Talk:McCarthyism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Disesase?

Should it be mentioned that McCarthyism propagated communism as a "disease", which could be "cured"? I'm fairly certain I read that some American communists were lobotomised in an attempt to "cure" them as such... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.56.120 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta jus sounds like nonsense. --75.173.18.129 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I agree with the "Please expand this article" tag. The article should have a real history of McCarthyism; instead of more-or-less randomly listing some of its victims, it should chronicle what happened to whom, when it happened, what was said about what was happening, what the public opinion was, who the key figures were, etc., etc. This could be a an excellent and fascinating article, if someone (preferably not me :-) were to put the work into it. KarlBunker 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the expansion tag. Speaking as a woman who was fingered during the McCarthy era, I believe that the Wikipedian public should know the truth. KarenClarkson 10:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is long enough now (10 August 2006); the "please expand this article" tag should come down. McCarthyism was a short interlude of over-reaction to a real threat in the history of one country in the world; it wasn't nearly as destructive as other episodes in that country's history, and its historical consequences aren't that great. The article covers pretty well the events of the day, as suggested by KarlBunker immediately above, and is pretty well-referenced. If someone has interesting, well-referenced material to add, then add it, but calling for people to pad up this article just because they want to show off the evils of America is ridiculous. Argyriou 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article does need to be expanded. I always use wikipedia for research and it disapoints me that I cannot read about individual effects of the blacklisting on the various individuals.--KatyK 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed facts

Much of what is said about McCarthy is false. His "list of 57" is not rooted in fact. Also, there is not a single person McCarthy wrongly accused of Communist activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.59.160.187 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For an image of a telegram in which McCarthy himself refers to his "list of 57", see here. For the story of just two of the many innocent victims of McCarthy, see the text beginning here (page 21).

KarlBunker 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The "205 vs 57" number controversy is akin to pointing out flawed raindrops in a monsoon storm. In a speech, Senator McCarthy may or may not have misspoken and said he had the names of 205 suspected communists in government service. He later insists he said he had 57 (as the telegram confirms). The lone source suggesting the number 205 was a harsh critic of McCarthy and is suspect as a source. Whatever the size of any list, the larger question should be, "Were there spies in the government?" Is it truly important whether there were 57 or 205? Is not ONE too many? Arguing the numbers game is a tried and true means of partisan leftists distracting from that larger and much more important question. VanBrigglePottery 08:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Is not ONE too many?" Wow--talk about parroting McCarthy. Yes, betraying one's oath of office, lying while in the public employ, and recklessly destroying people's careers and livelihoods does matter. If only McCarthy was half as good at exposing actual spies as he was at demagoguery, you'd have a point. But he wasn't. And you don't.—DCGeist 08:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact (which is in short supply around here), Senator McCarthy resisted naming names for the precise reason that innocents could be harmed. Democrats in the Senate harangued him ruthlessly to"name names" to the point that it became a chant not only in the senate, but in the media. McCarthy finally relented and gave names in writing to the Senate, and Democrats released those names. So who destroyed reputations? McCarthy, or Democrats bent on falsely painting him as a monster? VanBrigglePottery 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Communism = overthrowing democratic government?

I reverted the recent addition by Ecto because I don't think overthrowing democratic governments by invasion, coup etc. is an obvious primary goal of communism in general. If this IS true for all flavors of communism and applies to all forms of democratic governments, the article should at least explain the logic behind this in brief. If it was merely a stated goal of a particular branch or political party, it should be identifiable as such (and include a source, ideally). Bal00 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Correct. Communism as such is not calling for any actions like that (although accepts them as a part of "just cause"), in it's roots it's a liberal/pro-worker "left" movement. "Export of Revolution" was the term used by the Soviet Communist Party to justify it's existance, claiming they were the liberators of the world. It was used to explain the isolation, the military build-up, the coups and assistance to puppet states AND the Red Scare: "these capitalist pigs are afraid we're going in for them!", but that was pure demagogy, especially during the Cold War. At least I know what I'm saying - that's what they teach in Russian schools now.--92.36.63.162 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing Controversy

FAIR WARNING!

These statements - "The Communist Party USA(CPUSA) had senior members in the pay of the Soviet Union. Communist spies included Julius Rosenberg and Theodore Hall, who gave nuclear secrets to the Soviets, and Harry Dexter White, who was the founding head of the International Monetary Fund." are covering a bit too much ground in one leap.

- the first sentence "senior members in pay of the Soviet Union" implies the individuals named in the second sentence were the people being paid. Is there in evidence to support this?

- of course one could also read this to mean the senior CPUSA members were in the pay of the Soviet Union... so what why are Rosenberg, Hall & White mentioned at all?

- Harry Dexter White has been ALLEGED to have been a spy, but the evidence is still very shaky & in dispute.

- The most I've ever seen that might be called "pay" was a story about a rug which Whitaker Chambers allegedly gave to White. There are multiple versions of this story, all of which would be a major stretch to safely say White was in the pay of the CPUSA/Soviet Union.

- bottom line... absent some hard facts, these two garbled sentences are about to disappear. DEddy 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not highly informed on this subject but i believe that the comment above mine, "Harry Potter has been ALLEGED to have been a spy, but the evidence is still very shaky & in dispute." either they are having a joke or it has been vandalised, can someone please check that. Comment added by Grtamlinb (talk • contribs)

Some of your criticisms may be correct (I haven't looked them up yet), but others are based on a misreading of the text. You're reading the two sentences as if they were all one connected statement, and they aren't. The first sentence says that senior members of the CPUSA were in the pay of the Soviet Union. The second sentence says that Communist spies included Rosenberg, etc. There's nothing about the CPUSA members being spies, or about White, Hall or Rosenberg being paid. As to why Rosenberg, etc. are mentioned at all, it should be because their guilt is established by Venona data or other recent revelations. I know that's true about Rosenberg, but can't speak offhand about the others.

That said, the section definitely needs--at the least--some citations and fact-checking. I would especially like to see a citation about CPUSA leaders being paid by or receiving funds from the Soviet Union, as I don't recall seeing that fact anywhere else. KarlBunker 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

- By the juxtaposition (adjacent) of the sentences it is only natural to read them as a connected thought.

- I'll dodge the Rosenberg/Hall issues. Not my field.

- White should NOT be included in such sweeping & misleading statements... while it's quite clear (and he acknowledged so publically) that he socialized with Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, precisely what can be deduced from the VENONA decrypts about White's role is ambiguous at best.

- the reasons White was so vilified is that (1) he was VERY powerful, (2) he was "brusk" to be very gentle (e.g. he stepped on a lot of toes), and (3) he died in 1948 & conveniently could not defend his war-time actions when the serious HUAC/McCarthy stuff really got out of control in the early 1950's DEddy 00:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

- best current, single source on White is Bruce Craig's "Treasonable Doubt" DEddy 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---= A simple re-wording would fix that; adding "As well", "Also", "Beyond that", et cetera to the second sentence would solve the issue. ---= Not my area ether, but that solves the first part of the problem. Lostinlodos Lostinlodos 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm moving a couple of sentences out of Witch-hunt and I thought you might have some use for them:

Although revelations of the Soviet archives in the 1990s showed that some of those who were pursued were indeed communists, HUAC uncovered very few of the many genuine Communist infiltrators, and the practice of McCarthyism left many non-communist victims in its wake. Thus the "witch hunts" of the time were compromised by wild accusations and disregard for civil liberties and civil discourse.

I note that this text seems to give implicit approval to the persecution of communists, and of course that's a very undemocratic position. The basic tenets of democracy (as well as the Bill of Human Rights) require that people be free to hold whatever views they like (political or otherwise) and even promote those views, without persecution by any institution. If everyone ruined by McCarthyism turned out to be communist sympathisers it would still be a travesty... Fuzzypeg☻ 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing Context

KarlBunker, why do you insist on removing the context under which McCarthyism developed as a major force (as opposed to remaining a pet mania of a few politicians), from the introduction? That context, of actual threats posed by Communists to the U.S., is important to understand the development of McCarthyism, and removing it is inserting your own POV. Argyriou 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary comment, the exact same information that was added to the introduction is already present in the article, in greater detail. As it's written, this text in the introduction doesn't even qualify as a "summary". It's just an awkwardly compressed rewording of information that appears a few lines later. This addition to the article accomplishes nothing except to make the introduction poorly written. KarlBunker 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the writing on that initial paragraph - the context material was poorly-written, and your edit has made it clearer. There's probably an even better edit hiding in there, but I'm going to go fix engineering articles for a bit before attempting it. Argyriou 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

References for names on list

Some names list some investigation by the FBI on their wiki pages, other names do not (e.g. Harry Belafonte). If its not on the bio it needs a reference. If it is in the bio it should have been commented in when the name was added. Mrdthree 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "it should have been commented in when the name was added." That the "edit summary" comment should note that the WP bio article supports the inclusion of that name? I don't see how that would help someone who comes along later and doubts a particular name. The alternative is to cite some external source for each name, which seems excessive. The WP guidelines on citations state: "Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind)." The part of this that might apply here is "contentious or likely to be challenged," and it's not clear to me why anyone would "challenge" any of the names. It's not as if being investigated or victimized during McCarthyism was that rare of an occurrence. KarlBunker 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get your facts from? Thats all I want to know. IT seems the more unsourced assertions someone makes, the higher the probability of error. I dont know if everyone in hollywood was investigated, but if they were, does that make everyone in hollywood a victim of mccarthyism? Maybe its a matter of perspective; if someone is investigated and doesnt care perhaps he or she is not a victim. Even if it were in a different section entitled people investigated durign mccarthyism, it would still need a source though. Mrdthree 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I ran through the bios and most of them mention that they were on the hollywood blacklist except for Harry Belafonte, Orson Welles, Alfred Kinsey Mrdthree 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with you. The list should be tightened up and the presence of each name on it justified with a citation. KarlBunker 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow.... your research is humbling. Mrdthree 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we create "McCarthyism (metaphor)" as a separate article?

I just used the term "McCarthyism" in its more modern metaphorical meaning. I then just noticed that using McCarthyism as a metaphor isn't described in the article lead, only in a small section at the end. In my opinion, the metaphorical use of the term is prominent enough now in culture to deserve its own (admittedly short) article. We can then put a dab line at the beginning of this article to the new one. What do people think? --Deodar 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not something I've given much thought to, but off the top of my head I doubt such a subject is worth a whole article. OTOH, it probably is important enough for the discussion of it to be increased in this article. Perhaps a brief mention in the article lead, and a longer section about it at the end of the article. Why don't you start by doing that and see how much content you come up with? KarlBunker 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

tend to be negative for "metaphor" article. (no OR allowed--needs to be rooted in solid secondary sources.) Make it a separate section seems best right now. Rjensen 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was directed to this article after I tried looking up "redbaiting," and yet I find no mention of the word in the article. If you are going to include a discussion of McCarthyism in the article, or even create a separate article for its metaphorical uses, I would suggest talking about uses of redbaiting throughout American history as a political tactic. Red riot83 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

The following line "But for the vast majority, either the nature of their employment or the tenuous nature of their communist affiliation precludes any justification of the actions taken against them." Seems POV to me. It presumes that actual rather than tenuous association with the communist party WOULD be justification. As the communist party was and is not illegal, and since presumably any political view and association, so long as the organization is not a criminal one, is permitted in a democracy or at least in the US, could there be ANY justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.1.213 (talk)

I am not changing it, because I am not sure how. I think it displays a POV, but I also think my objection to it could be construed to be POV (despite the fact that what I am saying is supposed to be the law of the land) and I am not sure how to reword it properly.

Nevermind. Thought of a simple way to change it to a simple statement of fact that gives no POV in either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.1.213 (talk)

Hi, 71.99.1.213 -- You make some good points. I don't think your edit is the best way to cover the issue in a neutral and clearly understandable way, but it's certainly more neutral than the previous version. I'll give it some thought and see what alternate wording I can come up with.

Meanwhile, note that you can sign your comments on a discussion page by typing 4 tildes:"~~~~". KarlBunker 09:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is digustingly slanted. It clearly paints McCarthy as a conniving politian who is out to gain as much power as possible. Were his views extreme? Yes. Did he go over the line? Yes. But did he knowingly accuse people simply because he wanted power? No. The INTIAL ideas behind the HUAC and McCarthyism were GOOD, which is why the whole thing was supported in the first place. Was there a threat of spies from the Soviet Union? Yes, so wouldn't it be important to establish some way to identify them within the government? Yes. I'm not trying to say that communists are evil or that their purpose is to overthrow the government, I'm simply saying that the concern was justifiable. It is wrong that the article does not reflect this.--KatyK 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

KatyK, I'm really interested in understanding your perspective better. What was the useful methodology McCarthy proposed for "establish[ing] some way to identify them [i.e., Soviet spies] within the government," as you suggest? As far as I know, he never established some such way of identification. Rather, he flat-out lied about there being scores of such spies within the federal government. I mean, maybe you'd prefer to get all artful and Clintonian about this--"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"--but to most objective observers, McCarthy was simply a liar. He said he had names that he didn't have. He said he had evidence that he didn't have. You say his motivations were "GOOD," but he slandered real human beings, your fellow Americans, with his lies. Do you feel the article should reflect this more clearly?—DCGeist 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

DCGeist, just go to Venona Project for enlightenment. McCarthy was far from a liar. Please focus on the "Significance" section of the article.Patriotintruth 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a satirist, right? I just about cracked up when I got to the part where we read "Among those identified are...Alger Hiss" with no citation afterward (oh, I know, there's that little squib section much lower down that's hardly any more informative). How about you read the Alger Hiss article that goes into detail about what the Venona cables actually suggest about Hiss, including both hints at his guilt and...oh gosh!...highly exculpatory evidence. As for the relevance (er...Significance!!) of all this to McCarthy, p-l-e-a-s-e. The Venona Project establishes that there was Soviet espionage in the U.S. Indeed. I never said or suggested there wasn't. Rather, I identified Joseph McCarthy as a liar because, you see, he told many big, whopping lies. Are you aware of just how many staunch anti-Communists believe that McCarthy deeply subverted the effectiveness of the anti-Communist cause with his lies? Are you aware of how many unequivocal conservatives identify McCarthy as a liar? You should do a little more reading yourself. Want a list?—DCGeist 22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You use the word "lying" too easily. There is no proof that he deliberately lied about anyone. Was he wrong about certain people. I'm sure he was. Did he have very good reason to be concerned and even paranoid about the infiltration of communist spies into our country? Absolutely. The Venona cables prove this. You cannot argue against it. I'm not speaking specifically to Alger Hiss. My original statement and point to you was, and is, that it is fact that we had Soviet spies everywhere. McCarthy was not a liar. Overexhuberant in some cases and even flat out wrong in others maybe, but that was some serious you know what at the time. It's akin to terrorist sleeper cells amongst us today. Sometimes good and innocent people are effected when confused for the enemy. Everyday,decent law abiding middle eastern people are stopped and searched at airports. I'm sure most of them understand that we can't be too careful and must look into everyone. What was he supposed to do? We were at war and the enemy was within our government and military. What else could he do if not investigations? Patriotintruth 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't use "lying" easily at all. It's a harsh word. But the harsh fact is that McCarthy was a big ol' liar. Hey, don't listen to me. Listen to conservative scholar and regular National Review contributor Arthur Herman. Explaining to the New York Times how his biography Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator "is a far cry from writing an apologia for McCarthy," he writes,

On the contrary, I constantly point out his many faults, blunders and vices, including his propensity for lying, his public vulgarity and nastiness, his recklessness in attacking political opponents like George Marshall, his drinking, his compulsive gambling, his lack of self-control, his tendency to what even friends described as a Christ complex and his compulsive propensity for offending people who might normally have been allies and supporters, including his Republican Senate colleagues. ("Are You Now . . . ?")

It's one thing for a private citizen to tell the occasional lie or two. It's quite another for a powerful public servant to have a "propensity for lying." (And for those who are thinking "This page isn't a bulletin board--it's for discussion of the article!" what do you think about including that very enlightening quote in either this entry or the one on J-Mac himself?) As for "What else could he do if not investigations?" I suppose you'd use a similar argument today: "What else can we do but torture?" That's swell logic, as long as you believe our credibility in the world's eyes and our own sense of honor and commitment to principle is utterly worthless. Well, tonight thank God it's them instead of you. Much love.—DCGeist 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All you've really done here is quote someone else calling him a liar. You've given me someone else's opinion. I asked for proof. I'm open to it but you haven't provided it. Where, specifically did he lie about any one individual's allegience to communism or involvment in espionage? BTW, "credibility in the world's eyes" is over-rated. Caring about what others think rather than what's in your country's own best interest is what gets you into trouble.Patriotintruth 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's all the proof in the world (not that, in fact, you ever "asked" for it). I was just starting off your reading list (it does help to actually read if you're honestly interested in the question of proof) with a scholar whom I thought you would find ideologically compatible. But as someone who dismisses honor and principle as not only worthless to adhere to but worthless of mention, you leave me at a loss. And you know, I always thought that betraying your own conscience (which, in our country's case, is embodied in the United States Constitution) is what gets you into real trouble.—DCGeist 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're really reaching now. You're right though, I wrote that incorrectly. I didn't ask for proof although I intended to and was waiting for you to provide it. You still haven't. Instead you insult my intelligence by sarcastically insinuating that I don't bother to read. You further impune my character by stating that I dismiss honor and principle as worthless. You must be a very intelligent and insightful person to be able to look into my mind and heart with such clarity after exchanging a few short paragraphs. You're not very nice. If you have proof I'll be happy to read it, otherwise i have no desire to be insulted. Happy & safe New Year to you.Patriotintruth 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Patriotintruth, of the many biographies of McCarthy, there is not a single one that doesn't give many documented examples of lies he has told. Since you seem to be unaware of this, it's a natural assumption that you haven't read much on the subject. KarlBunker 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, of all the books written about the late Senator, many of them make wholesale errors, lies, and distortions that are unprecedent in the world of biographies. Jtpaladin 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, even if that infantile fantasy was true, it wouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Per WP:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP articles are required by WP rules to reflect the consensus of recognized scholars in the field. You can believe that that consensus represents "wholesale errors, lies, and distortions" if you want to; it doesn't make any difference. You've been around WP long enough that you should be aware of this fact. RedSpruce 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For the definitive vindication of McCarthy, which cites actual public record documents available in the National Archives and the FBI archives, among others, read "Blacklisted by History - The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy" by M. Stanton Evans, (2007), published by Crown Forum, a division of Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-8105-9.

I will begin editing this entry soon, to reflect factual truths (with citations to the relevant public documents) that prove conclusively that a majority of information in this Wikipedia article is false, defamatory and unsubstantiated by fact, and in fact comprises little more than perpetuation of common Socialist propaganda presented to defame McCarthy and the many other patriots who fought against the very real attempts by Communists to infiltrate and harm our government, beginning as far back as 1933.

The true meaning of "McCarthyism" is not what McCarthy is falsely accused of doing to Communist spies, infiltrators and fellow travelers in our government in the 1950s, it's what was done TO HIM and his associates by his political and ideological enemies. Nearly all of the "recognized scholars" on McCarthy are ideological socialist fellow-travelers who have failed to do careful or credible research of the existing public records for their "scholarship," and who simply parrot populist propaganda of the time and accept as true without further investigation the statements of those who oppose or were accused by McCarthy, as Evans points out in refuting some of the more popular myths about McCarthy with actual facts, statements of the individuals drawn from their own writings, reference to committee hearings and reports, and examination of the actual source documents. Sethr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims

The article claims that at least 10,000 people lost their jobs under McCarthyism... but what jobs? We know that 300+ were lost in the Hollywood Blacklist. Are the rest government employees? Other entertainers? And how many were reviewed by the Senate/HUAC/FBI in all? 65.185.190.240 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article covers some of your questions: Blacklists were at work in universities and schools, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. Nearly three thousand seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to a port security program. As for how many were investigated by the Senate/HUAC/FBI in all, that's an interesting question. I don't recall ever seeing an estimate for such a total, but it must be out there somewhere. KarlBunker 10:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that McCarthy was not responsible for the Hollywood blacklists, university blacklists or anything but what he actually addressed, and in point of verifiable fact there were no "victims" of McCarthy because quite literally every single person he ever accused of having Communist affiliations or being a Communist spy was in fact guilty of the charges, as proven by the now-declassified FBI files and other official government records. McCarthy was right, and nearly everything said about him both then and now, is false, defamatory and libelous.

Using the term "McCarthyism" to refer to domestic security programs instituted by several different Administrations beginning as far back as 1933, or in reference to, for example, the House Unamerican Activities Committee is false and defamatory, because the facts show, based on historical evidence and newly-declassified documents, that the US government was being infiltrated by Communists, and that many of them held high-level positions in the military and particularly the State Department, which were the focus of McCarthy's inquiries. McCarthy was a SENATOR, and had nothing to do with either the House subcommittees or the Loyalty Boards. The anti-Communist policies affecting government employees were instituted by the President, and in some cases by laws created by Congress, not by Joe McCarthy. They were implemented to deal with a very real threat to the security of this nation, and McCarthy was primarily investigating the FAILURE of government officials to perform their mandated duty of vetting government employees for their possible Communist affiliations.

Whether people were unfairly removed from a job is a matter of opinion, and must always be viewed in the context of the times, which was the Cold War, and in light of the actual evidence of massive Communist infiltration of our government with maleficent intent and at the direction of Moscow. Sethr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethr (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit Dispute

Karl, your edit summary stating that this was “Not just an opinion of Schrecker's, but of every rational person on the planet” is an opinion, and not shared by everyone. While “every rational person on the planet” The contention that “the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.” Is not a universally recognized sentiment, considering the influential positions many of these people had as well as the well documented ties most had to Soviet/Comintern/CPUSA organs. The WAPO’s Nicholas Von Hoffman said that "point by point Joe McCarthy got it all wrong and yet was still closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him", and the London Observer said that historians who had vilified McCarthy for two generations "are now facing the unpleasant truth that he was right." To use Schreckers “opinion” (and is an opinion mind you) to make a factual claim is a violation POV. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

TDC -- This is not the Joseph McCarthy article; it's the McCarthyism article. The victims under discussion are not the few dozen that McCarthy investigated or accused, but the many thousands who lost their jobs or were otherwise victimized during the period known as "McCarthyism." It is the sheer number of victims that makes the statement correct--and essentially inarguable--as I wrote it. KarlBunker 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is still an opinion that you are trying to pass off as an indisputable fact, as many people, Arthur Herman, Harvey Klehr, and John Haynes for example, would argue that this was not an overreaction and most of the people blacklisted were in influential positions and had shown a propensity to act as Soviet puppets when their task master spoke. The list of “victim” under the disputed section illustrates this very well. Was Paul Robeson really a victim? While the CPUSA was being prosecuted under the Smith Act, Robeson was arguing that the SWP members also indicted under the Smith Act deserved their lynching. And do I really have to even touch on people like Seeger and DuBois? I would encourage you to read WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the scholars you mention, AFAIK, have ever argued that the blacklisting and firings of McCarthyism were not an overreaction. If you can show some reference that any of them--or any other serious scholar in the field--did, I'll withdraw my objection to your edit. And it is quite incorrect to say that "most of the people blacklisted were in influential positions and had shown a propensity to act as Soviet puppets." Even for those who fit that characterization, most of them were punished for actions or beliefs that were not illegal. KarlBunker 17:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cudgel ... " most of the people blacklisted were in influential positions and had shown a propensity to act as Soviet puppets when their task master spoke." McCarthyism is a huge field... Hayes & Klehr's polemics (yes, that's my personal take on their writings) paint a very broad brush. Precisely WHO do you have in mind when you use the "propensity to act as Soviet puppets when their task master spoke."? Harry Dexter White is--to the best of my knowledge--the furthest up on the food chain regarding such "doing Stalin's bidding" accusations. But the accusations just don't stick when you add in context that is entirely absent from (say) VENONA sources. Was White passing information to the Soviets? Very likely. And I also suspect he & others above him knew that keeping the Soviets happy with some back channel tidbits was a cheap price to pay in return for 50+ dead Russians for every dead American. DEddy 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

TDC, Historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, whom you mentioned, are the primary defenders of anticommunism among contemporary scholars. Here's an example of their take on McCarthyism:

"The unpopularity of the Vietnam War... was likely the largest factor in discrediting opposition to communism. Contributing as well, however, was a belated backlash against the excesses of McCarthyism, a moment when some conservatives had used anticommunism to bludgeon not just Communists and their sympathizers, but liberals, leftists, the Democratic Party and the New Deal heritage as well." From In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage, by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, page 14.

Arthur Herman isn't of much use in this debate, since his only major work related to McCarthyism is his defensive biography of Joseph McCarthy. At various points in that biography he points out that this or that action by McCarthy was no worse than that of some other anticommunist of the period. But at no point does he suggest that McCarthyism--using the word to describe the overall historical period--was fully justified, or anything other than excessive.

When an article makes a statement that represents the opinion of every notable scholar in the field, then that statement cannot validly be described as non-neutral. KarlBunker 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Joe was Right.

Why would you need to link the HUAC and the Hollywood Ten blacklisting to this article when McCarthy had nothing to do with either, The Hollywood Ten appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee the year Joe McCarthy was elected to the Senate in 1947, not the House of Representatives. Senator McCarthy did not begin his activities until 1950.

Strangely Wikipedia does not however link the page you have on the Venona Project Which proved McCarthy's assertions. The article makes it appear that Senator McCarthy was responsible for every misstep made by the Government during this time, when in fact he never falsely accused anyone. In point of fact, he was reluctant to give any names outside of congressional closed sessions, for fear of being wrong about a suspect and publicly accusing them. It was only after being pressed by the anti-McCarthy members that he revealed any names for the public record. It was the enemies of McCarthy that were responsible for any opression felt by the falsely accused.

The Venona Project was a bombshell that went largely ignored by the mainstream media that has for decades besmirched this man's Character. When it was made public in 1995, no articles were forthcoming with vindicating praise and posthumous apologies for Senator McCarthy, Indeed we just saw a major motion picture released, (Good Night and Good Luck), That continues to spread the myth of McCarthyism. It was not the average law abiding citizen that felt opressed during this time. It was the communists and communist sympathizers that feared the deeds they did in darkness would be discovered and punished. The average American supported Senator McCarthy, It was the liberals that hated him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha55an64 (talk • contribs)

Ha55an64, your comments are largely based on mistaking this article for a Joseph McCarthy article. That misunderstanding would have been cleared up if you had taken the time to read the first paragraph of this article. The misconception that the Venona Project "proved McCarthy's assertions" could be corrected by reading pretty much anything about either the Venona Project or Joseph McCarthy. KarlBunker 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker; uhmm , did you read the Venona Project article? Did you miss the section entitled "Significance"? It is fact that there were Soviet spies throughout our government,labor unions,Hollywood and other institutions. It's fact. Patriotintruth 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And, if I may add a word, why are you so against Communists anyways? Granted, the system hasn't worked all that well, but that doesn't make those who believe in it evil, merely idealistic. (unsigned, undated)

unsigned: the communist system is evil, therefore those who believe in it are either evil or foolishly naive useful idiots.Patriotintruth 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? Communism is an ideology that strives to make everyone happy. the problem is it gets hijacked all too often by dictators like Stalin and Mao.Communists are entitled to their own take on the world just like you and me. It's like you saying Islam is evil because Osama Bin Laden is Islamic Crimzon2283 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In view of the new book that has just come out (which I have also added to Secondary sources), I have added the following paragraph to the piece:

The controversy was launched again in November 2007, with the appearance of M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History (The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies), a 672-page book which, if Coulter is to be believed, "ends the argument on Joe McCarthy." According to her book review, the "true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government. … In the face of the Democrats' absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting." Asteriks 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're in the wrong article. See my response to your edit in Talk:Joseph McCarthy (which is the right article). RedSpruce 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am "in the wrong article"?! Are you trying to be funny?! M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History (The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies) is a book which belongs in both bibliographies. Or do you really mean to say that the expressions Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism are barely related; how would it belong only under Joseph McCarthy and not under McCarthyism — when the very title of the book is a direct allusion to the negative perception of the expression "McCarthyism" and (not or) to the manner in which (rightly or wrongly) this helped ruin the man's reputation?! As it is, I hope I am wrong when I say these references to the rules sound somewhat weasly. Indeed, you have taken the liberty of removing the entry from the bibliographies of both articles!! Agreed, an encyclopedia article has to be well protected. But let's not overdo the watchdog business: can we not somewhat trust a reader to make up his own mind, especially when only a title is being presented — and not even the author's ideas or arguments?! Having said that, when a 672-page (!) book can't even fit in a bibliography without being deleted — within a 20-minute time span (!) — one has trouble not getting the idea that there is some politically correct motivation lurking somewhere and that references to Wikipedia rules are merely a convenient way to cover for that. Asteriks (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Evans book is about McCarthy, not the broader topic of McCarthyism. And the purpose of this Talk page is to discuss the McCarthyism article, not for you to indulge in incoherent ramblings. RedSpruce (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

McCarthyism is indistinguishable from McCarthy himself, since the term is derived from the populist (and utterly false) idea that Communist-hunting in the 50s is a reprehensible violation of the civil rights of Communists infiltrating government, which is, at the core, little more than Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist disinformation and propaganda. The vast majority of this article is innuendo and propaganda with little actual fact or even reference to factual material. It is a compilation of leftist/Communist "scholarship" intended to perpetuate the Communist lie that Communism was never involved in, or alternatively was not a danger to, the political, economic, military and social interests of this nation. The influences and malfeasances of Communism are many and severe, and this whitewash of the facts needs significant revision and the injection of some neutrality and actual reference to actual facts rather than mythology and propaganda. And it's going to get it. As pointed out, Evans' tome is the definitive vindication of McCarthy, and therefore the definitive rebuttal of most of the claims of this article, including the very title "McCarthyism." To say that the truths of McCarthy's accusations, on a factual basis, are not relevant to this article is mendacious twaddle because it is the falsely alleged falsity of his accusations that is the derivation of the term "McCarthyism" itself. If McCarthy was right, and his claims and accusations are true, then the very term itself is propagandistic disinformation and libelous disparagement. And the fact is that McCarthy was 100 percent correct in every accusation he made, and if anything, "McCarthyism" describes what was DONE TO McCarthy and his associates, not what they, or anyone else involved in the loyalty programs of government did to alleged "victims." Sethr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethr (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Innocent victims"

From the article, in the section "Victims of McCarthyism": "It's difficult to estimate the number of innocent victims of McCarthyism." The trickiest part, of course, is the question of "innnocent of what"? While doubtless many people were caught up in the Second Red Scare net for no reason at all, the question of "innocence" or "guilt" largely comes down to whether one thinks that communism (and/or homosexuality) was, in fact, criminal. Thus, many of the names listed later in the section were (in my view) certainly innocent of any criminal activity, but were equally certainly CPUSA members at one time or another. Hence, this first sentence in the section is something of a non sequitur. - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this addresses your point, but after considering what you say, I've removed the word "innocent" from that sentence. It's obviously a subjective word, and some definitions of it clearly don't apply to all victims of McCarthyism. Some of them were convicted of crimes, so those individuals weren't "innocent" in a legal sense. KarlBunker 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of "victims" throughout the article is in and of itself bias and opinion. The term is relative. Couldn't you use something like "Those effected by McCarthyism" instead? This would be more neutral.Patriotintruth 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Several of the people listed as "victims" were in fact communists. Two leap off the page at me--Paul Robeson and Lillian Hellman.

It's hard to tell what "McCarthyism" really means. Does it mean talking about communism or does it mean falsely defaming a non-communist (possibly a liberal) as a communist? If that's the case, then McCarthyism can never be deployed against an actual communist, as McCarthyism is, by definition, the smearing of non-communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.100.213 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So many people were accused of being communists during the McCarthy Era that they were bound to get one or two right, simply on the law of averages. Still, the evidence of Robeson as a communist is scanty. But the biffer problem is that McCartyism is based on the assumption that if you are a communist then you are automatically disloyal to the US. Remember that being a communist is not the same as being a supporter of the Soviet brand of communism, and that the US was allegedly a place where you were free to hold whatever political views you liked. If another country did what McCarthy did (for example by saying "if you don't support Islamic Law then you are being disloyal to the country") then the US would be the first to condemn it.

McCarthyism is pretty well defined in the article, but if you want the short version it's "accusing people of disloyalty simply because of their political views". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I'm still confused. Accusing people of disloyalty because of disloyal views? I'm sure that he got more than "one or two" right. I'm not familiar with all of the names. All I'm saying is that a communist cannot be falsely accused or "smeared" of being a communist. So, here we go again. McCarthy's "victims" used to be "victims" because they were smeared. Now they're victims because people told the truth about them and implied disloyalty ot the country. But, weren't they? I can't say I've ever met a communist in my life who didn't hate the United States with a burning desire. (And yes, I have met self-described communists).

Keep in mind that the US was in the middle of a cold war (and a hot war in Korea) with communist forces. To say that they were disloyal to the United States is not much a of stretch. It would be like being in the Middle of World War II and being accused of disloyalty to the US simply becaue one is a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party.

It's really hard to get my mind around what McCarthyism is because it keeps changing. I've come to believe that it's a meaningless word that liberals/leftists start shouting whenever they get caught doing something they're not supposed to be doing (ie sexual McCarthyism, etc).

When I went through school, I was taught that Sen. McCarthy was really bad because he knowingly accussed people of being communists who were not, in fact, communists. They were patroiotic, America-loving liberals, and strongly anti-communist in the liberal tradition. And he did all of this for the benefit of his political career. Now the definition seems to have changed. Now it doesn't matter if the so-called victims really were communists. Sounds fishy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.134.177 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'd also take issue with the assertion that there is "scant" evidence that Paul Robeson was a communist. Even Wikipedia has a page called "Paul Robeson and Communism". Though he's never been found to have carried a membership card, he did just about everything else he could do to support the communist cause. It's p-retty lengthy, and I won't include it all here. Nonetheless, it's not "scant". Hergo, Paul Robeson could not possibly be an innocent victim of McCarthyism. He was one of Stalin's cheerleaders in America and deserves all the suspicion of disloyalty he received, and then some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.134.177 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is not the place to debate about McCarthyism, and this has nothing to do with the article. And I'm not very inclined to try and have a serious discussion with you when you deliberately misquote me. I said "accusing people of disloyalty simply because of their political views" and you turned that into "accusing people of disloyalty because of disloyal views". Robeson, you might remember was being treated as a second class citizen because of his colour (in a country that called itself "the land of freedom"). Are you surprised that he looked favourably on a country that treated him as a equal? As for "I can't say I've ever met a communist in my life who didn't hate the United States with a burning desire" then you're clearly trolling. If you've really never heard of most of the people mentioned in the article then you're not well informed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"This page is not the place to debate about McCarthyism, and this has nothing to do with the article." Okay, you just lost all credibility there. The title of the article is McCarthyism. If it's not okay to discuss McCarthyism in the McCarthyism article, I don't know where it is okay. I came to this article because I was using it as a quick reference for a project I am working on. I was confounded by the lack of a clear definition of what McCarthyism is. Now that I've asked questions, I've been accused of "trolling". All I'm saying is that true communists cannot be victims of being smeared as communists. Considering the fact that true communists such as Hellman and Robeson are on the list, is it possible that the term McCarthyism lacks any real meaning? (by the way, it's articles like these that give Wikipedia a reputation for a leftward bent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.134.177 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This page (like all talk pages on Wikipedia) is for discussion improvements to the article, not for general discussions of the subject. The article contains a definition: "reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries". If you are looking for another definition try here.

Your problem though is probably that you were taught McCarthy "accussed people of being communists who were not, in fact, communists". In fact the trouble with McCarthy was that he accused people of disloyalty because they held particular political views, in a country that allegedly allows people to hold whatever views they like. It's the accusation of disloyalty that is the problem. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy did not "accuse people of disloyalty," he accused people of Communist affiliations or spying for the Soviet Union or Red China. It was Congress and the President(s) (Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower) who set up the Loyalty Boards and enacted laws declaring Communism to be a seditious ideology and making membership in Communist or Communist-front organizations unlawful and a disqualifier for service in government. McCarthy was merely trying to uphold the law and was primarily investigating the failure of government functionaries to properly fulfill their duty under the laws duly passed by Congress to investigate the loyalty of government employees and remove from public service those with affiliations with Communist organizations or ideology, because both Congress and three different Administrations saw such Communist infiltration as a threat to national security, which happens to be the actual, factual case, based on lately-declassified showing the extent of Soviet and Communist penetration of our government and secure military installations. Many of our most closely-held secrets, including atomic secrets, were funneled to the Soviets by spies in our government, and Communists penetrated the highest levels, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was a member of the Communist Party, known to the FBI as such as early as 1942. Sethr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethr (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So were there actual Communists at work against the US?

There's no mention in the article's intro about that. Even a very liberal writer such as Joshua Marshall noted,

"No doubt, the new materials streaming forth from Soviet and American archives have closed the books on a number of the perennial historical debates about the early Cold War. The so-called Venona intercepts—recently declassified transcripts of decoded Soviet espionage transmissions from the mid-1940s—clearly demonstrate the reality of Soviet espionage in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. These and other new materials also show that the Com munist Party of the United States (CP USA) was substantially funded by the Soviet Union, and that it was, at least at its upper levels, consistently controlled from Moscow. For some on the left who never fully accepted these realities, such revelations have occasioned a deep anguish. Responding to the release of the Venona material in the Nation in 1995, for instance, longtime Julius and Ethel Rosenberg defenders Walter and Miriam Schneir wrote that the documents contained "so much amazing, sad, disturbing material, one hardly knows where to begin," and they reluctantly concluded that at least Julius Rosenberg had indeed run a spy ring that transferred material to the Soviets.[1]

To me the article seems focused only on the baseless accusations and character assassination. Was there any basis in truth for what McCarthy thought? (Just asking. I am not an expert on this by any means). Kaisershatner 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, since McCarthyism is essentially defined as "baseless accusations and character assassination," it makes sense for the article to focus on that topic. On the other hand, I agree that the article should pay more attention the actual communist espionage and and infiltration that was discovered during the period, since those revelations, few though they were, formed part of the driving force behind McCarthyism. KarlBunker 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If what you are stating is correct, then I think either the article needs to be broadened or Second Red Scare shouldn't redirect here. Essentially, McCarthyism as the term above isn't exactly synonymous with that historical period, no? Kaisershatner 22:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was being somewhat glib in defining McCarthyism as I did above. It would be more correct to say that it was a historical period noted for its baseless accusations and character assassinations. Every book I've read on the subject treats "McCarthyism" and "the second red scare" as synonymous. KarlBunker 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Original Research

What's the deal with this para:

Though the interpretation of the Red Scare might seem to be of only historical interest following the end of the Cold War, the political divisions it created in the United States continue to manifest themselves, and the politics and history of anti-Communism in the United States are still contentious. One source of controversy is that repressive actions taken against the radical left during the McCarthy period are viewed as providing a historical template for similar actions against Muslims following the September 11th terrorist attacks. This analogy has been made explicit both by left-wing opponents of such actions (such as the American Civil Liberties Union) and right-wing proponents (such as Ann Coulter) alike. The guilt, innocence, and good or bad intentions of the icons of the Red Scare (McCarthy, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, Elia Kazan) are still discussed as proxies for the imputed virtues or vices of their successors and sympathizers. See historical revisionism.

Exactly what "similar actions against Muslims following the September 11th terrorist attacks" are we discussing here? Kaisershatner 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that paragraph, but I kind of like it. OTOH, it's arguable that there are problems with it. On the third hand, saying that McCarthyism is "viewed as providing a historical template for similar actions against Muslims" is not the same as saying that similar actions have been taken against Muslims. KarlBunker 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but if such actions didn't occur, then isn't it like saying "McCarthyism is...a template for similar actions against Martians, Haitians, Eskimos, Jews, whatever." And I do think the para is in fact asserting "similar actions" did occur after 9/11. Kaisershatner 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. But even if few or no "actions" directly comparable to actions of McCarthyism have occurred, certainly there has been some anti-Muslim paranoia since 9/11, and comparisons can be drawn between this and the anti-communist paranoia of McCarthyism. And it's certainly true that various people have made various such comparisons (see External links 2, 3 and 4). Personally, I'm not feeling too enthused about taking the trouble to improve that paragraph, and I guess I wouldn't object to it being deleted. Let's wait a while to see if anyone else chimes in, though. KarlBunker 18:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok on the waiting period. Also FWIW I googled McCarthyism and 9/11 and there is a fair amount of accusations of McCarthyism by the Bush Administration et al., so far exclusively from the left and the Nation of Islam. That might be worth including in lieu of what we have now. Although I doubt we will be able to source the point made by the current para, we can certainly source usage of the term McCarthyism & accusations of same in the current political context.Kaisershatner 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This para is an obvious political attempt to paint muslims as victims of prejudice. That is the true motivation for this paragraph. Why on earth would an encyclopedia entry need a contemporary comparison? Do we have a contemporary comparision for the Sabre-Tooth Tiger Entry? ...or The Luddites? The renaissance? etc. etc. etc. etc.

The fact is that President Bush has visited the Washington DC mosque THREE times. No president since Eisenhower has visited even once. Muslim political organizations such as CAIR are involved in advising on airport screening procedures. Federal employees involved in aviation security are forced to take compulsory muslim sensitivity courses, as are the FBI and counter terrorism officials.

The US government and society in general has gone to great lengths to make muslims feel comfortable even though their co-religionists committed the only attack on mainland America in US history. President Bush has also stated publicity that Islam is a great religion. Hardly McCarthyism is it?

Show me where Muslims have been officially blacklisted? This para is a joke. It's politically motivated and it needs to be deleted. Can someone show intellectual integrity and remove? Thank you. Oct 6, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.238.131 (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have reviewed the article according to the GA criteria. There are several things that should be fixed before I'll pass the article as a GA.

1. At the footnotes section, you can abbreviate some of the notes instead of rewriting the title of the book over and over again. Just include the author's name and page number. Look to other GA/FAs for examples.
2. This is just a side note, but if you can, fix the cite templates in edit mode by removing the spaces to condense them down into a few lines, rather than taking up large blocks of space. This will make it easier for other edits to edit specific sections.
3. ("Laters" trimmed; lead seems sufficient length given length of actual prose size per WP:Lead (total editable KB size unusually long given notes, sources, etc.)) "Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts that would later be overturned,[2] laws that would later be declared unconstitutional,[3] dismissals for reasons that would be later declared illegal[4] or actionable,[5] or extra-legal procedures that would later come into general disrepute." Remove some of the "later"s in this statement. If possible, extend the lead another paragraph or so to conform to WP:Lead.
4. (Fixed) Image:Herblock1950.jpg needs a fair use rationale.
5. (Fixed) Add wikilinks for: Joseph McCarthy (in the first section, in case people bypass the intro), Wheeling, West Virginia (Origins of McCarthyism), Truman and Eisenhower (Loyalty-security reviews; also include their first names), Supreme Court (J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI), subpoena, actors, directors, screenwriters (HUAC), Card catalogs, dentist (Senate Committees), Moscow (Views of Communists), affidavits, Air Force (Critical reactions), & CBS Radio (The decline of McCarthyism).
6. (Fixed) "The Soviet Union exploded an atomic bomb in 1949, earlier than many analysts had expected." Perhaps include detail saying it was for a test, just so readers don't worry about if they were attacking another country or something.
7. (Fixed) "Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were arrested on charges of stealing Atomic bomb secrets for the Soviets on July 17 and later executed." Atomic doesn't have to be capitalized.
8. (Fixed) "...and saw the New Deal as evidence that the government had been heavily influenced by Communist policy-makers in the Roosevelt administration.[9] [10]" Remove the space between 9 and 10.
9. (Fixed) Make sure to wikilink all full dates, such as February 9, 1950 & November 25, 1947.
10. (Fixed) "Once a person lost a job due to an unfavorable loyalty review, it could be very difficult to find other employment "A man is ruined everywhere and forever," in the words of the chairman of President Truman's Loyalty Review Board." Add a period after employement.
11. (Fixed) "Additionally, from 1951 to 1955 the FBI operated a secret "Responsibilities Program" which distributed..." I could be wrong, but I think a comma goes after 1955; ignore if I'm incorrect.
12. (Fixed) In the HUAC section, the Hollywood Ten link does not go to the section you want, but just the page. Fix it so it does that. Also consider breaking up the large paragraph into two if possible.
13. (Fixed) In the Laws and arrests section, start one of the paragraphs off with "Another piece of legislation" or something to that effect, as leading most of them with "The" gets kind of repetitive.
14. (Fixed) Image:Unholy three.png needs a fair use rationale.
15. (Fixed) In the Popular support for McCarthyism section, unfavouralbe should be spelled as unfavorable since this topic is based on an American topic.
16. (Fixed) In the Victims of McCarthyism section, the columns are uneven, move one of the names over to the center column.
17. (Fixed) "Elmer Davis, one of the most highly respected news reporters and commentators of the forties and fifties,"..." Change it to 1940s and 1950s. '
18. (Fixed) In the Continuing controversy section, "See historical revisionism." is placed at the end of the paragraph. Use the main article template at the top of the heading or incoprorate it into the sentence better.

Add inline citations for:

1. (Fixed) McCarthy is quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department."
2. (Fixed) The office of this organization was burglarized by the FBI at least fourteen times between 1947 and 1951.
3. (Fixed) Thus many faced a choice between "crawl[ing] through the mud to be an informer," as actor Larry Parks put it, or becoming known as a "Fifth Amendment Communist,"--an epithet often used by Senator McCarthy.
4. (Fixed) Welch famously rebuked McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Altogether an excellent article that just needs some quick changes before I pass it as a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days and at the end of that period will fail the article where you can later resubmit it to GAC. Good job so far and if you have any questions or when you finish, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to other editors: I don't personally plan on fixing all of these items, but for the sake of keeping track of things I'll tag the ones I do fix by prepending (Fixed) to the item in the list above. Thanks to Nehrams2020 for a thorough review! KarlBunker 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job on fixing the above suggestions. I'd recommend you have some other outside readers review the article through a peer review and then take the article to FAC. It's an interesting read with sufficient images and plenty of sources. Make sure any new information that is added is properly sourced and verifiable. If you get the chance, please consider helping with the GAC backlog by reviewing an article or two. Good work on continuing to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor Gouzenko addition

I fail to see why my small revision (below) regarding Gouzenko keeps getting knocked off.

Though the Igor Gouzenko affair raised the issue of Soviet espionage as far back as 1945, 1950 saw several significant developments regarding Soviet espionage activities.

This is a a history of McCarthyism, not just of McCarthy, hence:

"McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone.

The historical period known as McCarthyism began well before Joseph McCarthy's own involvement in it.

(From the Wiki article)

Therefore, adding a small comment about Gouzenko seems reasonable to me, other than it bruises someone's ego that they didn't write it. To say it doesn't have much to do McCarthy is rather strange. Here's the intro to Amy Wight's recent history on Gouzenko:

Gouzenko's defection sent shockwaves through Washington, London, Moscow, and Ottawa. It was the first from a Soviet Embassy, and the smuggled documents, which suggested that agents in North America were feeding atomic secrets to Moscow, sparked a witch-hunt for spies, including not only Americans and Canadians, but a leading British nuclear scientist, Allan Nunn May.

FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover used Gouzenko's defection to demonize the Soviets and discredit the leftists in President Harry Truman's White House. All he had needed to push his agenda was evidence of spying, and Gouzenko delivered the goods. The FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee used Gouzenko's revelations to go after Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and many others. And all the while, infamous MI-5 double-agent Kim Philby kept his Soviet masters apprised. The Cold War had truly begun.

There are dozens of other more direct citations I could give, though I really don't have the time. If this is a pissing contest (as Wiki critics so often contend), I'll let the biggest pisser win. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grapeman (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The reason for the RV edit was given in the edit summary: Gouzenko was no more notable than Chambers or Bentley, and they aren't mentioned in this context. If you have the time to type 300 words supporting your edit, with attendant insults, obscenity and inaccuracies (no one said "it doesn't have much to do McCarthy"), you should have had time to read those 16 words. As you wrote it, your edit was inaccurate, since it stated that there was something uniquely important about the Gouzenko case. In fact, Bentley and Chambers were at least equally important in the same time frame and in this context. If mention of Gouzenko is going to be added to the section, then logically Bentley and Chambers would have to be mentioned there as well. Such an addition--mentioning all three defectors--may in fact be worthwhile, but it wouldn't fit into the current structure of the paragraph you were adding Gouzenko to, since that paragraph is about "events in 1949 and 1950". For the time being, I decided that incorporating that material wasn't worth the effort. RedSpruce 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you weren't reading my addition closely either. My new phrase does not say nor infer there is something "uniquely important about the Gouzenko case". My addition is a subordinate clause that clarifies that Soviet espionage predates 1950, though 1950 saw many significant developments. Gouzenko happens to be one of the first celebrated cases (Sept. 1945) of post-war espionage, and thus one of the first major espionage cases that contributed greatly to the McCarthyism of the late 1940s. If you want to add Bentley, by all means. Given that the section is about the history of McCarthyism, and McCarthyism starts before 1950 (as the section introduces), I fail to see how adding this is inappropriate. Grapeman

To insert mention of a case is to state that there is something important about it. To exclude mention of comparable cases is to state that this importance is unique. Since that uniqueness is incorrect, the edit was inappropriate. But you're correct that these pre-1950 espionage cases had some importance to McCarthyism, so I'll probably add mention of them. It just has to be done in a way that doesn't incorrectly over-stress the importance of a single such case. RedSpruce 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To insert mention of a case is to state that there is something important about it. To exclude mention of comparable cases is to state that this importance is unique. It doesn't infer it's uniquely important other than its chronological point in time.

It just has to be done in a way that doesn't incorrectly over-stress the importance of a single such case. Then add others from the chronological order who you feel are important, rather than dump the whole thing because you don't believe it pertains to a history that predates 1950. I think dumping something that was added in good faith to expand on the introduction, without a proper explanation in the Discussion page, is extremely rude and an example of Wiki-bullying that so many decry. That's why I felt I had to write 300 words about it. This really detracts from the idea of open-source knowledge. Please add and improve, just don't arbitrarily dump!Grapeman

Ok, now that I've beat my drums, why don't we try the following:

Though the Igor Gouzenko and Elizabeth Bentley affairs raised the issue of Soviet espionage as far back as 1945, 1950 saw several significant developments regarding Soviet Cold War espionage activities. Grapeman

Your comments are still based upon pointedly ignoring what I said (even while you copy and paste what I said), but I like the edit and have added it.

BTW, sign your comments with 4 tildes, like it says at the top of the "Editing Talk" page. That way your comment will be date-stamped.RedSpruce 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, one person's "ignore" is another person's "disagree". The point I was trying to make, however imperfectly, was to expand the timeline of the effect of Soviet espionage on McCarthyism, which the phrase "as far back as" implies. Since Gouzenko was indeed the first post-war spy to renew the fears of Communism (predating Bentley both in terms of when he spilled his secrets and when he became widely known by the North American public), I brought the timeline to him. It's a chronological issue, not an evaluative one. But Bentley is indeed critical, not only for her secrets but also because she gave the pre-war spy, Chambers, a boost of credibility, as his Wiki article indicates. Since Bentley's also an important figure in 1945, like Gouzenko, I'm glad she's included. Grapeman (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I have re-written the lead paragraphs, as the previous version was cumbersome and addressed an era rather than the term "McCarthyism" in it's common usage. There is a battle royal between points of view on this topic, and it is time to move it toward neutrality. The revisions I have made move in that direction. It acknowledges the deep negativity associated with the term - and why, and also holds out the possibility that those negative associations may be unfounded in light of recent revelations - al though it does not in reality effect the use of the term.

The lead paragraphs introducing a topic should be able to stand alone as a snap-shot of the topic. The previous lead paragraph simply tried to cram in too much historical background without leaving the reader with a clear idea of what the term stands for. On it's own, it does not explain the term McCarthyism" as it is used, or how it came to be used in such a way.

This change is necessary. If someone can re-write it better, fine by me, but a re-write is most definitely in order. VanBrigglePottery 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: The term "McCarthyism" by itself does not describe en era. There is certainly an "Era of McCarthyism," but an understanding of the term requires a focus FIRST on the connotations in it's usage, THEN a history of how it came about. The previous lead skipped over the term and focused on the era. That is my main objection to the previous lead. It's akin to an article about oranges leaping directly into the history of the fruit without describing what the fruit is. VanBrigglePottery 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about "McCarthyism" as a word in the English language. It's about the period of history known as McCarthyism. In this sense, it is in keeping with all the published books on the subject of McCarthyism that I'm aware of. If you know of any exceptions to this, please cite them. The differences between your introduction and the prior one aren't huge, but your version is confusing, since it focuses on the word as a word, and that isn't what the article is about. The history of the word is perhaps an interesting subject (as is the history of any word), and it's dealt with briefly in the prior introduction and the section "Current use of the term."

You make reference above to a "battle royal between points of view on this topic," and suggest that your intro is more neutral. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean there. What topic are you referring to, and how is your intro more neutral? As noted above, I simply think that your intro is incorrect, since it focusses on something that isn't the subject of this article. RedSpruce 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I feel it is simply mistaken. This article is about McCarthyism. "McCarthyism" is not an era. Period. That is simply not correct use of the language. Refer to the Mariam Webster definition. McCarthyism is an ATTITUDE resulting in indiscriminate allegations. "McCarthyism" is NOT an era. The attitudes and resulting actions which gave rise to the term took place from 1940- to 1950. The author of the original lead confused a limited ERA with the term and it's meaning and usage (which is the purpose of this article). Perhaps a disambiguation is in order, citing an ERA which is related topic, but not the main topic. Revision of the lead is CERTAINLY in order. VanBrigglePottery 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the McCarthy Era is not appropriate in this article. The HISTORY of McCarthyism is certainly appropriate to frame the history of the term, but the lead paragraph should address the SUBJECT of the article, not leap directly to complex historical minutiae. Again, it is akin to a lead paragraph of an article on "X" completely ignoring WHAT X IS, in favor of describing convoluted historical controversies around it. There is a LOGICAL progression that must be followed. VanBrigglePottery 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Further:

COMPARE:

McCarthy Era: mid-century period noted for extreme anti-communist attitudes and resulting perhaps reckless attempts to minimize communist infiltration of government and influence on society.

McCarthyism: An attitude resulting in reckless, mostly unwarranted accusations or attacks upon persons for political reasons.

Is this article entitled, "McCarthy Era" or is it entitled, "McCarthyism?"

Please read and understand the use of the suffix -ISM in the English language.

A full understanding of the term "McCarthyism" does indeed involve a full explanation of the era which birthed the term. However, before such history can be spelled out, the TERM and it's MEANING must be addressed. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Define McCarthyism FIRST, then give the history.

You are contradicting yourself on this mater in this very discussion page. One moment you say that Vietnam and 9-11 qualify as eras of "McCarthyism" yet you now maintain that the term is limited to 20 years in the mid-century.

I agree with you that Vietnam and 9-11 qualify as mentionable McCarthyism notations - because the TERM IS NOT LIMITED TO AN ERA. It is still in use, and being applied in contexts completely removed from the Cold War.

Let's keep the HORSE before the cart, shall we? Address the SUBJECT (McCarthyism), and then give the history (McCarthy Era). That is simply the way it is done. VanBrigglePottery 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's of course correct that "McCarthyism" doesn't refer solely to a period of history. The best description of the situation would be to say that it has two definitions: 1) Certain political practices that occurred during a specific historical period, and 2) Similar practices, occurring at any time since that period.

Here's the Oxford Dictionary's definition of McCarthyism:

a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the U.S. government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.

• figurative: any similar practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations

This doesn't contradict the Webster definition, but it's more complete and clear.

Another instructive reference is a search for books that include "McCarthyism" in the title: See here and here. The usage is mixed; some authors are using the word by itself to refer to practices during a historical period (in particular Schrecker's Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, widely considered the most significant recent title on the subject), others clarify the word by referring to "the age of McCarthyism" or similar constructions. Only a few (such as Dershowitz's Sexual McCarthyism: Clinton, Starr, and the Emerging Constitutional Crisis) use the term "figuratively" (as Oxford describes this usage), referring to political practices outside of the historical period. (In many of these books, it's impossible to tell from the title alone how the word is being used; I happen to be familiar with quite a few of these books, and in all cases I know of, when a book can be described as being "about McCarthyism" the word is describing the political practices solely during the historical period.)

One thing that isn't unclear in all of this is the subject matter of this Wikipedia article. It's an article about the repressive practices during the historical period known as McCarthyism, with an included brief discussion of the term's more general use. Thus, your current introduction doesn't reflect the content of the article as well as the previous one did.

I think it might be a good improvement to the article to add something to the intro that clarifies that the article is primarily about the historical period. Unfortunately, re-titling the article to "McCarthy Era" would be less correct than the current title, since (as the article notes) the period of McCarthyism was by no means tied to the brief span of Joseph McCarthy's career. It has also been suggested that this article be retitled "The Second Red Scare." Unfortunately again, that term isn't used nearly as often as "McCarthyism." A Library of Congress search finds no books with "Second Red Scare" in the title. "McCarthyism is an imperfect word for the subject of this article, but it's the only one that history and historians have given us.

RedSpruce 20:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Karl, I think you are confused about the primary subject. McCarthyism and McCarthy Era are not interchangeable worlds OR concepts. Related, yes. Interchangeable, no. Repeatedly stating your opinion that a Wiki article about McCarthyism is in fact about the McCarthy Era does not make your opinion fact.

I like DCGeist's revision of my edit. It wraps it into a single paragraph. The only change I would add to his revision is to add "alleged" smear tactics. There was smearing aplenty coming from both sides of the political debate, and while those allegations delivered by McCarthy himself are part and parcel of the popular meaning of McCarthyism, I think fairness dictates that in a modern academic examination, we take into account the reality that the period's politically motivated demonizing of McCarthy involved equally reckless character assassination.

So, lets try to put a halt to the political spin, shall we? I'm not even going to raise a stink about DCGeist removing the lead paragraph reference to McCarthy's possible vindication resulting from Venona. I would LIKE it to be there, but it is secondary to the ACTIVE meaning of the term, and is dealt with exhaustively later in the article. So, I'm fine with it.

SEE? We CAN compromise and strive for fairness and academic neutrality. VanBrigglePottery 21:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I spoke too soon about endorsing DC's edit. What started out as a good thing devolved wuickly over subsequent edits into yet another leftist diatribe that does not even attempt to present unbiased perspectives on McCarthyism.

Hint: regurgitating absurd hype and hyperbole of that era FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL AISLE does not make it a fact. Popular perceptions of fact are often proven mistaken. Blanketly endorsing a narrow and controversial POV from the past does not rise to the level of presenting "fact" or history. VanBrigglePottery 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh. You can't be objecting to the historically precise explanation of the word's coinage by Block, so your problem must be with the addition of the word "demagogic" to the first sentence. But that's (a) a necessary historical clarifier--McCarthyism doesn't describe all activities associated with anti-Communist suspicion, just the demagogic ones; and (b) entirely in line with the Merriam-Webster's definition. You might choose to regard many of McCarthy's tactics as nondemagogic, but that doesn't have much to do with what the word "McCarthyism" means.—DCGeist 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can and DO object to your unattributed use of the term "to criticize the smear tactics employed by" McCarthy. You are presenting the accusation as fact. It is not a fact, it is an opinion, and thus it is appropriate to insert a modifier to reflect that. "Alleged smear tactics" would work, but I think "perceived smear tactics" is more accurate. The "smear tactic" accusation may be true, and then again it may be untrue. Ours is not to lend one or the other opinion in the controversy undue weight at the expense of the other. Certainly not to decide FOR THE READER what is fact and what is opinion based on OUR political view. Let the reader decide. Simple enough concept. More accurately, it could be stated that the cartoon in question "portrayed McCarthy's campaign as a tar job, indicated by an unstable tower of tar buckets." I'll leave that fine tuning up to you.

I do agree that more detail on the content of the Block cartoon and the OPINION it represented is good - it is the genesis of the term. I strongly disagree with the cartoonist's opinion, but my opinion (and yours) is irrelevant to the article. That is another simple enough concept that some editors hereabouts don't seem to grasp. VanBrigglePottery 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

VanBrigglePottery 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As you should know from your own reference to Merrriam-Webster's, one of the "chief" characteristics of McCarthyism is "the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges." In other words, "demagogic activities"--a perfectly neutral summary paraphrase.—DCGeist 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You anticipated it because you knew you were pushsing your leftist agenda - AGAIN.

Your first reference to demagoguery ascribes ulterior MOTIVES to people you never met. The prima facie campaign of the anti-Communists was to root out spies and sympathizers. If you have credible sources whose opinion is that they held ulterior motives, then by all means CITE THEM in the body of the article. Leave htat OPINION out of the lead as a statement of fact.

Express your political opinion HERE - LEAVE IT OUT OF THE ARTICLE! VanBrigglePottery 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I left - as I originally did - your LATER reference to demagoguery. In modern usage, that is probably part of the package. However, you simply cannot ascribe motives to past historical figures, and state it as fact - just because the whim strikes you.

I think we've made some SIGNIFICANT improvements to a seriously flawed lead paragraph. It now addresses the more accurate subject: The ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES which spawned and currently define McCarthyism, rather than a range of dates on a calendar.

Let's not ruin it with partisan bickering. STAY NEUTRAL!!! CHECK YOUR IDEOLOGICAL AFFILIATION AT THE DOOR! VanBrigglePottery 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DC - Your continued insistance on inserting inflammatory OPINION on the motives of historical figures is gross abuse of Wikipedia's editing priviledges.

Your repeated attempt to ascribe MOTIVES and declare your partisan opinion of such motives as fact is tiresome demagoguery, and verging on VANDALISM - In future edits, I will label it as such. VanBrigglePottery 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

VanBrigglePottery, I wish you would use consistent indenting in your comments. Other than that...

1. Stop attacking what you believe to be the politics of other editors; this isn't helpful and is against the Wikipedia rule of WP:No Personal Attacks. Incorrectly labeling edits "vandalism" because you disagree with them is also a personal attack, and is not allowed under WP rules.
2. That McCarthyism and McCarthy Era are used largely interchangeable is not my opinion. It's a fact which I have supported with references above. If you believe they shouldn't be used interchangeably, you'll have to take that up with the authors of numerous books on the subject.
3. It is Wikipedia policy that articles should reflect the consensus opinion of scholars in the field. This doesn't always correspond with blind, "let the reader decide" neutrality. It is the universal opinion of all serious scholars in the field that McCarthyism was characterized by grotesque excesses of intolerance, repression, smear tactics and demagoguery. The article and its introduction have to reflect this consensus.
4. If you're unaware of it, please take note of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.
5. The key point here is Wikipedia's requirement that "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." See WP:Attribution. If you want to continue this discussion in a meaningful way, please support your arguments with citations that show an applicable consensus view among reliable sources.

RedSpruce 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable!! How can one claim that what 'univeral scholars' in the field matter more than what the readers think? PLEASE!!!! That should not be an excuse for putting it in the article. You also contradicted your own points. The 'supposed dangers of a communist takeover' in the caption for the photo is POV big time especially when compared to 'smear tactics, etc.al' used in the beginning paragraph. This is plain opinion and as a result the neutrality of the article should be disputed. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

YankeeRoman, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but you appear to be arguing with Wikipedia rules. This isn't a good place to do that, since it's unlikely that anyone reading this has the power to change the rules. RedSpruce 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

A series of personal attacks have been made here and are now removed, per WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments. Please take note of WP:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable and especially of the fact that Talk pages are for the discussion of the article. If you're going to add a comment, it should have some connection with the article subject, and should not consist solely of your opinions or fantasies about an editor. RedSpruce 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and perhaps you should take your own advice when you personally attacked me regarding the William Remington article. Jtpaladin 17:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

205 vs. 57 names

Concerning this statement in the article:

He produced a piece of paper which he claimed contained a list of known Communists working for the State Department. McCarthy is usually quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."

I see the source for this statement is neither the Congressional Record nor the actual speech made by Senator McCarthy at Wheeling. If either one of the sources is examined, it's obvious that the Senator used the number 57.

He actually stated:

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."[[2]]

According to the Congressional Record, the number 57 is also confirmed. See "Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-51"

Is there any primary source that states otherwise? Jtpaladin 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The text that was entered into the congressional record was not his actual Wheeling speech. There is no existing record of the actual speech. The large majority the reliable sources on this subject state that the number he originally gave was probably 205. I'm not aware of any reliable scholarly source that accepts McCarthy's later contention that he used the number 57 in Wheeling. RedSpruce 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So hearsay trumps official congressional documentation now, eh? Sorry but that's not how encyclopedias work. Akulkis (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but multiple reliable secondary sources trump the single obviously non-reliable source of McCarthy himself. Sorry, but that's how this encyclopedia works. RedSpruce (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Supposed dangers of a communist takeover"

Thats in the caption for the photo. How does one remove such biast stuff? This isn't supposed dangers at all. RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Disputed Neutrality

This page needs a neutrality disputed tag put on it, and it shall remain there until all of the politically motivated OPINION and NPOV violations are removed. Akulkis (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Buh-bye now.—DCGeist (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that, Akulkis. Simply saying that there are problems isn't useful. You need to document that some statement in the article is contrary to the majority view of reliable sources in the field. RedSpruce (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS in Lead paragraph

"McCarthyism is the term describing a period of... " since when did McCarthyism become a unit of time, or a point in time?

The lead paragraph is describing the Second Red Scare, not the subject. Unfortunately, we have too many people on here trying to use Wikipedia for further propagation of 50-years of propaganda. Akulkis (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A review of published works on the topic will show you that "second red scare" and "McCarthyism" are generally used synonymously. It's certainly true that McCarthyism is also used with a broader meaning, but I think the article is clear about this. If you have some documentation that the article is misusing the word, please present it. RedSpruce (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the statement in the lead makes McCarthyism a unit of time. The full sentence reads:

McCarthyism is the term describing a period of intense anti-communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s.

It doesn't say ""McCarthyism is a period of...". However, one might sensibly change the sentence in question into sth like this:

McCarthyism is a term describing the intense anti-communist suspicion in the United States in a period that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s.

In fact, I'll do that.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"communism" vs "Communism"

The article had capitalized "Communism" (but not "socialism") in a lot of places where I see no good reason for it. I've decapitalized all the instances where I see no reason for capitals, but leaving e.g. "Communist Party" and quotes as they were. (I've also changed "Communist party" into "Communist Party" in a couple of places.)--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In most of the printed literature on the subject, "Communism/Communist" is capitalized whenever it's used to refer to the Communist Party. Since, in theory (obviously not in practice), Communism is a single international political party, the capitalized spelling is usually used, even when not accompanied by the word "Party". Although there are "Socialist Parties," "socialism" often refers a generalized body of political thought, like "democracy", and thus is usually not capitalized when not accompanied by "Party". Occasionally "communist/communism" is used without capitalization, when it's referring to something more generalized, as in "communist politics". This is a pretty vague distinction, and I have yet to find any documented rule for capitalizing the word that's unambiguous. I think the current usage in the article is a good approximation of what one finds in printed works, however. RedSpruce (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Communism has a section giving a possible rule for use of C/c, not unlike what you suggest. Throughout most of that article, c is used. I think most cases in the McCarthyism article should be lowercase too, and I think the use of upper case suggests an acceptance of the view that all communism is part of a global conspiracy, called "Communism". One might say that McCartyism isn't about communism, but about Communism, or in fact about any non-conservative view perceived as Communism. But if this is why communism should be capitalized throughout this article, it should be put in quotes too: "Communism".--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the example of books written about McCarthyism, which is the type of source that's supposed be the final arbiter for WP articles. I'll recheck various books today and tomorrow, to make sure that my recollection is correct. RedSpruce (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we agree that only books that can be described as NPOV are relevant here. I think consistency within Wikipedia is also an issue, so that the same principles should be applied in Communism and here. - Looking forward to hearing what you find --Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Using Amazon's "search inside" function makes this easy to research. I searched the books below, noting the capitalization of "communist" and "communism" in the first 50 instances of each word. I just did a count, without trying to tweeze out how the word was being used in each case. As you can see, a simple version of the rule would seem to be "almost always capitalized." I guess I'll post a message to the Communism article's talk page about this.

McCarthyism, The Great American Red Scare: A Documentary History:

• 1 out of 50 uses of "communist" uncapitalized
• 6 out of 50 uses of "communism" uncapitalized

Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America:

• 8 out of 50 uses of "communist" uncapitalized
• 0 out of 50 uses of "communism" uncapitalized

Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America :

• 2 out of 50 uses of "communist" uncapitalized
• 0 out of 50 uses of "communism" uncapitalized

The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism:

• 1 out of 50 uses of "communist" uncapitalized
• 0 out of 50 uses of "communism" uncapitalized

RedSpruce (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article when I passed it back in March. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. For an article of this length, it should be three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. Image:Is this tomorrow.jpg — If this image is going to be used in the article, it needs a detailed fair use rationale on the image's talk page specifying which article the image is being used for and why.

This article is in good shape and it's good to see that there were only two issues. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No.2 Has been taken care of. RedSpruce (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also made a stab at a third paragraph for the intro. Expansion/improvement/suggestions on this are more than welcome, of course. RedSpruce (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article now meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job on addressing the two issues so quickly. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral, and consider advancing on to WP:FAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey R. Stone

Geoffrey R. Stone did not compare liberals who attack the policies of the the "War on Terror" to McCarthy as did Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg. He compared the tactics of those that support the policies of the George W Bush administration to Joe McCarthy. The first paragraph of the article linked from this page makes that clear. To put him in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence with these people is a gross misrepresentation of his views.

And now the page is locked, and so it can't be corrected. God bless Wikipedia. And God bless the cabal.24.5.146.221 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence wasn't meant to put Stone in the same school as Coulter. I've rewritten the sentence to make this clearer. RedSpruce (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pauling

You are reverting to an incorrect title for the article used as a citation. That is not the title of the article, it is a summary of the content of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that I replaced a use of the "title=" parameter to refer to something that wasn't strictly a "title," but rather a description of content, which is perfectly clear and acceptable. As I noted in my edit summary, the reason for my revert is that you're giving the Linus Pauling entry in the "Victims" list a reference of around 410 words, when none of the other entries have anything like that amount of coverage. Most just have a bare source reference. Giving Pauling this disproportionate coverage makes it stick out like a sore thumb and suggests that he has some special significance over the other people listed. Therefor it introduces a bias. If you're determined that the "title=" parameter be correctly used, then fix that, and remove the rest of your disproportionate reference. RedSpruce (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Source Bias

Seeing as how the two primary sources for this article are Fried and Schrecker, two of the most vocal "anti anti communists", the article appears to suffer from the same bias as the sources. More reasonable sources should be included to balance out the weight of scholarly work on this subject, something this and many articles related to this subject sorely lack.

I will be working on this over the next several days/week, and suggest that the tag remains and that and rollback of new material be discussed before hand. Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On the recent edit. Citing a single book without noting any particular passage or evidence is hardly justification for the sweeping conclusion, "the CPUSA was under direct control of the Soviet Union, its the general policies of the CPUSA as well as its espionage activities." Furthermore, I think it is safe to dispute that "all of the party leadership was nothing more than a puppet of the Soviet Union." Much of the leadership actually consisted of FBI agents, as was revealed for example in the incident in which McCarthy and Cohn were embarrassed by their "exposure" of a cell that was actually organized by FBI agent provocateurs. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Citing a single book without noting any particular passage or evidence is hardly justification for the sweeping conclusion" could also be said about what you reverted back to. In addition, as I stated in the edit summary, Klehr and Haynes are not apologist for McCarthy, they are very harsh on him and think that he did more to damage anti-communism than and help he might have been to the cause, and its a complete distortion of the source to claim otherwise. There were no FBI agents in the leadership of the CPUSA during the McCarthyite era. Unless you have a source that says otherwise. CENSEI (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Old edit: "The CPUSA was said to be under the complete control of Moscow, and in fact, there is documentary evidence that the general policies of the CPUSA were set by the Soviet Communist Party."

Your edit: "the CPUSA was under direct control of the Soviet Union, its the general policies of the CPUSA as well as its espionage activities were set by the Soviet Communist Party.This control was so complete that many American Communists and all of the party leadership was nothing more than a puppet of the Soviet Union."

So, making the article much more POV is an improvement? What is your justification? Where are your citations regarding "all the party leadership?" Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that the prior version was much more POV. The CPUSA was under the direct control of the Comitern, I don’t think that there is a credible scholar who would deny that fact as of July 4th 2008. There is a debate as to how much this influenced the rank and file, sure. The Soviet World of American Communism, pgs 152-156 pretty much lays out the directives given to the CPUSA as well as how the leadership was in lockstep with those Comitern directives. Even Schrecker uses Klehr and Haynes as a source. CENSEI (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some CPUSA leadership at some time swallowed whole instructions they got from Moscow. But the "complete control" stuff is not true and misleading as written in the new edit. Regarding the allegiances of the leadership of the CPUSA: William Sullivan, head of FBI intelligence is known to have noted to Hoover that by the late 1950s there were more FBI undercover agents in the ACP than genuine members. Historian David Talbot, writing about RFK, has also noted that by the 1960's, "most of (the CPUSA's) dwindling membership consisted of undercover FBI agents." Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is more than some and more often than some time. From the Atlantic:

According to these documents, CPUSA leaders' subservience to Moscow was total. American Communist officials all but invited the Comintern to choose their leaders, and they acquiesced in sharp turns of Soviet policy -- for example, the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 -- that appalled many Party members in the United States. Klehr et al. argue that top officials of the CPUSA offered no protests against the brutal purges and killings orchestrated by Stalin against his enemies (including some wayward American Communists in the Soviet Union) in the 1930s. The documents also reveal that the CPUSA often depended heavily on funding ("Moscow gold") from the Soviet Union. As late as 1988 the Soviet Union contributed $3 million to the Party in the United States.

This may not, of course, be the whole story: further research into the enormous Soviet archives may alter the record as given here. Moreover, Klehr and his co-authors sometimes draw larger and questionable conclusions not supported by the documents they print. A case in point concerns a group of Finnish-Americans and Finnish-Canadians who were recruited by Moscow in the 1930s to help rebuild the Karelia region of the Soviet Union, near Finland. Many of these people were apparently executed in the late 1930s by Soviet authorities, but Klehr et al. find no documents indicating that CPUSA leaders intervened or protested against what was happening. The authors' evidence for the killings, however, comes from accusations in subsequently written memoirs by family members and from survivors -- not from the archives. No document offered here unambiguously implicates the CPUSA of the time in knowledge of or a cover-up of such atrocities.

In general, Klehr and his colleagues support a thesis that is neither new nor surprising. As early as 1957, in The Roots of American Communism, Theodore Draper established authoritatively that Moscow called the shots for the American Communist hierarchy in the years following the Bolshevik Revolution. We have long known that leaders of the CPUSA obeyed the Soviet Party line thereafter, no matter how dramatically that line changed. As Schrecker's book shows, such obeisance played nicely into the hands of Hoover and his fellow Red-hunters in the 1940s and 1950s.

Sure, by 1960 the party was decimated and there were lots of informants, but that was not the case until all the way up to the early 50's. CENSEI (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

←CENSEI, this article has been extremely stable for years. That doesn't prove that it's "right", but it certainly demonstrates that any sweeping changes should be discussed and accepted here before they are implemented. That includes adding a "POV" tag. If you wish to move forward, please present single proposed changes here, one at a time, and discuss each before trying to make the change to the article. A couple of general points:

• Most importantly, note the text of the standard Talk page header "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Please don't use this page for general discussion of the topic; please only discuss specific edits that you would like to see.
• This is an article about McCarthyism; therefor it is by definition about the persecution of actual and suspected American communists and leftists. It is not about the activities of the CPUSA, the Soviet Union or Comintern, or whether the persecution of McCarthyism persecution was warranted. RedSpruce (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple things:

- I understand your concerns, but judging the history of the article, there has been significant work done to it over the past 18 months or so, and there was little discussion on the addition of material then, so why is it a big deal now. - According to the policy as I have read it (and I am fairly new here), if the factuality or neutrality of the page is in dispute, and clearly it now is, you shouldn’t remove the tag. - I was only discussing the topic because it was brought up. - The activities of the CPUSA, the Soviet Union and the Comitern are highly relevant to McCarthyism, not because I say so but because other scholars have said so, and (correct me if I am wrong) but that seems to get at the heart and soul of what is and is not appropriate and relevant for material in an article. Some scholars certainly do look at McCarthyism through a lens that ignores the rampant Soviet infiltration of the US government and Hollywood, but there are many others that do not, and since they meet the criteria for a reliable source, there is no legitimate reason to exclude their work. - Lastly, you have not commented on the title of this discussion. Do you think that there is a bias in the sourcing of the article? Nearly all the authors are sympathetic to the POV of the CPUSA, and authors who are critical of the CPUSA and who saw the need (not necessarily the excesses) of the investigations surrounding McCarthyism are not mentioned or used as reference material in the article.

Now to break down the edits

1. [3] This edit describes the Bentley's Chambers' and Budenes' testimony more accurately. To say that the part "enslaved" its membership is too ambiguous (how did they enslave them, with chains and a cotton gin?).
2. [4] this edit make a good contribution, namely that it would be important to point out that the three were not only CPUSA members, but ware also KGB/NKVD agents, adding to the impact of their testimony and the fear it stoked.
3. [5] this edit makes a factual correction, no one from the CPUSA was prosecuted until after the war. Only the SWP and other Trotskyite organizations were persecuted during the war. The irony is that the CPUSA backed these prosecutions when it applied to their political enemies, something several authors have brought up when mentioning the disingenuous nature of the CPUSA's "First Amendment" defense.
4. [6] To cite Haynes and Khler as apologists for McCarthyism completely ignores their work and what they have actually written on the subject. There is an overwhelming consensus on the fact that the CPUSA was a puppet of Moscow, even Schrecker grudgingly agrees with this. The nature of the party and its leadership is not in dispute with any credible scholars, only the nature of its rank and file.

CENSEI (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The leading sentences of the View of Communists section, while they may provide some good information as to the CPUSA's condition in the 1920's and '30's, provide no insight as to the Party's very different condition during the era of McCarthyism. I have added a paragraph for clarity. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The insight goes well into the early 50's when the CPUSA was pretty much neutralized as an organization with any real influence. CENSEI (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not deleted your recent addition to this section, and you have no right to delete mine as it speaks directly to the issues already in this section: the degree to which the CPUSA was controlled by Moscow. What makes your text regarding the ability of the USSR to direct the CP's leadership in context and mine out of context? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one problem is that Anthony Summers is a certifiable crackpot and absolute nutjob. Secondly, as Redspruce has pointed out, this article is not about the CPUSA, unless any of the sources you are citing are commenting on McCarthism it does not belong here. CENSEI (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with Summers' work? Also, still waiting for an explanation of why your text regarding the CPUSA acting or not acting at Moscow's behest is in context and mine is not. You have a source that suggests that the party leadership were nothing more than a puppet of the Soviet Union. I have many sources which suggest that during the era that is actually the subject of the article, the party was controlled by its FBI informants and by Hoover. My point is backed up precisely by Haynes himself. What's the problem? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI's list of edits

By the numbers I've added to CENSEI's comment above:

• 1 The problem is that you've missed the point of the context. The passage is describing how membership in the CPUSA was perceived (in which the word "enslaved" is appropriate, since perception is being discussed). The wording you use would be fine in the correct context--a discussion of the reality of the relationship between the Soviet Union and the CPUSA, but that is discussed elsewhere in the article.

The relationship elsewhere in the article is not discussed and has been deemphasized. The term "enslaved" was never used by Bentley, and my text more accurately describes here testimony. CENSEI (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point, which is that your text misses the point of the passage you inserted it into. "Enslaved" is not presented as a direct quote, nor as coming exclusively from Bentley. RedSpruce (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 2 is partly the same problem, and partly just bad writing. Bentley and Budenz obviously weren't on the KGB payroll at the time they gave evidence about their former spy careers. Also, I'm not sure about Budenz, but although Elizabeth Bentley was well paid from the profits of a communist front company, she was never "on the KGB payroll."

So, you only disaagree with the verb tense and the term payroll, easily corrected. CENSEI (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was that your whole edit was nonsensical. Your revised version was better, but it changes the meaning of the paragraph so that it doesn't fit into its context, and repeats information that's elsewhere in the article (that Soviet Intelligence used the CPUSA to recruit spies).

• 3 Goes off on a tangent to make the point that the CPUSA initially supported the Smith Act when it was being used against non-party members. This is completely irrelevant to this article. Also removes text about the hundreds who were prosecuted under the Smith Act. This text is central to the subject of this article.

The CPUSA and Communists were not prosecuted until 1947, the text states that they were prosecuted before that. This is not supported by the facts, only SWP members and radical non CPUSA individuals were tried under the Smith Act before 1947. The factual nature of the text in the article is incorect. CENSEI (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed an error in the text, and I corrected it by referring to "Communist and others." You haven't address the fact that your whole insertion went off on a tangent to make an irrelevant point.RedSpruce (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 4 Contains no major change of meaning, except for the added text: "This control was so complete that many American Communists and all of the party leadership was nothing more than a puppet of the Soviet Union." In addition to being poor English, the word "puppet" is unencyclopedic as it has no clear definition. Note that unlike the case with "enslaved" in #1, you are using this word as a statement of fact, not a description of a perception.

It contains a major change, specificaly the lead sentence "Those who sought to justify McCarthyism did so largely through their characterization of Communism, and American Communists in particular" is cited to Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America and has no page number to go along with that citation. Normally this is not a big issue, but nowhere do Klehr or Haynes make the case for McCarthy or his tactics, which is probbaly why the citation has no page # associated with it. Its a gross distortion of the source, and runs counter to the actual thoughts of the authors. I will replace puppet with controles. And as far as perceptions being stated as facts, I will point to a few examples of this beign done in the article that you apparently have no issue with.

"Right-wing intellectuals found the decisiveness of McCarthyism refreshing."

"The Communist Control Act never had any significant effect, and was perhaps most notable for the odd mix of liberals and conservatives among its supporters."

CENSEI (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the diff. The reference to Haynes and Klehr is for the statement "and in fact, there is documentary evidence that the general policies of the CPUSA were set by the Soviet Communist Party." That's a statement that the whole of the H&K book supports (as I'm sure you'll agree), so no specific page number was given. If H&K had been misused as a reference the way you thought they were, that would indeed have been a nasty misrepresentation. I'm sorry it took me until now to understand the source of your misunderstanding. RedSpruce (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Source Bias" I'm happy so see any valid WP:Reliable sources used in this article. None of the sources currently used are WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources, except arguably in a few cases in the "Continuing controversy" section where they are used to document their own positions. RedSpruce (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said that any of the sources were inappropriate, only that since the majority of them are friendly to one point of view, to the exclusion of others, the article is not neutral. You seem to be unwilling to address this point. CENSEI (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the paragraph I added earlier has returned along with the other recent changes. For the record, I'm glad to back off my own changes in favor of the earlier consensus version of the article (or something closer to it). That version seems better on NPOV. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think that a tit-for-tat approach is appropriate. The edits should stand on their merits, and that’s all. No one has, as of yet, responded to the title of this thread "Can this article be neutral if all the sources come from one side of the debate and exclude the other"". CENSEI (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is "friendly" to the point of view that is held by the vast majority of authors, scholars and "commonly accepted reference texts" (to quote WP:UNDUE). If you think this is incorrect, please supply some documentation showing that it is incorrect. In response to your bolded question: Yes. All views of an issue are not supposed to be given equal weight. The prevailing view must be presented as the prevailing view, and minority views presented as minority views. The "Continuing controversy" section covers the minority views. RedSpruce (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement "This is an article about McCarthyism; therefor it is by definition about the persecution of actual and suspected American communists and leftists. It is not about the activities of the CPUSA, the Soviet Union or Comintern, or whether the persecution of McCarthyism persecution was warranted. RedSpruce " is biased because it presumes that "outing" and removing Communists and other security threats from government is or was "persecution." This falsely gives the impression that the efforts of the Loyalty Boards, Congress and everyone else who was trying to root out Communist infiltrators was an act of "persecution," which constitutes pro-Communist bias. "McCarthyism" must be viewed in light of the very real cold war going on between the Soviet Union, Red China and the United States that very nearly ended in thermonuclear conflagration. To ignore this and categorize by inference all attempts to remove Communists from sensitive positions in government does not reflect "neutrality" on the issue. Sethr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethr (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the column unevenness

I added in Elizabeth Hawes as I couldn't see any fashion designers in the list, but it's kind of made the list uneven. I do think there needs to be a fashion designer in the list somewhere though, show that even something as seeminly non-political as a dress designer could be blacklisted and have their business sabotaged. Sorry about that. Mabalu (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The relation between McCarthyism… and Stalinism

I do not know if this would be original research which is not permitted here in Wikipedia, but it seems like the period of beginning and the end of McCarthyism coincides closely to the period between the victory of the Soviet Union in World War II in 1945 and Stalin’s death in 1953, with the last McCarthyist actions ending around the same time of the 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.--MaGioZal (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One paranoic versus another? Good call!--92.36.63.162 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

McCarthyism was anti-Semitic

Hence the inclusion in the Jewish project. Wallie (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) then it should be highligted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.149.23 (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of "communist"

I think many of the uses of "communist" in the article are capitalized when they should not be. According to the Manual of Style, the word "communist" should only be capitalized when it refers to members of a part that has "communist" or "communism" in its name. When it merely refers to someone's ideology, it should not be capitalized. Someone who is an expert on McCarthyism, please check if these instances should be capitalized. -Pgan002 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bias

I'm unsure whether this segment shows biased opinions about Murrow. Personally, it seems a bit victimizing towards McCarthy
"it used footage of McCarthy speeches to portray him as dishonest, reckless and abusive toward witnesses and prominent Americans. "

I would say that the Murrow program certainly did that, and intentionally did that. Some might argue that the picture presented by Murrow was biased; others may feel that the picture was true. But that is beside the point. The statement quoted is actually an unbiased description of the program's content. Wschart (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)