions of a John Birch Society writer (James Drummey), to use your own language to present the "conclusions" of William Buckley, and to give other misrepresentations, opinions and evasions when you've been asked for facts. KarlBunker 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, that just goes to show that you tend to remove info on a massive scale even when it's very relevant to the article. I don't know why you insist on insulting Buckley's book but you're wrong about it. As for the info I posted, you are referring to the initial version I did which was just a mock-up without citations and inadvertently added to the article. However, the version quoting Drummey which followed the Wikipedia guidelines was also removed. So it seems, with you, there's no way to present facts unless it comes from an anti-McCarthy source. Almost every pro-McCarthy source makes reference to the Buckley book because it in fact clears out the lies of McCarthy's detractors up to that point in the Senator's careeer. Even if it wasn't so widely quoted, have you seen some of the outright garbage that are used as sources in this article? Yet, you would remove the scholarly work of Buckley?!! I can't understand why you fail to understand something this direct. As for the reverts, you took liberties when you did the reverts because a lot of the info was appropriate and verifiable. And, in your reverts, you added back an alleged comment and action made by some Senator on the floor of the Senate. I kept removing it because it had no citation and yet you kept putting it back with your mass reverts. The problem was that I, like those that make anti-McCarthy citations, lacked citations regarding Drummey's material. The difference being that my citations are relatively easy to find. I have spoken with Drummey and he has citations for all his work but it's easy stuff to find if you do some simple research. As for your comment that Drummey is a "John Birch Society writer", sorry, but that is not true. Drummey does not write for the JBS and has only contributed a few articles to a magazine that is associated with the JBS. Facts are facts and I don't care where they come from as long they can be verified. Also, Drummey is an author of various subjects, the least of which are political in nature. Any search on Amazon.com would clear that up for you. Now, I may be wrong, but from my perspective and some of the actions you have taken tend to support the reality that info portraying McCarthy in a positive light, is being held to a higher standard than others who would make ridiculous unsubstantiated comments without citations and you never seem to have a problem with them.

Lastly, now with the Executive Sessions of Senator McCarthy's committee having been released, just a brief reading of the transcipts shows you what a bunch of liars McCarthy's enemies have been regarding those hearings. The courtesy extended by McCarthy and his committee are enormous and McCarthy himself makes every possible effort to give the witness an opportunity for every possible defense. In my additions to the article, I will gleefully be adding info from those transcripts, which will only go further to prove who is on the right side of this issue. And, I do thank you for the admission of your reverts and constant deletions of Buckley's book. Hopefully we can move forward and improve this article without running into any further issues. Jtpaladin 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"dwarfs" vs. "dwarves"

In Joseph_McCarthy#Censure_and_the_Watkins_Committee the direct quotation "Snow White and the 6 dwarves" was recently changed to "Snow White and the 7 dwarfs."

The statement needs a citation. Without a citation it is difficult to be sure what spelling was actually used. Since this is a direct quotation, it should use whatever spelling was used in the media or by McCarthy at the time.

The edit comment "this was presumably before Tolkien invaded the English language" is silly, as both "dwarfs" and "dwarves" are legitimate U. S. usage today according to the American Heritage Dictionary, and I am reasonably sure they were in the 1950s as well. It is not possible to guess which spelling was used, nor is it proper. The source should be cited, and the spelling used in the article should accurately reflect the spelling that was actually used in the source. If the source says "dwarves" and if someone has good reason to believe this usage was incorrect, the proper action is to change it to "dwarves[sic]," not to falsify the direct quotation.

Of course, if the original source says "dwarfs," so should the direct quotation. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source I found and cited, it was indeed "dwarfs." KarlBunker 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil

I agree - he was, simply put, a scummy witchhunter who deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity (violating the right of a person not to be persecuted or accused of actions on a whim).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.109.214 (talk • contribs) 12:51, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this page is for discussing improvements to the Joseph McCarthy article, it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. KarlBunker 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, thanks for your comments. My underst

anding is that what SENSAY911 said is vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. If so, should those remarks be removed? If you're not sure, let me know and I'll either remove the comments myself citing vandalism or ask an Administrator to handle it. Thank you for your help. Jtpaladin 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpaladin, SENSAY911's comments obviously aren't vandalism. Some might characterize them as trolling; but then, some might say the same about your comments on this page. KarlBunker 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, that was a cheap shot. Nothing I have stated on this page even remotely comes close to trolling and your assertion is nothing more than a personal attack that denegrates the work that people are doing to improve an article. I haven't referred to anyone as "scummy" or reasoned that anyone should be tried for crimes against humanity nor have I suggested anything along those lines. You accuse me of personal attacks and then carry out such attacks yourself. Hypocrisy serves no one and only cheapens the discussion. Jtpaladin 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good article/ feature article

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

CPUSA membership

Membership in the CPUSA was never illegal under Federal law. (I would be interested in seeing cites of which states made membership in CPUSA illegal.) From the 1930s on the official party platform advocated peaceful change. Communists were barred from Federal jobs, some were prosecuted for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, and many others for perjury, but the act of being or having been a member of the party was not in itself illegal. Law-abiding members of the CPUSA and sympathizers were demonized because some communists had engaged in espionage against the US. -- Donald Albury 15:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "... or support of its official goals were never illegal under Federal law" is problematic, since many CP leaders were convicted under the Smith Act of plotting to overthrow the government. The only evidence presented in the trials was a selective reading of Communist Party literature. Many of these convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court, and to any thinking person these indictments and convictions were all grossly unjust, but they're there as legal decisions that essentially stated that the goals of the CP were illegal.

In any case, I'm not sure the whole sentence does much for the article. It's not as if McCarthyism would have been okay, or McCarthy would be a hero, if party membership had been illegal.

KarlBunker 22:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Communist Party USA#Criminal prosecutions), the convictions under the Smith Act were based on testimony that CPUSA leaders had advocated the violent overthrow of the government in private, rather than on any public statements. Party members who were neither part of nor aware of the secret Soviet apparatus within the party had broken no law, but were treated as criminals. -- Donald Albury 04:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That conflicts with the description of the Smith Act convictions that's in Schrecker's Many Are The Crimes, but whadevah. The fact remains that the sentence is debatable and has no clear relevance to McCarthy's career. The legality of the CP doesn't speak to the question of whether it was a good or bad thing, nor does it speak to the question of whether McCarthy's pursuit of real and suspected Communists was a good or bad thing. The only purpose the sentence can serve is in correcting the mistaken impression that some readers might have that the CP was an illegal entity. Personally I doubt that many readers are under that misimpression (though there may be many who don't have any idea what the CP was). KarlBunker 13:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an important point that being a communist was not a crime. I'm sensitive to this kind of thing, having been spied on by government informants simply because I was a vocal (although minor) opponent of the war in Vietnam. -- Donald Albury 17:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think it's particularly important, because if it was illegal, that would just be another example, among many others from this period, of an unjust law. People can obviously be "demonized for their beliefs" regardless of whether what they believe is illegal; McCarthyism demonstrated that with spectacular thoroughness. KarlBunker 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy's "identifications"

Talking about demonizing a little work needs to be done on the "Ongoing debate" section. The list of people whom "various authors have listed as correctly identified by McCarthy" needs to be reworked. Under those rules any mention by any writer is adequate to add someone to this list (for example, I could write an article for some minor right wing press listing the entire blacklist and all the names ever mentioned by McCarthy and HUAC could be added, appearing to totally vindicate the Senator). The basis should really be the consensus of Cold War historians, that is, follow the usual Wikipedia policy of quoting the consensus of experts in the field.

There's quite a continuum of people in the list and it is grossly unfair to intermingle them. Examples of the range of people listed:

Mary Jay Keeney, of the Allied Staff on Reparations and a spy for the KGB (although McCarthy accused her of being a member of the Communist Party, not of espionage).

Annie Lee Moss, a cypher clerk and secretly a member of the Communist Party. The prime case where McCarthy was right but was not believed. This is not to say that Moss was a spy, but she was certainly unsuitable for the task of sending and receiving secret military communications.

Owen Lattimore, an outrageous communist sympathiser, a prime example of a "fellow traveller". Since Lattimore does not appear in the Soviet archives or Venona transcripts as a Soviet agent, the academic consensus is that Lattimore was falsely accused by McCarthy. Of course, the more radical of the US right wing are not happy with this consensus, so naturally there are a number of articles in polemic publications arguing otherwise.

Theodore Geiger, major US bureaucrat for post-WWII European reconstruction and, later, academic. Of course his role bought him into contacts with Communists, not just inter-governmental liason with the Soviets, but most of the figures in the continental labor unions were Communists. Preventing labor unrest in France and Italy from denegerating into a Communist coup was a major acheivement for the US and Western European governments and McCarthy was hypocritical in naming Geiger. 150.101.246.229 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

150.101.246.229, you make some interesting statements, but all of your points appear to be based on misunderstanding the purpose and content of the list of people whom "various authors have listed as correctly identified by McCarthy." This is not intended to be a list of people who were actually correctly identified by McCarthy. The paragraph of the article that precedes the list makes this clear, as do the footnotes attached to each name. My point in including this list was to examine how "right" the authors who have said "McCarthy was right" are. There's no suggestion that the people in that list are "intermingled" because of any similarity between them as individuals; they're thrown together by pure coincidence. I suppose this would be more clear if the information on each person was in the body of the article rather than in a footnote, but I thought that would add too much bulk to a fairly minor point. KarlBunker 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McCarthy was a heroin addict

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a heroin addict. He received his drugs through a special arrangement with Harry Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/joe_mccarthy.htm

There is indeed a rumor to that effect, but it's apparently based on a single source, and unlike the homosexuality rumor, it hasn't been widely repeated or mentioned in McCarthy biographies. KarlBunker 11:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know the rumors of homosexuality like many rumors about McCarthy were merely attacks on his character and have no basis in reality nor should they be promoted or repeated except to discount them. Mantion 12:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "all know" anything of the sort.

That said, I agree with KarlBunker that the threshold for inclusion should be whether mainstream biographers have mentioned it. In general we should report what biographers report and if (as in the case of the gay rumor) they mention it only to discount it, that's what we should do, and if they don't mention it, we shouldn't.

Looking at the website, it cites three sources: two sources for the statement that Anslinger supplied "a prominent member of Congress" with heroin, and one source identifying the congressman as McCarthy. All of these sources—a book written by Anslinger himself, the very good Consumer Reports book on "Licit and Illicit Drugs," and a mainstream magazine (the Ladies' Home Journal)—seem to me to meet reliable source guidelines.

So it seems to me that it is borderline whether or not this should be mentioned. The big problem is that only the Ladies Home Journal article connects the dots between "prominent member of Congress" and "McCarthy." And I don't know much about Maxine Cheshire, which the Journal calls "Washington's top investigative reporter."

So this could be phrased as "Harry Anslinger wrote that 'one of the most influential members of the Congress' was addicted to morphine and, to prevent scandal, Anslinger arranged for the FBI to supply him with the drug. In 1978 reporter Maxine Cheshire identified the congressman as McCarthy. Biographers A, B, and C do not mention this rumor." or something of the sort.

But if no biographer has bothered to mention it, I don't think it quite passes muster. It also bothers me a little that the pro-drug-site web page says he was addicted to heroin and indirectly quotes Anslinger's book to that effect, but the Cheshire article says he was addicted to morphine. Which is it? I have to suspect morphine is more likely, and that the website says "heroin" because that's more inflammatory. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Time Magazine called Maxine Cheshire the Woodstein of Koreagate and says that "Three times a week for the past dozen years, Maxine Cheshire has spun out a column of capital chatter—Spiro Agnew's literary adventures, Elizabeth Taylor's offstage antics at the Kennedy Center, Muhammad Ali's hasty exit from a White House party—that the Washington Post and some 300 subscribing newspapers generally inter among the family pages." On a WNYC website, a book by a tabloid reporter calls her D.C. celeb columnist Maxine Cheshire. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember WP:RS including gossip columnists among 'reliable sources'. I would say the rumor remains unsourced. -- Donald Albury 13:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think there is an excellent source, Anslinger himself, for the FBI's having supplied a prominent congressman with morphine. What there is a dubious source for is the identification of that Congressman as McCarthy.

Now, as for Cheshire, well, that depends on whether you accept the description of her as "Washington's top investigative reporter" (= journalist) or as a "celeb columnist." And, as always, the issue is not whether Cheshire's story is true, but whether the Ladies Home Journal is a reliable source for Cheshire having asserted something. Which it is. I'm not arguing that this should go in the article; I don't think it should, assuming that KarlBunker is correct that no biographer even bothers to mention this. The issue is not Cheshire's reliability, it is the importance of Cheshire and her rumor, whether true or false. It's not important to McCarthy's biographers, ergo it's not important.

I think the part of WP:RS that really applies is that this is a "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" and therefore requires exceptional sources.

P. S. It would of course be delightful if it turned out that various other writers had identified Anslinger's customer as various other congressmen. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the note above, heroin and morphine are the same drug. Heroin is diacetyl morphine -- just another form of ordinary hospital morphine. The only difference is that heroin is three times stronger by weight. One grain of heroin equals three grains of morphine. They are both converted to the same form of morphine when they enter the body, so they are medically interchangeable. Now, if you want to know why the drugs are equivalent but one is legal while the other is banned entirely, you can find the answer to that in Chapter 9 of the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU9.html

If someone is addicted to morphine/heroin and they are not getting it from a legal source, then they are getting heroin, because the only form of the drug regularly available on the black market is heroin. Therefore, it is correct to say that someone who is addicted to one is addicted to the other -- particularly if they are not getting it from a legal source. The word "heroin" may be viewed as more inflammatory -- but only if you don't understand that the two drugs are really the same.

The sources cited also include Will Oursler, who co-wrote Anslinger's books. Also, if you read Anslinger's own description of the person to whom he supplied drugs, there aren't a lot of people that would fit that description as well as McCarthy. I have surveyed some of the major historians in the past. They all seem to agree that McCarthy is the one.

It would seem that, at a minimum, there is enough proof (Anslinger's own words) to put a note in the Anslinger page that he supplied narcotics to at least one member of Congress.

As for the argument that, if the biographers don't think it is important then it isn't -- oh, please.

it's not "if the biographers don't think it is important then it isn't [important]", it's "if the biographers don't write about it then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia," because that's how Wikipedia works. This rumor still comes down to a single source--Anslinger--with an additional layer of uncertainty added by the fact that a third party is acting as a source as to who Anslinger was actually talking about. So in a very real sense that means that there's less than one person who is the source for this story. Personally I find it believable, but without better sourcing, it doesn't belong in this article. KarlBunker 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Anslinger had named the congressman, I don't think there would be a problem. "there aren't a lot of people that would fit that description" won't fly because that's original research WP:OR. Obviously Anslinger must have thought there was more than one person who could have fit the description, or there would have been no point in his giving a hint rather than a name. There would have been no point in saying "This addict was a Senator who had the same initials as the fourth President of the United States, and who represented a Midwestern state, famous for cheese and beer, whose capital was also named after the fourth President of the United States." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedys

Shouldn't this article at least mention Joe's relationship with JFK & RFK? I beleive he was godfather to one of Bobby's kids and Jack publicly defended him on at least one occassion.68.59.202.209 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)whs[reply]

From time to time people have added something about McCarthy's relationship with the Kennedys, and a while later someone else has removed it. I think some readers/editors are intrigued by the notion that the notably liberal Kennedys were friendly with the ultra-conservative McCarthy. In fact, however, apart from his actions around Communism McCarthy was not particularly conservative, so in that sense perhaps the relationship wasn't so surprising. Also, the relationship didn't have much of any effect on the course of McCarthy's life or career. RFK worked for him for a while (as is mentioned in the article), and some say JFK "arranged" to be hospitalized during McCarthy's censure vote, but IMO there's nothing really "missing" from the article on this count. KarlBunker 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

This article needs more inline citations. For a subject as sensitive as this one is, I think you need referencing after nearly every line. I don't see many at all in the opening paragraphs, for instance. --Bookworm857158367 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An odd analysis. The opening paragraphs survey the historically undisputed facts of McCarthy's early life and career, exactly as described by the section header. The blanket demand for "more inline citations" is entirely unhelpful to the editors working hard on the article. Please specify precisely what "sensitive" assertions the article includes that you feel require citation and I'm sure there'll be no problem in responding to that.—DCGeist 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to see in-line citations in the first two opening paragraphs, but I see that this isn't favored in the feature article process, so I guess I was wrong. Other than that, it appears to be a good article and meet the criteria, so I will pass it. --Bookworm857158367 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA needs to be put on indefinite hold until the POV issues being addressed in part below are resolved. That one of the editors could find calling William F. Buckley an "extremist" within the Wiki POV guidelines is beyond me. K. Scott Bailey 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Right Wing" versus "Conservative"

The phrase "right-wing" has very clear pejorative connotations. Very few people I know on the left (ironically, my side of the "aisle") would consider William F. Buckley "right-wing." Simply put, "conservative" is a MUCH less pejorative, much more accurate way of describing the authors in question. The only reasoning I can see for using "right wing" is if the author has a clear POV, which would be in violation of Wiki standards. As such, I have reinserted the minor edit. K. Scott Bailey 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using "conservative" to refer to the authors being cited in this section of the article is highly pejorative to people who identify themselves as conservatives. The authors in question are extremists, i.e. right wing, not conservative. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy that accuracy is better than inaccuracy, I'm replacing "right wing." KarlBunker 14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're choosing pejorative over accurate. William F. Buckley is the DEFINITION of "conservative." The above post is evidence of your bias, as you call the authors "extremists." I am a liberal. I am also offended that you're letting your own bias color your description of these authors. They are "conservative" whether you like it or not. The fact that you continue to pejoratively refer to them as "right-wing" is further evidence of your bias. It is no wonder that this article keeps being knocked down when it's up for FA and GA. With bias so evident, you continue to revert with no actual supporting reason. This will never make FA or GA with people with such evident bias editing it. With the above in mind, I am reinserting the more accurate, less pejorative "conservative." K. Scott Bailey 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What my bias or your bias may be isn't relevant, so stop wasting our time talking about that. All that is relevant is the actual text that goes into the article. You're right that it's questionable to characterize Buckley as "right wing". The term applies to the other authors discussed in that section of the article, where Buckley is mentioned only in passing. If that's your only objection, I'd be happy to see the reference to Buckley and his book removed from that section; it's debatable whether his book fits in with the rest of the discussion anyway. Other than that, is it your contention that "right wing" does not exist as a term that accurately describes a political position; that it's purely a pejorative term? If that is your view, could you supply some evidence to support it? Would you accept the term "far-right" as an alternative? KarlBunker 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our biases matter when they creep into our phrasing, and color the tenor of the article. I have been CALLED a "left winger" before. It's pejorative. So is the phrase "right wing." What is the problem with simply referring to the authors as "conservative"? I don't approve of everything written or said by those who would be categorized as "liberal" (i.e. Noam Chomsky), but that hardly means that those people shouldn't be categorized that way.

In the interest of maintaining a truly neutral POV, I contend that the best solution is to simply substitute the less volatile descriptor "conservative" in place of "right wing." I'm still struggling to understand why you have a huge problem with that. I'm relatively certain that you're not concerned about the reputation of less radical conservatives like Will and Kristol. Therefore, I'm left with that it can only be your subconscious bias creeping into the article. I won't castigate you for that--we've all been guilty of it from time to time--but what I most certainly WILL do is to vigorously maintain that it is a large mistake to let it happen.K. Scott Bailey 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you went with "ultra-conservative", less bias would be apparent. Even still, I contend that "conservative" is the best, most neutral option. As for "documenting" that "right wing" is only--or primarily--used pejoratively, I contend that it lends a color of bias to THIS ARTICLE. One of the first times I heard it in use was when then First Lady Clinton used it of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy." That seems a bit pejorative to me as well. If the hint of bias seems apparent to me--as someone who can't stand the sight of Ann Coulter--how would it appear to someone more to the right of the spectrum? K. Scott Bailey 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing as it may seem to you, your opinion on these matters is not the voice of God. You seem to consider it sufficient to state your opinion that one term is pejorative and another term is accurate without being pejorative.

Luckily however, I've your work for you. I won't bore you with the details (since looking for actual facts to back up your opinions doesn't seem to interest you), but I've found evidence that "right wing" tends to be used, if not necessarily pejoratively, at least more often by writers who aren't concerned with appearing neutral. "Conservative" tends to be used more by sources that are trying to appear neutral, and is used even with regard to obvious extremists like Ann Coulter. Thus, it appears that in contemporary American English there is no neutral term for a person who is obviously to the right of mainstream conservatives. With that in mind, I'll accept "conservative", unless someone can suggest something better. KarlBunker 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've decided to set aside being civil in favor of something less so. I won't venture down that path. I was simply sharing my views on the TONE that the phrase seemed to set, which requires no documentation. It seemed apparent to me that "conservative" would serve as a much more neutral descriptor. I made no vituperative statements toward you personally, yet you choose to impugn my character by implying laziness. I'll leave it for others to decide whether your tone was appropriate.K. Scott Bailey 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my edit, but what's the problem with "largely"?

The claims were NOT completely unsubstantiated, as the later evidence revealed. They WERE "largely" unsubstantiated, but not WHOLLY. McCarthy was certainly not a nice man, but one doesn't need to stretch the truth--even by inference--to show that in this encyclopedic article. In my opinion--based upon the fact that some charges were in small part substantiated--inserting the word "largely" makes the statement more accurate.K. Scott Bailey 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reads: Between 1950 and 1954, McCarthy became noted for [largely] unsubstantiated claims that there were Communist and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. He did not "become noted" for "largely unsubstantiated" claims, any more than a famous thief becomes noted for "sometimes stealing." A thief becomes noted for stealing, even if some of his possessions are acquired legally. It's a minor point, but one that has an influence on tone, or as you would say, TONE. Saying "largely unsubstantiated" would risk giving the article the tone of an apologia for McCarthy, which would not be in keeping with the position of the vast majority of McCarthy scholars. KarlBunker 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think this article runs ANY sort of risk of sounding like "an apologia for McCarthy." That's what bothers me some about it. It has such an ANTI-McCarthy tone that it almost risks engendering something of a backlash. McCarthy was not a nice person. He had an ax to grind, and he ruined a lot of innocent people's lives. However, by treating his article COMPLETELY even-handedly--including making note of the fact that the claims were not COMPLETELY unsubstantiated (which the current wording implies)--the truth of what type of man he was will come out. By allowing your personal biases to cloud your vision on this article (which is completely understandable), you are simply providing ammunition for the actual McCarthy-apologizers.K. Scott Bailey 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any evidence that the tone of the article does not accurately reflect the position of the vast majority of McCarthy scholars, I would love to see it. In particular, and in addition to the point I raised above and to which you have not responded, it is rare for any McCarthy scholar to give any attention to those few instances where his accusations eventually proved to have some merit. This article does mention those instances, in the Ongoing debate section. Finally, your persistence in accusing me of expressing a personal bias in this article is a personal attack; please desist. KarlBunker 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True panache, Mr. Bunker, true panache! I am not attacking you personally. After you basically accused me of being lazy, you accuse ME of attacking you personally, and then even send me a "warning." Wow. As for the issue of bias, EVERYONE brings biases to the table. The challenge--often unsuccessful for anyone--is to keep those biases from clouding our judgement. I don't think this article reads like an anti-McCarthy screed at all. I'm simply saying that it has an anti-McCarthy FEEL to it. If you really want me to pull phrases, paragraphs, etc. to "prove my point" to you, I will. I wouldn't want you to feel like you needed to call me lazy again. All I'm saying is that someone who's never heard of McCarthy before reading this article would probably know that the person writing it doesn't like him at all. That's far different that calling this an anti-McCarthy rant. I think it just contains a whiff of bias, and that there's still room for improvement. Nothing more, nothing less. As for personal attacks, the only one who has gotten personal in this discussion is you. If anyone should "desist" from personal attacks, it's you. K. Scott Bailey 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undo of the Additional Material in "Ongoing Debate"

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

Popular culture

As usual, a Wikipedia article is demeaned by the inclusion of references to "popular culture". I will delete this valueless section if there are no objections.Lestrade 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I object to its deletion at this time, so far as there has been no discussion of the matter. You say the section "demeans" the article. Per Webster's, "to demean": "to lower in character, status, or reputation." If your argument is that the section lowers the "character" of the article, please explain how. If you believe it lowers the article's "status" or "reputation," please cite an external source or two that supports the view that such sections "demean" Wikipedia in that way. You say the section is "valueless." But that simple declaration is evidently false, isn't it? The section (a) provides objective information, (b) of at least plausible interest to readers already interested in the article topic, (c) in a logical (i.e., chronological) structure. Though I am personally not a proponent of the section, a number of editors have found it valuable enough to contribute to; in light of that, I'd like to see a strong and principled argument for its removal.—DCGeist 03:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, nonsense, Lestrade!" (I've always wanted to say that.) Actually, in about 99.9% of the articles that have an "[article subject] in popular culture" section, I agree with you. They just collect cruft by drive-by editors who go "Ooh! I once saw a TV show that had two words of dialog about [article subject], I'll add that!" I've deleted several such sections from articles myself. However, I think in this case the section has some value. The Manchurian Candidate is a notable movie, for example, and it's interesting that such a brutal and high-profile criticism of McCarthy would be produced so soon after he was at the height of his popularity. Pogo was also quite a high-profile piece of criticism of McCarthy in its time, and one that was contemporaneous with McCarthy at his most powerful.

Anyway, that's my $.02. KarlBunker 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA/R

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

User:Kaisershatner's recent edits

I like the structural changes, but I'd like to go over the changes made to the introduction. Beginning with this sentence:

Between 1950 and 1954, McCarthy became the most visible public face of this period of anti-communism, noted for claiming that there were large numbers of Communist and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government, and for failing to substantiate these claims with any evidence.

This sentence has some clarity problems. It mentions "this period of anti-communism," without explaining what period of anti-communism. As Kaisershatner said in one of his edit comments, the lead section shouldn't get too deeply into a history of anti-communism, but I think some brief mention is necessary in order to explain McCarthy's place in history. I propose reinserting a brief (briefer than what was formerly there) description of the 2nd red scare, to give some meaning to the phrase "this period of anti-communism."

"noted for claiming... and for failing to substantiate these claims with any evidence." seems like an awkward and round-about way of saying "noted for [making] unsubstantiated claims..." Is there some significance to this change that I'm missing?

I'm not proposing a straight RV to the introduction, but it seems to me that it's too long now and adds too much repetition to the article. WP:Lead states The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. To me, this doesn't seem to call for a complete mini-biography in the lead to a biography article, but rather a summation of the reasons why the article subject is famous. Thus I propose removing the paragraph beginning "Born on a farm in Wisconsin..." and shortening the following paragraph.

A separate problem with this following paragraph (beginning with "After several largely undistinguished years in the Senate..." is that, by going into a lot of detail about the Wheeling speech and its aftermath, it suggests that this incident is the sole cause of McCarthy's fame. In particular, the sentence McCarthy continued to revise his numerical estimates and never provided the names of the alleged Communists, instead moving on to accuse others of Communist sympathy. suggests that he never again, in all the rest of his career, accused anyone by name of being a Communist.

Comments, anyone? KarlBunker 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl; it was a first pass and as it stands is 1000% better than the previous version as far as providing an overview of the subject (the biography of Joseph McCarthy). Since you are quoting from WP:LEAD, keep in mind "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The biography of Joseph McCarthy includes more than his years in the Senate. His upbringing, schooling, military service, previous jobs, Senate career, and death can all be noted or summarized in the introduction. I will grant you that my language is imprecise with respect to his major reason for notability, but perhaps you could help improve that area; I come to the subject as an editor rather than an expert in the field. Kaisershatner 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:LEAD suggests for long articles (and this one is currently 93k) a three or four paragraph introduction. Plenty of room there to give an overview of his life. Kaisershatner 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with a McCarthy article is somewhat unusual, in that McCarthy is notable almost exclusively for a single thing that occupied about 4 years of his life. Thus an introduction that gives undue attention to events outside of that single and narrowly focused reason for his fame won't serve the needs of most readers. Of course, what constitutes "undue attention" is open to interpretation, as are the guidelines in WP:Lead. But even if this was--say--a biography of a president who had had a long career with many highpoints of interest, as a reader I would want an introduction that gave an overview of those highpoints of his career, not one that told me he was born on a farm, etc. KarlBunker 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the introduction starts with his primary reason for fame and provides an overview of it; readers can find what they need in the body of the article unless they are looking for an overview of his biography, which is in the Lead section. But I'd be happy to invite further opinions. Want to post a RFC? Kaisershatner 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. I've added one to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.KarlBunker 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog in this fight. As an unbiased reader, I tend to side with KarlBunker. Without a long legalistic justification based on WP:Lead, I would make the following comments and suggestions:

(1) It seems to me that the three facts that are indispensible to a well-written lead are:

(a) McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin;

(b) he used his position to conduct an anti-communist witch hunt in the 1950's, a pursuit that led to his eventual disgrace; and

(c) the term, McCarthyism, is eponymous to Senator McCarthy.

(2) Virtually nothing else about McCarthy is noteworthy; he was a bland, unaccomplished, waste of senatorial space until he hit on the power of commie-baiting and grandstanding as a way to promote himself.

(3) With these two precepts in mind, it seems to me that the introductory section of this article (which is really pretty good as it stands) could be improved by a little sharper focus on the truly important facts. I suggest the following:

(a) Divide the first paragraph into two shorter paragraphs, one identifying McCarthy, and one (beginning with the sentence that starts, "Ultimately ... ") that defines McCarthyism.

(b) Delete the second paragraph entirely. All of this material is a tedious recitation of the inconsequential.

(c) Write an introductory sentence (or two) to the third paragraph along the lines of, "After an upbringing in rural Wisconsin and a career as a lawyer and district court judge in that state, he was elected to the United States Senate in 1948(?). In the Senate, he ... ", etc. The remainder of the third paragraph is fine.

This tightens the focus of the lead, omits the yawn-inducing biographical minutiae (which can be moved further down in the article), and makes for a better overall effect, I think.

This article is good to very good, and I see that both Kaisershatner and KarlBunker have made substantial and valuable contributions to its quality. I do have one "negative" comment though: there are a number of long compound-complex sentences in the article that make reading (and comprehension without parsing and re-reading) more difficult than it ought to be.

The above is just one man's opinion. I hope that it provides the basis for compromise or, at least, fruitful discussions. If I can be of service, please contact me. PeterHuntington 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the best way to reply to the above. Nor if it will matter but I will try

" (1) It seems to me that the three facts that are indispensible to a well-written lead are:

(a) McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin;

(b) he used his position to conduct an anti-communist witch hunt in the 1950's, a pursuit that led to his eventual disgrace; and

(c) the term, McCarthyism, is eponymous to Senator McCarthy.

"

(a) We know he is a senator, but still important to include. It would also be important to include he was chairman of Senate Committee on Government Operations. This used to be in the lead, isn't it worth including his official title

(b) "which Hunt" This is the view of people who apposed what McCarthy and others were doing. It seems suggest that there was no evidence or fair trial, Didn't people under investigation have a fair trial with legal representation? Is it possible that some of them were communist, of course we now know there was? "Disgrace" yes the senate voted to condemn his actions. Largely a politically motivated vote where only 2 of 46 original charges. He was not removed from office, and he was still more popular the president that just left office. He had a huge funeral, one of historic proportions. Yes you think he was Disgraced, because you once thought like me. But then I did my own research and was shocked by how much he was respected, supported and loved.

(c) McCarthyism was political insult of his enemies. There is an entire article on McCarthyism, An entire article... This article is not about McCarthyism, Get it through your head. Maybe if we start the lead about the topic, which is Joseph McCarthy, maybe then the article will STAY ON FOCUS.

"

(2) Virtually nothing else about McCarthy is noteworthy; he was a bland, unaccomplished, waste of senatorial space until he hit on the power of commie-baiting and grandstanding as a way to promote himself."

"

I thought you didn't have a dog in the race? Clearly your true views come out "waste of senatorial space" "commie-baiting".

"

(a) Divide the first paragraph into two shorter paragraphs, one identifying McCarthy, and one (beginning with the sentence that starts, "Ultimately ... ") that defines McCarthyism.

(b) Delete the second paragraph entirely. All of this material is a tedious recitation of the inconsequential.

(c) Write an introductory sentence (or two) to the third paragraph along the lines of, "After an upbringing in rural Wisconsin and a career as a lawyer and district court judge in that state, he was elected to the United States Senate in 1948(?). In the Senate, he ... ", etc. The remainder of the third paragraph is fine.

"

(a)"Ultimately" this article is not about McCarthyism. Do you know there is an article about McCarthyism? I was shocked that here was an entire article on it, but there is. There is also ones on "red scare" and "anti-communism". You can click on the link an go to it. Not only should we not go through the steps to define McCarthyism. It shouldn't be in the lead. It should only be in the article to show an example of his enemies attacks. That is all it was, and term first coined by his enemies then used by his enemies to attack the man. It is politically charged hate speech use to insult Joseph McCarthy. Now the term is used to describe things that had little or nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy or his work. Often it is used to describe things that happened long before McCarthy took office. It is crazy how much confusion there is on this term. One thing is for sure, it doesn't belong in the lead.

(b) Of course you want to delete the second paragraph as it was about the man. The man was more then just a senator that many writers and journalist hated for political reasons. It isn't tedious, it contains information that the majority of the readers don't know and might not know otherwise. Some people only read the lead, and as far as most leads go this is what SHOULD be in the article. I pointed this out before, if you read most leads they are a summary of the article to follow. Most everything in a lead is repeated and expanded on in the article. This is exactly what should be in the Lead. I won't provide an example but if you look through the achieves you will find many. Just look at any article, it is normal to include this kind of information in the lead.

(c) or course you like the 3rd paragraph, it states still disputed information. The number 205.. what is it with this number, I don't understand the significance of the number. Reports are conflicting, but it states it in the lead as if it was an important fact. I don't understand it's important nor do I see it as a fact. McCarthy was Condemned, it may mean similar things to censure, but we should use the proper word. In addition the 3rd paragraph it also says "making him only the fourth Senator in the nation's history to be so reprimanded. " I have heard similar statements before but never understood it.

Below is a list of 9 senators who were Censured, Condemned, and denounced.

United States Senate Censure Cases

Date: January 2, 1811

Member: Timothy Pickering (F-MA)

Charge: Reading confidential documents in open Senate session before an injunction of secrecy was removed.

Result: Censured. Failed reelection (elected to the House in 1812).

Vote: 20-7

Date: May 10, 1844

Member: Benjamin Tappan (D-OH)

Charge: Releasing to the New York Evening Post a copy of President John Tyler's message to the Senate of April 22, 1844 regarding the treaty of annexation between the United States and the Republic of Texas. Result: Censured. Did not run for reelection.

Vote: 38-7

Date: February 28, 1902

Members: Benjamin R. Tillman (D-SC) and John L. McLaurin (D-SC)

Charge: Fighting in the Senate chamber on February 22, 1902.

Result: Each was censured and suspended, retroactively, for six days. This incident led to the adoption of Rule XIX governing the conduct of debate in the chamber. Tillman -- reelected; McLaurin -- did not run for reelection.

Vote: 54-12; 22 not voting

Date: November 4, 1929

Member: Hiram Bingham (R-CT)

Charge: Employing as a Senate staff member Charles Eyanson, who was simultaneously employed by the Manufacturers Association of Connecticut. Eyanson was hired to assist Bingham on tariff legislation. The issue broadened into the question of the government employing dollar-a-year-men.

Result: "Condemned" for conduct tending "to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute." Defeated for reelection.

Vote: 54-22; 18 not voting

Date: December 2, 1954

Member: Joseph R. McCarthy (R-WI)

Charge: Abuse and non-cooperation with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections during a 1952 investigation of his conduct; for abuse of the Select Committee to Study Censure.

Result: He was "condemned." Died in office.

Vote: 67-22

Date: June 23, 1967

Member: Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT)

Charge: Use of his office (1961-1965) to convert campaign funds to his personal benefit. Conduct unbecoming a senator.

Result: Censured. Defeated for reelection.

Vote: 92-5

Date: October 11, 1979

Member: Herman E. Talmadge (D-GA)

Charge: Improper financial conduct (1973-1978), accepting reimbursements of $43,435.83 for official expenses not incurred, and improper reporting of campaign receipts and expenditures.

Result: His conduct was "denounced" as reprehensible and tending to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute. Defeated for reelection.

Vote: 81-15

Date: July 25, 1990

Member: David F. Durenberger (R-MN)

Charge: Unethical conduct "in connection with his arrangement with Piranha Press, his failure to report receipt of travel expenses in connection with his Piranha Press and Boston area appearances, his structuring of real estate transactions and receipt of Senate reimbursements in connection with his stays in his Minneapolis condominium, his pattern of prohibited communications respecting the condominium, his repeated acceptance of prohibited gifts of limousine service for personal purposes, and the conversion of a campaign contribution to his personal use."

Result: "Denounced" for reprehensible conduct, bringing the Senate into dishonor and disrepute. Did not run for reelection.

Vote: 96-0

In addition below is a list of 32 senator who were brought up for Expulsion a much more severe penalty then a censure.

United States Senate Expulsion Cases

Date: 1797

Member: William Blount (R-TN)

Charge: Anti-Spanish conspiracy; treason

Result: Expelled

Date: 1808

Member: John Smith (R-OH)

Charge: Disloyalty/Treason

Result: Not Expelled

Note: Expulsion failed 19 to 10--less than the necessary two-thirds majority. At request of the Ohio legislature, Smith resigned two weeks after the vote. (His counsel was Francis Scott Key.)

Date: 1858

Member: Henry M. Rice (D-MN)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Not Expelled

Date: 1861

Member: James M. Mason (D-VA)