Talk:Annie Lee Moss

Case against Moss
In the section entitled "Case against Moss," several "sources" are presented as supposed historical support for the claim that Moss was a "communist operative." Two of those supposed sources, "Accuracy in Media" and Ann Coulter, are well known for having political agendas and their neutrality is extremely questionable. Their neutrality is not questioned because the author of this criticism has political opinions that are different from the other forementioned authors. It would not matter whether the sources of the purported historical information were politically "conservative" or "liberal" in regard to their respective opinions; the fact is that they are well known for being politically motivated and therefore are not good sources to support claims of objectivity. Historically, very little evidence was ever discovered that actually impeached Moss, and what was presented was based solely on uncorroborated hearsay (not to mention the fact that she was forced to defend a constitutionally protected activity). The authenticity of the supposed list of Communist Party members was very much in question and could never be verified by the accusers. To cite persons like Ann Coulter, a person well known for her very extreme political opinions, as supposed historical support only casts more doubt on the veracity of the claims. If sources are to be alleged, they should adhere as much to the actual historical record as possible without regard to their own personal opinions. Lottamiata 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice you have 4 scare quotes in your writing? There is no place in the article that I say she was a "communist operative". I only supply the evidence from the testimony that she was a member of the Communist Party. It was based on her name and address appearing on a list of those attending a meeting where an FBI informant had access to that list. She also received a communist magazine at her house. Its a big leap to go from attending a Communist meeting and reading a communist magazine to being a "communist operative". I saw the movie Good Night and Good Luck and did research on her expecting to find evidence that she wasn't a member. I was suprised by the lack of evidence. If you know of any sourced material write it up and reference it. I even went through the 1930 census and the 1940 telephone directories to see if there were other people named "Annie Moss" in the area. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading Mr. Norton's comments and I thank him for them, but I am still not convinced of the article's neutrality. I am perplexed as to precisely how one proves that someone is "not" a communist. This is the logical problem of "proving a negative." That is why the accuser should have the burden of proof, not the accused. So, instead of "looking for evidence to prove she was not a communist" (which is logically impossible), one should be looking for evidence to prove that Moss actually was a communist. This is why I am so skeptical of the cited "sources."

The "Subversive Activities Control Board" is a bona fide "source." Even if one disagrees with their methods or opinions, they are a proper historical source because they were first-hand percipient witnesses or participants in the underlying historical event. However, the other two "sources," Accuracy in Media and Ann Coulter discredit the objectivity of the historical recounting because they are highly partisan and were not contemporary to the events.

Whether "liberal" or "conservative," the opinions of political commentators should only be injected into historical research where their comments were contemporary to the events and therefore part of the history of the subject. Otherwise, commentators used to support a particular historical analysis should be limited to historical commentators whose opinions are not particularly activist in nature.

For an example on the left-wing end of the political spectrum, I would not use something that Noam Chomsky wrote as a historical citation for a supportive view of the redistributive economic policies of the New Deal (Great Depression Era United States History), even if Mr. Chomsky approved of that policy (and I am not sure he did, I am merely trying to concoct an example to show that this is not about whether one is on the right end or the left end of the political spectrum but is instead purely about credibility in the writing of history). Chomsky is well-known for his activist opinions on the political left, but he was not a contemporary commentator of the New Deal era and therefore is not a proper historical source. Lottamiata 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased towards Moss. It has been definitively proven in M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" that Moss was a Soviet agent. Whittakerchambers (talk)

Case for Moss
This section reads like it was an argument between two sides. They style is poor and uncyclopedic. I propose that the for and against Moss be synthesised into one coherent section--Ernstk 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The two sections are ridiculously lopsided. Somebody's gone in and added parenthetical responses to everything in the "case for Moss" section, while the assertions in the "case against Moss" section are allowed to stand on their own. This, combined with citing people like Ann Coulter rather than peer-reviewed historians, is a perfect example of why Wikipedia gets the bad rap it does on historical articles such as this. --Spyder130 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Later life
Sorry if I stick this in the wrong place- I'm a total newb. Just curious- does anyone know what happened to Ms Moss after the hearings? Did she lose her job? Was she able to redeem her reputation during her lifetime? i would think this sort of information would make a valuable contribution to the article if anyone knows how to locate it.

Proving a negative
I want to thank Lottamiata for his insight with regards as to how one 'proves' or disproves that your not a communist. I entirely agree with his comments that it is up to the accuser to give proof in order to acertain the facts in the case and the witness - in this case Ms. Moss, should have had the ability to cross examine any witnesses the senators brought forth. The problem lies not in the theory but in the practice. The 'control board' seems entirely morally equal with his later example of Noam Chomsky in that - at least according to him. Mr. Chomsky is "well known for his activist opinions". Respect where it is due there is a serious factor in the left/question of what happened to Moss, if one is going to use the example or Chomsky for the supposed left, and thereby brining into doubt the position held by what some call the left. Its equally valid to paint with the sme brush the actions of Mcarthy and all of thier hearing and thier veracity because of Mcarty's activism.

DRCarroll 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Conservative media watchdog organization, Accuracy in Media, wrote: "[The] Subversive Activities Control Board presented solid evidence that Markward's testimony was true and that the Annie Lee Moss who appeared before the McCarthy committee was in fact a member of the Communist Party." [2]"

Solid evidence? Perhaps a change to simply "evidence" or "purported evidence" would be more objective.

I concur that Lottamiata has a valid point. The material offered by AIM and A. Coulter is opinion, not data. Articles such as this should exclude opinions and focus on the facts. RalphS 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the AIM paragraph as repetitive and current opinion. Elemming 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about trying to write about the truth, its a compilation of verifiable information from primary through tertiary sources. Truth is for philosophers, not encyclopediasts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Mark LaRochelle
RedSpruce just reverted a great deal of work, with his only explanation, "Evans is not a reliable source." Unless he can substantiate that, I recommend that his reversion be reverted.Mark LaRochelle 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits you added were quotes from HumanEvents.com; an openly right-wing website. The source author of of most of your added material was M. Stanton Evens, an avowedly extremist right winger who frequently writes for the John Birch Society. These are extremist sources, and as such aren't suitable as references. Their views do not reflect the consensus views of scholars in the field, nor even the views of a significant minority of scholars. See the WP policies discussed in WP:Reliable sources and WP:Neutral point of view. RedSpruce 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.HumanEvents.com is the website of Human Events, a national conservative weekly founded in 1944 by, among others, Washington Post editor Felix Morley (in which the articles cited appeared). If appearing in Human Events is enough to get one banned as a source from Wikipedia, we need to ban Morley and Novak too, and if such sources taint the outlets in which they appear, we need to ban the Post.


 * Human Events is not "openly right-wing"; it is, however, openly "conservative." (President Reagan called it his "favorite newspaper," and he was elected and re-elected by substantial majorities, which speaks to "consensus.") If being conservative is enough to get a publication banned from being used a Wikipedia source (on verifiable matters of fact, not opinion), we need to ban the National Review, American Spectator, Weekly Standard, etc.; moreover if we are to follow NPOV, we must likewise ban publications that are "liberal," such as The Nation, Counterpunch, Public Eye, etc.; not to mention publications that are "libertarian," "Marxist," "socialist," etc.


 * Can you substantiate that M. Stanton Evans is "an avowedly extremist right-winger"? Where has he "avowed" this? He is chair of print journalism at the Hall School of Journalism at Troy University, former editor of the Indianapolis News, columnist for the Los Angles Times Syndicate, and commentator for CBS, NPR, and the Voice of America. Syracuse University School of Law honored him for his writing with an Honorary Doctor of Laws. Doesn't sound too extremist to me.


 * Can you substantiate that Evans "frequently writes for the John Birch Society"?


 * Instead of substantiating your initial charges, you have upped the ante by making more unsubstantiated charges. Isn't that "McCarthyism"? Until you can substantiate these charges, I propose that your reversion of Evans, Ryskind, etc., be nullified. Mark LaRochelle 11:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources you used are extremist and therefore unsuitable. They are as unsuitable as it would be, for example, to use publications from the American Communist party as sources.
 * It appears to me that essentially all the material you added with these inappropriate references is now in the article with references to valid and appropriate sources. So the only issue would appear to be one of general principals. You might want to take up that discussion on the Talk page of WP:Reliable sources, or, if you look through the history you might find that it's already been discussed. If you find anything that contradicts what I've said above, I'll be most interested to hear it. RedSpruce 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked over this talk page to try and find any meat to the charge that Human Events is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. I have not found it. I do not think that an ideological editorial slant is in itself disqualifying else how could the New York Times be a reliable source? If we're going to go on that line, we might as well just stick to CSPAN for our politics links and that seems a bit... impractical. So what evidence do you have to knock out Human Events? Or is it you just think that conservatives have ideological cooties and are excluded a priori? You might have a real case here but you certainly haven't made it yet. Can you do so without painting such a broad brush that wide swaths of mainstream journals are not also caught up in your definition? TMLutas 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking into it, I see that I was mistaken in saying that M. Stanton Evans has written frequently for the John Birch Society; my apologies for that. Anyway, the bottom line is that you used sources with an openly displayed agenda and an obvious absence of any attempt at objectivity or neutrality. Such sources are appropriate only to document viewpoints, as in "some noted conservatives have said 'xxxx'." To document facts, sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (quoting WP:RS) are required. RedSpruce 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Openly displayed agenda" is not a criteria for exclusion of a source. In fact the words "agenda" and "bias" do not currently appear in the WP:RS guideline at least according to Firefox's text search. If this is all you have, aren't you guilty of just handwaving at the rules? TMLutas 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An overt and extreme ideological agenda precludes any "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I consider this axiomatic and obvious. By pretending to ignore this obvious fact, aren't you guilty of sophistry? Anyway, like I said above, you might want to discuss this on the Talk page to WP:RS. RedSpruce 14:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another interesting forum for discussion and source of past discussions is Reliable sources/Noticeboard. RedSpruce 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have made multiple charges, one of which you have yet to substantiate (Human events is extreme), one of which you have been compelled to withdraw. You have also not demonstrated that ideological bias automatically means that a publication is not truthful on any point nor that ideological bias precludes having fact checkers or being accurate, something you really ought to do before tossing around such wild charges. Human Events is very well respected by a lot of people, not just fringers (unless you count Ronald Reagan as fringe at which point I think you are the one that might have bias issues). I might consider it axiomatic and obvious that you're violating the wikipedia rules but that does not relieve me of the obligation of pointing out the errors and demonstrating why they are violations of the rules. You have a similar burden. I'm not *actually* going after you, I was making an example of how nasty evidence free charges could become and how unworkable the resulting wikipedia community would be. Can we not go there? TMLutas 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where "there" is, but your comment does an excellent job of not going anywhere, so we're jake on that count. RedSpruce 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How's this, you engaged in libel (though not the actionable kind) of Mr. M Stanton Evans and Human Events. You withdrew your charge against Mr. Evans but you insist on charging Human Events with extremism without bothering to present evidence. That's out of bounds. Human Events is a legitimate reliable source within its area of competence. It's not legitimate to knock out edits based just on the source being Human Events. You need to go case by case and actually demonstrate that a particular point supported by Human Events is no good. TMLutas 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Only Evidence
I don't see where the 1999 WaPo article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/2000/markward070599.htm) cited as the source of the statement that Markward's testimony was the only evidence presented of Moss' CP membership actually supports the statement. Am I missing something? Mark LaRochelle 07:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where Oshinsky p. 403 supports the contention that the CP membership list was "compiled by an FBI informer." Can anyone defend this? Mark LaRochelle 06:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From the footnote on page 403:
 * The list may have been accurate, although the ones compiled by FBI informers like Mrs. Markward were often wildly inflated.


 * On page 382 of Oshinsky:
 * The charges against her were difficult to assess. They rested entirely on the word of one Mary Stalcup Markward, a beautician-turned-FBI-informer who had infiltrated the Communist Party...


 * Also on page 382, Joseph McCarthy is quoted referring to Markward as "a full-fledged FBI agent ... and not an informer" but I didn't see anything confirming that, and McCarthy wasn't exactly noted for scrupulous accuracy. (I presume the distinction would be that Markward as an "agent" would have been a trained FBI agent who infiltrated the CP under the instruction of her FBI superiors; an informer would be someone who joined the CP, and decided to inform on them, under her own initiative.)
 * RedSpruce 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see in the article linked above that the truth was somewhere between agent and informer as I defined the two: She wasn't a trained agent, but was recruited by the FBI to infiltrate the party, and was paid a small amount by the FBI. RedSpruce 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RedSpruce. Excellent replies. We should use Oshinsky instead of WaPo as the source of the "only evidence" statement. Also, I know that Oshinsky says that lists compiled by "informers" are unreliable; my question is: Does he (or anyone else) actually say that the list the SACB said corroborated Markward was in fact compiled by an informant? Mark LaRochelle 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Oshinsky mentions the SACB list. I didn't see anything in a quick Amazon search inside search. What I want to know is how you got a copy of M. Stanton Evens' McCarthy biography, and can you get one for me? I'm Mr. Evens' biggest fan, honest! RedSpruce 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, just post your credit card info here. Mark LaRochelle 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Article format
I think this article is due for a rewrite. The "case for"/"case against" format may have been okay when the article was much shorter, but I think it no longer works. It should probably be replaced with a chronological account of the various accusations, hearings, revelations of evidence, and notable writings about the Moss case. It looks like the Andrea Friedman article may something of a "last word" on the case, so anyone interested in undertaking this rewrite should pony up the $10.00 for that. Don't look at me, though; I'm willing to offer comments, but at the moment I'm not interested in embarking on such a project myself. RedSpruce 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I've completely rewritten the article. It now focusses on the aspect of the Moss case that most books that cover the case focus on: the damage it did to Joseph McCarthy. Although this version doesn't spend as much space on the question of Moss's guilt, it covers the evidence quite thoroughly. According to my research, this version presents the likelihood that Moss was in fact a member of the communist party in terms that reflect the opinion currently held by most scholars who have studied the case. RedSpruce (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pointless
Calling New York Times references pointless is not Wikipedia policy for removing them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The material I removed was, in my opinion, a pointless addition to the article. It consisted of the following:
 * A footnote to the introduction of the article, which included a lengthy quotation from the source (a source that's available onilne, making the quotation doubly pointless) beginning "Mary Stalcup Markward appeared nervous as she made her way into the cramped hearing room on the morning of July 11, 1951...". The purpose of footnotes is to document and clarify article text. The sentence being footnoted here required no documentation, since it makes no statement that isn't covered in detail later in the article. And the citation clarified nothing in that part of the article, but rather gives background information on Mary Markward. I consider this article about Markward interesting, which is why I kept a link to it in the "external links" section, but it served no purpose as a footnote citation to the introduction to the article.
 * Another two footnotes attached to the sentence "...she testified that she had seen Annie Lee Moss's name and address on the Communist Party’s membership rolls in 1944." These footnotes simply repeat information that is elsewhere in the article, and they don't directly apply to the sentence to which they were attached.
 * Another footnote attached to the sentence "Moss immediately agreed, saying there were three women named 'Annie Lee Moss's in Washington D.C." In this case the additional footnote at least pertains to the sentence it's attached to, but it is completely redundant, as the sentence already had a footnote documenting the same thing.


 * I'm happy to see additions made to this article, but they should be meaningful additions. Unless I'm missing something, none of your additions met that criterion. RedSpruce (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again I disagree, you are just removing my contemporary references, and inserting in your references. There is no need to delete one to have the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fine for you to disagree. Now please explain the reasoning behind your disagreement. Respond to the points I raised above and explain to me what I'm missing and how your edits add value and are appropriate. If you can't explain and justify your edits then you're just doing mindless reverts. RedSpruce (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You could comment intelligently if you have read the actual sources. I don't delete yours, because I have not read the books. "Mindless reverts" is what could be called your changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You aren't understanding my point. This is isn't about sources, it's about what makes sense as a footnote. As I pointed out above, your footnotes do not make sense. They don't add information to the text they're attached to; they don't add useful information to the article. They are just annoying distractions for a reader. The "best" off them, as I explained above, is simply unnecessary. The worst are badly written, confusing, and stuck in at a place that makes no sense at all.
 * I have read your sources, and unlike you, I am explaining the reasoning behind my edits. You are not doing that. It appears that English is not your first language, so I understand that this may be difficult for you. I ask you to please make the effort to understand what I'm saying, and to respond to what I am saying if you have any response. If you want me to make something clearer, please let me know and I'll try to do that. If you really can't understand what I'm saying about my edits,  or if you can't explain your own edits, then you shouldn't be editing here. RedSpruce (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have read my sources, since it requires a paid subscription to the New York Times. I want to assume good faith, but it appears you are just removing my references and replacing them with yours instead of having them coexist side-by-side. You will notice, that I don't remove your references. All my changes include additional information to resolve questions you have, and aren't reversions. You are the one reverting to your copy, whereas my changes are to address your concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, this isn't about sources. Once again, please, please, please, try to read what I've written. I am saying that your footnotes don't make any sense. You keep typing in text, but don't address the fact that YOUR FOOTNOTES DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE. You have not "included additional information to resolve questions I have", you have simply made meaningless changes to meaningless footnotes.
 * Let's try taking one thing at a time, and start with something simple: In your first footnote, in addition to the link, you include this quote: ""Mary Stalcup Markward appeared nervous as she made her way into the cramped hearing room on the morning of July 11, 1951. ...""
 * Please try to explain to me why that quote is included. It has nothing to do with the part of the article that has the footnote. It has nothing to do with ANY part of the article. It explains or clarifies nothing for the reader. So can you explain that one little part of one of your edits to me? Then we can move on to other edits.
 * Thanks RedSpruce (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, and assuming that you read the coverage in the Washington Post. Despite what you say, I don't think you have read the New York Times coverage since it requires a paid subscription. Your argument appears to be that you don't approve of including the lede of the article in the quote parameter, and your way of resolving it appears to be to remove all my references in the article, and replace them with your references. This Mary Stalcup Markward reference is a perfect example. Its an extensive article on Mary Stalcup Markward from the Washington Post, and has text that you can very easily read to verify that Mary Stalcup Markward testified and what she said in her testimony on Moss. Your references are in a book, whereas this reference is available online and available to all. My solution: have both references side by side, I have never deleted your references. Your solution, is to delete EVERY reference I have added that competes with yours. God bless your references, just don't delete what you see as competition to you owning the article, I am not trying to own the article, or make threats like the one you left on my page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert reply
Outside view via Wikiquette alerts: the moot point here is reference format. I agree with RedSpruce that these verbose references, with article lead sentences, are inappropriate. They'd be fine in a scholarly biographical paper, but they aren't used in comparable general-readership biographical works such as the ODNB (and are in minority usage here on Wikipedia). If the precise text of a quote is crucial, it's important enough to go verbatim in the article; otherwise it's quite sufficient to know where verification can be found. I also agree that lead sentences are especially distracting when they're irrelevant (i.e not verifying the fact referenced). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits
Once again, I call upon you to abide by Wikipedia rules by discussing your disputed edits. I'll start here with a two simple, related questions: Why are you using this reference, which is an article about Mary Markward, in a part of the Moss article that contains no mention of Mawkward? Why are you using this source as a reference in the introduction to an article about Annie Lee Moss, when the source includes no mention of Annie Lee Moss? RedSpruce (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see you've moved the reference to an appropriate place; that's an improvement.


 * Next question: Why do you add this footnote:
 * The 1930 United States Census for Washington, D.C., lists an "Annie K. Moss" born in 1891, wife of Otto Moss. There is also an "Anna M. Moss (1909-2006) of Connecticut Avenue" born in 1909, wife of Benjamin Moss.
 * When this footnote:
 * Although Washington city directories from the time list several women with names similar to Moss's, they show only one "Annie Lee Moss".
 * is already there? Your footnote adds nothing and documents nothing relevant. The (near-illegible) census image you link to in particular is pointless and useless. The fact that there were women with names similar to "Annie Lee Moss" is not the issue and does not need a reference. The more important point is that there were no women in the area with exactly that name. The footnote you added does nothing to confirm this point; it only confirms the irrelevant point that there were similar names in the area. RedSpruce (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are reading the article as if it was written just to please you, and what you know and don't know about her. Every person that reads the article is there for their own reason. I cant tell you why someone would want to know that the other Annie Moss was "Anna M. Moss (1909-2006)", any more than I can tell you why someone would want to read any particular article in Wikipedia. Unlike you, I can't predict what is important to every reader that comes to the article, now and in the future. I am not omniscient. It is a gift you have that I don't have. To me, it appears that you like your references, you don't like other peoples references in articles you edit. My solution is to have the references side by side where they coincide, you just delete ones you don't like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to have you back, RAN. I am not "reading the article as if it was written just to please me", I am applying some rules of common sense about what needs documenting. Some person might read the article and say "hey, wait a minute, how do I know that there's really any such place as 'Washington D.C.'"? But luckily, by applying common sense, we don't have to worry about readers like that, and we don't need to document that Washington D.C is a real place. If a reader is placing some great importance on whether or not there were women in the Washington area with names similar to 'Annie Lee Moss', then that person, like you, isn't understanding that part of the article; they're being distracted by a peripheral point. If you can explain to me the common-sense reason for this peripheral point to be doubly documented, then I'll withdraw my objection, and we can move on to the next point. RedSpruce (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two flaws in this argument: 1) There is no such thing as "common sense" there is just what you know, and what others know. I am assuming by "commons sense" you mean common knowledge that, say, 95% of people tested would know. To presume what you know is what everyone should know is just personal bias. 2) I am not sure if you meant "Washington D.C." as a reductio ad absurdum, or just a poor example. If I added a reference to "The USA capital is in Washington, DC", that would be redundant to the article, they can just click on the link. If I added a reference to "Person X was born in Washington, DC", I don't see how that is some shared universal bit of information. Since each of the facts I added to the article were unknown to me before my research, I cant see how you can assume they are part of the collective unconscious. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also noticed that you change whatever formatting I have added to my responses. I would prefer you stop doing that and let me decide how I want my thoughts to be presented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For clarity's sake and out of common courtesy, you should indent your comments in the standard manner. I won't press that issue, however.
 * I didn't mean "common knowledge", I meant "common sense", but I can see how the example of Washington D.C. would lead to the wrong conclusion. I meant that there are common sense rules about what needs documenting in an article and what doesn't. Significant points, if there's any likelihood that they'll be challenged, should be documented. Insignificant points don't need to be documented. If one understands this passage of the article, then common sense tells one that the fact that there were no women with the exact name 'Annie Lee Moss' is significant (or to put it another way, it would be very significant if there were such women. The fact that there were women with similar names is less significant; it certainly warrants mention, but documenting that fact alone with a more prominent footnote than the first point is wrong. It makes the article look as if the person who wrote that part didn't understand the meaning of the passage being footnoted, or alternatively, makes the reader think that there's some special significance to a point that isn't significant. RedSpruce (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: Hello guys, I'm back. I would like to just start by saying that I am not trying to follow you around, but rather, I am a regular RfC responder and just happened to comment on this issue too.  On to commenting: Since someone reading this article who comes with knowledge that there were several Annie Mosses born in that decade may benefit from a clarification that there is only record of one Annie Moss with the middle name Lee.  So that footnote is actually helpful.  However, listing all the other ones that aren't her (1) is redundant, since it will lead the reader back to the conclusion that has already been established (and referenced) and (2) clogs up the article.  It's difficult enough trying to trim articles down to the most pertinent information that actually is about the person.  Adding in extraneous records of people with the same name of the person is a bit much, especially since this is an extremely minor point. Secondary note: Richard Arthur Norton, while not enforced, talk page conventions are conventions for a reason.  Following them will make your own comments clearer and more productive.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Independent RfC comment: besides the fact that listing all of the Annie Moss' is not that helpful, isn't this citation to the 1930 census original research or synthesis? Has another source previously done this kind of analysis? If not, we should just leave it out. Otherwise, I entirely agree with Esprit15d above. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't judge what is helpful for every reader of the article, I am not prescient or omniscient. I only know what is helpful for me, and you know what is helpful for you. It was the very first question I asked myself when I first heard of her testimony. Who are the other people named "Ann Moss". I am sure I am not alone. The adjacent reference also touches that same subject. If one reference is good, two are better. It was important enough that her testimony hinged on this very fact. So who exactly were the other people named "Ann Moss" in DC. It is as valid now as it was then. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not OR, its a primary source. I don't believe its synthesis, I am not trying to "advance a position". The primary source is there for everyone to judge, just like I do when I see if something comes from the New York Times or a source I trust less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there doesn't seem to be an issue of original research here. However RAN, suggesting that you need prescience or omniscience to decide what belongs in article doesn't makes sense. This suggests that there are simply no rules of logic or common sense that govern what should go into an article. An encyclopedia article is a rational construction, and as with all such constructions there are rules of logic and common sense governing its construction. Your footnote is off-topic and misses the point of the text being footnoted. Her testimony did not hinge on the fact that there existed people with names similar to hers. Rather it hinged on her statement that there were "three Annie Lee Moss's" in Washington DC. Your footnote goes off on a tangent from that point, neither confirming nor refuting it. RedSpruce (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is well said. The reason I confused it with a SYN problem is that it grabs more tangent background than existing sources suggest are useful. That's why I otherwise agree with Esprit15d's comment above. Cool Hand Luke 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a primary source, and its in a footnote. Its certainly verifiable. If it was mentioned by secondary and tertiary sources, I would have placed it in the article text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * RAN, those points are correct. And they're irrelevant to the major issues that have been raised here by three other editors. Could you perhaps either address those issues, or agree to the removal of this footnote? RedSpruce (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually agree with RAN on his detailed footnotes but see this one as excessive although I appreciate the painstaking research. I agree that this footnote should be removed.  I would reformat the article so that the refs and notes are separated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Card number"
Since there's a clear consensus on the above issue now, I'd like to consider one more minor point before asking for the page to be unprotected. In the following excerpt, RAN's edit is in italics:


 * In February 1954, Markward testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Although she could not identify Moss personally, she testified that she had seen Annie Lee Moss's name and address on the Communist Party’s membership rolls in 1944. She was charged with being card number 37269 in the American Communist Party, saying she was issued the card in 1943.
 * With the following footnote:
 * I propose removing the sentence from the article, but keeping the footnote. The sentence is jumbled in several ways, with "She" appearing to refer to Markward rather than Moss, and the verb "saying" having no apparent subject at all. The only information in this sentence is the number of Moss's reputed Communist membership card, and I argue that this is rather trivial and irrelevant. One isn't "charged with being [a] card number"; one is simply charged with being a Communist. Comments, anyone? RedSpruce (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for doing a RFC on such a trivial edit, but my experience with Richard Arthur Norton has been that he edit-wars over any deletion of content he has added without engaging in meaningful discussion. So I'd like to have a clear consensus on this edit before asking for the page to be unprotected.
 * I see no problem with the other RAN edits shown in this dif BTW, and would like to see them restored after the page is unprotected. RedSpruce (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is unprotected, so feel free to restore those edits.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is unprotected, so feel free to restore those edits.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First RfC comment: You're right, this is extremely minor. But, while I'm here, it seems removable to me for the reasons you've enumerated.  Side point: Assume good faith RedSpruce.  If RAN hasn't fought the point yet, don't invite him in the ring.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to comment, Esprit15d. Side point: In the future, you might try assuming good faith yourself; i.e. assume that I'm being truthful when I describe my past experience with an editor. in my experience, RAN has fought every edit that involves removal of something that he's added, and he has almost invariably done so without engaging in meaningful discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to cause offense.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image caption
The caption is incorrect. "McCarthy left the hearing room shortly after Moss's testimony began, leaving his chief counsel Roy Cohn to handle the rest of the questioning." according to a reference website called Wikipedia that I came across. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, RAN. However, as you might have noticed from my edit summary comments, my objection to your change to the caption is that you added "...and her attorney George Edward Chalmers Hayes", and that's rather silly, since all you can see of Hayes is his nose and forehead. So a correct caption would be "Annie Lee Moss testifying before the McCarthy committee on March 12, 1954." Do you agree with that?
 * RedSpruce (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not add "...and her attorney George Edward Chalmers Hayes (obscured, to her right)". He is in the picture, he's just harder to make out. Alternatively, why not "...and the nose and forehead of her attorney George Edward Chalmers Hayes." Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't the George Edward Chalmers Hayes article. If it was, and if that was the best picture of him one could find, then your first suggestion would make sense. Since this is the Annie Lee Moss article, and since Hayes isn't a hugely notable person. it doesn't make sense to mention him. It just makes the article look amateurish and silly. It makes about as much sense as putting "... and some unidentified blobs, one of which may be a piece of paper" in the caption. RedSpruce (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular blob is her attorney, and there is no issue whatsoever with including it. This blob is a rather well-defined individual, George Edward Chalmer Hayes, a notable individual with quite more than a nose and forehead present. As he is directly relevant to the subject, whose notability relates to her being called to testify by McCarthy, he should be mentioned here in this article. You have offered no valid reason why he can't be listed, let alone shouldn't be. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you completely, and you offer less in support of your opinion than I did of mine, but at least you manage to give an opinion, and I commend you for that. It's unfortunate that that skill is beyond the capabilities of Richard Arthur Norton. RedSpruce (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to caption the photo something like .."with her attorney...", and then give the name of the attorney in the text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd consider that an improvement. The problem with the caption is that it's currently saying "this is a picture of Moss and Hayes", when in fact it's a worthless and lame and stupid excuse for a picture of Hayes. So the less text drawing the reader's attention the Hayes aspect of the picture, the better. RedSpruce (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard Arthur Norton, what do you think of the proposal I posted above? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will_Beback, since you posted that question, RAN has made 35 Wikipedia edits. I notified him of your question on his talk page 30 edits ago. This is RAN's pattern: He considers it his right to revert articles to his preferred version without participating in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The individual is not just an attorney, but an individual deemed notable. If you are saying "with her attorney", just add "George Edward Chalmer Hayes" and we have full agreement here. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another pattern with Richard Arthur Norton is that occasionally Alansohn steps in to speak, or edit-war, on RAN's behalf. However, aside from his un-funny attempt at humor, I admit that Alansohn has a valid point. This issue becomes one of taste and preference, with an apparent 2-2 tie among involved editors. I only wish that at some point, someone besides me would attempt to impress upon RAN that his behavior in avoiding discussion is unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor. RedSpruce (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Moss was communist according to current scholars
"The highly publicized case was damaging to McCarthy's popularity and influence, although some writers now believe that Moss had in fact been a member of the Communist Party." What exactly are the quotes used by the scholars. I cant find the exact wording used by Coulter.


 * As I made clear in the reference you deleted, RAN, this is entirely documented in the "Later evidence against Moss" section. Coulter isn't a valid scholarly source, and the article can not use her in support of the statement you quote above. Your confusion was caused by looking at the wrong section ("Current views" rather than "Later evidence"). RedSpruce (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am just standardizing the format. I have never seen "see another section" used as a reference before. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not "standardize the format"; you inserted an incorrect reference. The edit you are currently RV-warring over makes no sense whatsoever. Coulter's book is not a valid source for the sentence you quote above. You seem to agree with this yourself in saying that she isn't a "scholar". There is a valid reference for this sentence, and it's the one I added and you are deleting. Referring to the article section is the best way to cover a complex topic. Just using one reference to one source doesn't really work here. But even if it did, you used the wrong source. The best single source would be the Friedman article, but the whole discussion in the "Later evidence" section is much better. Whether or not you've ever "seen this before" isn't really relevant. RedSpruce (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And by the way, now that you're in the article's Talk page, please answer the question addressed to you in the section above. RedSpruce (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote quotes

 * Why not add the actual quote from the authors. They were very helpful in the Schine article to see what each author actually said, and how strongly they worded it. You have the books, I don't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because, as I've explained to you at length already, I'm in agreement with Gordonofcartoon's comment above that such verbose footnotes are usually inappropriate for WP articles. RedSpruce (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote function is there to use. The reader shouldn't have to purchase the book or purchase the article to verify a fact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that the "quote function is there" is not an argument for anything. There are places and times where including a quote from a source is necessary to make a footnote clear. You use it indiscriminately, adding unnecessary, distracting, and at times totally irrelevant text to an article. Adding a quote does not "verify a fact". The purpose of references is to make the article verifiable. In order to truly verify a fact, the reader will still have to go to the original source, since, obviously, a quote can be falsified just as easily as a reference. In short, the quotes that you obsessively insert usually contribute nothing to an article. They're useless, distracting, awkward, amateurish, and make articles look worse and read worse. RedSpruce (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Every step of the process from Wikipedia to the primary document can be fake, but that is no excuse for not documenting them as thoroughly as possible, so others can double and triple check. The more complete the references and links, the less likely they are fake because there is more to confirm. The best example were your reversal of Roy Cohn's education. You just reversed and never considered that he could have attended both schools. Alansohns references cleared the point up perfectly, the references are clickable, and the relevant text is there to see. The worst case is just a reference to a book with no link to it in Amazon or Google. Any one can fake a reference or misinterpret a reference. If the actual quote is used, the person can search the exact quote in Google to see if it actually in the book as stated, or if any other reliable source has quoted the book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't an argument, RAN. By the rules of Wikipedia and by the standard practices of citation, a reference only has to point to a source. Quoting the source isn't necessary, and serves no purpose. If a page number in a book is given in a reference, that's all that is needed for easy verification. If the book is in Google Books or Amazon's "search inside", the reference can be verified via the page number. Your quotes do not "verify" anything. In some rare cases they may make it very slightly easier for a skeptical reader to carry out verification, but such cases are rare, and making life easier for some imagined paranoid reader isn't sufficient justification for adding useless, distracting, awkward, amateurish crud to an article.
 * Your "example" from the Roy Cohn article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I RV'd an uncommented technical change made by an anon editor. Many WP editors RV such edits as a matter of course, on the assumption that they're vandalism. RedSpruce (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Knee jerk reversions are no substitute for actual research, that is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * I agree completely. It's nice that we can agree on something. It's too bad that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the above discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am getting the impression that you enjoy arguing over edits much more than creating new content. It looks like the amount of text you add to the discussion pages is greater than your text added to the article's contents. I am not sure what that means, but I can't imagine it to be a good use of time for an editor. I am not sure if others have noticed the mathematical trend of any editor to add more to talk pages than article contents, but I will define that as "WikiOCD", and lay claim to the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)


 * Also please stop changing the formatting of my text. I understand your compulsion to alter what I write, But please try to refrain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Respond in a meaningful way to something I've said, and I'll put it in a gilt frame for you. RedSpruce (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Since you have no response to the points I've raised, may I assume that you agree with me, and you'll start removing all the redundant and unnecessary footnote quotes you've added to all the articles you've edited? I guess that will be a big job; let me know if you'd like some help. RedSpruce (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one disagree with you completely. The quotes document the information from the source that support the specific claims made here in the article. They should not be removed, certainly not by using the lack of a response acceptable to your demands as a requirement. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case, Alansohn, I can't say that you have a valid point, since you make no point at all that I haven't already addressed. RAN's quotes often do not "document the information from the source," since he often simply uses the lede sentence from his source, however irrelevant that may be to the claim being made in the article. And in any case, by the rules of Wikipedia and the standard practices of citation, there is no need for this added level of "documentation." It's just unnecessary, redundant, distracting text that adds no value and makes the article look amateurish and silly. RedSpruce (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annie Lee Moss. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103160336/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/94.2/friedman.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/94.2/friedman.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)