Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 6

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Jtpaladin, when you get your copy of Buckley's "McCarthy and His Enemies" out of storage, you might want to try reading it. You'll see that its premise (made at excruciatingly tedious length) is that yes, there were security risks in the State Department, but that McCarthy lied about his lists of "card carrying Communists" (Buckley, in an attempt to apologize for McCarthy, calls it "an egregious blunder" as if it was an accident), that McCarthy "deserves to be censured" (this in reference to acts long before the Army-McCarthy hearings), that he "smeared Drew Pearson", that some of his charges "had no apparent foundation whatever", that he "was "guilty of a number of exaggerations, some of them reckless", some of them "reprehensible."
 * Is this the book that shows that "McCarthy was right", and whose alleged removal as a reference was such an deceitful act of "enemies of the truth"? You've been waving this book around like McCarthy waving around one of his lists, hoping that the act of waving it around and proclaiming that it held some momentous "truth" would be sufficient to impress your audience. But like McCarthy with his lists, it doesn't say what you claim it says. KarlBunker 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Jtpaladin, I don't know or particularly care when or if that book was removed from the list of references. I'm not personally responsible for every edit in the history of this article. The fact is it doesn't matter, because this book isn't considered a particularly important source by McCarthy scholars. It was originally written in 1953, and no one since then has pointed to this book and said "well, I guess that wraps up all the debate about McCarthy, because the whole truth is right there in Buckley's book." Even Arthur Herman, in his arch-conservitive biography of McCarthy, only cites McCarthy and His Enemies 7 times out of roughly 700 references. Rather, most scholars seem to agree with Richard Rovere when he called the book "a masterpiece of irrelevance."
 * As for the page numbers of the quotes I mentioned, I don't have them. I didn't take notes when I read the book, and I got those particular quotes from here (note that the source of this article is National Review; the conservative magazine founded by Buckley). If you skim the book yourself, you'll see that it contains a great many criticisms of McCarthy. I can tell you that the Rovere quote I give above is repeated by Buckley in his 1995 preface to the book, on page viii. KarlBunker 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Hey, Jtp. I'm sorry for the way my hermetic sense of humor got in the way of my being clearly understood. Your latest message raises a number of questions that I, and I'm sure many others, are very interested in getting the answers to...so I'll try to phrase them as clearly and straightforwardly as possible:
 * When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that? Could you provide the date of the edit that removed it, so we can at least determine what editor did that and if he or she explained the decision in the edit summary?
 * When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about one of his most famous charges, made in February 1950, that there were 57 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say they were (or, whatever the "basically correct" number would be--who 50 of them were)?
 * When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous charges, made later in February 1950, that there were in fact 81 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say the additional 24 (or, let's say 20) were?
 * When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous series of charges, those he made against Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service and Philip Jessup at the Tydings Committee hearings? I don't expect you to go into detail on each case at the moment--just let us know how many of those ten American citizens Buckley adduces evidence against that demonstrates McCarthy was basically correct in their case. Could you provide page numbers, please?
 * When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
 * When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous charges, that diplomat John P. Davies had attempted to "put Communists and espionage agents in key spots in the Central Intelligence Agency"? What evidence does Buckley adduce?
 * If Buckley does not, in fact, show that McCarthy was "basically correct" about his most famous charges, how does he define what McCarthy was truly saying and demonstrate that he was "basically correct" about it and that his critics were, I assume, basically incorrect?
 * Thanks very much. I'm sure the answers to those six questions will go a long way toward making the article truly fair. Best, Dan—DCGeist 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * DCGeist, I have answers for all your questions but as I mentioned to Karl above, I'm going to help update this article in 2007 after Evans' book is released. I have lots of info but very few footnotes to go with them. I hate when people post info without citations so I don't want to be accused of the same thing. If you will be patient with me until that time, I promise to answer all your questions. Otherwise, if you don't need citations now, I can do my best to answer your questions without footnotes.
 * When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
 * Simply because if your read the book, it takes every allegation that McCarthy made up until the book was published and compared it with the record. Buckley found McCarthy's statements on the whole accurate, considering that he did not have the benefit of the F.B.I. and the Venona documents to back him up.
 * Could you provide the date of the edit that removed it, so we can at least determine what editor did that and if he or she explained the decision in the edit summary?
 * I'm not as good as searching my way through background history than perhaps you might be. All I can say is that I added it as a source in the appropriate section and it was subsequently removed.
 * When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
 * Process of elimination. Why remove a book that was essential reading for understanding what McCarthy said and what he did not say? Why else would someone remove such a valuable book?
 * When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about one of his most famous charges, made in February 1950, that there were 57 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say they were (or, whatever the "basically correct" number would be--who 50 of them were)?
 * Let me quote James Drummey on the question of numbers: In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals - the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.
 * When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous series of charges, those he made against Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service and Philip Jessup at the Tydings Committee hearings? I don't expect you to go into detail on each case at the moment--just let us know how many of those ten American citizens Buckley adduces evidence against that demonstrates McCarthy was basically correct in their case. Could you provide page numbers, please?
 * That's pretty detailed stuff and some of your answers I believe are on the website article. I'll better answer that when I get more of my notes and documents in 2007. As for the Tydings Committee, let me respond by using the conclusion reached by Buckley: "The Committee's hearings and its Report demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the Tydings Committee - determined from the first to vindicate the State Department - consciously set out to destroy McCarthy and make of him an example for all who, in the future, might feel tempted to agree that the Democratic Administration was jeopardizing the national security by harboring loyalty and security risks in sensitive agencies." That is the essence of the attacks on McCarthy. First, under the Democrat Administration and then under the Republican Administration.
 * There's a lot of great info in that book and would love to get into greater detail but time and resources are limited and would like to do greater service to your inquiries when I have all my sources. Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues with me. Jtpaladin 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


 * Karl, thanks for your comments. My underst

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


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


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

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

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


 * The phrase "... or support of its official goals were never illegal under Federal law" is problematic, since many CP leaders were convicted under the Smith Act of plotting to overthrow the government. The only evidence presented in the trials was a selective reading of Communist Party literature. Many of these convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court, and to any thinking person these indictments and convictions were all grossly unjust, but they're there as legal decisions that essentially stated that the goals of the CP were illegal.
 * In any case, I'm not sure the whole sentence does much for the article. It's not as if McCarthyism would have been okay, or McCarthy would be a hero, if party membership had been illegal.
 * KarlBunker 22:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

GA on hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article needs more inline citations. For a subject as sensitive as this one is, I think you need referencing after nearly every line. I don't see many at all in the opening paragraphs, for instance. --Bookworm857158367 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * An odd analysis. The opening paragraphs survey the historically undisputed facts of McCarthy's early life and career, exactly as described by the section header. The blanket demand for "more inline citations" is entirely unhelpful to the editors working hard on the article. Please specify precisely what "sensitive" assertions the article includes that you feel require citation and I'm sure there'll be no problem in responding to that.—DCGeist 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have liked to see in-line citations in the first two opening paragraphs, but I see that this isn't favored in the feature article process, so I guess I was wrong. Other than that, it appears to be a good article and meet the criteria, so I will pass it. --Bookworm857158367 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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


 * In the interest of maintaining a truly neutral POV, I contend that the best solution is to simply substitute the less volatile descriptor "conservative" in place of "right wing." I'm still struggling to understand why you have a huge problem with that.  I'm relatively certain that you're not concerned about the reputation of less radical conservatives like Will and Kristol.  Therefore, I'm left with that it can only be your subconscious bias creeping into the article.  I won't castigate you for that--we've all been guilty of it from time to time--but what I most certainly WILL do is to vigorously maintain that it is a large mistake to let it happen.K. Scott Bailey 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you went with "ultra-conservative", less bias would be apparent. Even still, I contend that "conservative" is the best, most neutral option.  As for "documenting" that "right wing" is only--or primarily--used pejoratively, I contend that it lends a color of bias to THIS ARTICLE.  One of the first times I heard it in use was when then First Lady Clinton used it of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy."  That seems a bit pejorative to me as well.  If the hint of bias seems apparent to me--as someone who can't stand the sight of Ann Coulter--how would it appear to someone more to the right of the spectrum? K. Scott Bailey 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing as it may seem to you, your opinion on these matters is not the voice of God. You seem to consider it sufficient to state your opinion that one term is pejorative and another term is accurate without being pejorative.
 * Luckily however, I've your work for you. I won't bore you with the details (since looking for actual facts to back up your opinions doesn't seem to interest you), but I've found evidence that "right wing" tends to be used, if not necessarily pejoratively, at least more often by writers who aren't concerned with appearing neutral. "Conservative" tends to be used more by sources that are trying to appear neutral, and is used even with regard to obvious extremists like Ann Coulter. Thus, it appears that in contemporary American English there is no neutral term for a person who is obviously to the right of mainstream conservatives. With that in mind, I'll accept "conservative", unless someone can suggest something better. KarlBunker 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've decided to set aside being civil in favor of something less so. I won't venture down that path.  I was simply sharing my views on the TONE that the phrase seemed to set, which requires no documentation.  It seemed apparent to me that "conservative" would serve as a much more neutral descriptor.  I made no vituperative statements toward you personally, yet you choose to impugn my character by implying laziness.  I'll leave it for others to decide whether your tone was appropriate.K. Scott Bailey 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


 * "Oh, nonsense, Lestrade!" (I've always wanted to say that.) Actually, in about 99.9% of the articles that have an "[article subject] in popular culture" section, I agree with you. They just collect cruft by drive-by editors who go "Ooh! I once saw a TV show that had two words of dialog about [article subject], I'll add that!" I've deleted several such sections from articles myself. However, I think in this case the section has some value. The Manchurian Candidate is a notable movie, for example, and it's interesting that such a brutal and high-profile criticism of McCarthy would be produced so soon after he was at the height of his popularity. Pogo was also quite a high-profile piece of criticism of McCarthy in its time, and one that was contemporaneous with McCarthy at his most powerful.
 * Anyway, that's my $.02. KarlBunker 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Kaisershatner's recent edits
I like the structural changes, but I'd like to go over the changes made to the introduction. Beginning with this sentence:
 * Between 1950 and 1954, McCarthy became the most visible public face of this period of anti-communism, noted for claiming that there were large numbers of Communist and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government, and for failing to substantiate these claims with any evidence.

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

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

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

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

Comments, anyone? KarlBunker 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Karl; it was a first pass and as it stands is 1000% better than the previous version as far as providing an overview of the subject (the biography of Joseph McCarthy). Since you are quoting from WP:LEAD, keep in mind "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."  The biography of Joseph McCarthy includes more than his years in the Senate.  His upbringing, schooling, military service, previous jobs, Senate career, and death can all be noted or summarized in the introduction.  I will grant you that my language is imprecise with respect to his major reason for notability, but perhaps you could help improve that area; I come to the subject as an editor rather than an expert in the field.  Kaisershatner 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:LEAD suggests for long articles (and this one is currently 93k) a three or four paragraph introduction. Plenty of room there to give an overview of his life. Kaisershatner 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation with a McCarthy article is somewhat unusual, in that McCarthy is notable almost exclusively for a single thing that occupied about 4 years of his life. Thus an introduction that gives undue attention to events outside of that single and narrowly focused reason for his fame won't serve the needs of most readers. Of course, what constitutes "undue attention" is open to interpretation, as are the guidelines in WP:Lead. But even if this was--say--a biography of a president who had had a long career with many highpoints of interest, as a reader I would want an introduction that gave an overview of those highpoints of his career, not one that told me he was born on a farm, etc. KarlBunker 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the introduction starts with his primary reason for fame and provides an overview of it; readers can find what they need in the body of the article unless they are looking for an overview of his biography, which is in the Lead section. But I'd be happy to invite further opinions.  Want to post a RFC?  Kaisershatner 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. I've added one to Requests for comment/Biographies.KarlBunker 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this fight. As an unbiased reader, I tend to side with KarlBunker.  Without a long legalistic justification based on WP:Lead, I would make the following comments and suggestions:
 * (1) It seems to me that the three facts that are indispensible to a well-written lead are:
 * (a) McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin;
 * (b) he used his position to conduct an anti-communist witch hunt in the 1950's, a pursuit that led to his eventual disgrace; and
 * (c) the term, McCarthyism, is eponymous to Senator McCarthy.
 * (2) Virtually nothing else about McCarthy is noteworthy; he was a bland, unaccomplished, waste of senatorial space until he hit on the power of commie-baiting and grandstanding as a way to promote himself.
 * (3) With these two precepts in mind, it seems to me that the introductory section of this article (which is really pretty good as it stands) could be improved by a little sharper focus on the truly important facts. I suggest the following:
 * (a) Divide the first paragraph into two shorter paragraphs, one identifying McCarthy, and one (beginning with the sentence that starts, "Ultimately ... ") that defines McCarthyism.
 * (b) Delete the second paragraph entirely. All of this material is a tedious recitation of the inconsequential.
 * (c) Write an introductory sentence (or two) to the third paragraph along the lines of, "After an upbringing in rural Wisconsin and a career as a lawyer and district court judge in that state, he was elected to the United States Senate in 1948(?). In the Senate, he ... ", etc.  The remainder of the third paragraph is fine.
 * This tightens the focus of the lead, omits the yawn-inducing biographical minutiae (which can be moved further down in the article), and makes for a better overall effect, I think.
 * This article is good to very good, and I see that both Kaisershatner and KarlBunker have made substantial and valuable contributions to its quality. I do have one "negative" comment though: there are a number of long compound-complex sentences in the article that make reading (and comprehension without parsing and re-reading) more difficult than it ought to be.
 * The above is just one man's opinion. I hope that it provides the basis for compromise or, at least, fruitful discussions.  If I can be of service, please contact me.  PeterHuntington 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

" (1) It seems to me that the three facts that are indispensible to a well-written lead are:
 * (a) McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin;
 * (b) he used his position to conduct an anti-communist witch hunt in the 1950's, a pursuit that led to his eventual disgrace; and
 * (c) the term, McCarthyism, is eponymous to Senator McCarthy.

"

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

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

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

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

"

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

"
 * (a) Divide the first paragraph into two shorter paragraphs, one identifying McCarthy, and one (beginning with the sentence that starts, "Ultimately ... ") that defines McCarthyism.
 * (b) Delete the second paragraph entirely. All of this material is a tedious recitation of the inconsequential.
 * (c) Write an introductory sentence (or two) to the third paragraph along the lines of, "After an upbringing in rural Wisconsin and a career as a lawyer and district court judge in that state, he was elected to the United States Senate in 1948(?). In the Senate, he ... ", etc.  The remainder of the third paragraph is fine.

"

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

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

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

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

United States Senate Censure Cases

Date: January 2, 1811

Member: Timothy Pickering (F-MA)

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

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

Vote: 20-7

--

Date: May 10, 1844

Member: Benjamin Tappan (D-OH)

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

Vote: 38-7

--

Date: February 28, 1902

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

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

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

Vote: 54-12; 22 not voting

--

Date: November 4, 1929

Member: Hiram Bingham (R-CT)

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

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

Vote: 54-22; 18 not voting

--

Date: December 2, 1954

Member: Joseph R. McCarthy (R-WI)

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

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

Vote: 67-22

--

Date: June 23, 1967

Member: Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT)

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

Result: Censured. Defeated for reelection.

Vote: 92-5

--

Date: October 11, 1979

Member: Herman E. Talmadge (D-GA)

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

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

Vote: 81-15

--

Date: July 25, 1990

Member: David F. Durenberger (R-MN)

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

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

Vote: 96-0

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

United States Senate Expulsion Cases

Date: 1797

Member: William Blount (R-TN)

Charge: Anti-Spanish conspiracy; treason

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1808

Member: John Smith (R-OH)

Charge: Disloyalty/Treason

Result: Not Expelled

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

--

Date: 1858

Member: Henry M. Rice (D-MN)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Not Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: James M. Mason (D-VA)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: Robert M.T. Hunter (D-VA)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: Thomas L. Clingman (D-NC)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: Thomas Bragg (D-NC)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: James Chesnut, Jr. (D-SC)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: Alfred O.P. Nicholson (D-TN)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: William K. Sebastian (D-AR)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

Note: On March 3, 1877, the Senate reversed its decision to expel Sebastian. Because Sebastian had died in 1865, his children were paid an amount equal to his Senate salary between the time of his expulsion and the date of his death.

--

Date: 1861

Member: Charles B. Mitchel (D-AR)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: John Hemphill (D-TX)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1861

Member: Louis T. Wigfall (D-TX)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

Note: In March 1861, the Senate took no action on an initial resolution expelling Wigfall because he represented a state that had seceded from the Union. Three months later, on July 10, 1861, he was expelled for supporting the Confederacy.

--

Date: 1861

Member: John C. Breckinridge (D-KY)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1862

Member: Lazarus W. Powell (D-KY)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Not Expelled

--

Date: 1862

Member: Trusten Polk (D-MO)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1862

Member: Waldo P. Johnson (D-MO)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1862

Member: Jesse D. Bright (D-IN)

Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion

Result: Expelled

--

Date: 1862

Member: James F. Simmons (R-RI)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Resigned

Note: On July 14, 1862, the Judiciary Committee reported that the charges against Simmons were essentially correct. The Senate adjourned three days later, and Simmons resigned on August 15 before the Senate could take action.

--

Date: 1873

Member: James W. Patterson (R-NH)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Term Expired

Note: A Senate select committee recommended expulsion on February 27. On March 1, a Republican caucus decided that there was insufficient time remaining in the session to deliberate the matter. Patterson's term expired March 3, and no further action was taken.

--

Date: 1893

Member: William N. Roach (D-ND)

Charge: Embezzlement

Result: Not Expelled

Note: After extensive deliberation, the Senate took no action, assuming that it lacked jurisdiction over members' behavior before their election to the Senate. The alleged embezzlement had occurred 13 years earlier.

--

Date: 1905

Member: John H. Mitchell (R-OR)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Not Expelled

Note: Mitchell was indicted on January 1, 1905, and convicted on July 5, 1905, during a Senate recess. Mitchell died on December 8, while his case was still on appeal and before the Senate, which had convened on December 4, could take any action against him.

--

Date: 1906

Member: Joseph R. Burton (R-KS)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Resigned

Note: Burton was indicted and convicted of receiving compensation for intervening with a federal agency. When the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, he resigned rather than face expulsion.

--

Date: 1907

Member: Reed Smoot (R-UT)

Charge: Mormonism

Result: Not Expelled

Note: After an investigation spanning two years, the Committee on Privileges and Elections reported that Smoot was not entitled to his seat because he was a leader in a religion that advocated polygamy and a union of church and state, contrary to the U.S. Constitution. By a vote of 27 to 43, however, the Senate failed to expel him, finding that he satisfied the constitutional requirements for serving as a senator.

--

Date: 1919

Member: Robert M. La Follette (R-WI)

Charge: Disloyalty

Result: Not Expelled

Note: The Committee on Privileges and Elections recommended that the Senate take no action as the speech in question (a 1917 speech opposing U.S. entry into World War I) did not warrant it. The Senate agreed 50 to 21.

--

Date: 1922

Member: Truman H. Newberry (R-MI)

Charge: Election fraud

Result: Resigned

Note: On March 20, 1920, Newberry was convicted on charges of spending $3,750 to secure his Senate election. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision (May 2, 1921) on the grounds that the U.S. Senate exceeded its powers in attempting to regulate primary elections. By a vote of 46 to 41 (January 12, 1922), the Senate declared Newberry to have been duly elected in 1918. On November 18--two days before the start of the 3rd session of the 67th Congress--Newberry resigned as certain members resumed their efforts to unseat him.

--

Date: 1924

Member: Burton K. Wheeler (D-MT)

Charge: Conflict of interest

Result: Not Expelled

Note: Wheeler was indicted for serving while a senator in causes in which the U.S. was a party. A Senate committee, however, found that his dealings related to litigation before state courts and that he received no compensation for any service before federal departments. The Senate exonerated him by a vote of 56 to 5.

--

Date: 1934

Member: John H. Overton (D-LA)

Charge: Election fraud

Result: No Senate action

Note: The Committee on Privileges and Elections concluded that the charges and evidence were insufficient to warrant further consideration.

--

Date: 1934

Member: Huey P. Long (D-LA)

Charge: Election fraud

Result: No Senate action

Note: The Privileges and Elections Committee considered this case in conjunction with that against Senator Overton (see Note 13) and reached the same conclusion.

--

Date: 1942

Member: William Langer (R-ND)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Not Expelled

Note: Recommending that this case was properly one of exclusion, not expulsion, the Committee on Privileges and Elections declared Langer guilty of moral turpitude and voted, 13 to 2, to deny him his seat. The Senate disagreed, 52 to 30, arguing that the evidence was hearsay and inconclusive. Langer retained his seat.

--

Date: 1982

Member: Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (D-NJ)

Charge: Corruption

Result: Resigned

Note: The Committee on Ethics recommended that Williams be expelled because of his "ethically repugnant" conduct in the Abscam scandal, for which he was convicted of conspiracy, bribery, and conflict of interest. Prior to a Senate vote on his expulsion, Williams resigned on March 11, 1982.

--

Date: 1995

Member: Robert W. Packwood (R-OR)

Charge: Sexual misconduct and abuse of power

Result: Resigned

Note: The Committee on Ethics recommended that Packwood be expelled for abuse of his power as a senator "by repeatedly committing sexual misconduct" and "by engaging in a deliberate ... plan to enhance his personal financial position" by seeking favors "from persons who had a particular interest in legislation or issues" that he could influence, as well as for seeking "to obstruct and impede the committee's inquiries by withholding, altering, and destroying relevant evidence." On September 7, 1995, the day after the committee issued its recommendation, Packwood announced his resignation without specifying an effective date. On September 8, he indicated that he would resign effective October 1, 1995.

---

So that is 41 senators that had as severe or more severe punishments then McCarthy. I am not sure how you go from 4 to 41... but again the 3rd paragraph is wrong again. Sorry for the length, I just want to put this to bed finally.

the 3rd paragraph also states the "McCarthyism" view.. Which I will repeat is not the view of the supports of McCarthy. It is not the view of the people who voted for him. It is the side against McCarthy's view. That is the basis of this article. To provide the view of people who did not support McCarthy. It is the views of his enemies, not his works nor his actions, not his words. When ever his actions or words are actually included, or primary source material is included, it is often attacked, discredited or flat out deleted. As much of my well documented works have been deleted.

I have nothing against you, you just shared your opinions, I appreciate that, still it is wrong.. The article is not on McCarthyism, it is on the man, and the lead should be a summary of the man life. The vast majority of leads in Wikipedia are brief summaries of his life, I have brought this up time and time again. The Lead should not be the view of his enemies and what his enemies think everyone should know about him. I am sick of arguing this point.. Over and over and over again I have tried to get the lead inline with the rest of Wikipedia. Mantion 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is terrible
I haven't had time to work on this article, no do I have time to explain myself over and over again. This whole article is critical of McCarthy and McCarthy's work. It is written by those who wish to attack him and use terms, phrases and ideas created by those who did attack him in his day. McCarthy had a Large following of supports and was far more popular then the president at the time. President Truman. I am often amazed by peoples passion and desire to destroy this man. A man they never met, a man they know nothing about. They feel it is their duty to hide, and discredit anything good about the man. They feel he is an evil man that did nothing good and must be attacked and destroyed at all cost. I admit that he was attacked by a large and loud media and pool of writers. He was also attacked by people who opposed him politically. He was still more popular then the president. People find it acceptable to look back at Truman and decide that he wasn't as bad as his critics made him out to be. They look back at what he did and the mistakes he made with fresh eyes. Yet this article starts off from the view that McCarthy was bad, that McCarthy was a mistake, that what McCarthy did should never be done again. Yet there is so little in the article about what McCarthy actually did. Over and over it states he was a disgrace, yet never giving examples of disgraceful actions. It points out he destroyed lives, yet never giving an example of a person's life he destroyed. Yes it is true that after some people admitted to being a communist they lost their current employment. He didn't have them fired, the people who fired them chose to fire them. I have probably fired or had more people fired then McCarthy. Am I evil. Should some left wing cartoonist Call my actions Mantionism? McCarthy Investigated Claims of Communism in the government. He did start the hunt for communist, he joined it as his role in the senate. He had a passion, fuel by frustration to out communist in our government. He fought hard and wouldn't back down. That is what he was known for.

It is simple.

The article still forces people to think McCarthy was bad and a mistake, yet give almost no examples of what he said, what he did, or even why he did it. I suggest another article one that just talks about the man, and revisits the man as people revisit Truman. With fresh eyes, with out his enemies opinion. You can have this article you can bash the man all you want. But unlike Truman, we have hundreds of pages of testimony that wasn't available in the past. We have hundreds of thousands of pages of soviet intercepts that amazingly supports McCarthy's and OTHERS claims that there were communist in the government.

I find it ironical that people sit back and say this man unfairly and ruthlessly attacked people, yet never site examples. Yet they NEED to have the term "McCarthyism" in the lead, because with out it we won't understand the times.. I don't know why a term that was created by McCarthy's enemy to insult and attack the man needs to be in the lead. And if it is in the lead shouldn't it be pointed out that to this day schools still use an INSULT created by his enemies to unfairly attack the man. How does a cartoonist have so much power to create insults that become so important to understand a man. The lead even points out the term once used to insult the man, is mostly used to describe the time in general. The article is about the man, not the times in general. McCarthy was one soldier in the cold war. He was a very important one, it is why he was attacked so much.

All of his "victims" had legal representation, all of them had due process, none of them went to jail, some of them lost their jobs. People got fired, because they believed in the cause of the enemy. Wouldn't we fire a member of Hezbolah if they worked for our government. Wouldn't we fire them, shouldn't we fire them?

I suggest a new article

McCarthy (Revisited)

This article would only have information about the man, things he said, things he did, and what we know now. It wouldn't have the views of his enemies. Please set this up, I don't know how to add a page. After it's completion we can decided if it is worthy of Wikipedia. It is sad we need a separate article to actually describe the man, but I am sorry this article is not about the man, it is about "McCarthyism", it is about the "Second red scare" (yet another term made up that we still use today). Mantion 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You've opened my eyes. Once I thought Stalin's purge of the kulaks was a wanton and cruel act; now I realize that it was a humanitarian gesture designed to afford more food for others.  Once I thought Hitler was a fanatical genocidal beast, but now I'm more inclined to see him as the victim of a poor upbringing.  (I've heard that, despite it all, he was always very nice to his mother and never forgot her birthday.)  Rather than a whole new article called McCarthy (Revisited), how about a section in the current article named "Joey, the Warm and Fuzzy Side" or "A Demagogue or an American Jeanne d'Arc?" or "Was McCarthyism a Bane or a Boon? (Fair and Balanced ... You Decide)"?  PeterHuntington 23:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinions. I know what you are trying to say, but your argument has nothing to do with what I said.  Was the United States at war with Communism?  or am I imagining that... Did anyone go to jail because of Joseph McCarthy's Investigation?  What is wrong with investigating members of the government who support your enemy?  Why try to confuse the subject with vague reference's to murderous dictators who were OUR ENEMIES.  I am surprised that you picked Stalin first.. I assume you are being sarcastic, but President Truman actually wrote "I like Stalin" to his wife.  Many times Truman spoke up about how much he liked Stalin and how he could be trusted... Yet McCarthy opposed Stalin and all he did.  Is there a reason why Stalin knew about the Nuclear weapon before Truman did?  So it is funny that you brought that up because McCarthy apposed Stalin, but Truman liked him.  Even after your sited Purge of Kulaks... I don't know why Truman liked him, trusted and supported Stalin.  If only there was a guy who was critical of Truman and his support for Stalin... hmmm  Do you know anyone who spoke out against the presidents support of Stalin? Mantion 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't reply yet, but I have to ask you.. Have you looked at Stalins article.. There is no mention of the purge of the Kulaks in the lead, there is no mention of all the truely terrible things Stain did. Why does McCarthy's article have to have the term McCarthyism in it?  It has little or nothing to do with the man.  It was a term to insult him and is used to describe a critical view on the time.  I don't want to restate myself to many times in one day, but the point is Stalin did a ton of terrible things, yet his article is very kind to him.  It sites the greater industrial revolution that occurred through out the world as an accomplishment of his and site "at the cost of millions of lives" like it was a justified sacrifice.  SO yah your purge of Kulaks is not described as a "wanton and cruel act" but it was described as "'opportunists' and 'counter-revolutionary infiltrators'"  Then it says they had "trials".  I am sorry anyone with an ounce of intelligence realizes that there were no trials, people just accessed people who were better off, some were given a choice to work in Gulags and other weren't give a choice and were only killed.  It is sad that Wikipedia has such a bias to communist and communism.  It attacks a man who rallied against the acts of Stalin and communist, but tries to put a fair spin on your sited "Purge of Kulaks".Mantion 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't about Stalin. This isn't about Truman.  This isn't about how left-wing figures get a better break in the Wikipedia than fascists do (no doubt because of that insidious pinko press we are all saddled with.)  It's about McCarthy.  I only mentioned Stalin and Hitler in a previous post to show that there are other historical personages whose reputations appear "unbalanced" only because they did so much more evil than good.  I thought the sarcasm was broad enough for anyone to catch.  Apparently, I was wrong.


 * I've perused your Contributions page, and I am impressed with the single-mindedness of your interests. If it's about repression of free thought, you seem to be all over it.  How about giving the campaign to rehabilitate McCarthy's reputation a rest and write something about table tennis or dung beetles or Icelandic poetry or something.  You just might find it calming, refreshing, mind-expanding.  Your pal, PeterHuntington 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was obvious that you were being sarcastic. I believe I said that, I know your point is that I am trying to re-write history. I have heard that very statement before. Clearly I am not requesting to change history, I am asking to revisit McCarthy. As I explained and you ignored, Truman was hated he had a very very low approval rating. Yet people are willing to look past his mistakes and look at the good and the bad. You also skipped over my main argument, which is this article is not about McCarthyism. As I said and you ignored there is an article on McCarthyism and this isn't it. Instead of taking an accurate look at history including all the information which has recently become available. This article chooses to take the view of Authors and journalist who happened to oppose McCarthy and all he did. I suggested that we make a separate article called "revisit" we shouldn't need a second article, but I think at this point it would be best.. I have spent hours writing fair and accurate contributions. I used mostly primary source materials and not the "ideas" of authors who got their information form others. But of course the cited information did not go with the anti-McCarthy movement. So it would get deleted with out even a comment as to what was wrong with it. I am not alone. It happens time and time again. If I did get a reply to comments or contributions it was only to attack me personally.. For example you said that anyone should catch your sarcasm, which I did and stated I assumed you were being sarcastic. but then you said that you were wrong clearly suggestion that I wasn't smart enough to catch the sarcasm. Then you pointed out my single-minded interest, and that I like to repress free thought. Then you pointed out I should take up Icelandic poetry. You didn't bother to address my suggestion for a new article, you didn't address my concern that the article should be about McCarthy and not McCarthyism. You didn't address any of my comments you only tried to attack me. I am not going to stoop to your level, if you don't want to debate the article then keep your comments to yourself. If you want to address my concerns and suggestions I would greatly appreciate your views.

Is anyone apposed to or supportive of making a separate article that revisits McCarthy. I would like it to be factual and based on primary source material.Mantion 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mantion, per your request, I've created the article McCarthy (Revisited). Please develop it as you see fit. I certainly won't interfere, and I encourage all other contributors to this article not to either. When you've completed work on it, please bring it to the attention of the broader community, so uninvolved Wikipedia editors and readers can judge the relative merits of the two articles, particularly in the areas we should all be concerned about: historical comprehensiveness and accuracy. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist 07:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A fine solution, Mr. Geist. I commend you.  I also apologize to Mantion.  I didn't intend my comments as a personal assault, just an attempt to inject a bit of levity and dispassionate perspective into the discussion.  Using sarcasm to do so was a mistake.  I'm sorry.  I understand that every movement needs it's heroes, and if neo-fascism needs to rehabilitate McCarthy (of all people), then Mantion is certainly welcome to pursue that as he sees fit.  Cheers!  PeterHuntington 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Creating a new "mainspace" article on McCarthy isn't in keeping with WP policies, and that article will be deleted. I believe it would be okay to create such an article as a sub page to a user's page, for example User talk:Mantion/Test article.
 * More generally, Wikipedia articles are required to reflect the work of scholars in the field, per Attribution. If it can be shown that this article departs from the tone and content of published biographies of McCarthy, then it should be changed. If someone happens to think that those published biographies are full of lies and distortions, that's unfortunate, but they're the authoritative sources, and the article is required to follow them. KarlBunker 10:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary.  I'm in the position of agreeing with both Mantion and KarlBunker.  To wit, the creation of a new mainspace article fork is against policy.  On the other hand, putting the rhetoric aside (and Mantion, I think you might be more persuasive if you were a little less strident), it has been my view for a long time that both McCarthyism and Joseph McCarthy as articles lean very heavily into the ad hominem area.  My goal isn't to rehabilitate anyone, but to me it seems like focusing excessively on the (repulsive) personality and (disgusting) tactics of McCarthy ignores some of the objective reality - that the USSR was actively engaged in trying to subvert the US, by funding spies in the CPUSA and State Department and elsewhere, and that there is objective evidence that proves this.  Certainly a big part of the story of McCarthy is the indiscriminate or false accusations, but the background is being lost.  Most of this pertains more to the McCarthyism article than to this biographical article, but there is some overlap of both editors and subject matter.  Kaisershatner 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mantion, despite its possible utility in this case, the creation of McCarthy (Revisited) is indeed not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, as properly observed by KarlBunker and Kaisershatner. Don't take its elimination personally, as I didn't. Good news: a very similar process can be followed via a test article on a new subpage of yours, as suggested above. You--and anyone you invited--could collaborate on a new, alternate Wikipedia-worthy biography of McCarthy. When work was complete, you could bring it to the attention of the broader community, demonstrating how the present article is full of lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and misplaced emphases, while the more factual and even-handed version you've developed is also better supported by authoritative sources. If you'd like me to start up such a page for you, I'd be happy to do so. You can see here I created one for myself for test work on an article I've been a major contributor to: User:DCGeist/B movie cite sandbox.—DCGeist 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hot diggity! Dueling McCarthys! All we need now is a banjo and that albino kid on the bridge. Go for it, and may the best historical revisionist(s) win. PeterHuntington 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like a new page that people contribute to but with a focus on the man, not the views of his enemies. I would like it to be based on primary source material.. I have issue with the phrase "scholars in the field". As most of the "scholars" of the last 40 years have merely repeated the attacks of McCarthy's enemies. The are all very one sided, written by "liberal" authors. I only point that out because Wikipedia seems to always identify if an author is conservative. I don't understand this practice. Can only liberals be valid author? If were going to label every conservative author then we should label every liberal one. It also amazes me that ultra "liberal" authors including admitted communist are treated as experts on McCarthy, yet a conservative author must be discredited. I will not waste my time to giving examples as i have done it too many times in the past only to be ignored or personally attacked.

I appreciated the creation of a new mainspace, as I had suggested. I am sad its life was so short. I remember reading long ago that multiple pages on a subject should be avoided, but I this instance I feel it is warranted. I think there is no other page with greater contention than this one. In addition more information about McCarthy in his work has been released in the last 10 years then the previous 40. This in it's own right deserves far more attention then one paragraph.

In addition many very accurate, very relevant, and properly cited contributions have simply been deleted with little or no explanation or discussion. I am worried that hundreds if not thousands of man hours will be spent on a new article only to have voted down because it disagrees with the "scholars". I think the term "Revisited" is accurate, as we will take a fresh look, and start from a fair perspective of the man and his mission. Clearly a page which "Revisits" McCarthy will be vastly different then this one. Just like all the books which "revisit" McCarthy are vastly different then the previous ones. Does that mean one book is flat out wrong and another is correct? It would be nice to have a balance in one article. But countless hours have been wasted in that effort. Many decent contributors have been insulted and oppressed until they gave up. Yes it is true you can find far more books critical of McCarthy then supportive of him. But arguably, this may be a result of publisher bias, then actual public opinion. If his approval ratings are accurate, even at his lowest point, at the height of his enemies attacks, about the same amount of Americans approved of McCarthy as Disapproved of him. So why is there no books from the era that reflect that? Why have I yet to find Approval ratings in a single newspaper at the time of his death. My point is you all may not have a dog in the race, though I doubt that sometimes. The scholars you lift up so high as the only source on McCarthy, did have a dog in the race. They did have a side, they were most often "liberals" and even communist. How a communist would be an expert on a man who fought against communist is a bit absurd.

While I think of it use the term "neo-fascism" to describe my desire to take a fair look at McCarthy. I know what fascism is, I can't believe I or anyone who supports a fair look of McCarthy as being a Fascist. Have I once labeled any of you or your work. I may point out flaws but I don't call your cause "fascism". How a I Fascist? Do you know me? Yes I read what you did in school. I once thought McCarthy was evil too. But then I looked into it and changed my mind. How does that makes me or others who support McCarthy Fascist? Is this another joke like saying I am not smart enough to pick up on sarcasm when I clearly did and stated it. Yah I support a twice elected senator, judge and war veteran that died in office and recived the highest funeral service in the land. As much as I am tempted to call you all names I won't, because I once thought like you.. Does that make me better, does that make me correct and you wrong... I think so, but I respect you have a different view. People have different views. That is the great thing about Wikipedia is we work together (most times) to put out something more accurate and far better then anyone person could do alone. There are complete books on McCarthy, people don't have time to read them all then make up their mind. There are countless newspaper articles about McCarthy all of which are very hard to find. There were tens of millions of people who had opinions of the man, the vast majority of which we will never know. I never knew the man personally. YOU didn't either. But I have read his words, I have read his investigations, I have read his speeches and I have read his critics. I disagree with you, as other modern authors do. I am sorry we differ, but that is life. But, I am not a Fascist nor do I support Fascism. I don't know how you get away with labeling people and their views as such. Maybe you don't know what it mean, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, I had never been called a Fascist before. It truly, truly bothers me because I know what Fascism is. Maybe this is why so many contributors give up and just leave. Moving on

Consider Bill Clinton, he has an article and countless pages that deal with an assortment of Controversies. I imagine more and more will be added as time goes on. I would be nice to have a article about McCarthy and his accomplishments, his works, his words and his beliefs, with sections or separate article that are critical of him. I have no problem with pointing out flaws of humans especially if it is done fairly and accurately. But is based mostly on the idea of "McCarthyism" and how McCarthy fits into it.

I am sorry McCarthy if I don't think McCarthy was vial, disgusting. I am sorry if I don't think his techniques were evil. I have yet to see evidence. Am I saying he was perfect or flawless. No, but from what I have read, he wasn't evil. Yes, yes many people have said he was evil. Yet when I look for the basis of that opinion, I see other opinion of other people who opposed him. I just don't see his words, his actions, his cause and his technique as being vial. Yes I once thought he was, and long before Ann wrote a book I changed my opinion of the man. I have explained that transformation before. Not going to do it again.

If we look at the article on Red Scare, half of it is on the second red scare, which is expanded on in the article on McCarthyism, which is part of the whole Anti-communist article. Having separate articles that expand on subjects or have different views is important. It is common in Wikipedia. There are exceptions to ever rule. McCarthy deserves an article which isn't based on the views of his critics. There is valuable, eye opening information about the man recently released. Modern books are just as valid as older books, more so because they had information not available before. It is very rare that information is kept from the public about a man. If we suddenly found a journal and the complete works of Julius Caesar, and that information differed greatly from what we had believe before, would we not trust it. I am sorry but transcripts of investigations, decrypted soviet intercepts, and actual drafts of speeches paint a better picture of McCarthy then that of angry, "liberal" authors (again only pointing this out because every conservative author is so labeled".

This is a very different situation then most. There has been to much fighting and too much oppression of contributors. Fine disagree with me, but I don't think people should spend hundreds of hours writing an article which will only get deleted. A good article will take some time, and many of the people who could of worked on it have been driven away by constant attacks, name calling and flat out oppression.

You hate McCarthy, we get that, most people of his time didn't. Yes that conflicts with what we are told. That is why I think a separate article is valid and will be eye opening. We are not rewriting history, were are not trying to change anything that happens, just look at it from a fresh perspective. This is a very special situation, a separate mainspace is best. It is with in the policies of Wikipedia, as it will be a different article then the first, with a different focus, a different subject with different information. I can't write an article alone, I like criticisms of my work and others contrabutions. I don't know anyone on Wikipedia and others will not know where to go to contribute. I also don't want all the work to simply be deleted. I am fine with a temperary page being created at first but once a basic article is created it should be given a "mainspace" where it can grow and mature like all other articles.

I understand you all mean well and any attacks of me were really in fun. I also know this is long, and repetitive. I would really like it to be the last time I repeat myself. It would be nice if someone discussed the points I bring up. If history repeats it self that won't happen. I also know I use the term "liberal" again this is because "conservative" authors must be labeled as such. But that is a different battle. What is best is a separate article, so I can start working on it, not repeating myself here. Mantion 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Query on "McCarthy and Truman" section
The sentence in question: McCarthy authored a book titled America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall (1951); charged Marshall with "aid(ing) the Communist drive for world domination"; declared that "if Marshall was merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve America's interests"; and most famously, accused him of being part of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man."

The cite that follows:

My query: There are three direct quotes in the sentence, but only one page cited in the source. Do all three quotes come from the same page? Does that mean they all come from the same speech? If so, the sentence should be recast to clarify that and to give the date of the speech. If not, obviously the other pages (or sources) must be cited.

Note: I removed the unquoted phrase "accused Marshall of treason" (a) to improve flow, (b) to eliminate conceptual redundancy (in the term's rhetorical sense), and (c) to avoid presumption about such a serious charge (in the term's precise sense). If McCarthy ever explicitly accused Marshall of treason--a potentially capital offense--that should be made clear either by quote or unambiguous description and clearly cited per the query above.—DCGeist 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's fixed now. I used and multiple page numbers in one reference, since using "ibid" can get messed up by later edits. One of the quotes ("aiding the Communist drive to world domination") I couldn't find in the reference I have access too, so I removed it. It may be that this was in McCarthy's Marshall book but not in the collected speeches book I have, or it may be that that's actually some author's paraphrase rather than a quote. It's not that striking that McCarthy used the word "treason" in connection with Marshall, since it was one of his favorite words for the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. KarlBunker 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As it was one of his favorite words for the Democratic Party, yes? But an administration or a political party can't be legally tried for "treason," nor can it sue for slander when accused of it. An individual can and can. Not that McCarthy didn't make other statements about individuals that might have exposed him to slander suits. Still, I would have been quite surprised to learn that McCarthy directly accused Marshall of "treason." Without having access to the sources myself, the rewording seems just right.—DCGeist 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Article deterioration
I am shocked to see that the article, which was looking so good and so NPOV when it won its GA status, has now deteriorated back to the extreme POV introduction of its FAC candidacy. This has got to be fixed. Suggestions? Some will be needed to help this keep its GA status. Judgesurreal777 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And was it not also agreed upon months ago that the word extreme would not be used to describe the period of anti communist furvor since it is POV? This is very blatant. Judgesurreal777 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. A query and a comment: (a) Do you happen to know the date when the article won its GA status, so I can see the earlier version you're talking about? The link in the template that's supposed to go to the old version keeps automatically redirecting to the current one. (b) From the rise of the communist movement in the late 19th century through the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, suspicion of communist subversion was a running theme in American politics. Such suspicions were particularly strong during the 1950s (among other periods), and McCarthy for many represented the most extreme manifestations of U.S. anti-communism during that time. Those are, I believe, noncontroversial facts of history. I don't understand what is POV, let alone "very blatant[ly]" so, about that simple and historically accurate term of description.—DCGeist 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently the article never actually made good article status. It seems that whoever launched that procedure didn't do it correctly. And since one of the criteria of GA status is "stability," this article may not get the GA stamp any time soon. I've heard there's an editor working right now on a 600 word addition addressing the question of whether McCarthy had toenail fungus. KarlBunker 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if that is meant to refer to me, since elsewhere you express concern that my edits are disproportionately focused on trivia. Is it? Kaisershatner 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy Kennedy
Not sure if this info/article would be better with a "personal life" section that would include this info, or if it works better as a subsection. It's not really "Senate Years" but it does chronologically occur then. Kaisershatner 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering how little effect the Kennedy connection had on McCarthy's career, the addition was, at best, far too long. It's arguably completely irrelevant, since as you say, it's almost entirely about McCarthy's personal life. This isn't an article about McCarthy's personal life because there's nothing remotely notable about McCarthy's personal life. Try editing it down to points that have some connection with McCarthy's career and I'll reconsider it. KarlBunker 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Karl, "I'll reconsider it" may be a bad choice of phrase. Several others have at earlier times suggested you are violating WP:OWN.  I'm not there yet but you do seem to have established ultimate authority over what is acceptable in this article.  With respect to the content I added, it is first of all objective, secondly, well-attributed, and thirdly, relevant to his BIOGRAPHY.  His Biography includes where and when he was born, whether he was married or single, what jobs he held, etc.  The content I added is at least as relevant to his biography as plenty of things you tolerate in this article, such as a single allegation by an author that McCarthy was a homosexual, something you permit here and note was never reported by any of his biographers or by the press.  Furthermore, the content itself appears in various forms in the articles about John F. Kennedy and Joseph Kennedy.  Are you telling me it is more relevant to JFK's biography than to McCarthy's?  McCarthy dated two of JFK's sisters, campaigned for the GOP in every race except the Mass. one where JFK was running, gave RFK his first job and was godfather to RFK's kid.  And you think there's nothing notable about that, and remove it entirely rather than even looking for a compromise?  In our previous disagreements (intro of McCarthyism, specifically) I have asked myself if I might be wrong.  I have sought second opinions.  And I have let it sit, because maybe I am wrong.  In this case, you have crossed a line that IMO violates WP:AGF by removing sourced and NPOV text from this article while asserting what you will "reconsider" as appropriate.  I will revert your deletion.  I ask that you invite commentary from other editors.  If you will not, then I will see you at dispute resolution.  This is just beyond the pale.  Kaisershatner 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said "I'll reconsider", I was referring to reconsidering my revert of your edit. Your assumption that I meant more than that is not in keeping with WP:AGF. I'm sorry that you consider my revert "beyond the pale," but in that point too, you seem to be reacting to an attitude on my part that exists only in your mind. Try assuming good faith; it might be easier on your blood pressure.
 * Your edit added some 580 words about a very narrow and generally non-notable aspect of McCarthy's life. As I said, there is nothing notable about McCarthy's personal life. Biographical articles can't (or shouldn't be) blind to the reason why a person is famous. Biographies about sports figures focus on their sports careers, those about generals focus on their military careers. There is already plenty of information about McCarthy's personal life in the article--enough to provide background to the career that made him famous. However, because the Kennedys are so famous, some mention of McCarthy's relationship with them might be a worthwhile addition. I'm simply saying that the size of your edit is out of proportion. KarlBunker 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KarlBunker, thanks for clarifying your ambiguous wording. Where you wrote "Try editing it down ...and I'll reconsider it" the "it" would appear to refer to the same antecedent, which was the prose, not your reversion.  You're usually pretty specific with your word choices, but I suppose even you can make mistakes.  As far as trading advice to assume good faith, I'm not the one here with the history of edit warring, 3RR blocks, and track record of confrontation over this article.  You reverted the addition of factually accurate, neutral, and cited material from this article, despite an explicit invitation to discuss it on the Talk page.  I'll try to find the good faith in that somewhere, I suppose assuming good faith here is "KarlBunker, like Kaisershatner, is trying to improve the article."  But it's hard to see the harm that would have ensued from not reverting my changes - worst case scenario for you is "Hey, that editor added stuff that in my opinion is irrelevant or overemphasized."  Instead, you figured, "there is nothing notable about McCarthy's personal life."  Revert.  I guess I don't see the good faith, but since you've reinstated most of my additions, I can let it pass.
 * It may be your opinion that "there is nothing notable about McCarthy's personal life." Other readers may wish to know where he went to high school and how many brothers he had. Do any of the biographers we cite in this article include any of that information in their scholarly work about him?  I would think they do.  Also, given that WP is NOT a print encyclopedia, we aren't space-limited in what we might choose to include.  You have elsewhere argued for keeping small items such as the homosexual smear, although it would appear to be just one man's (potentially bad-faith) opinion.  As far as I'm concerned, keep it all in as long as it is well-sourced, just like my additions about the Kennedys.
 * Finally, your view of what is appropriate to include in a biography is interesting, but not really reflected by Wikipedia in general (or by other biographies I have read). From Wikipedia's biographical articles, we also learn for example that Ghandi "barely passed the matriculation exam for Samaldas College at Bhavanagar, Gujarat," and that the 14th Dalai Lama grew up in a "one-story house with distinctive guttering and tiling."  Did you know that FDR, who was President of the US for 12 years, met Eleanor at a White House reception- previously they had met "as children, but this was their first serious encounter?"  Picking biographical FA's at random so far I haven't seen one that doesn't address the subject's personal life if there is anything known about it.
 * I suppose in summary, I will continue to try to find the good faith in your edits and your iron control over this article. I can see I'm not the first editor to become tired of trying to fight you over every sentence - and in this case there's nothing even political about the material, it's just simple facts.  You may, in turn, try to find the good faith in some of the other editors working here, even if their view of what constitutes a biography differs from your own.Kaisershatner 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing (IMO) as unbalanced coverage of a topic in an article. For example, in the 800 page Reeves biography of McCarthy, a study of the index indicates that something under half of 1% of the text relates to any of the Kennedys. With your recent edits, this article is at about 5% Kennedys.
 * The story about the deal around the Kennedy-Lodge campaign is widely disputed. JFK specifically denied it at one point, and several other sources have said that it doesn't make sense for various reasons. KarlBunker 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I have no problem with the addition of sourced statements to that effect. Since it's "widely disputed" I'll take a look for some, and if you want to save yourself the work I would be happy to look where you show me.  Kaisershatner 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd add that you also deleted the quotation of JFK where he says half his constituents saw McCarthy as a hero. Why? Kaisershatner 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because There is such a thing (IMO) as unbalanced coverage of a topic in an article. For example, in the 800 page Reeves biography of McCarthy, a study of the index indicates that something under half of 1% of the text relates to any of the Kennedys. With your recent edits, this article is at about 5% Kennedys. KarlBunker 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KB, I left a note at your talk. I think we should proceed to mediation.Kaisershatner 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the JFK quotation about McCarthy being a hero? That's not duplicated anywhere else in the article, so how is including it "over-emphasis?"  Kaisershatner 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been remiss in characterizing this as solely an issue of excess attention to a non-notable personal-life issue. It's also a POV issue. This material is not neutral in the sense of being neither favorable nor unfavorable to McCarthy. Many readers will read this material as an attempt to cast a favorable light on McCarthy by connecting him with a popular political family. Others will see it as an attempt to cast a negative light on the Kennedys. Of course, the fact that this material is "McCarthy-favoring" is not a reason to exclude it. However, when a non-neutral sub-topic like this receives undue weight, it becomes a POV issue.

As an analogy, McCarthy had many supporters among notable American fascists, anti-Semites and racists. If this sub-topic was to be covered in the article to an extent that's way out of proportion to the amount of coverage it gets from McCarthy biographers, that would likewise be a POV issue. KarlBunker 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a good analogy. Whether he may have had incidental support from random Americans is not the same as: he was befriended by Joseph Kennedy well before he achieved fame, dated two Kennedy sisters, campaigned against every Democratic Senate nominee except JFK, and gave RFK his first public sector job.  And that reliable sources have suggested there was a deal in place between the Kennedys and McCarthy.  Whatever "many readers will read," simply pointing out the facts and letting the readers draw their own conclusions would be NPOV, which is what you are currently preventing. Kaisershatner 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is NOT "random support." It's McCarthy's success in gaining Catholic support. I tried to fix the problem by putting in a national political context and adding detailed cites and a few quotes from scholars and writers like Bill Buckley. Whether users like or dislike McCarthy and the Kennedys, they deserve to know exactly what happened and how it affected state and national politics. The point is what was McCarthy's national base of support--and the answer was it was very strong on Catholics. But Catholics were 80% Democrats in those days and so Republican McCarthy had to have an alliance with prominent Democrats, hence the Kennedys' central importance to his career. All historians and biographers cover the material and there is no controversy (except possibly whether there was an handshake-deal in 1952 or just an implicit deal).Rjensen 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an outside opinion, I find the Kennedy connection very relevent and informative -- especially in the manner that the latest editor has connected it with mobilizing the Catholic voting base. It seems that other 3rd Opinions (and fourths) have entered into the discussion here, so I will de-list this from the request for third opinions.  -_ Pastordavid 09:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue I'm raising is not "should this topic be covered". It's "how much coverage can this topic get before the amount of coverage becomes POV"? Kaisershatner, you haven't addressed that issue, nor explained how my analogy is invalid for it.
 * Rjensen, I like the added mention of the issue of Catholic support. But saying "people deserve to know exactly what happened" isn't a useful point to make. One could use that argument to justify adding an infinite amount of information on any sub-topic in any article.
 * Anyway, I've trimmed a small amount from the section. The comparison I made above regarding the amount of space spent on this issue still shows it to be excessive, (3% of the article vs. .5% of the largest McCarthy biography) but I won't make any more cuts right now. I'll await further comments. KarlBunker 12:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to clarify. I think you should also clarify how you again selected these particular sourced points to delete:.  But me first: to start with, I'm not sure what POV it is you are concerned the material in question introduces.  As you have said yourself, readers may see it as a positive for McCarthy to be associated with the Kennedys, others a negative for the Kennedys, and others (you don't mention) might see it as positive for the Kennedys or negative for McCarthy.  Frankly, I don't care what conclusion they draw, and I'm not even sure what I think about the implications.  Mostly, I'm concerned with introducing facts about the objectively true multifaceted longstanding relationship between the Kennedy family and McCarthy.  I don't see a POV issue at all- everything I added actually happened.  Second, what I was trying to say above about your analogy being poor is that when you say McCarthy had "many supporters among notable American fascists, anti-Semites and racists," but we don't cover them all in the article, this is not germane to the paragraph about the Kennedys (now Kennedy/Catholic support).  I think rjensen said it better than I, but likening coverage in this article regarding the extensive contacts between McC and the Ks to support from notable fascists et al. is not right, unless these notable people are (1) as nationally notable as the Kennedys, (2) gave major contributions to McCarthy's campaigns basically from the start, (3) were romantically involved with him, and/or (4) were employed by him.  Also (5) did he help any get elected to the Senate?  If you are alluding to such people I would definitely support a section on his relationship with them.  Even people who qualify for one or two of those above points might be worth including.
 * To return to an above issue, you again deleted the Lodge story and the Buckley citation pertaining to it. Previously, you allege this is disputed.  Where I above ask you to provide a citation to support your view of this as "disputed" you have not,"The story about the deal around the Kennedy-Lodge campaign is widely disputed. JFK specifically denied it at one point, and several other sources have said that it doesn't make sense for various reasons. KarlBunker 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) If that's the case, I have no problem with the addition of sourced statements to that effect. Since it's 'widely disputed' I'll take a look for some, and if you want to save yourself the work I would be happy to look where you show me. Kaisershatner 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)" and you have also not responded to my argument that even if disputed, it should remain with appropriate counter-citations to demonstrate this.  You have made my exact argument in support of keeping the "McCarthy was a homosexual" argument- that reliable sources said it even though most people did not think it was credible.  To me it appears you are employing a double-standard- delete the allegedly questionable things (although without substantiating they are questionable in this case) that might reflect favorably on McCarthy, but keep the questionable criticisms while pointing out that most people disagreed.  As I have said, I think we should keep both.
 * And regarding WP:NPOV, which I think is still the argument you are using to delete the verifiable and cited material to bring us down from 5% or 3% or whatever percent Kennedys, my answer is Wikipedia is not Print (WP:NOT) and there is no limit to how much material we can include here, and no reason why our article should keep the same percentage of Kennedy coverage as McCarthy's biographers. There are so many problems with this I'll try to keep it short.  Which biographer in your view sets the appropriate percentage?  Should we average them?  By page numbers, citation lengths?  How to factor in the prominence of the material, not just the length of it?  Also, there will be standard deviation- if the average biographer keeps it down to 3% Kennedys +/- .05% how far off the mark can we be?  The real NPOV answer to your concern about overweighting, which I am taking pains to consider in Good Faith despite your targeting of the same "disputed" story and Buckley quotation is to ADD MORE material about other McCarthy things to the article, not to remove the true and cited ones.  That will also reduce the percentage you are worried about. Kaisershatner 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kaisershatner, if you're going to use arguments which you know are false and nonsensical, I wish you would at least do so more briefly. On the plus side, since you're doing that, you make in unnecessary for me to respond to anything you say, so thanks for that. KarlBunker 10:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding biographers, if you go to AMAZON.COM you can do every-word searches of the Oshinsky and Herman biographies. Put "Kennedy" as a search term: then "Kennedy" appears on 41 different pages of the 626pp Oshinsky book and 46 pages of the 430 page Herman book. That's a lot of mention.Rjensen 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy material in the Oshinsky Biography: Counting all the 2-word mentions as .5 page, this gives a total of 7.6 pages out of a 600+ page book, or slightly over 1%. More than twice as much as the Reeves biography, but still far less than the 5% that was being pushed at one point. KarlBunker 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17 (33): .5 page
 * 18 (34): .1 pg.
 * 239: .3 pg.
 * 240: 1 pg.
 * 241: 1 pg.
 * 242: .1 pg.
 * 242: .1 pg.
 * 245: .05 pg.
 * 252: .05 pg.
 * 253: .5 pg.
 * 255: 2-word mention
 * 295: .3 pg.
 * 296: 2-word mention
 * 297: 2-word mention
 * 298: 2-word mention
 * 318: .3 pg.
 * 328: 2-word mention
 * 361: 2-word mention
 * 401: .1 pg.
 * 402: .5 pg.
 * 408: .3 pg.
 * 467: 2-word mention
 * 468: .3 pg.
 * 474: 2-word mention
 * 489: .5 pg.
 * 490: 1 pg.
 * 492: 2-word mention
 * 502: 2-word mention
 * 504: .1 pg.
 * The remainder are name-mentions in references, the bibliography and the index.
 * The remainder are name-mentions in references, the bibliography and the index.


 * KarlBunker. Please refrain from making personal attacks ("if you're going to use arguments which you know are false and nonsensical, I wish you would at least do so more briefly.")  I'm sorry you went through the trouble of writing down all of those percentages, but maybe I wasn't being clear that I think the percentage is irrelevant.  Any progress on your contention that the Lodge story is "disputed" or have you just dropped that argument?  About this deletion: you still won't respond.  I've never known you to be wrong on the facts.  I am reinstating that material until you can substantiate your claim.  Kaisershatner 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Oshinsky biography is accessible through Amazon's "Search Inside" function. Do your own research.
 * Please also put in a request for mediation if you want to continue this discussion. KarlBunker 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KarlBunker, I'm trying to keep cool here. My understanding is that if you assert something is "disputed," rather than removing cited material, the burden is on you to substantiate your claims with citations.  Also you clipped much more than what I added in  taking out Rjensen's edits I think, maybe others too.  But if you aren't willing to continue this conversation here, I will respect your wish. Kaisershatner 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization of Catholic/Kennedy material
Alongside the question of what is the proper amount of gross space to devote to this material (it strikes me that it's found a reasonable and informative level), its present organization simply adheres to no encyclopedic logic. There's no good rationale for such a section to be devised to follow Final years when the rest of the article is organized roughly chronologically.

The second paragraph is easiest to deal with: the Robert Kennedy material clearly belongs in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee section and JFK's nonvote on censure in the Censure and Watkins Committee section. The "hero" quote could go either there or earlier...

The first paragraph could argually be maintained as its own section earlier on, but would perhaps more ideally be split up between Senate campaign, the U.S. Senate lead, and Fame and notoriety, as appropriate. Such a reorganization might help resolve the question of emphasis: in historical terms, the relationship with the Kennedys is clearly a running thread in McCarthy's career; it's not at all clear that it should be presented as one of the major themes.—DCGeist 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are there are good points to both types of organization, but on balance I agree with DCGeist. KarlBunker 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * McCarthy's relationship with the Catholics is a major topic in his political career (with full length books--like Crosby). There were many elements of that but Kennedys were at the center of it. Rjensen 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My original request to discuss the nature of the Kennedy additions was intended to allow us to discuss where and how to put the material. Now that it is about the Catholic vote and not just the Kennedys, my view has changed a little, but I think it should be in "Senate years" chronologically before "Wheeling" since it mostly deals with his pre-Communism-attack fame and now also deals with his electoral base. However, I was also thinking of pitching a "personal life" section as an alternative- with the electoral base material it doesn't work as well, but many bio articles have a section like this, where we would discuss his family life, marriage, notable friendships, etc. Kaisershatner 18:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is that the discussion merits its own section, it should still be moved to a place that maintains a rational structure. The first paragraph (plus "hero" quote), with its historically sensible emphasis on Catholic support, would fit in reasonably well between the Fame and notoriety and McCarthy and Truman sections. [Wrote this before KS's post above (now perhaps accidentally erased?)--putting the material before Wheeling speech is also reasonable. I'm personally not interested in seeing a "personal life" section--the essential facts are already in the article or can be added if something crucial is missing.] The Robert Kennedy and JFK censure material--which don't directly relate to Catholic support--should appear in their proper choronological places, as described above. The Kennedy thread will still be evident and the history clearer.—DCGeist 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your view of this works a bit better than mine, DCGeist; I would support a move of the para as it stands, after "Fame and notoriety" and before "McCarthy and Truman." Kaisershatner 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy/Kennedy, part deux
Kaisershatner, I read a couple of the messages you left for other editors (I was looking to see if you'd entered a request for mediation yet), and I find myself questioning myself. I see in those messages the voice of someone who is making a genuine attempt to be fair. A little peevish and prone to ad hominem arguments, but making an attempt nevertheless. I'm also reminded of the list of editors you invited to add their comments to this discussion--you were fair, and contacted all recent editors without asking for comments only from those who were likely to agree with you.

This is in sharp contrast to the impression I got from your recent edits to the discussion here. There I saw someone whom I honestly (yes, honestly; no, I am not trying to piss you off; no I am not trying to insult you; no I am not trying to imperiously dismiss you, but honestly, honestly, honestly) thought was deliberately making arguments that you could not help but know were nonsensical. It looked to me like a blatant attempt to wear down an "opponent" with barely disguised sophistry.

But seeing this "other voice" of yours, I'm questioning that conclusion, like I said. So I'm going to make another attempt. I'm not going to go over or even reread your prior arguments; instead, let's try starting with a clean slate. Below is my argument, broken down. You can refer to any component point you disagree with by number:


 * 1) Certain sub-topics within an article cast a favorable or unfavorable light on the subject of an article.
 * 2) Therefore, unbalanced coverage of that sub-topic, even though factual, introduces a POV slant to an article.
 * 3) McCarthy's connection with the Kennedy family is such a sub-topic.
 * 4) According to comparisons with reputable McCarthy biographies, the amount of coverage of this sub-topic that you were/are seeking is unbalanced.
 * KarlBunker 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KarlBunker, I thank you for your proffer of good faith. I will do my utmost to return it. I think your impression of me as fair minded is the correct one, and I have been frustrated, feeling treated otherwise. We can start with a clean slate. I will endeavor to be slower, more patient, and less excitable. I would hope in return you can take your finger off of the "revert" button and hear me out. As for "prone to ad hominem arguments..." I would say the same of you(!!), so maybe we can both just agree to put down our rhetorical guns and comment on the content, not the contributor. Not the motivations of the contributor. And not to infer any kind of insidious motivations either way. I think you have done much to improve this article- but I think I have as well. I will unilaterally pledge to do these deflationary steps; I think you are proposing to join me. To begin with, would you accept a reversion to the last instance of this page prior to my adding back of the WFB citation and prior to your removing of it along with the extra 1952 Senate material, at least while we talk about it? This would be not the version I would like, and not the version you would like, but maybe a fair resting place while we work it out? Kaisershatner 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC) addendum version in question is 0835 19 March Kaisershatner 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KB, about your four points: I agree with (1), about (2) I would agree that "unbalanced" coverage might alter the POV slant, while adding defining what is "balanced" is difficult. About (3) I disagree very much.  McCarthy's connection to the Kennedys should be reported as neutrally as possible, so as to avoid drawing any conclusions.  Let the facts speak for themselves, and the reader is free to draw his/her own conclusions. (4) I disagree and I think the standard of comparison you are using is problematic. Kaisershatner 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kennedys, particularly JFK, are very highly thought of by many and fondly remembered by even more. McCarthy is, to quote the title of one of his biographies, "America's Most Hated Senator." Insofar as the Kennedys supported McCarthy, that reflects positively on McCarthy and negatively on the Kennedys (except for those few who regard McCarthy more positively than the Kennedys; for them the positive & negative are reversed.) To deny this is to ignore the meaning of words like "highly thought of " and "supported." KarlBunker 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess what I am saying is whatever the implications may be regarding the McC/K relationship, it objectively existed and should be reported here without prejudice. Kaisershatner 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! And part of "without prejudice" means in proportion to the amount of coverage the topic gets in reputable McCarthy biographies. If the amount of coverage is out of proportion, that makes it prejudicial. KarlBunker 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1952 Senate election
What's POV? it has to do with disputes among experts. In the Kennedy-McCarthy discussion here there are no serious disputes, so POV is not involved. Whether people like or dislike Kennedy and or McCarthy, and whether those likes are correlated in positive or negative fashion, is not a POV issue. There are a minimum number of words needed to covey 20 points, and the Kennedy section here is close to the minimum possible. I have tried to reduce the wordage-- but it's necessary to give full names to keep all the Joe's and Kennedy's straight. The specific dates have been reduced to a minimum/. Of course the book-length biographies use FAR MORE WORDS to cover the same topic. Rjensen 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, your definition of POV is too narrow. It's not about disputes among experts, it's about viewpoints. The Kennedys had a viewpoint, and to over-emphasize that viewpoint in the article would introduce a slant to the article.
 * Kaisershatner, it may be that we come to the conclusion that some discussion of the 1952 election is warranted. If that happens, we can add in a much better edit with much better citations than what's in . The reference in that version--a verbal interview with an author--has to be one of the least reliable reference sources for factual information imaginable. There is already material in this section that I feel is questionable, but I've left it in for the time being, hoping that we reach a point where all concerned agree on some basic principles and can discuss details. I'm referring to the "half of my constituents think he's a hero." quote. First, this has the same poor-quality reference I just mentioned. Second, even if it turns out to be well-referenced quote, it gives the misimpression that JFK's constituents were his only concern--there was also the matter of his father's strong opinion in favor of McCarthy. KarlBunker 09:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KB, I didn't think we were contesting whether any coverage of the '52 election was warranted, just the amount of the coverage. Reliable sources, though better ones can be found, suggest McCarthy did not campaign for Lodge (I think that should be objectively provable).  Some suggest it was because of a deal between Kennedy and McCarthy, overt or implied.  WFB asserted McCarthy preferred Kennedy.  None of that is subject to neutrality concerns.  Readers are free to scoff at Buckley or to infer their own conclusions, but are these facts really in question?  I'm asking, respectfully.  Also given the article covers McCarthy as political Kingmaker in the 1950 elections, isn't his decision not to campaign in Mass a notable one?  Kaisershatner 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, using the Amazon search inside you taught me about, look at


 * Kennedy and Nixon: The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America (Paperback) by Christopher J Matthews. If you search the phrase "one man who might have saved Lodge," it will direct you to the correct page (72).  It substantiates the claim that McCarthy chose not to campaign for Lodge and supported Kennedy. Kaisershatner 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, search inside The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate Robert Griffith, for McCarthy Lodge and you get p. 250: "The 1952 defeat of HCL, which many observers had credited to McCarthy...".Kaisershatner 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Oshinsky, p. 250: "For most of Kennedy's advisors, the key factor in 1952 was keeping McCarthy neutral...According to several accounts, Joe Kennedy forclosed this possibility [of McC stumping for HCL] by contacting McCarthy through a mutual friend, columnist Westbrook Pegler." NOTE: the rest of this page lists the JFK denial.  IMO we should include this as well.  Oshinsky reports Lodge was the reason McC didn't come to Mass, but quotes Lodge as having asked McC to campaign against Kennedy, and McC refusing. Kaisershatner 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether McCarthy campaigned in MA was never the question. The question is whether there's anything notable about the fact that he didn't campaign there. If there was a "deal" with Kennedy for him to stay out of MA, that might make it notable. Likewise if there was even a notable and widely-repeated rumor that there was a deal. Likewise it would be notable if McCarthy campaigned for every other Republican running for senate office that year. As far as I know, none of those is the case.KarlBunker 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Every historian makes the point that the 1952 episode was important, so Wiki should go with the consensus. The Buckley quote is highly relevent here (someone seems to have deleted it). The issue was control of the Democratic party, with the liberals (led by Stevenson & Eleanor Roosevelt) strongly opposed to McCarthy and to Joe Kennedy, leaving John Kennedy in a delicate position. The Mass senate race was very close and McCarthy's decision to reject the GOP national committee appeal to campaign for Lodge was thus magnified. Rjensen 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I doubt that "every historian" or even every McCarthy biographer makes much of the event, but I'll accept your word that most do. You can put the the mention back in or I will later. KarlBunker 18:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a few revisions to reflect better sourcing--i.e., mainstream published texts. Could someone come up with a good cite or two for "Kennedy had a national network of contacts and became a vocal supporter, building McCarthy's popularity among Catholics. Kennedy contributed to McCarthy's campaign fund and encouraged his friends to do the same"? I don't doubt it; I'd just like to know the best place to read about it. Also, I'm a little dubious about the bit concerning "pressure from liberals" on Kennedy to criticize McCarthy. That needs a specific, well-sourced cite or the phrase should be cut.


 * Maybe not exact, but how's Oshinsky p. 240: "Joseph Kennedy did not hide his feelings. He praised the Senator, invited him to Cape Cod for visits, and introduced him to influential Catholic leaders." I'll keep looking though. Kaisershatner 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good start.—DCGeist 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Same page: "During the 1952 campaign a few of Kennedy's liberal advisers pressed him to speak out against the Senator."  Not a perfect match but again, still working on it. Kaisershatner 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's worth pursuing this. I think my rephrasing--"unlike many Democrats, he never attacked his fellow senator"--makes the necessary, broader point.—DCGeist 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the liberal wing of the Democratic party, Kennedy, McCarthy: footnote 4: "ER did not support JFK in his bid for the vice presidential nomination in 1956, nor did she initially support his candidacy for the presidential nomination in 1960. She questioned his commitment to civil rights and regarded his evasion concerning the Senate censure of McCarthy as dangerous. For more information see ER to JFK, 1/20/59, n1. [Black, Casting Her Own Shadow, pp. 175-187.]"
 * Even better, the Alida Black book is searchable at Amazon: pp. 172-3 "Kennedy's continuing refusal to speak out against McCarthy spoke volumes about where his true convictions lay." Kind of beating around the point, but getting closer. All the time I have right now. Kaisershatner 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting a little far afield with these. Relevant perhaps to an article on Kennedy, but not really McCarthy, I think.—DCGeist 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd still like to see the contents of the section moved up into the main structure of the article, as I described above. Given that the specific temporal event the main paragraph of the section focuses on is the 1952 Mass. Senate race, I think the most logical place is either between Fame and notoriety and McCarthy and Truman or between McCarthy and Truman and McCarthy and Eisenhower.—DCGeist 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maier The Kennedys (2003) p 272: ''Joe Kennedy contributed generously to his political coffers....The Kennedy's were major backers." He vigorously supported McC before his friends (see Smith ed Hostage of Fortune (2001) p 664 for example. Rjensen 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. That and the Oshinsky together take care of that longer passage I queried.—DCGeist 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3/21 edits
I consider some of the recent edits by Kaisershatner to be detrimental to the article. We'll need to discuss them. And "I", by the way, am the editor formerly known as KarlBunker; I changed my name through Changing username. You'll find me as good-natured and patient and full of good cheer as always; only the name has changed. RedSpruce 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain/elaborate on your view that these edits are detrimental? Also, by reverting such edits prior to discussion it treats my edits as simple vandalism. And I did specifically ask you to take your finger off of the revert button.  Very frustrating.Kaisershatner 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)  Also I don't mean to cause offense, but look at WP:REVERT- it basically specifically covers this situation.Kaisershatner 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain/elaborate on your view that these edits are detrimental? I will later today, as soon as I have the time.
 * I did specifically ask you to take your finger off of the revert button. Did you? I guess I didn't notice. I'll take your request under advisement. RedSpruce 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I guess I won't be back later today. Trying keep this article neutral in the face of two McCarthy apologists is becoming too much of a time and energy sink for me. Barring the arrival of reinforcements on the side of truth and rationality, I'm going to have to drop out for the time being.
 * So whadeva; it was a decent article for a while. 'Bye.
 * RedSpruce 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pepsi Cola
DCGeist, can you have a look at my wording here? I was attempting a neutral formulation- the source I cited suggests he was pushing the sugar thing because it was a Republican issue and that his critics linked it with the suspicious $20k loan. I think it is that same source that asserts the guy who gave the donation didn't benefit from the legislation. Mainly I'd just like to present the facts (1) he supported this legislation (2) he accepted a 20k loan (3) he got a bad nickname from his critics. Maybe you can help me with the language? I'm not trying to softpedal the issue. Kaisershatner 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me.—DCGeist 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of my previously reverted edits removed one instance of his entering the USMC as an officer. Do we need to mention it once in each paragraph? To me, the fact that he falsified his war service is clearly supported by "he claimed to have enlisted as a buck private" even without again mentioning he joined as an officer- we just said that in the previous para. Your view? Kaisershatner 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Red (né KB) might have been concerned about making clear that McCarthy in fact was never anything less than an officer. I've edited the previous paragraph to make that clear. Redundancy now eliminated.—DCGeist 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for looking, I also made a ce for syntax. There's no doubt he just lied about it. Kaisershatner 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Marshall issue
McCarthy's attack on Marshall in 1951 was aa major political event (it even spilled over into the 1952 presidential election involving Eisenhower.) The old version in the text is incomplete and inadequate. It does not explain what the issues were or what positions McCarthy took. So I have reworked it: doies anyone have any objections?
 * Hey, Rjensen, I will give some feedback in a moment. Maybe we'll need to do this more slowly or point by point so we can find consensus.  One thing I do not like about the current version is where it says "McCarthy implied Marshall was guilty of treason," and cites the speech.  I'd rather work in something like "McCarthy said X" instead of trying to figure out what it implies.  Let the reader do that, we should present the objective facts- what McCarthy said.  At least, your edit does this.  I would like to hear what DCGeist's view of it is too, though, before we make a major change.  Kaisershatner 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text:
 * Marshall, the former Army Chief of Staff during World War II, was Truman's Secretary of State (1947-49) and Secretary of Defense (1950-51). In 1945-47, after Japan surrendered, Truman sent Marshall to China amidst the Chinese Civil War to broker an agreement betweeen the Communists under Mao Tse Tung and America's Nationalist allies under Chiang Kai-shek, but Marshall's mission ended disastrously for the allied side and led to Communist victory. Historians agree his mission was a failure. On June 14, 1951, as the Korean war (directed by Marshall as Secretary of Defense) stalemated in heavy fighting between American and Chinese forces, McCarthy attacked. McCarthy charged that Marshall was directly responsible for the "loss of China," as China turned from friend to enemy.  McCarthy alleged American foreign policy setbacks could only be explained by "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man," and charged that General Albert Coady Wedemeyer's plan to support America's Chinese allies had prepared a wise plan to keep China a valued ally, but that it had been sabotaged: "only in treason can we find why evil genius thwarted and frustrated it."

Kaisershatner 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Rjensen 07:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (What I cut is here, in pieces. I think the long blockquote may be too much detail, esp. if we keep the money quotes above.  Let me know if you think I'm wrong. Kaisershatner 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)) McCarthy said the only way to explain why the U.S. "fell from our position as the most powerful Nation on earth at the end of World War II to a position of declared weakness by our leadership" was because of McCarthy argued that McCarthy suggested that Marshall was old and feeble and easily duped; he did not charge Marshall with treason. Specifically McCarthy alleged:"When Marshall was sent to China with secret State Department orders, the Communists at that time were bottled up in two areas and were fighting a losing battle, but that because of those orders the situation was radically changed in favor of the Communists. Under those orders, as we know, Marshall embargoed all arms and ammunition to our allies in China. He forced the opening of the Nationalist-held Kalgan Mountain pass into Manchuria, to the end that the Chinese Communists gained access to the mountains of captured Japanese equipment. No need to tell the country about how Marshall tried to force Chiang Kai-shek to form a partnership government with the Communists."

Workshopping it:

Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff during World War II, was Truman's Secretary of State (1947–49) and Secretary of Defense (1950–51). In 1945–47, Truman sent Marshall to China amid the Chinese Civil War to broker an agreement betweeen the Communists under Mao Zedong and America's allies, the ruling Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek. Marshall's mission failed, and the war ended disastrously for the Nationalists. Within a few years, American troops would be fighting Chinese Communist forces in the Korean War. On June 14, 1951, during a stalemate in the war, McCarthy charged that Marshall was directly responsible for the "loss of China." McCarthy alleged American foreign policy setbacks could only be explained by "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man," and declared that General Albert Coady Wedemeyer's plan to support America's Chinese allies had been sabotaged: "only in treason can we find why evil genius thwarted and frustrated it."

Looks good. Clear, focused, well referenced.

—DCGeist 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Add a little more detail:
 * OK, but I think just a little too much detail about the specifics of the war, here are my strike/suggestions- Kaisershatner 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army during World War II, was Truman's Secretary of State (1947–49) and Secretary of Defense (1950–51). In 1945–47, Truman sent Marshall to China amid the Chinese Civil War to broker an agreement betweeen the Communists under Mao Zedong and America's allies, the ruling Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek. Marshall's mission failed, and the civil war was won by the Communists, who took control of all of China except Taiwan Island . By and by 1950 the American army was fighting the Chinese Communist army in the Korean War. On June 14, 1951, during a stalemate in the war, McCarthy charged that Secretary of Defense Marshall was directly responsible for the "loss of China." McCarthy charged that Marshall was sent to China with "secret State Department orders" to embargo "all arms and ammunition to our allies in China," and that this turned the Communists' losing position into victory."When Marshall was sent to China with secret State Department orders, the Communists at that time were bottled up in two areas and were fighting a losing battle, but that because of those orders the situation was radically changed in favor of the Communists. Under those orders, as we know, Marshall embargoed all arms and ammunition to our allies in China." McCarthy concluded the Communist takeover of China could be explained only by "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man." McCarthy declared General Wedemeyer's plan to support America's Chinese allies had been sabotaged: "only in treason can we find why evil genius thwarted and frustrated it."
 * we need to keep the details--that's what the huge debate about China was all about. Otherwise readers are left in the dark what people were so excited about. .... There's a bit of a tendency in this article to stress rhetoric and tone at the expense of the substance of issues.   For example we should say "Communist takeover of China" rather than "Communist triumph", as the latter phrase is too vague. Rjensen 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can live with it this way, would like to hear from DCGeist though.Kaisershatner 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I kind of like this sentence that's in the current article: McCarthy specifically alleged that Marshall was culpable in embargoing arms and ammunition to the anti-Communist forces in China and pushing Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek to form a coalition government with Communist chief Mao Zedong.[26] Doesn't that make the point pretty well? Kaisershatner 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Godfather
I don't think this should be very controversial but since we have things running smoothly I wanted to leave comments here at talk, also because this goes against a previous discussion we had about the Kennedys. I would like to move the RFK godfather sentence into the support from Kennedy para, after "dated two of Kennedy's daughters." I think the sentence goes to McCarthy's personal relationship with the family, rather than to the RFK job- where it is now slightly suggests the godfather thing was linked to the hiring of RFK as counsel. Most importantly, he was godfather to RFK's child in 1951 and gave the job in 1952, so chronologically it belongs in the other section. Kaisershatner 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.—DCGeist 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
Article should be delisted due to POV pushing in the introduction, calling anti-communist Americans "extreme", and various other POV-pushing in the introduction which was already agreed to be gotten ride of in arbitration a long time ago. Also, sadly there is no where I can report several users claiming ownership of this article, and refusing to let me edit one single thing on this article, though perhaps I will explore my options. So, there it is. Judgesurreal777 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an elaborate system of dispute resolution. Personally I don't see other users claiming "ownership" of the article, however, and I don't know what arbitration you are referring to.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, perhaps my word choice was not the best, they aren't claiming ownership, they are simply OWNING the article, by refusing to let me fix the POV by reverting my edits, even edits that were agreed to in arbitration LAST TIME. But thank you for letting me know what further options I have. Judgesurreal777 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that by calling anti-communism "extreme" that the implication is that communism is good. I think the issue here is that some innocent people got hurt.Jimmuldrow 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling a whole period of American life "extreme", and a majority of Americans concerns about worldwide communist infiltration and insurrection, that was a major issue of the late 40's and 50's, as was demonstrated by the various show trials of church clergy in Central Europe, is itself extreme. Those who claim such a thing wish the past was different than it was. To call a American vigilance against communism, which is undeniably an existential threat to the west "extreme" is to imply over reaction, and since that is what some POV pushers are implying, the weight of proof rests firmly on them. And since they have no proof it was an over reaction, the world extreme should be stricken from the article, and the introduction composed with the help of those who have been shut out of the article, myself included. Judgesurreal777 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy/Kennedy, part drei
Regarding the text beginning with "In the 1952 U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts...":

There is a reference to McCarthy striking a "deal," although in fact no deal is ever described. The word "deal" is a leftover from earlier versions of this text, in which an arrangement was described between JFK and McCarthy (and brokered by Joe Kennedy) that JFK would refrain from anti-McCarthy statements if McCarthy would refrain from campaigning for Lodge. This was deemed an interesting story, worthy of some attention, even if it was a rumor disputed by some.

There is no reference to any such deal in any McCarthy biography or other source (reliable or otherwise) that I've been able to find. It must exist, as a rumor, out there somewhere in the world, because I remember seeing it crop up in this article several times over. But no reputable biographer describes such a scenario--not even to dismiss it as a rumor. Some authors mention reports of Joseph Kennedy "asking" McCarthy not to campaign for Lodge; some authors mention reports of Kennedy contributing to McCarthy's campaign to encourage McCarthy to stay out of Massachusetts. No source I've been able to find accepts as factual or even probably that there was a "deal" in the sense of a campaign contribution in return for McCarthy staying out of Massachusetts. Various other reasons are given for McCarthy not becoming involved in the Massachusetts race.

No McCarthy biographer treats McCarthy's absence from the Massachusetts election as especially notable. There were many elections that year, and McCarthy involved himself deeply in some of them, but by no means all of them.

Specifics from various sources follow:

Oshinsky biography: pg. 241: No mention of a "deal", only of Joseph Kennedy "asking" McCarthy to stay out of the campaign. Source for this is described as "none too reliable," story is disputed in detail based on Kennedy's denial and other points.

Herman biography: pg. 205: No mention of a "deal"; brief mention of JFK/Lodge election: "At Joseph {Kennedy] Sr.'s urging, he declined to campaign for his fellow republican, Henry Cabot Lodge."

Reeves biography: pg. 442: No mention of a "deal", only of Joseph Kennedy "asking" McCarthy to stay out of the campaign. This is reported as correct, but this request and Kennedy's "sizable contribution" to McCarthy's campaign "were not the primary reasons for the senator's decision." Rather, it is said that McCarthy believed that Lodge was "hatching a political plot of some sort against him."

Robert Griffith's The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate: No mention of JFK/Lodge election at all.

Fred J. Cook's The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy: pg. 284: No mention of a "deal". Quotes two Kennedy biographers as stating that Joseph Kennedy had contributed to McCarthy's campaign "not to keep McCarthy from coming into Massachusetts," but "because a mutual friend[...] asked [Joseph Kennedy] to give it to him."

Rovere biography: No mention of JFK/Lodge election at all

Haynes Johnson's The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism : pg. 250: No mention of a "deal". "Old Joe appealed to McCarthy to stay out of Massachusetts that fall. What kind of inducements he made to McCarthy remain lost to history[...]" Mention of Kennedy campaign contribution to McCarthy.

Thus we have 190 words of text in the current article (not counting the last few sentences of the paragraph, which are about JFK's attitude toward McCarthy) describing a non-event in the 1952 election, mentioning a "deal" where there is consensus that no deal existed, regarding an event deemed worthy of only the briefest--if any--mention in McCarthy biographies. Insofar as there is any consensus about what happened, that consensus is that a) nothing more than Joe Kennedy "asking" McCarthy not to campaign in Massachusetts occurred, and b) this request was probably not McCarthy's reason, or primary reason, for not campaigning in Massachusetts. In short, probably nothing of any note whatsoever happened here. The closest approach, by far, to reflecting the consensus among biographers is simply to remove the current discussion from the article.

In the last few sentences of this section, it is stated that "Senator John Kennedy remained friendly with McCarthy." That isn't correct; no biographer has described their relationship as "friendly." Rather it is said that for various reasons, Kennedy preferred to remain publicly neutral toward McCarthy, though he didn't like him either personally or politically. This needs to be corrected; though the "Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero." is valid enough.

RedSpruce 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did Kennedy deny that there was a deal if it was a non-issue? And how does cutting the Buckley quotation about McCarthy's preference for Kennedy and refusal to campaign in Mass at the RNC's request help with your view that the "non-event" is over-addressed?  Kaisershatner 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think we can find a compromise here. At minimum, I think we can include McCarthy's statement to Buckley.  McCarthy, with his extreme dislike of the "treasonous" Democrats, actually preferred Democrat Kennedy to the Republican?  A Democrat whose family he was particularly socially close with?  Fascinating, no?  Kaisershatner 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st question: I don't know, you'd have to ask Kennedy. 2nd question: There wasn't any quote; there was McCarthy "suggested to Buckley that his preference was for Kennedy" which is too vague to be of any value. 3rd & 4th question: Mildly interesting perhaps, if it's true, but not very. Some of McCarthy's worst enemies were Republicans, and apparently he was afraid Lodge was going to become one of these. Anyway, it's never been brought up in any McCarthy biography that I know of. RedSpruce 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would agree with amending the paragraph to reflect the consensus of the McCarthy biographers: that Joe Kennedy asked McCarthy not to campaign in Mass, although alternative explanations, such as his dislike for Lodge may also explain his decision, and that McCarthy privately expressed a preference for his friend John Kennedy. Making it out to be a deal is not supported by the evidence you have presented.  However, you did leave out the book on the 1952 Senate election, which has a whole chapter on this subject (Haynes Johnson?).  And "too vague to be of any value" is a strange standard- the article is about McCarthy, and whatever his reasons, it's notable that he preferred Kennedy to Lodge, and mentioned in lots of places.  Why shouldn't we cite that?  Especially given the significance of the '52 Senate election in US political history, I find it much more interesting than "mildly," but we don't have to agree on that, just on the facts.  Thanks for doing the research.  Kaisershatner 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus among biographers is that Joe Kennedy may have asked McCarthy not to campaign in MA, but that this wasn't McCarthy's reason, or main reason, for not campaigning there. In other words, NOTHING HAPPENED. There were dozens of senate elections that McCarthy didn't campaign in that year; do you want to add 300 words to the article about each of them? RedSpruce 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Marshall issue, part 2
The Marshall speech was a 60,000 word document. It was a detailed criticism of most of Marshall's career. As noted in the Rovere quote below, it was also a criticism of most of the foreign policy, especially vis a vis Communism, of two Democratic administrations from prior to WW II up until the date it was given. In the current article text, the focus on the issues of the "loss of China", on Marshall's failed attempt to broker a coalition government in China, on General Wedemeyer's "plan," on the stalemate of the Korean war, are collectively out of place and disproportionate.

The text also introduces a marked POV by repeating several specific anti-Marshall charges without giving the informed opinion of historians on the (lack of) merit to those charges. Examples include: The whole notion that bad American policies "lost" China to the Communists is one that evokes a reaction of outright contempt among all but the most far-right of historians and McCarthy biographers. Yet the current article text mentions it several times over with hardly a hint of that voice of reality. Additionally, the article text uses more subtle insinuation to impugn Marshall at a few points:
 * McCarthy charged that Marshall, then the Secretary of Defense, was directly responsible for the "loss of China.
 * McCarthy charged that Marshall was sent to China with "secret State Department orders"[...] and that this turned the Communists' losing position into victory.
 * McCarthy declared General Albert Coady Wedemeyer's plan to support America's Chinese allies had been sabotaged:
 * In late 1945 Truman sent Marshall to China amid the Chinese Civil War to broker a coalition government [...] Marshall's mission failed; the civil war was won by the Communists[...] This obviously implies that the failure of the mission--and hence the "loss of China" was Marshall's fault.
 * As American forces appeared poised for victory in Korea in late 1950, large Communist Chinese armies suddenly entered Korea and rolled back the Allies, forcing a stalemate by Spring 1951. This sentence is almost completely irrelevant of course. It's only real purpose is to imply that Marshall was doubly responsible: for letting the Chinese go Communist in the first place and for being surprised when they joined in the Korean war. (Right when we were "poised for victory", those mean ol' spoilsports!)

McCarthy biographers treat the Marshall speech as nothing more than an extreme example of a McCarthy attack. It is discussed in order to describe how outrageous it was; examining the nature and validity of its particular charges is a distant second. In printed biographies, relatively little attention is given to the details of its criticism of Marshall. In the view of McCarthy biographers, the parts of the Marshall speech that contained reasoned arguments are essentially irrelevant, because a) they were nothing new, being just a rehash of long-standing right-wing criticisms of the Democratic administrations' foreign policy, and b) because the inflammatory rhetoric of the speech was far, far more notable.

Providing the context for some of McCarthy's sensational rhetorical accusations may seem like a neutral edit, but it isn't. Rather, it's an example of why Wikipedia guidelines specifically value secondary sources over primary sources. By providing the textual context of McCarthy's implication that Marshall was a "traitor," the article gives voice to McCarthy's accusation without providing a balancing opinion from a Marshall defender or a historian. To give both McCarthy's accusation and a balancing defense would be neutral, but would give excessive coverage to a small issue. By simply saying "McCarthy implied that Marshall was a traitor," the article correctly represented the consensus view of McCarthy biographers and correctly followed Wikipedia guidelines.

Other than the unknown authors of the speech, no one, including McCarthy himself, treated its content as serious or reasoned or inherently noteworthy. Yet this is what the current text of the article does. It apologizes for McCarthy by implying that at least some of his charges must have had some merit. Even more incorrectly, by repeating specific McCarthy charges the article is stating outright that these charges were notable. In sum, the problems with this section are three-fold:
 * 1) The undue weight given to the anti-Marshal arguments is not in keeping with the balance to be found in McCarthy biographies.
 * 2) The implication that these arguments had merit is a right-wing POV not in keeping with the consensus view of historians and McCarthy biographers.
 * 3) The article's extensive focus on the China-related issues in the Marshall speech is technically inaccurate.

Specifics from various sources follow:

Oshinsky biography: Main coverage in pp 197 - 201. pg. 197: "The June 14 attack [the Marshall speech] has been described as the most daring and seditious of McCarthy's career." pg. 200: "Without putting it in so many words, he had called the general a traitor to his country." "it became apparent that he was reading from an alien document." pg. 201: Relates negative quotes from several contemporary newspapers and others. Notes that Robert Taft, a leading Republican, dismissed the speech as "bunk."

Fred J. Cook's The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy: pg. 242: Characterizes the speech as "a vicious attack upon Marshall by an irresponsible mouthpiece in the Senate of the United States." pg. 326: a "60,000-word tirade picturing the austerely upright George Catlett Marshall as a deep-dyed traitor." pg. 329: "The most famous, or rather, infamous, speech that McCarthy ever made was delivered on the floor of the Senate late in the afternoon of June 14, 1951." pg: 331: Quotes Rovere: "It is a product," he writes, "of a school of revisionist historians who have in common the view that American diplomacy since the early thirties and into the early fifties was a failure because it failed to focus single-mindedly on Soviet power. Roosevelt was mistaken in recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933; wrong in aiding the Russians in 1941; wrong in seeking the total destruction of German and Japanese power in 1945; wrong in inviting the Russians into the Pacific War; wrong in insisting that Chiang Kai-shek hold his fire for the Japanese--wrong in nearly all his major decisions. The leaders of the school were Charles Callan Tansill and Stefan Possony of Georgetown University. Georgetown was, and is, its headquarters, and there seems little room for doubt that McCarthy's speech was the work either of a member of the Georgetown school or of someone heavily influenced by it. . ." pp. 330 - 333 devoted to criticizing the speech.

Robert Griffith's The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate: pg. 145: Repeats Rovere re. the "Georgetown school of revisionist historians". "Much of the speech was a reasoned, though meanly argued, critique of American military policy during World War II, relying heavily on Hanson Baldwin's Great Mistakes of the War. Still other portions of the speech attacked United States Far Eastern policies (and Marshall's role in them) from Pearl Harbor to Korea. At each point the author[s] would suggest, usually in the form of unanswered questions, that Marshall was driven by the foulest of motives." pg. 146: "For McCarthy it was just another sally against the administration, valuable for the sound and fury it occasioned, but no more. He had the speech published and distributed under the title of America's Retreat from Victory, but there is little else to suggest that he otherwise took it seriously. He was soon engaged in other battles..."

RedSpruce 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The text we're talking about runs 120 words: In this context, on June 14, 1951, McCarthy charged that Marshall, then the Secretary of Defense, was directly responsible for the "loss of China."[26] McCarthy charged that Marshall was sent to China with "secret State Department orders" to embargo "all arms and ammunition to our allies in China," and that this turned the Communists' losing position into victory.[27] McCarthy concluded that the Communist takeover of China could be explained only by "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man." McCarthy declared General Albert Coady Wedemeyer's plan to support America's Chinese allies had been sabotaged: "only in treason can we find why evil genius thwarted and frustrated it." The biographers do NOT ignore it. Oshinsky took the title of his book "A Consipracy so Immense" from the speech. The China issue was year-in and year-out one of the major issues of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and how McCarthy used it is important. In terms of repeating McCarthy;s allegations, only one allegation is repeated: McCarthy charged that Marshall was sent to China with "secret State Department orders" to embargo "all arms and ammunition to our allies in China," and that this turned the Communists' losing position into victory. and that is essential for readers to know what the debate is all about. As for Rovere, he got the historiography wrong (he admits he did not know who wrote the speech and merely speculates and names the wrong people.) McCarthy was influenced by James Burnham, Walter Judd, and the writers that soon formed around William Buckley; The speech was part of what Nash sees as a major change among American conservatives as they started paying attention to Asia (Nash Conservative. Intellectual Movement pp 162-69, citing Bucklet, Burnham, Nock, S. Lafollette, Chamberlain, Bozell, Eastman, Flynn, Morley, Regnery etc ). The point that is otherwise lost is that China was at war with the US in 1951 and Marshall had failed in a major mission that would have prevented that war.  Was Marshall's mission a failure? That is not POV it is the unanmous conclusion of scholars, including Marshall's biographers. Should Marshall be blamed for his failure? Lots of conservatives thought so and that needs to be explained. Rjensen 21:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters, but the text I'm talking about runs 253 words, beginning with the mention of George Marshall. Not all of these words are POV and distortion, but the overall tone of the section is. As I listed above, and as you yourself just repeated, at least three specific accusations are in the article, plus two insinuated accusations. You're quite correct that biographers do not ignore the speech; that's why I never said that they did. Likewise, who actually wrote the speech is not germane to any of my arguments. That Oshinsky took the title of his book from one of the most extreme pieces of rhetoric in the Marshall speech supports my point--that the inflammatory rhetoric is the only part of the speech that biographers consider particularly noteworthy.
 * "Lots of conservatives" believe a lot of extremely stupid things, and the notion that Marshall should be blamed for not using his super powers and his magic pixie dust to make the Chinese Communists and Nationalists into best pals definitely fits into that category. "Explaining" this stupidity is not the job of Wikipedia. The job of Wikipedia is to reflect the consensus views of reliable sources, and in this case at least, doing that does not require explaining or excusing or supporting such stupidity.
 * OTOH, I agree with you that noting the fact that much of McCarthy's speech focused on China is worth mentioning in this section of the article.
 * RedSpruce 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The China issue was one of the biggest debates at the time and McCarthy was at the center of it, so it needs full coverage. Blanking the story is not the way to correct suspected POV--the proper way is to explain the other perspectives. Rivere for example should be included. The long term impact was great--the conservative intellectuals of the day rallied around McC on the China issue (says Nash) and formed the National Review, which became a powerful voice.  A key point that needs emphasis is that McC on China helped switch center of gravity of conserrvatism away from isolationism and toward a keen interest in Asia.  And let's get rid of that dumb wisecrack about Truman's fancy liquors. Rjensen 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "China issue" never consisted of anything more than some conservative republicans trying to lay the blame for the Communist's victory in China on the doorstep of democrats. It's true that these "China lobby" conservatives made quite a political football out of this nonsensical claim, but the fact that it was nonsense (in the consensus view of current historians) means that there isn't much to say about it. When McCarthy biographers discuss it, it's only to point out how wrong-headed and cynical these politicians and lobbyists were, and how destructive they were to future U.S. policies toward China and the far east. But the issue is peripheral to McCarthy. He threw a few passes with this football, but it was not a major issue in his career; his specialty was the threat of domestic Communists, and that only occasionally intersected with the China issue. This is exemplified by the fact that he never pursued any of the issues raised in his Marshall speech. He had the speech written, entered it into the Congressional record, published the book, and moved on to other interests. Since this isn't an article about U.S. foreign policy of the 50s, I don't see any reason to think the China issue warrants more coverage.
 * For a senator to say something as disrespectful of a president as McCarthy did with the "Bourbon and Benedictine" comment was considered quite notable at the time and is considered notable by his current biographers. If you have some actual argument as to why it should be gotten rid of, I'd be curious to hear it. RedSpruce 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the liquor, it's not encyclopedic. As for the China issue, it was a turning point in American political history and deserves to be covered. It is NOT true that McCarthy biographers reject his charges as unimportant. Rovere says McCarthy in fact succeeded: "it is no exaggeration to say that it destroyed George Marshall." [Rovere p 178] That's a big deal and has to be covered here. Second the China issue was the event that moved the conservatives intellectuals to get together, with the immediate result of the National Review's founding, and the long-term change in conservatism to a stronger involvement in foreign affairs (as opposed to Taft-like isolationism). This is well covered in standard histories (like Nash and Judis)Rjensen 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that saying that a notable quotation is "not encyclopedic" has no meaning that I can discern. Is it for some reason less encyclopedic than the "son of a bitch" remark?
 * It may be the case that the China issue was a turning point in American conservative political thought. If that is so, then definitely the issue should be examined at length in an article about American conservative political thought, and perhaps also an article about the National Review. This article is about Joseph McCarthy.
 * Rovere and others make it quite unequivocally clear that the rhetoric of the Marshall speech, not the actual specific charges, damaged or destroyed Marshall's career. It was the actual specific charges which were irrelevant and which you loaded into your edit. You may be right that this destruction of Marshall's career deserves mention in the article, however. RedSpruce 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the importance of Joe McCarthy and his impact. One of the major things he did was weaken or even destroy Marshall, and another big thing was to stimulate the coming together of conservatives. That's a big deal and will have to be included. Rjensen 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never seen any McCarthy biographer make any reference whatsoever to his "stimulating the coming together of conservatives." I remind you that Wikipedia is required to reflect the consensus views of reliable sources. Some historian of conservative political thought may have made this connection with McCarthy, but that doesn't count as either a consensus view or a reliable source on McCarthy.
 * And if you have some objection to the edits I made to the Kennedy & Catholicism section, voice that objection in the appropriate place here on the discussion page. Do not ignore the discussion and blindly revert to a version that I have shown to be factually incorrect and contrary to the views of reliable sources. RedSpruce 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a problem in relying on biographers of McCarthy who are or were hostile to conservatives--they ignore the consswervative movement. (Even Reeves; he was a liberal when he wrote on McCarthy but has shifted 180 degrees and is now a prominent conservative.) Anyway people who want the context have to study the conservatives.  I refer especially to the standard history, George Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America (1st ed 1976; rev ed 2006). It's the main starting point for the topic. Nash shows how the support for McCarthy (esp re China issue) brought together for the first time all sorts of conservatives, many of whom became contributors to the National Review. Buckley himself was perhaps the #1 McC intellectual; McCarthy speechwriter Brent Bozell became the magazine's publisher.  Our topic is covered also in Jeffrey Hart, The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review & Its Times (2005); William Rusher, The Rise of the Right (1984); Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement by Linda Bridges, John R. Jr. Coyne; in John Judis, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives (1988). The China Lobby has been studied (in hostile fashion) by Ross Koen (1973) and Stanley D. Bachrack, The Committee of One Million: "China Lobby" Politics, 1953-1971 (1976). We should also note books by Murley (on Wilmoore Kendall), Smant on James Burnham, and of course Sam Tanenhaus on Whittaker Chambers.  All these put McCarthy's role in perspective, which is essential for this article. Rjensen 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are repeating yourself, so I'll to likewise: This is an article about Joseph McCarthy. Its primary reliable sources are McCarthy biographies. This is not my opinion; this is WP policy. Please take your reading list about conservative political thought and the China issue to some relevant article. RedSpruce 10:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are other sources to consider besides biographies solely devoted to McCarthy. It's important to also consider sources that place McCarthy in historical context, or if notable enough, provide dissenting views on the man. Thus the sources Rjensen has listed should be considered and weighed for reliability and bias, not just outright dismissed. That is part of Wikipedia policy. WesleyDodds 12:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the sources in question have little, if any, connection to McCarthy, my response stands: This is an article about Joseph McCarthy. RedSpruce 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * However, let's stop talking in meaningless generalities. Are you (RJensen) suggesting some specific point to add to the article? If so, what is your proposed edit? It may be that we have no disagreement here at all. RedSpruce 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)