Jump to content

Talk:McCarthyism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

nothing about McCarthyism in 1950s Japan?

there was McCarthyism under AMGOT-administered Japan in 1951. why is this not mentioned in the article? Cliché Online (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The media, the Left and McCarthy

It is fairly typical that a political effort would be labeled by it's least liked member both backwards and forwards in time. Like calling ineffective treatment of Islamic terrorism "Carterism" and projecting it back to WWII and forward to today.

It is true that the whole country was alarmed by Communism in the late 40s and 50s. You could hardly not be! China had collapsed, South Korea invaded, show trials of democratic supporters in Eastern Europe, outright wholesale murder of millions in the new China, etc. This was not fun.

But McCarthy himself was little feared and not for long. To pretend he was seems reprehensible. A summary to this effect was reverted:

Summary of the ascendancy of Joseph McCarthy

McCarthy himself first came to national prominence with his speech of February 29, 1950. His claim was almost immediately ridiculed with the publication of Herblock's cartoon on "McCarthyism" on March 29. Senator Smith first started attacking him before the Senate on June 1, 1950. In 1952, Arthur Miller published The Crucible, a barely veiled attack on McCarthy's methods. In December 1953, the columnist Drew Pearson publicized the information, leaked by the Army, that McCarthy had obtained illegal deferrals for his aides. It was 1954 before Senator Ralph Flanders joined in the attack on McCarthy.[1] In June 1954, the popular President Eisenhower attacked "book burners" at Columbia University speech, a clear reference to McCarthy. In December the Senate had censured him, terminating his influence.

- I think this truth needs to be pointed out in the article. Expecting the reader to "notice" it, is a bit much IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Victims of McCarthyism"?

Why do we call these people "Victims of McCarthyism"? Do we call criminals victims of the police? This is completely slanted. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And where were you in the 1950s? DEddy (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts: one-word pejoratives are slanted per se. "McCarthyism" is one of those words. It means exactly what the speaker wants it to mean. The section should have a name that is obviously unbiased, a longer name, and be redirected from McCarthyism. The one-word series chosen by the media are causing us trouble when we try to objectively document them without their built-in bias. The media was never interested in impartiality and could care less about being encyclopedic. Other words in that category: Whitewatergate, Monica(gate). "Iran-Contra" at least was a bit more descriptive and not obviously a slur. It can be done but not often by the media. The usual tactic is to use the name of someone who isn't terribly well-liked but is outspoken and eventually (if they are lucky) actually discredited. So "Mccarthyism" applies backwards and forwards through time well before he began speaking, and ever after, like "Naziism" applied to situations or people the media doesn't like.
I was upset in the 50s when it was revealed that important people had supported and continued to support Stalinistic communism when we were facing this paranoiac armed with nuclear devices. Arthur Miller for one. He didn't lose anything from "persecution" but should have IMO. Like supporting the Taliban nowdays. I don't give points for that.
As the previous editor suggested, while McCarthy himself may have been off-base with some of his best-publicized accusations, many of the other accusations were well placed. The loyalties of the people involved were in question and should have been considering the times. Some of what they did were illegal under the laws of the day.Student7 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Criminals? I defy you to name to one person who was convicted of criminal subversion following his or her being becoming one of the hundreds of people accused acting of behalf of an international communist conspiracy by Joe McCarthy. Put up or shut up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Whoa! Remember that the media has taken the least liked person to represent the attacks on Communism in the US, not only the few years that McCarthy was in business, which wasn't many BTW, but backwards in time to pre-world war II and forward in time as long as they like. McCarthy did not make very many of these accusations himself. Some of the people that were accused did indeed wind up in jail, at least for a time. For starters, the American leaders of the Communist Party. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Remember the article is about "McCarthyism", not McCarthy. If people suffered as a result of the movement, then they are victims of McCarthyism. If you dislike the movement being called McCarthyism, take it up with the whole of Western Culture. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"Western Culture"? I don't think so. This is a media-assigned term. Has nothing to do with an encyclopedic term which could (and probably should) be different and non-pov. The pov term is a huge problem here as it is with many media-named subjects.Student7 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
So Encyclopedia Britannica is unencyclopedic? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
McCarthyism is a term used by newspapers, encyclopedias, academic articles and people on the street. It's a pretty well-understood term. I don't know why you should categorize it a "media-assigned". Do you have a suggestion of something to replace it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The only other obvious candidate would be (J Edgar) "Hooverism" as suggested by Ellen Schrecker(sp?). But my guess is someone will also object to this label as being "POV". DEddy (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy is to use the term that will be familiar to most readers in English. Clearly Hooverism doesn't fit this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree... so what's the issue with McCarthyism as the correct term? No one can dispute that "McCarthyism" was the term used during that period & since, can they? And there were indeed victims of unwarranted "Reds under every bed" hysteria. DEddy (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Only Student7 seems to be objecting. Let's see what he/she says. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with one-word, usually media-assigned, "catchy" terms for an encyclopedia. it is worse when people's names are used to describe a phenomenon. Much worse when it has been a poltical football used to whap one side or the other over the head with. Think Whitewatergate, Monica(gate?), or any other pejorative. The major fault is that it means whatever the name-caller wants it to mean. There are no obvious restraints on usage nor application. The current definition for this one goes back as far as anyone likes (or dislikes, as the case may be) and forward in time forever.
The intent is name-calling not analysis. That is its major fault. I am watching several other articles that are political footballs, but not quite as inflammatory. Some have modified article names (which weren't necessarily media-assigned nor "catchy" to start with). This has made it a lot easier to edit (and discuss) the topics.
As long as the major intent of some of the editors is to best someone rather than report facts, we will continue to have trouble with this article. That would be quite unnecessary with a change to an objective title which could be redirected from here. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I very much doubt that a change of title will result in a miraculous increase in objectivity. Besides, McCarthyism is the term by which the vast majority of people know this philosophy. As I said before, do you have an alternative suggestion?
You might also make suggestions as to exactly what you think is bad in the contents of the article. Then we can discuss specific ways in which it might be made more objective. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Difficult to do with the one word title. It will always revert because it is pov IMO.
The article seems to suggest that HUAC was illegal. It wasn't. It asked unpleasant questions that people didn't want to answer. When they didn't. some were jailed, as indeed they would be now if a congressional committee asked questions.
The article says that Hoover gave loyalty reviews to HUAC and states that he shouldn't have. This seems pov. Consider the alternative. Hoover has info that might redeem people. However, he "refuses" to give it to the committee. This is perverse. Either the head of the FBI should a) give the results of loyalty interviews to Congress, for whom he technically (thought indirectly) works for or b) he should do what he damn well pleases and tell Congress to go to hell. I think most people would vote for the FBI cooperating. The reason they don't here is that it does not support their pov. This seems like some fallacy to me but I can't quote it. Maybe "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"
The article says that Hoover gave loyalty reviews to HUAC and states that he shouldn't have. This seems pov. Ummmmm... have you ever read FBI documents/field agent reports? They're about as political as you get. From what actually happened during the McCarthy era it's totally clear that Hoover would leak whatever information he felt would help the FBI & the crusade against often mythical communists. To a certain extent these "source" documents were the equivalent of taking "For a good time call Susie... 202-555-1212" off the wall in a phone booth & treating it as verified fact that Susie was a woman of loose morals (akin to being a communist). To Hoover a communist was someone he didn't like & that attitude is clearly reflected in the field agent reports. His agents and the collection/reporting process was tuned to Hoover's whims. If the Boss expected proof of X, then X would be found. Information taken out of context can be manipulated to say pretty much anything you want... Hoover & his loyal minions were masters at such spin. DEddy (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
A bit ironic that HUAC came in for all that criticism when it was accused in the late 1930s of being too hard on fascism!
There's a fascinating paragraph in Allan Weinstein's Haunted Wood... in July 1941 (Russia has been invaded by the Huns yet again & we're still waiting for December 7) Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau met with the Russian ambassador. Morgenthau expressed dissatisfaction with the FBI's hunting down German agents & requested/suggested help from Soviet intelligence in uncovering said German agents. It is highly unlikely that Morgenthau would have initiated such a meeting & conversation on his own free will. DEddy (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The "victims" seems a bit like cant, simply quoting somebody as saying they were a victim. Having said that, I'm sure some were unfairly denied work because of unjust and unproven accusations. Miller seems more like an unplanned beneficiary rather than a victim! Big names, like Mostel, might expect to be out of work anyway. Big names aren't employed fulltime even today. For a comic who writes his own work, does he really want to do this for some small audience, requiring new material every night or week? So it is hard to tell. An objective list is needed, not one constructed by the supposed victims nor their supporters.
Some of the people were "stood in the corner" for their clueless advice during the 1920s and 1930s Stalinist years that Communism was wonderful: DuBois, probably Robeson, most likely Chaplin.
I realize that we live in a country where everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But there is a certain implication. Would you really want to support someone in the arts if they (in turn) support or supported Osama and/or the Taliban? No one is crying "McCarthyism" over accused professors who were raising money for extremist causes nor the guys suspected of mailing anthrax to congressmen. i'm not sure how many actual convictions came out of this. All set for the next round of "Talibanism" or whatever they call the unconvicted people of this era that no one will now hire!
There is always a certain automatic American sympathy for the apparent underdog in any dispute. We used to sympathize with the Irish who used to kill each other with relish until the English arrived. Eventually the Irish lost and got our sympathy for being "mere poets and harpists." Well, they were hardly that! The Japanese after WWII were portrayed as "poets and gardeners". Their Banzai charges during WWII were hardly poetic. Not sure that underdogs should automatically get sympathy in Wikpedia. We should be a little more objective. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot in your post, but I'm afraid it seems to me that most of what you write is opinion rather than facts. I see very little of actual content that you think should be changed, and fewer suggestions of what might be said instead.
"The article says that Hoover gave loyalty reviews to HUAC and states that he shouldn't have." I can't actually find a place in the article it says that. If I've missed it please point it out for me. The article does list things the FBI did that were illegal, and it lists some other things that people might think were bad (like keeping the identity of accusers secret), but nowhere does it actually say he shouldn't have done them. It is you who are reading that into the article, and then ironically objecting to it. However the fact that these things were done, and that some of them were illegal, is simply a matter of record.
You may consider that many of the 'victims' didn't suffer very much. However I would point out a) that the article simply says they were on a blacklist, which is unquestionably true, and b) that if I'm unfairly deprived of the opportunity to work then I've been treated badly, even if I find other work. I suspect that if you were thrown out of your school for no reason you might feel like you;ve been badly treated, even if another school took you on. Whatever the case, the article simply records the fact of these people being on a blacklist.
In general the article seems pretty objective. But specific criticisms of specific statements are welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia no longer defines "gay bashing" as "a form of McCarthyism" [2], and even presents Joe McCarthy & Roy Cohn as the innocent victims of homophobia. [3] nobs (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sabotage" of business?

When I asked for an elaboration of what the alleged business sabotage of an individual by the FBI was all about, an editor ignored and deleted it with the explanation that he was "cleaning up." "Sabotage" one of the many things that HUAC and the American Public feared during the late 40s and early 50s.

It seemed to me that the phrase may simply have been an attempt to reverse the accusation with no evidence, exactly what the article is complaining about! Student7 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims, again

Some of the people did indeed lose work as a result of these accusations, not an unintended consequence BTW.

I kind of wonder about two cases. One was Arthur Miller who profited mightily from The Crucible and was at least as guilty as anyone in reality and not in anyone's imagination. So he can hardly be listed as a "sufferer."

Zero Mostel (among others) was in a different category. He may have simply been in a career doldrums as many people in acting often are. Some kind of statistical analysis would be needed here if anyone who does them can be considered neutral. Comparing a "control" group of actors against those summoned and see which was worse off afterwards. Most actors do not work during a given year! That is the nature of the business. Very competitive. Nice to have someone (or something) to blame it on, I'm sure! And also nice for a producer to (later) say, "Gee, I would have hired you for that part if it hadn't been for that darned HUAC." Yeah, right! For the record, I think Mostel was tremendously talented. I'm sure hia agent also asked top dollar! Student7 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. What are you getting at when you say that Miller "was at least as guilty as anyone in reality and not in anyone's imagination"? Guilty of what?—DCGeist (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Miller was a communist. This may seem harmless enough today, but the leader of communism at the time was Joseph Stalin, definitely not a harmless person. It is worse than saying that someone is a member of the Taliban today. Worse, because Eastern Europe and China had just fallen, Italy and France looked like they were next for a time. This was not funny at the time. Nor was he particularly up front about his involvement either. But he got rich off it. This is like somebody privately supporting the 9/11 attacks, and writing a Best Seller about it afterwards. Victim? I don't think so.
Your personal opinions about Communism are, of course, irrelevant. The question is, did Miller suffer professionally as a result of McCarthyism.
The inclusion of Miller seems to be supported by a reference. Are you challenging the validity of the reference, or claiming some other reason why he shouldn't be included? He appears in a list of people who were "blacklisted or suffered otherwise" as a result of McCarthyism. Even if he didn't suffer as a result of the blacklist he still belongs there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Blacklisted. That is fine, but the category is under "Victims." Victims, a bit pov anyway, is too broad a category for Miller. Yes, include him under "Blacklisted" by all means. While the two may not be entirely exclusive, they are for Miller.
The trouble with the article is that it is just too pov to start with (bad title). There is nothing wrong with considering individual groups of people who were accused, some unfairly. But just be clear about the nature of what happened to them instead of lumping them altogether. Student7 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources calling Miller and others victims of McCarthyism [4]. What term would you consider more appropriate, and why is Miller a special case? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some info that may be missing

Two items that could be used. I had thought it was William F. Buckley who once said that the McCarthy era consisted of liberals shouting from the rooftops that their rights were being violated. I cannot find this at all, not just from Buckley, but from anybody.

The Kennedys were big McCarthy supporters, Joe Sr., John and Bobby. So John did not vote to censure him, for example. I don't know if this belongs here or not, but the younger Kennedys were liberals.

For a breather for both liberals and conservatives, try Interview with William F. Buckley. You have to search on "McCarthy" about halfway down. Comments (succinctly) are that McCarthy was an alcoholic, making nasty comments publicly, but invariably kind in public, etc. I realize this article is not about McCarthy per se, but it does seem to shed some light by a person who was there and appears to be talking about reality. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first quote seems unlikely, rather akin to someone saying that the Civil Rights era was "a load of blacks complaining about how their rights were being violated". "So-and-so was a liberal" is the sort of thing we try to avoid writing at Wikipedia because it's so vague. The talk page is really for discussions about how to improve the article. Specific suggestions are welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture in Intro

Would it be wrong to refer to the picture on the top right of the article, the comic book cover, as propaganda? I've seen many articles describing other publications from all over the world with such extreme images and claims, and they are rightfully described as propaganda, for example for the Soviet Union. I would argue that propaganda doesnt have to issue from a governing body to qualify, so the fact its only a comic book shouldnt matter. What do we think? ValenShephard 18:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I agree it is not appropriate, but for a different reason: it is not directly related to blacklisting. The cover of "Red Channels," which was an actual blacklist, or something else more directly related to the blacklist should be substituted. Figureofnine (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions of communists section

This section mostly doesnt give the view of communists in the US but quotes a source which is not in favour of them. Also it uses terms like 'enslaved', which, even if present in the source, are too POV. I'll clean it up a bit in the future if there are no real objections. ValenShephard 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Schrecker's assessment of this article

Professor Ellen Schrecker, who's cited in the article, created a work we haven't cited -- American Inquisition, an audiobook in the Modern Scholar series. I thought those editing the article might be interested in her comment in the accompanying printed course guide. Under a "Websites to Visit" heading, she gives the URL for the Wikipedia article, and says that it "has a good general-knowledge description with many links to other information on McCarthyism."

No, this isn't because we quote her. The course guide is copyright 2004; this version of the article, from the end of 2004, doesn't cite or even mention Schrecker. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Victims vs. Targets

If someone "did have" a connection to the Communist Party, then the question is simply whether we as contributors (1) may declare that such a link is entirely innocent or (2) ought to remain neutral as to whether their were colluding with America's enemies (like Nazi collaborators in WWII Europe).

The POV of one side is that "McCarthyism" (so-called) was much worse than the evil (so-called) which it was then opposing. This is an article of faith among some, but it is not universally held. Let's mention the other side as well, which (even if it's in the minority) believes that the Venona papers vindicated much or most of McCarthy's anti-Communist activity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've reverted this already.
Do you now, or have you ever, believed that membership alone of the Communist party is a punishable offence under US law? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

other examples?

[5] aren´t examples for McCarthyism. The sources "Buckley, A hymnal" and "Goldberg, Liberal Fascism" aren´t about McCartyism anyway. And they don´t present the given stories as examples of McCarthyism. Not to mention that "Goldberg, Liberal Fascism" is a subprime-source anyway. The added stories may be suitable for the McCarthy article but not in this one. --Pass3456 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The first two sentences state "McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "'the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.'" Jailing movie makers for negatively portraying allies certainly qualifies. In fact there's a section on the blacklist; if it's relevant to this topic then so is the episode from WWI.

Books by Herbert Block and Alan Brinkley are references for this article. Their subjects aren't McCarthyism, but they address it. Buckley's book has a subchapter called "The Long War Against McCarthyism." Paying an informer qualifies as tactic related to McCarthyism. Every time I've attempted to verify a Goldberg source it checked out, including the story about Hollywood. LesLein (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So you admit that the authors did not see those two "examples" as McCarthyism. Jonah Goldberg may have pointed out that example to apologize McCarthy but that doesn´t make it an example for McCarthyism. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Not McCarthyism. It should be removed. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous Main Image

Image created by some fringe group called "Catechetical Guild Educational Society". There are always fringe groups creating ridiculous material. To pretend that the view represented by such a silly image is representative of your opposition is itself propaganda. This borders on ...what's that word? That's right, "McCarthyism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks at risk from vandalism.

A number of students from my school will be using this article for an opinion piece, and are known for vandalizing articles.

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I just removed a bit of vandalism from the page which was clearly already removed once before. If nobody is going to protect the page, an increased level of vigilance may be necessary to deal with the persistent vandals. 24.62.25.156 (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism you removed had been added only a couple of hours before you removed it. People watching this page, such as myself, may not have checked out watch lists yet this morning to monitor for vandalism. Had you not removed it, I would have right now. This isn't a serious problem necessitating a protection change. I do thank you for your vigilance in removing the vandalism, though! Everyone helping is what makes it count. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Request

Request: additional info on the use of grand juries during McCarthyism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.171.34 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There's lots of info on Wikipedia on this period and prosecutions on Wikipedia. You can look up the Smith Act, Stack v. Boyle, Yates v. U.S., etc. Try this also http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/298/case.html Activist (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Law

Was communism illegal or something? What did an accused person face if found to be un-American? The article seems to miss these things out. 130.159.81.151 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It was illegal under the Smith Act to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, which the Communist Party USA's original constitution did. As the article indicates, the Smith Act has been amended since the Supreme Court reversed some convictions under the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Three of those Californians whom I added to the list of "notable persons," Dorothy Healey and Al Richmond, were among those tried for Smith Act violations. Though they remained Marxists, they left the party after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Archie Brown was also tried, for a Landrum-Griffin Act violation. Activist (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why Hollywood Blacklist?

Why is the Hollywood blacklist included in this article? McCarthy had nothing to do with it, and it started in the late 1940's before he even arrived on the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.54.192 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You can have McCarthyism without McCarthy. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Great introduction

So I guess we're just going to ignore the fact that this Western ideology of anti-communism led to elections of corrupt presidents, to invasions against 'communist' independence fighters, aid to or leadership of coups against democratic leaders and equal rights revolutionaries, and the frequently extremely poor judgment and blind support of any anti-communist dictators or groups, directly causing the deaths of many millions while bringing the world in disarray and almost causing a Nuclear Holocaust? I don't know who started using the term for just any bold or paranoid accusation but that's like declaring the word Holocaust to now mean just any act of discrimination. No matter how many English sources you can find claiming it, all it does is show the systemic Western and pro-American-British bias present from the Cold War. For every American newspaper, try a Chinese or Russian one. I don't think they would agree with this whitewashing. Anti-communism has always been closest to Nazism, and don't forget that these two countries suffered worse and lost more than anyone else during WW2. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I actually have seen "holocaust" used to refer to certain acts of discrimination, albeit they are typically satirical. "Holocaust" is a pretty general term used to describe any sort of mass genocide these days, however, hence Armenian Holocaust and the disambiguation page for "holocaust". With McCarthyism, its general usage (and it is used generally in the sense you've noted) is probably meant to reflect on the fact that McCarthy's policies were pretty bold and prejudicial, and incited a sort of mass hysteria commonly known as Red Scare, in particular the Second Red Scare. Having said that, this talk page isn't really here for the discussion of the term's usage in common parlance. Wikipedia has simply documented how the term has been used.
Are you proposing any change in particular? Or are you just critical of how the term has been used in modern discourse? If you have a particular change to propose, one which you believe improves the neutrality of the article while not skewing it in the opposite direction or purporting opinions as facts, then feel free to do so. If you are just critical of how it is used in common speech, however, then this talk page isn't really the place to voice it.
As an aside, this issue appears to have already been pointed out in the talk section above. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please make specific article content proposals if you have any.

Venona and Soviet Intelligence Files

Both the US Army's Venona files and later released Soviet intelligence files revealed that some of McCarthy's "victims" were in fact Soviet agents. This article needs to acknowlege that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.229.216.31 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The wikipedia has an article on Venona, and it's linked at the bottom of this article. That article is sourced. I think Venona should have its own section in this article; I think it's NPOV that it is barely mentioned in the main article. It's important to the overall content of the subject. 223.198.51.129 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of a single Soviet Agent who was found through McCarthy's efforts, nor of anyone of whom he was first accuser and who was later proven to be an Agent through Venona. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You should have seen John Earl Haynes vehemently deny the question—just a question, not a charge—that J Edgar Hoover may have passed VENONA tips to McCarthy while they were betting at the race track. Haynes emphasized that Hoover was very security conscious & would never have leaked such information to someone like McCarthy. So then the question becomes, just how did McCarthy get his "leads?" As far as I know the record is pretty silent to that question, but clearly the finger points in one direction. DEddy (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
McCarthy Was RIGHT!!

At what point do we all admit that McCarthy was correct and had proper steps been taken we would not be under the communist takeover of America we are experiencing today. This article should contain some reference to the fact he was RIGHT!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.198.36 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose to delete this comment. (1) anonymous poster, & (2) no references. DEddy (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
agree with Deddy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it contributes to the discussion, albeit marginally and not constructively. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, no! Keep it, it's a great comment! And it is so true, how else can you explain the lunacy of the Tea Party than by fluoridation of their water supply. Either that or it's evidence that, despite all appearences, the American right wing does have a sense of humour. Baska436 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're mocking my religion.NaturalFluids (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
He's going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company. Activist (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

CPUSA under soviet control?

"Proponents of McCarthyism claimed that the CPUSA was so completely under Moscow's control. ... This view is supported by recent documentation from the archives of the KGB[43] as well as post-war decodes of wartime Soviet radio traffic from the Venona Project,[44] showing the CPUSA as having been completely controlled from Moscow."

I don't have access to the source material right now but I am wondering the veracity of this claim. There was no doubt correspondence, but the CPUSA being under *complete* control of the Soviets seems unlikely. 24.6.157.80 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed the text to documentation, showing that Moscow provided financial support to the CPUSA and had significant influence on CPUSA policies. The idea that the USSR had complete control over the CPUSA is POV and I think groundless. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCarthyism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

The article has been extensively rewritten by a new account. I'm finding that unfortunately there is simply so much that simply is not correct, such as excessive "reinventing the wheel," overuse of subheaders, improper italics and boldface, POV wording, uncited text, overlarge images and overlong captions, excessive use of "pull" quotes, and above all, massive, massive excessive detail and a total abandonment of summary style, that I've had to do some selective reverting. I'm going to do the best I can but may have to simply roll back. Bold edits are find but discussion is not a bad idea either when one totally rewrites an article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Figureofnine:

Thanks, for sharing your opinions, but deleting sourced text contradicts most everything you claim in your edit summaries. Abide your advice; play nice, your exaggerated language about the subject indicates what? Most of the corrections I effected were the removal of weasel worded paragraphs that hid the facts of this matter.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hopeless. Am starting an RfC. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think either authentichistory.com or History News Network qualify as reliable sources so I've reverted those edits. I've returned the article to status quo ante until the RfC is ended. I hope a lesson is being learned. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I just wanted to mention that the version to which you reverted was actually not the status quo ante and in fact contained a tremendous amount of POV material added by the new account. I've reverted back to the "Version A" which I trust was your intent. I hope you don't mind. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Figureofnine: It was my intent; I don't mind. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You know. It's really quite remarkable. 26,000 characters, which is about 6,000 words, were added to the article without word one on the talk page, with the exception of the smarminess above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McCarthyism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Rewrite of article

There is unanimous consensus in favor of version A. Several concerns were raised about version B, primarily that it did not present a sufficiently neutral encyclopedic tone. Several editors noted portions of version B may be valuable. Integrating or adapting portions of B into A is allowed and encouraged, where the result is in compliance with Policy and improves the article. Alsee (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article has been extensively rewritten without discussion on the talk page. I have concerns about summary style and excessive detail. The versions in question are:

A) The preexisting version.[6]

B) The article as rewritten.[7] Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment I believe that Version A, while by no means perfect, is far superior. Version B is written like an academic paper, is POV, pedantic, excessively detailed, and makes no attempt to follow WP:MOS. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Version A. Among other issues, Version B has WP:NPOV problems in use of terms like "Communist perfidy" and "Private Thought Police." There are parts of it that might be good additions, but on the whole, no. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer Version A. As I've said before I don't think new editors have much purpose editing articles rated GA or better. I agree that the changes Chas. Caltrop have introduced are not Wikipedia's summary style, violate MOS:BOLD among others, and generally introduce a point-of-view. A wholesale rollback is called for. Caltrop is welcome to discuss his proposed changes as there isn't consensus for what he's trying to accomplish. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mostly A -- I think version B has some good points that would be good. Negative for B in the lead does not summarize the article presented and is giving phrases that are judgemental and emotive conclusions rather than simply stating factual events or doing a just follow the cites conveying the material of cites with due WP:weight. (In particular "demagoguery", "unethical", "undemocratic social control".) Positive for B in the leads second paragraph text has 'fellow travelers' and 'witch hunts' at a high level of visibility, and the closing lead of version B also relates things better than the abstract list of things in version A. I also think version B goes astray with the "Contemporary McCarthyism" section WPW:OFFTOPIC dragging in that someone of no particular relevance to McCarthy or great prominence in the world used the term as a vague pejorative, which is also not WP:COMMON for those modern topics. Just stick to the historical period and meaning of the term thank you, not about everywhere people sling it. Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A is better, because of the non-neutral wording and tone introduced by Caltrop, who has added words such as "demagoguery", "reckless" and "witch hunts", and the assumption that a police state exists in the US. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A is better, but still 'pulls its punches' to a UK reader, 'characterized by heightened political repression against communists' I thought the whole point was that most of those accused and punished were not and never had meaningfully been 'communists', knowing someone who had once been to a left-of-centre charity meeting 20 years before was enough. Dammit even Charlie Chaplin was forced to leave the country and had to resort to subterfuge to take some of his money with him. I know we are meant to be neutral, but parts of the first para give a wholly false impression. Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Ignore the heat in my prev. I see the article goes on in much better vein, and I have marginally altered that sentence. Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on McCarthyism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Trump" titled section

The 'Trump' titled section does not belong in this article in it's current state as it purely sites opinion pieces from one political camp. McCarthyism has been tossed around against both sides of the political spectrum. It could be an interesting parallel to include only if the writer is neutral. RCharlutte (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. And the columnists quoted were not comparing Trump to McCarthyism, but to McCarthy. Ironically, the charge of McCarthyism was used in the election against Clinton supporters, for saying that Trump was an agent of the Kremlin and that the Russians had rigged the election. TFD (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no irony in this. The democratic party is ravenous for stories, regardless of truth, centered on Russian paranoia and propaganda that Russia has infiltrated our country. The parallel to McCarthyism is plainly apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:200:E1C6:802F:C379:7004:6C05 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@TFD Well said. McCarthyism has devolved into a word that communists use whenever they experience widespread criticism. The original meaning, i.e. Joe McCarthy's sometimes overzealous program to stop the spread of communism in the US, has been completely lost. (It is also seldom mentioned that Joe McCarthy's program was actually so mild and innocuous that it was completely unsuccessful.)77Mike77 (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Large sections completely unreferenced

There are whole paragraphs in this article, making what appear to be NPOV/original research, with no citations or references. I don't know what tag to give the entire article; I looked up unreferenced, but that requires an article that has 0 references, which is clearly not the case here.

Mercster (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If you think there is an NPOV issue or inaccurate information, then it would be more constructive to explain what problems you see rather than leave a tag and go on to the next article. TFD (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

List of blacklisted and effected persons

Any objections to pulling out the list of persons into a new article called List of Persons Persecuted During the McCarthy Era or something like this? I think it is long enough for a standalone list that can be linked to from this article. Seraphim System (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Without reference to whether or not a separate article is advisable, I suggest that you think very carefully about what its title should be. A ‘list of blacklisted and affected persons’ is NPOV. A ‘list of persons persecuted....’ means that you’d better be sure that those on the list were indeed persecuted, as opposed to being punished justifiably. The latter group may have been small, but you can be sure that the former group did not constitute 100%.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
If it is not NPOV should the list be in this article? It looks source, I did not check every citation to verify. I am open to suggestions on the title. Seraphim System (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not include Elia Kazan?

Subject line pretty much says it all, why not include Elia Kazan in the list of Victims of McCarthyism? Honestly, he is one of the first victims I became aware of. I was surprised to find he was not on the list. Could it be because his role in the affair was also somewhat convoluted and controversial?

Earlthenut (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's arguable if he was a victim, because he managed it so well. But I agree that inclusion needs to be determined by reliable sources, not us. Good point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a list at all because it's unclear who belongs on it and it could end up running into thousands of people. TFD (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the solution to his would be to use a dynamic list. User:Cool314 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Why was there no blacklist of films and why were no pro-'McCarthyist' films ever produced?

If McCarthyism was so bad (has the official historywriters want us to believe) how comes no McCarthyist films were ever produced or at least fingered-out has being so? The aforesaid needs to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.91.155 (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the website where you read this? TFD (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't the herein article neither bear a list of banned films nor list nor mention pro-McCarthyist films? If somehow there was never ever such a thing as pro-McCarthyist films, then the article needs to set out why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.91.155 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What belongs in the article is what reliable sources about the topic typically say, per "Balancing aspects." I imagine that a pro-McCarthy movie would be pretty boring. TFD (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few 'anti-Communist' films of the period, which could be considered 'pro-McCarthyist', are listed here. https://guides.lib.uw.edu/c.php?g=341346&p=2303736 There are government documentaries, but also features, so e.g.:- Conspirator (1949 film) starring Robert Taylor (actor) as the Commie baddie and Elizabeth Taylor in her first adult role, The Woman on Pier 13 aka I Married A Communist (1949) with Laraine Day and Robert Ryan, produced by Howard Hughes, The Red Menace (film) (1949), an RKO Pictures thriller with an unknown cast which 'had some effect on thinking at the time' according to Halliwell's Film Guide, The Red Danube (1949) with Ethel Barrymore and Walter Pidgeon, Communism (1950) and The Communist Weapon of Allure (1950 -- https://vimeo.com/19227661), both US Government 'documentaries', I Was a Communist for the FBI (1951) -- quite famous in the annals of bad films -- The Whip Hand (1951) with Raymond Burr -- 'Preposterous, pretentious anti-communist low-budgeter, mildly enjoyable for its sheer gall' according to Halliwell -- The Atomic City (1952) with Gene Barry, in which Communists kidnap a Los Alamos scientist's son and the FBI come to the rescue -- it's now forgotten, but Sydney Boehm's script got an Oscar nomination and Boehm went on to write The Big Heat (1953) for legendary director Fritz Lang -- Big Jim McLain (1952) with John Wayne as a tough special agent for HUAC rooting out Communists in Hawaii (yes, really), Diplomatic Courier (1952), actually quite a good Cold War thriller with Tyrone Power and Patricia Neal, Walk East on Beacon (1952), a good thriller about the FBI tracking Communist spies in Boston, My Son John (1952) with Helen Hayes, in which an American Catholic family is shamed by the elder son's exposure as a Communist, a film often cited as the low point of the Red-Scare cycle, Man on a Tightrope (1953) with Fredric March, directed by Elia Kazan, about a brave Czech circus owner trying to escape the Communists, Prisoner of War (film) (1954) with Ronald Reagan as a US intelligence officer going undercover in a North Korean PoW camp, Communist Blueprint for Conquest (1956), US Government documentary on Communist infiltration, Jet Pilot (film) (1957) with John Wayne as the American hero and, er, Janet Leigh as the defecting Soviet female fighter pilot who falls for him but turns out to be a spy -- another Howard Hughes production, released some years after filming and by all accounts dreadful, and Silk Stockings (1957 film), a Cole Porter musical remake of the 1939 anti-Communist classic Ninotchka, from the Broadway stage version, with Cyd Charisse in the Garbo role. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I dispute the premise of this article

It is wrong of the article to claim that "McCarthyism" means "the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence", because "McCarthyism" means something narrower than that. McCarthyism is specifically the particular instance of that practice that occurred in the U.S. in the 1950s. It is not a general name for the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.67.252 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can come back after you convince English dictionaries {[8], [9], [10], and [11]) to remove the broader meaning from their definitions. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, but in that case perhaps point out that in modern times, making the accusation of McCarthyism is itself an act of McCarthyism, it is an attempt to smear by labelling. Doesn't matter if you are correct in making the accusation, because many of the accused victims of the original McCarthy were, in fact, Communists, so the form fits perfectly 69.201.168.196 (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that being a Communist automatically makes one guilty of "disloyalty, subversion and treason"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"many of the accused victims of the original McCarthy were, in fact, Communists" Fascinating. Perhaps you'd care to tell us some of the names of principal Communists exposed by Senator McCarthy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Gustavo Duran, Harlow Shapley, and Philip and Mary Jane Keeney were four State Department employees named by McCarthy who turned out to have had Soviet connections. See Arthur Herman's Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, Chapter 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmartind (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You can't reason with communists about communism. The ironic thing is that this, "and characterized by heightened political repression as well as a campaign spreading fear of influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents," perfectly describes what the US mainstream media is doing these days with their campaign spreading fear that the Russians rigged the last US election. The current crackdown in Europe against the ill-defined term "Islamophobia" is a perfect example of McCarthyism, in the general sense, but communists would never never admit that, because it is only McCarthyism when communists are the target. Also, another rebuttal to JoeGoodFriend would be, "Name some people victimized by Joe McCarthy who were NOT communists."77Mike77 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are totally inappropriate and off base. Besides the claim is Russian interference in the 2016 election. See the page here that documents proof. McCarthyism does refer to a period of a practice more than a practice alone. This page should be corrected. Hugsruing (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe CIA should be mentioned somewhere

Currently, the article refers neither to "CIA" nor "Central Intelligence Agency", despite the fact that at the time they had been infiltrated by Soviet agents and intentionally fed McCarthy false information in order to discredit him. This seems a rather important oversight and may give the reader an inaccurate general impression of the whole episode. See this Skeptics StackExchange question for more information: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/48603/did-the-cia-feed-false-information-to-mccarthy-to-discredit-his-true-claims-that

Thoughts?

--Jayson Virissimo (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? TFD (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

McCarthy's file grew thick with allegations that "the CIA had unwittingly hired a large number of double agents--individuals who, although working for the CIA, were actually Communist agents whose mission was to plant inaccurate data," as his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, recounted. Unlike many of McCarthy's charges, this one was true. The agency could not withstand a whit of scrutiny on the issue, and Allen Dulles knew it...After his private confrontation with McCarthy, Dulles organized a team of CIA officers to penetrate the senator's office with a spy or a bug, preferably both. The methodology was just like J. Edgar Hoover's: gather dirt, and then spread it. Dulles instructed James Angleton, his counterintelligence czar, to find a way to feed disinformation to McCarthy and his staff as a means of discrediting him. Angleton convinced James McCarger--the officer who had been one of Wisner's first hires--to plant phony reports on a known member of the McCarthy underground at the CIA. McCarger succeeded: the CIA penetrated the Senate.

— Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Tim Weiner, in Legacy of Ashes

During the McCarthy-CIA fight, Dulles organized a group to keep tabs on McCarthy's activities and to feed the senator disinformation. James Angleton and James McCargar, who by this time was out of government, were lunching one day, when Angleton mentioned that he knew of the other's work with the Pond in Hungary. Angleton described his concerns about Grombach and asked McCargar to meet with Grombach from time to time and report back. But Angleton wanted something more. He arranged to provide McCargar with false information, supposedly acquired in France, which would appear derogatory to CIA. Angleton hoped Grombach would pass the materials to McCarthy, who would use them. They could then be discredited, embarrassing the senator and hopefully throwing him off the CIA. In order to provide a pretext for giving this information to Grombach, McCargar was to hint that he wanted back in the intelligence game.

— Mark Stout, former Directorate of Intelligence in CIA, in CIA's own academic journal, Studies in Intelligence
In addition, the wikipedia page on Allen Dulles already includes some of this information. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles#CIA_career. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe we would need multiple high-quality sources for such an inclusion per WP:REDFLAG, and I'm not convinced the above suffices. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If Legacy of Ashes, which won the National Book Award for Nonfiction in 2007, isn't a high-quality source, perhaps we should bring that up on the talk page for Allen Dulles, since it cites the same work regarding the same series of events. Also, I'm not clear on if you're saying that cia.gov isn't a high-quality source or that we simply need more high-quality sources of that type? Clarifying that would help with next steps. Thanks. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
So, the current intro quotes from Kessler's 2002 book saying "the problem was that McCarthy lied about his information and figures. He made charges against people that weren't true.", but that was written before CIA affirmed the existence of a deliberate attempt to discredit McCarthy, which makes it seems like he was wrong about at least some of those cases not because he lied, but because he trusted misinformation given him by CIA. IMO, that whole paragraph should be re-worked given the info released after that book was published. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it definitely seems to need reworking. MugaSofer (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Added a little snippet here to get started. Feedback is welcome. Jayson Virissimo (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthyism

US Representative Kevin McCarthy from California has served as the Republican leader of the House since 2014. Have any reliable sources extended the term "McCarthyism" to cover Kevin McCarthy's views and/or behavior? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What's going on with the reference section?

The layout of the references section looks kinda wonky. Is this intentional? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"McCarrenism"

Is it really right to suggest the above as as a co-equal tem? Apparently one major historian feels this way. It's "McCarthyism" because McCarthy was the television face of it just as television was becoming the main national media force, and he was the recipient of Edward R. Murrow's televised dismantling of it and Joseph Welch's "Have you no decency, sir?]] on live television. It's "McCarthyism", not McCarrenism. Few people even remember who McCarren was, although he was a leading figure in his time. 2600:1004:B14E:B8EB:0:48:2460:6F01 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The difference in frequency of usage between the two terms is so vast that the comparison of the two is near comical. See for example: Google Ngram results, word-sensitive searches for McCarthyism (1.4 million results) and McCarranism (1,500 results). Yue🌙 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
See my earlier comment in the earlier thread. Kutler and others are among the leading authorities on the political history of 20th century United States. University lectures and syllabi, and scholarly articles, are not appearing in that NGram original research into the term's use. McCarran's legislative efforts in pursuit of communists, socialists, and other subversives remain the law of the land in the United States. [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran_Internal_Security_Act and in the US Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-23/subchapter-I] McCarthy's efforts were comparatively different, given that McCarran had a much wider control over nearly a majority of legislation in the US Senate at the time, and McCarran's investigations followed similar practices as McCarthy's, and McCarran kept going while McCarthy was stopped. Furthermore, civil libertarians and political left activists described McCarranism as the next phase of McCarthyism in the 1960s. See, for example, Willard Edwin Uphaus, "Voices for Liberty: Stop McCarranism. Today's McCarthyism. Speeches Made at [the] Liberty Rally" (1963). Lastly, we might look at the changes in the use of the word "gender" in the last decade as a sign that terms evolve over time. I am restoring just that text.
Neptune1969 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence, "McCarthyism is the practice of exposing subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism", is decidedly at odds with the definitions provided in most reliable sources; see Merriam-Webster, for instance, which says "a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges" [12]. Other definitions are similar; [13], [14], [15], [16]. Some amendment seems to be in order, and I look forward to hearing thoughts from talk-page watchers. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I know this is old, and has been slightly modified to is the practice of making accusations , but this remains a terrible opening line. Think we need some non-dictionary references though, but the definition we have is odd. nableezy - 01:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The more that I research and teach in this space, I wonder how much the focus on "McCarthy" misrepresents this era and area. I noticed that Las Vegas recently removed Pat McCarran's name from the airport there, noting his abysmal record in this period and the lasting legacy of the legislative efforts he undertook. I see an effort by historians and the public generally to reckon with what all he did while in power. His actions still affect us today, through various security laws and regulations, though McCarthy's legislative record is pretty minimal by comparison. I wonder if it might make more sense to refer to this as the McCarthy-McCarran Era, and "McCarthy/McCarranism," to emphasize just how much McCarran's influence has been overshadowed and how much we should not forget his antisemitic, racist, and aggressively power-seeking role in this. Look at how much Woodrow Wilson's reputation has shifted in the last half-generation as we've asked different questions. Most of my students have heard of McCarthy, but never of McCarran, and yet McCarran had the greater power and influence. Something to wrangle with, I suppose.Neptune1969 (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm putting this in here as a response to my own observation, rather than blow it out into a new discussion point. I have added sentences at the end of the opening paragraph that note alternate terms (Hooverism and McCarranism) and cited several historians and legal scholars where they have suggested that the term shift would be appropriate. Having looked through these reputable secondary sources, I'm increasingly of the view that yes, there would be value in incorporating the term shift more into this article. McCarran's legislative impact continues to be here, and it stems from the concerns at the time about "subversion and treason," while McCarthy's impact is clearly much less than McCarran's. Neptune1969 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In every other context I've ever seen, McCarthyism by definition means making baseless accusations. Nobody cites the Rosenberg prosecution as "McCarthyism", because the Rosenbergs were actually guilty. It's only McCarthyism if your accusations are speculative, baseless, overblown or knowingly false. I'm changing the opening line. Sonicsuns (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Did McCarthy ever present a list of alleged Communists?

As of 2022-10-17 the third paragraph included, "In a speech in February 1950, McCarthy presented a list of alleged members of the Communist Party USA working in the State Department".

Did McCarthy ever PRESENT a list to anyone?

I believe he merely claimed to have such a list without ever presenting such. He occasionally named a few names and may have waved some paper claiming to have such a list. I am NOT an expert on this period and could easily be wrong.

However, I am changing "presented" to "claimed to have" in that place. If he actually "presented" such a list, please state to whom he presented said list and provide a reference. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course he never showed anyone a list. TFD (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Circular?

The sentence (the term) has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s appears to be circular since "Second Red Scare" is essentially a synonym for McCarthyism. Volunteer Marek 07:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Second Red Scare (1947–1957) vs. McCarthyism ?

There exists McCarthyism and section Second Red Scare (1947–1957) in Red Scare. Are the both terms synonims or there exists a difference between them? Both texts quote different sources, perhaps some integration is needed? Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

American anti-communist propaganda of the 1950s, specifically addressing the entertainment industry

The picture suggests close connection between the McCarthyism and the leaflet, is it true? Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McCarthyism/Archive_3&oldid=1252033988"