Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 9

Discussion of FAQ page
If you have any comments regarding the Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions page, please post them here.

Ongoing Debate
This whole section needs rewritten to remove the bias. Throughout the entire section the people who believe that there is new evidence in favor of McCarthy are essentially painted as all 'conservatives', and the specific use of the "liberals..." quote from Ann Coulture being a prime example. There are plenty of quotes from other McCarthy books that would work that don't contain any political leanings.

I mean, is it really impossible that some of these people may be trying to truely bring new evidence to the surface WITHOUT any political agenda? And, isn't wikipedia supposed to present these instances as such instead of making blatant assumptions, regardless of whether these assumptions are indeed an editors bias or just in good faith? This is supposed to be an information aggregator based upon facts and only facts, not a personal propoganda promoter. Ry Trapp0 (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and anyone trying at this late date to rehabilitate McCarthyism is going to face the same problems as if they were trying to rehabilitate Hitlerism. And are you saying the pro-McCarthyites are not active, doctrinaire conservatives of the extremist variety? That's not a matter of opinion or bias, but of demonstrable fact. Read their own publications -- especially Coulter's. --- Michael K Smith Talk 16:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the problem, you jump straight to assumptions. You assume that Ann Coulter is in support of the ideology that is called "McCarthyism", when in fact there is new evidence to support that many of McCarthy's accusations were, in fact, legitimate and true, and not baseless, I.E. not "McCarthyism". Open your mind a little, consider that what you may currently know may also be wrong. No one is saying that McCarthy wasn't a dirty guy, his tactics certainly were, but that his accusations were legitimate.
 * Yes, MANY of the McCarthy supporters are extremists, it's a fact of life, but your argument that ALL of them are is simply asinine and, frankly, pathetic. I would note one example who is mentioned right in the very section of discussion that isn't any where near being an extremist, but it would be pointless since you would rather just make assumptions rather than do a little fact checking.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see how civil you're being. It's great the way you assume good faith. If you have evidence that supports your points, please share it with us.The2crowrox (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What if McCarthy really did nail some people for being communists, what would that achieve? Whether he was right or not, the actions of the man himself and what he initiated led to the civil liberties of many US citizens being taken away. Unless you are arguing that's ok because they were dirty reds? Whether or not his targers were commies doesn't matter as much as what he did, and you can't try to rehabilitate him because he was 'on to something'. ValenShephard (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now. You see, I was of the mistaken belief that the goal of wikipedia was to aggregate information with fair representation of said information regardless of "good", "bad", political leanings, personal feelings, and common rhetoric. My bad, Shephard, thanks for helping me realize my faults.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I want this to be perfectly clear, and I would stake my degree as an historian on this, that there is no basis whatsoever on which any serious scholar can argue that McCarthy ever uncovered more than a handful of communist, with that term, communism, even being a precarious description for the activities of those few he did uncover. Any assumption that McCarthy's wild conspiracy theories were not baseless has to rely on assumptions that cannot be proven on the basis of historical evidence, and are thus speculative and unhistorical. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...In your opinion. Whether or not McCarthy's "wild conspiracy theories" had any truth or not isn't the issue here, it's about representation of the research going into the subject. Whether you agree or not, there is some evidence to suggest that he may have been "more correct"(for lack of a better phrase) than he has been portrayed. This does NOT mean that he is clear of any wrong doing what so ever, it just means there may be more to the story, and it should be presented in an unbiased and fair way. The way it's written now, this research is being played off as some political campaign(ignoring the fact that clearing McCarthy of any wrong doing wouldn't do anything positive for any political party or current politician). Basically, even if the research going into this is illogical and asinine, it doesn't mean that section of the article should be half-assed. It should meet the standards of any other work on wikipedia. I really don't think this is too much to ask for.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion doesn't come into the matter. The fact remains that only 'scholars' of ultra-conservative fringe-movements have suggested that McCarthy's claims may not have been almost entirely baseless. If this opinion is to be inserted into the article that in itself is not a problem, so long as it is explicitly stated that this view is extremely marginal even within professional historical circles. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this section would benefit from additional citations from Arthur Herman's Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator. Herman is quoted elsewhere in the article, but I think he provides a good reevaluation of McCarthy's legacy from a non-partisan perspective. He rescues McCarthy from some of the more virulent critics while refusing to shy away from the Senator's less savory qualities (e.g. alcoholism, a propensity for exaggeration, and the "Tailgunner Joe" military service fabrications). In essence, he presents a lot of the same evidence that Coulter does without the polemic (if I'm not mistaken, Coulter extensively cites from Herman). Uncle Dick (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the book and the author you cited and I must say that it's far from the case that the author and his work is "non-partisan". Herman has a clear bias against liberals. Don't take it from me, take a look at his National Review article Betrayed as well as a critique of one of his columns in the New York Post here. There's not a single shred of evidence that he's "non-partisan". Now I'm not making the case that partisan sources can't be used or cited, but we should not be disguising or pretending that they're neutral when they they are clearly not. Ethereal (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is quit possible for a partisan person to write neutrally, this article has not succeeded. [ WP:COPYVIO from here redacted]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.215.89 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, it would be nice if someone could look at the research -- as an objective historian -- and not someone simply pandering to the political left or right. Also, I find it odd that their is apparently no 'credible' evidence by historians about McCarthy's homosexuality. Why did the book/film Truman make mention of a report that McCarthy had propositioned an undercover office in the mens room? Browned

Because so far no one  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is too slanted against McCarthy
This is a man who fought tooth and nail to defeat the greatest enemy we have encountered within since the revolutionary war, and the way the left has vilified his legacy is shameful. If it weren't for people like Joseph McCarthy, we'd all probably be speaking Russian or Chinese now. TrueTexasPatriot (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the article impartial. Your argument that we'd be speaking Russian or Chinese is simply toeing the line of what the man was interested in: scaring others to further himself. Don't you think that we had our fair share of espionage during his time? Of course we did. Did they end up speaking English? Was there ever a chance of that? No. The fact is that the article doesn't call him a villain, a slanderer, or simply a fear-mongerer. To me that   indicates impartiality. 75.95.47.110 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the first comment goes a little too far, but to say America hasn't made a 'huge' impact on Russia post-Cold War is laughable, and from some of the commentary read on Pravad, they're absolutely furious with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.215.89 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation
Could someone please put the IPA pronunciation of the name? English not being my natal language, I have no idea if "Carthy" is pronounced "Carty" or "Carthy". Thanks :3 46.126.181.5 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC) (lKj)

Ongoing debate section
The ongoing debate section focuses on the opinions of extremists and conservative polemicists who are not academic historians and therefore are focusing on a tiny minority opinion. This needs to be fixed. Maybe by removal? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I tend to agree that Coulter, and less rabid of the same opinion, are full of hooey and that those who seek to rehabilitate McCarthy tend to be those who seek to rehabilitate fear-based propaganda in general, I can't say as I agree that it's overly biased. It gives the opinion of those fringe folks (not intended as a value based comment, merely that they represent a small minority of experts on the subject, and their views are not widely considered accurate by those outside a very specific conservative ideology), and it gives the opinion of the mainstream (which again, is not intended as a value judgement...as it's often used these days..like being "mainstream" is a bad thing, as opposed to being a fringer). What I think it could use is an opening sentence or two adding context...like "There is some (let's not overemphasize the amount just because it's volatile) debate over the blah blah blah, especially in recent years." That sets it up with some context so we're not jumping right into one camp or another. I think the second part should probably be a bit more fleshed out, to reflect due weight (two viewpoints doesn't mean equal timne for each , if one is held by a minority). But context would help a lot.Jbower47 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove as a good article
The problem with the ongoing debate section means that this article is no longer "good" because it promotes the views of non-experts and pseudo-intellectuals. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment96.38.173.3 (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask for a reassessment then. -- Neil N   talk to me  18:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We did. Two independent editors agree it should be delisted. So we delisted it. That's the way it's supposed to happen according to the GA reassessment page. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Coulter
I find it astonishing tha t Ann COulter writings were added to this article with no discussin, and that it was not mentioned in the article that she is a right wing hardliner.96.38.173.3 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I have reverted as your assertions were unsourced. -- Neil N   talk to me  14:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that Coulter is being used as the face of an admittedly small field of like minded folks. I'm not trying to poke and point fingers, but there are people who have done at least something approaching scholarly work on this. Do we really want to lead with Ann Coulter? I think, if anything, it unfairly biases the view of those seeking to rehabilitate McCarthyism as being part and parcel of her unique insanity. I'm all for including sourced material, but if we really want to encapsulate a field of thought in one or two examples, shouldn't we pick the best quality, not the most rabidly vocal, of that group? Leading with Ann Coulter drags in the negative connotations many people associate with her, poisoning the well from the get go. I don't happen to be one of those supporting the alternative views of MCCarthy, but if I was I'm fairly sure I wouldn't want her as the shrieking frontwoman for my views. Especially when there are better, more cogent folks to start off with (including the other example given.)Jbower47 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, beginning with Coulter discredits completely other serious historians and journalists - but it's all logic since the moderators are anti-MC biased. It all should begin with Venona : "Since Venona, several authors have debunked the anti-McCarthy general discourse by proving that rhetorical excesses put aside, he was right on his points, and that his censorship was an operation orchestrated by the State." Donald2012 (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Blacklisted"
Could someone good with refs unify all of the refs to "Blacklisted by History" It's showing up in all sorts of different ways. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wheeling speech
Now... I didn't think this simple sentence would provoke censorship.

"205" was actually a number used in the rough draft of the speech, but not the actual speech. Quote from Evans, p.182.

What's wrong with it ? It's not original research. It's neutral. And it's quoted from a well-documented book. And it brings an important point to the discussion. I hope - sincerely hope - I'm not being censored for political reasons. Ukelele players of the world, unite ! :-))))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald2012 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not "censorship", so put that aside immediately. Mr. Evan's book is used extensively in this article, so there's no reason your particular insertion would be problematic in that regard. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Extensively" is a slight exaggeration. On 122 quotes, it's present only 3 times - 2 in the "Ongoing debate" section ! And it's "Evans" not "Evan". I'll be back in two days to check out it's been included, or I'll take measures with your superiors. Since no valuable argument has not been produce to oppose my inclusion, this is censorship. Donald2012 (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:AGF on appropriate means of interacting with other editors; calling disagreement "censorship" is an assumption of bad faith. Calling for an inquiry by an editor's "superiors" (whoever they might be - Wikipedia doesn't have much of a heirarchy) avoids discussion on the merits of the proposed addition. Please use persuasion rather than bluster.   Acroterion   (talk)   11:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I give up. Yes, I assume bad faith since no valuable argument was given to me as to why this sentence was erased. If Evans' book is quoted "extensively" why such a basic fact from the book, which is considered with extreme scrutiny, in a whole chapter, cannot be included here in a form of a single sentence ? Why, you tell me, if you want to prove your good faith. I'm still waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald2012 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a succinct discussion of why your proposed addition is a significant addition to the article? To give you an insight into the Wikipedia editing process, you might want to look at WP:BRD, which describes the editing process for relatively well-developed stable articles: you are encouraged to be bold, but you must be prepared to discuss your changes if other editors feel the change does not improve the article, is not supported by other sources, or is not significant enough to be included. Such a discussion may happen relatively slowly.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This information is incorrect. I wrote my Columbia dissertation on McCarthy. In the original speech, many observers testified that McCarthy used the number 205. The final report of the Tydings Committee devotes a whole section to its report claiming that McCarthy was lying and obfuscating when he attempted to changed the number to 57 when entering the speech in the Congressional Record. In addition, the congressional record speech McCarthy entered does not match up with the speech attributed to him at Wheeling. Now, one of the reasons for this is McCarthy's rambling conversational nature, in addition to his being interrupted several times on the Senate floor. However, it is also been proven that McCarthy, having been asked for proof by the Senate, began to change his untenable story. Leaving the idea that this number is in dispute does a disservice to the historical record and allows for the argument that people misheard, rather than McCarthy lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.130.131 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We need reliable sources to justfy your assertions. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Who were McCarthy's victims?
Why are the specific names of Joeseph McCarthy victims not listed. Who specifically did he falsely accuse of being a communist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.76.64 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a list of more notable names – certainly nowhere near comprehensive – at McCarthyism, as well as a discussion of estimated total numbers. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think most of those people were actually accused by McCarthy - most of them are Hollywood people, who were generally blacklisted as a result of the HUAC investigations, not due to McCarthy. I'm not sure anyone on that list had any connection to McCarthy.  In general, unlike HUAC, McCarthy wasn't very successful in getting anyone blacklisted, because most of the people he was accusing were demonstrably not communists (e.g. George Marshall, Dean Acheson). john k (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Information on his widow
Should this information be added somewhere in the article? After doing some research, I managed to find out that McCarthy's widow Jean remarried in 1961 to a man named to G. Joseph Minetti. Apparently he was a big deal in the aviation industry and was chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board for 11 years. They were married until Jean's death on December 15, 1979 of a cerebral hemorrhage. One of the articles states that she was 55 at her time of death, which would put her year of birth at 1924.

Here are some sources.

Thismightbezach (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

HUAC section
I've extended the section on HUAC, which is frequently conflated with McCarthy's hearings, to include the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB). All of the material I have added already appears, with references, in the WP articles on HUAC, the McCarran Internal Security Act, and the SACB. All three organizations get confused because they shared in the "witchhunts" that targeted not only spies and traitors, but also innocent people who disagreed with various government policies, or who agreed with various policies of the Communist Party. Note that, even today, accusing these organizations of witch-hunting may still be controversial. However, the additions I made were neutral and factual, so I would not expect my additions to be controversial. David Spector (user/talk) 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Army–McCarthy hearings
Reverted mass deletion of fully cited content without comment --Hutcher (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverting more vandalism by Fat&Happy. Content has 2 cites from the New York Times (supposedly the poster boys of WP:RS) and another from a published work by journalist Evans.  These are WP:RS.
 * Silly note about POV in the vandal's comment ignores the fact that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" Identifying_reliable_sources. If you have better sources than add them to the article.
 * Not sure how ignorant comments by the vandal are supported by WP:EQ.--Hutcher (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So perhaps you can find a way to use the referenced content without inappropriate commentary like "So, perhaps Welch's timeless reproach should now be aimed at him, and not McCarthy. Welch was just playing to the TV cameras for all it was worth, as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain." That's an op-ed comment, not an encyclopedia text. Additionally, stop calling those who disagree with you vandals.   Acroterion   (talk)   21:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's some material I propose to include in the Joe McCarthy article, with a variation of this info in the Army-McCarthy article as well. I have edited it several times to follow all of the recommendations of Acroterion. My only cite to Evans is to the page in his book where the NYT's article appears verbatim. The NYT article speaks for itself.

Before edit (Just the material enclosed in brackets):

[But in fact, Welch was the person that disclosed Fisher’s connections to the Communist front group (the very thing he condemned McCarthy for doing). Welch preemptively broke the story in the New York Times on April 15, 1954, several weeks prior to his now famous condemnation of McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings. Here are the NYT headlines:

"The Army charges were signed by its new special counsel, Joseph N. Welch. Mr. Welch today [April 15] confirmed news reports that he had relieved from duty his original second assistant, Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., of his own Boston law office because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild, which has been listed by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as a Communist front organization. Mr. Welch said he had brought in another lawyer, John Kimball, Jr., from his Boston office to take Mr. Fisher's place."

So, perhaps Welch's timeless reproach should now be aimed at him, and not McCarthy. Welch was just playing to the TV cameras for all it was worth, as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain. (See "Blacklisted by History," by M. Stanton Evans.)]

After edit (Just the material enclosed in brackets): [But in fact, Welch was the person that disclosed Fisher’s connections to the Communist front group (the very thing he condemned McCarthy for doing). Welch preemptively broke the story in the New York Times on April 15, 1954, several weeks prior to his now famous condemnation of McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings. Here are the NYT headlines:

"The Army charges were signed by its new special counsel, Joseph N. Welch. Mr. Welch today [April 15] confirmed news reports that he had relieved from duty his original second assistant, Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., of his own Boston law office because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild, which has been listed by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as a Communist front organization. Mr. Welch said he had brought in another lawyer, John Kimball, Jr., from his Boston office to take Mr. Fisher's place."

After McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliation with a communist front group at the hearings, Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain. (See "Blacklisted by History, P-568" by M. Stanton Evans.)]

Here's what Welch said to McCarthy during the hearings (I'm not proposing to include this. I'm merely including it here to show the truth of my assertion):

"Little did I dream you could be so reckless and cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. (Why would Fisher not still be with Hale & Dorr if McCarthy had just outed him at that very moment? Doesn't this show that Welch was fully aware of his prior NYT's disclosures? The queries in parenthesis are mine, and not anything Welch said.) It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

And that is the basis for the first sentence of the last paragraph of my revised material. The newspaper article appeared on the front page of the NYT's on April 16, 1954, and Welch's famous rebuke took place on the Senate floor on June 9, 1954. Everything I have said & cited is truthful & independently verifiable. I only cited Evans so that people could read the NYT's article on page 568, without necessity of having to retrieve it from the achives of the NYT.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vz42rDYmf3wC&pg=PA568&lpg=PA568&dq=fred+fisher+m+stanton+evans&source=bl&ots=soAhm8yneO&sig=SZEn87cvcRzhQpcWo5hIQYEINUU&hl=en&ei=hnLgTIv7L8GclgeYpuDSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=falseMoFreedom (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing your proposed edits here. I'll probably have some comments, but am somewhat tied up with other matters in WP and real life at the moment and encourage other editors to comment here in the meantime.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also note that this article has an FAQ at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions, which discusses a number of issues with links to the talkpage discussions that generated them.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Some preliminary observations: Please remember that it's not acceptable in any publication to present Evans' ideas without directly crediting him, not just in a reference, but in a way that is immediately apparent to the reader. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and you must avoid writing in a manner that implies that you are presenting your own research. You must also avoid coatracking, in which a discussion goes off into a tangent about another subject (in this case a denunciation of Welch as a hypocrite), rather than remaining focused on McCarthy. You appear to be convinced that this issue is of major import with respect to McCarthy. I can't see how this is more than tangential at best. The article makes a point of acknowledging that Welch may have prepared his speech in advance.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should a discussion of Welch's actions be so prominent and lengthy in a biography of McCarthy? Why is this really significant? Does anybody besides Evans think the brief mention in the NYT is significant?
 * Why should it be written in the form of a critical commentary and analysis?
 * Where is it claimed that "Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time"? You appear to be making a straw man argument.
 * Again, why are you presenting this as an analysis in Wikipedia's voice? It could easily be rewritten to appropriately credit and reference Evans, since this clearly is an argument that Evans has advanced. As it is proposed, it comes across as original research, which can't be presented in a tertiary source like Wikipedia, and fails to directly acknowledge Evans, giving Evans and the argument that he originated short shrift. The NYT article doesn't speak for itself - you are extending it with commentary borrowed from Evans without crediting him.
 * Evans is a partisan source. His father was a prominent McCarthy supporter (and Birch Society member) and Evans has spent a lot of time arguing for McCarthy's vindication, with mixed success. Evans is a prominent dissenting voice, but he can't be called a neutral analyst. Any discussion presented in Wikipedia should reflect primarily represent scholarly consensus, with proportionate mention of prominent minority viewpoints.

•	Why should a discussion of Welch's actions be so prominent and lengthy in a biography of McCarthy? Why is this really significant? Does anybody besides Evans think the brief mention in the NYT is significant?

Welch’s comment is one of the most famous in American history. Welch's condemnation of McCarthy at those hearings is the most discussed part of those hearings. Welch's condemnation of McCarthy for allegedly outing Fisher created a false impression in the minds of Americans. That impression helped to destroy McCarthy’s reputation & career; pretty much ended his investigations, & likely hastened his death. I can't imagine anything more significant in a discussion about McCarthy & those hearings.

Evan’s book is just a couple of years old (if that) and already it is being widely cited and discussed (even on this talk page), so it’s not just him that thinks one of the great deceptions of the 20th Century is significant. But I am not citing Evans for anything he said or wrote. I cited his book because it has a reprint of the NYT’s article in it. And that article is the only thing I’m pointing out in my proposed post.

•	Why should it be written in the form of a critical commentary and analysis?

Please be more specific and point out the language you think is critical. I believe I have removed all offending language. (Please compare the original and revised editions.) I don’t see a single thing in my now proposed post where I have imposed my POV (and I have not included a single thing Evans wrote or said). I am merely pointing out what happened. If I was going to "soapbox" or be critical, I'd have called Welch a sleazeball attorney and a homophobe. But I've refrained from doing that (even though those charges can be fairly inferred from the facts).

•	Where is it claimed that "Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time"? You appear to be making a straw man argument.

You’ll have to elaborate because I don’t see any straw man argument. Here’s what Welch said verbatim:

"Little did I dream you could be so reckless and cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. (Why would Fisher not still be with Hale & Dorr if McCarthy had just outed him at that very moment? Doesn't this show that Welch was fully aware of his prior NYT's disclosures? The queries in parenthesis are mine, and not anything Welch said.) It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

And here’s what I said in response:

Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain.

•	Again, why are you presenting this as an analysis in Wikipedia's voice? It could easily be rewritten to appropriately credit and reference Evans, since this clearly is an argument that Evans has advanced. As it is proposed, it comes across as original research, which can't be presented in a tertiary source like Wikipedia, and fails to directly acknowledge Evans, giving Evans and the argument that he originated short shrift. The NYT article doesn't speak for itself - you are extending it with commentary borrowed from Evans without crediting him.

This is not Evan’s argument. This is pure iteration of fact. Welch disclosed Fisher’s affiliation with the Communist front group to the NYT in April of 1954. But when McCarthy mentioned in June of 1954 information that had been NYT's front page headlines, Welch acted like McCarthy had just disclosed confidential information (and that it was indecent of McCarthy for having done that).

•	Evans is a partisan source. His father was a prominent McCarthy supporter (and Birch Society member) and Evans has spent a lot of time arguing for McCarthy's vindication, with mixed success. Evans is a prominent dissenting voice, but he can't be called a neutral analyst. Any discussion presented in Wikipedia should reflect primarily represent scholarly consensus, with proportionate mention of prominent minority viewpoints.

Once again, I am not citing Evans for anything he said or wrote. The cite in my proposed post is the page where the NYT’s article is reprinted verbatim.

•	Please remember that it's not acceptable in any publication to present Evans' ideas without directly crediting him, not just in a reference, but in a way that is immediately apparent to the reader. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and you must avoid writing in a manner that implies that you are presenting your own research. You must also avoid coatracking, in which a discussion goes off into a tangent about another subject (in this case a denunciation of Welch as a hypocrite), rather than remaining focused on McCarthy. You appear to be convinced that this issue is of major import with respect to McCarthy. I can't see how this is more than tangential at best. The article makes a point of acknowledging that Welch may have prepared his speech in advance.

Please be specific and point to the precise language you’re concerned about. If you compare my previous post with the revised one, you’ll see that I already done what you’re now mentioning.

Why would Welch have prepared his speech in advance? Did he feel confident he could bait McCarthy into saying something negative about Fred Fisher? Was that the insidious trap Welch set?

Even though Wikipedia encourages editors to be “bold,” I’ve toned down my information into the tiniest, little milquetoast encyclopedic voice I could find, in an effort to find consensus for indisputable facts. Please compare my previous post with the revised one.MoFreedom (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First, it's OK to put responses in between my questions - it's easier than repeating my comments.and avoids a wall of text.
 * Next, you don't seem to understand that the only useful thing that the NYT article establishes is that Welch acknowledged Fisher's membership prior to the hearing. Everything else you've written is your analysis (leaving Evans aside for the moment). Wikipedia's policies against no original research prohibit you from opining and drawing conclusions in the way you've been doing. Please review WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. I appreciate that you've removed your eloquent coda: it was nicely put, but not appropriate in an encyclopedia.
 * Additionally, they're not your opinions, they're Evans' opinions and analysis - which you could cite, since he's a published secondary source and you aren't. I don't understand why you insist on leaving him out of this - to present his views without acknowledging his original thought is poor practice, at the least. See WP:PLAGIARISM, and in particular note the in-text acknowledgement requirements.
 * Lastly, you seem to believe Welch's seeming hypocrisy (in your/Evans' view) is vital to the subject of McCarthy. It's interesting, but these aren't recent revelations and were known and reported  at the time of the hearings, yet had no bearing on events at that time or since. I therefore question how they merit extensive discussion in McCarthy's biography as an ex post facto exculpation. The only people who seem to think that this is significant are you and Evans. Have any biographies or histories brought this up as a matter of significance?   Acroterion   (talk)   00:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I can’t seem to provide you with an understanding of the significance of Welch’s actions in that historical context. Perhaps it’s because those things happened so long ago. So, let me give you a hypothetical example in more contemporary terms. Hopefully, this will help you appreciate what I’m saying.

Assume that the NYT interviewed Joe Wilson on April 15, 2003, and during that interview Wilson disclosed his wife Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent. Assume further that the NYT published the story the following day and included a picture of Plame in the article.

Now, assume that on June 9, 2003, Scooter Libby told someone Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent (perhaps gaining that knowledge from the NYT story), that Joe Wilson went on the evening news that night and denounced Libby for the disclosure, and that Libby was indicted soon afterwards for revealing Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA agent.

Could Wilson legitimately claim that the information Libby revealed was confidential once the story hit the front page of the NYT? If not, wasn’t it completely improper for Wilson to denounce Libby for disclosing what was already in the public domain? Wouldn’t Wilson’s prior revelations provide a complete defense to any charge of wrongdoing against Libby? (BTW, once information passes into the public domain, e.g., a NYT's front page story, it can be repeated by anyone without permission or charge because wide dissemination of the story completely destroys any legitimate expectation or claim of confidentiality.)

You admit the truth of my post, but say it is not significant. Why don't we let the Wikipedia readers make that judgment?MoFreedom (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems as if you believe that stating your own personal views as if they are facts, with Wikipedia's voice, is ok. It's not acceptable. You are using original research and synthesis to push a fringe view. I believe history has accepted that McCarthy's tactics were problematic. To say the least. Bringing people in front of cameras in 'hearings' and making accusations with little to no evidence, while even making sure the accusations themselves were a chilling effect to the lives and careers of the accused. There was a reason these hearings(and McCarthyism) were synonymous with the term 'witch hunt'. So whether Welch made some comment at some other time is irrelevant and of no weight. I see little use of adding this in any form. And absolutely not as presented. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the date of Welch's interview in the NYT (April 15, 1954) and the reported date of Welch's condemnation of McCarthy on the floor of the Senate (June 15, 1954) are reported facts. Do you dispute those dates? McCarthy's tactics & their effect on others is not what my proposed post is about. Please read it again. If you believe anything I said is untrue or represents my POV, please point it out, & I will consider revision. As you can see from these discussions, I have already made significant revisions. And general statements don't provide me with helpful hints as to how to put these indisputable facts into appropriate form. Thank you.MoFreedom (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To summarize the comments above: you violate Wikipedia policy when you take a plain statement of fact and then embroider upon it to draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in the source. The only material that can be drawn from the NYT cite is the acknowledgement by Welch of Fisher's membership: all else is a projection of opinion that isn't (and couldn't be, given the date) present in the source. That's the problem. Please read WP:NOR in detail, because that's where this policy is fully descibed, with examples.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please point to the specific language you think is embroidery. Welch revealed Fisher's affiliations with the communist front group in April, but condemned McCarthy for wrongdoing in June for mentioning the very things Welch had already placed in the limelight. Don't you think that's worthy of mention? Isn't saying that Welch outed Fisher & not McCarthy is fact? "Outing" is commonly understood to mean revealing secret information that is not generally known and entitled to protection, as in my Valerie Plame hypothetical. And didn't Welsh act like McCarthy had outed Fisher during the hearings & that McCarthy's mention of Fisher's affiliations was a serious wrongdoing. If so, those are facts.

Let’s examine the principles involved here. Don’t most persons despise McCarthy because he wrongly accused people of things they were innocent of? So, shouldn’t we speak out every time someone (and not just McCarthy) does that? Because if we don’t, it looks like we’re not really concerned about truth, justice, & fairness for all. And if we don’t uphold those principles, those things are in danger of fading into distant memories.MoFreedom (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything other than "Welch confirmed Fisher's former membership in the National Lawyer's Guild before the hearings" is unsupported by the NYT source. Wikipedia's principles don't allow you to offer a commentary.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's what Welch said after McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliations:

"Little did I dream you could be so reckless and cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. (Why would Fisher not still be with Hale & Dorr if McCarthy had just outed him at that very moment? Doesn't this show that Welch was fully aware of his prior NYT's disclosures? The queries in parenthesis are mine, and not anything Welch said.) It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

What does the above verbatim quote and Welch's condemnation of McCarthy ("Have you no sense of decency") relate to if not McCarthy's supposed outing of Fisher? If I'm incorrect in that, please enlighten me. If I am correct, then the first sentence in my proposed insert below is a statement of fact.

Didn't McCarthy merely repeat what appeared on the front page of the NYT less than 2 mos. prior? If I'm incorrect in that, please enlighten me. But if I'm correct, then the second sentence below is a statement of fact.

"Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain."MoFreedom (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, please, please read WP:SYNTH: you are taking separate sources and offering a synthesis, which is not permitted.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am taking the words out of Welch's mouth. Are you now saying that Welch didn't condemn McCarthy at the hearings for supposedly outing Fisher by saying, "Have you no sense of decency." Didn't Welch say: "Little did I dream you could be so reckless and cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. (Why would Fisher not still be with Hale & Dorr if McCarthy had just outed him at that very moment? Doesn't this show that Welch was fully aware of his prior NYT's disclosures? The queries in parenthesis are mine, and not anything Welch said.) It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

Do you want me to provide sources for those quotes. Is that what you saying?MoFreedom (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are presenting your own analysis of Welch's actions. You can't do that on Wikipedia. For the fifth or sixth time, read WP:NOR, then read it again. You can't combine separate facts and events to make a point or to provide an analysis: Wikipedia isn't a place to publish original research or opinion - it's a tertiary source that relies on published secondary sources. You can only cite verifiable secondary sources (historians, biographers and the like) for analysis and perspective. You can't take primary sources and present an analysis here: you can't introduce your perception of the import of Welch's words or actions. You've been doing this the whole time, and it's the central problem.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble understanding what MoFreedom wants out of this, so I've reposted his proposal below. Location (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Acroterion on this. The addition seems to be an original analysis that Welch was behaving hypocritically by calling McCarthy reckless and cruel. My interpretation was that Welch condemned McCarthy as reckless and cruel for outing Fishing in the manner he did. Stating that McCarthy "merely repeated" an allegation is also original analysis. Location (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your repost. Thanks.MoFreedom (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks Location. To summarize, MoFreedom appears to be using the NYT article to advance an opinion that Welch was being hypocritical. The NYT source doesn't say that, nor can it, since it predates the hearings. We can't combine the article and Welch's words to reach a conclusion - that's original research.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An argument could be made that all of this is the conclusion of M. Stanton Evans outlined in Blacklisted by History, however, issues pertaining to WP:WEIGHT in a minority viewpoint need to be considered as discussed previously in Talk:Army–McCarthy hearings. Location (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the original idea lies with Evans, who should be credited in the text if that is the case. However, I continue to question the appropriateness of what amounts to a tangent that does not appear to be considered significant by anyone other than Evans, at least in the McCarthy article.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is relevant, so it doesn't belong in the main text. Alternative theories are alluded to in Joseph_McCarthy where Evans is wikilinked. I guess I have no major objections to this POV being presented in the article about his book. Location (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about Evans to say if he's on the fringe or not: certainly he's a defender of McCarthy, has devoted a book to the subject, and appears to be generally reputable in terms of McCarthy scholarship (though noted as one of the "microscopically few" defenders of McCarthy), even if he hasn't converted many critics by his analysis. I'd be interested in seeing a short, generalized summary of his views, rather than just this isolated snippet. My general impression is that Evans believes that McCarthy was at least partly right, but did a poor job of managing perceptions.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion & Location|Location, I do not believe I say Welch was being hypocritical in my proposed post. If you think I did, please point to the precise language so I can better understand what you are saying & respond if I disagree.

Here's what the original post that Location|Location repeated above says in part: "Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness..."

How about if I modify my proposed post to say: "After McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliation with a Communist front group at the hearings, Welch responded as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher."

Acroterion, you continue to say my proposed post is not significant, but here is part of the original post: "The most famous incident in the hearings was an exchange between McCarthy and the army's chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch."

My proposed post adds further insights into the most famous incident in the hearings. How can that not be significant?

Location|Location, when I say: "But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain," I'm referring to McCarthy's mention that Fisher was affiliated with a Communist front group, a fact Welch caused to be published in the NYT less than two mos. prior. Fact 1: On April, 15, 1954, NYT publishes front page story wherein Welch discloses Fisher is affiliated with Communist front group. Fact 2: McCarthy repeats on June 9th that Fisher was affiliated with a Communist front group (a fact that appeared in the NYT less than 2 mos. before the hearing). How can that possibly be original analysis? That's a statement of fact. McCarthy merely repeated a fact that appeared in the NYT a short time before the hearings. Please read what I said about "public domain" above. If someone repeats something that appears on the front page of the NYT, they cannot legitimately be accused of any wrongdoing for doing that.MoFreedom (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are clearly either ignoring or unaware of the full context of the exchange. The majority viewpoint on this is that McCarthy wasn't "merely repeating" a fact, but that it was a devious attack made out of desperation in a high profile televised forum that violated an agreement he had with Welch. The article is already linked to Fred Fisher (lawyer) which grants much better context for his dismissal by Welch than what you are proposing. Location (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Location, I am fully aware of the context of the exchange. Regardless of the "majority viewpoint," the NYT article establishes that McCarthy merely repeated what Welch had already disclosed to the public. That McCarthy merely repeated what appeared in the NYT is now established fact.

Moreover, please read my hypothetical example above re Valerie Plame. There was a federal law protecting Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. But there was no law protecting a person's Communist affiliations from disclosure. So, even if McCarthy had been the person to out Fisher (which he wasn't), the disclosure would have been an exercise of McCarthy's 1st Amendment rights. Fisher could have sued McCarthy if the allegations were untruthful under slander laws. But apparently the allegations were the truth, as Welch would not have outed his colleague had they not been the truth. And Fisher never sued either Welch or McCarthy for slander.

If McCarthy & Welch had a gentlemen's agreement re Fisher, McCarthy likely believed it was predicated on Welch acting like a gentleman, which he did not. Welch constantly gay-baited McCarthy's chief counsel (Roy Cohn) during the hearings suggesting he was having a homosexual affair with David Shine & taunted him about not being able to name a single communist. You can see it yourself in "Point of Order," a 1964 documentary film by Emile de Antonio, about the Senate Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954. McCarthy likely believed Welch's ungentlemanly conduct abrogated any informal gentlemen's agreement they may have had.

McCarthy tried to use numbers of suspected communists and not names to protect the identities of the suspects until more information could be obtained through standard, legal, Congressional investigative methods. He tried to not do what the Democrats were literally demanding he do, which was to commit “McCarthyism” by naming suspects before they could be fully investigated and a solid determination of their guilt or innocence could be arrived at. McCarthy told them, “If I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. It would not be right to label even one man a Communist unless he was in fact a Communist.”

McCarthy named Fisher because Welch had already revealed to the world Fisher's Communist connections.MoFreedom (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have used the phrase "merely repeated" ten times now to describe your POV regarding McCarthy's actions, but the consensus here and in reliable sources is that "merely repeated" is an inaccurate representation of the full-context of what occurred. Sorry. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now applies. Location (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

IDIDNTHEARTHAT, Fact 1: On April, 15, 1954, NYT published a front page story wherein Welch discloses Fisher is affiliated with Communist front group. Fact 2: McCarthy repeated on June 9th that Fisher was affiliated with a Communist front group (a fact that appeared in the NYT less than 2 mos. before the hearing). When McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliations in the hearings, that fact was already public knowlege. My proposed comment is set forth above in light green shading. My proposed post uses "merely repeated" only one time.

Merriam Webster online dictionary definition of "repeat": "To say or state again"MoFreedom (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You've not responded to our concerns on the introduction of analysis into the article, nor given any indication that you've read and understood Wikipedia's policies on attribution, synthesis, original research or appropriate weight. Those fundamental issues aside, the proposed addition illuminates a tangent it far greater length than might be warranted in the article on the hearings, and is certainly out of place in this biography, where it reads as an attempt at exculpation of McCarthy through portrayal of Welch as a hypocrite. You've provided no basis to substantiate that this is significant in the views of the preponderance of scholars and historians in the field (as policy requires), choosing instead to support your analysis with more analysis, rather than cited scholarship by secondary sources.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion, here's my opening paragraph broken down: Fact 1. Welch disclosed Fisher’s connections to a Communist front group on April 15, 1954. Fact 2. Welch condemned McCarthy for disclosing Fisher’s connections to the Communist front group on June 9th. Fact 3. Welch preemptively broke the story in the New York Times several weeks prior to his now famous condemnation of McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings.

I just looked up the definition of "hypocrite", and you're correct. Someone could fairly infer from the facts in my proposed post that Welch was a hypocrite. But that wasn't the message I was focused on, so I completely missed that interpretation. Still, I'm not accusing Welch of anything. People can draw their own conclusions from the facts.

Another fair conclusion that can be drawn from the facts (but nothing I stated) is that once a secret is out of the bag, it's no longer a secret. And once something gets splashed across the front page of the NYT, it's clearly out of the bag.

Plus, not all secrets are entitled to protections. I'm sure that Senator John Edwards wished he hadn't have been outed re his love child. But that was not a fact entitled to protections (like Valerie Plame's identity was) so the disclosure was proper under our normal standards of conduct.

Therefore, when McCarthy repeated what was front page headlines, he didn't do anything (in that limited context) that was wrong.

As to the length, my commentary (excluding the NYT quote that I didn't write) re the most famous part of the hearings is only 6 short sentences.

No one seems to have any objections to the paragraph re Fred Fisher's career following the hearings.MoFreedom (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the above addressed the concerns I enumerated about how the proposed material works within Wikipedia policy: it's just more analysis without reference to the specific issues of encyclopedia policy. I certainly do have a concern about the material on Fisher's career following the hearings: this article is about McCarthy, not Fisher. Really, if you're not going to work within the framework of Wikipedia policy on references, no original research and appropriate weight, there's nothing more to be said.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion, here're two posts that appear in the article that illuminate the significance of the information I attempted to post on this site: 1.	 In what played out to be the most dramatic exchange of the hearings, McCarthy responded to aggressive questioning from Army counsel Joseph Welch. 2.	… the Army–McCarthy hearings ultimately became the main catalyst in McCarthy's downfall from political power.

Welch accused McCarthy of wrongdoing by outing Fred Fisher & strongly suggested McCarthy had done deep, long-lasting injury to Fisher. But, in fact, McCarthy didn't out Fisher because the cat was already out of the bag by the time McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliations. And persons with even a small measure of analytical ability can see that even if McCarthy had outed Fisher (which he didn't), he would have been perfectly within his rights to have done that.

Because of Welch's masterful theatrics & chicanery, many people walked away from the hearings despising McCarthy because they thought he had outed Fisher, that he had caused Fisher great & irreparable harm, & that McCarthy was an evil person for having done that.

So, please elaborate on why my paragraph on Fisher's subsequent career has no relevance to a discussion of McCarthy, because I believe it tends to show that even if McCarthy had outed Fisher (which he didn't), Fisher's career suffered no apparent harm.

I suppose I'll have to go to Wikipedia school just to learn the ins & outs just to post the 6 short & simple sentences I wrote. But this reminds me of when I was a kid & wanted to join in some schoolyard activity. But the "school rules" bullies would always trot out a set of rules that only they fully understood (and perhaps helped to devise) and used them to their advantage against me & others. The results: some never got to play as much as fairness would have dictated.

Early on, when you sent me over to this talk page, I suggested you were making me run a never ending gauntlet in an effort to make me give up & go away in frustration. (But that was before you taught me the "assume good faith" rule.) Now, you are putting me through further paces. (But now that I'm enlightened, I'm assuming this is for my own good.)

In the Wikipedia Army-McCarthy hearings article, the following was posted unchallenged & without cite, "while television audiences saw the junior Senator from Wisconsin as foolhardy, dishonest and intimidating."

One might legitimately say some people likely felt that way, but there was no evidence to show all people felt that way. Logic tells us some likely didn't.

And when the Wikipedia rules get selectively enforced, the editors run the risk of looking like content censors protecting their POV (reminescent of the Knights Templar protecting the Holy Grail), rather than Wikipedia purists.

I'm not accusing anybody of being a content censor, because I'm assuming good faith here. Plus, I'm still a neophyte & haven't gotten my advanced degree in Wikipedia procedures & decorum. So, I could be wrong. I'm merely pointing this out as a favor to the more experienced editors.MoFreedom (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I sent this to the Wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard for anybody that's interested.MoFreedom (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Tinsy-tiny, technical rules provide a rickety (and unjustified) fence for preventing the truth from coming out? Is that the Orwellian world we now live in? If what I post is such an egregious breach of Wikipedia form, no doubt someone else will tidy it up (doing the least amount of alteration possible, out of courtesy to me & intellectual honesty to the process). If there are those out there willing to delete my posts, surely there must be those willing to take the less extreme approach of giving them a slight touch-up in order to conform to the seemingly rigid (anal retentive?) Wikipedia standards.

I don’t regularly post to Wikipedia, & don’t really want invest that much time in becoming an expert in its idiosyncrasies. I just came across some startling, unassailable information that could possibly change some people’s perceptions of McCarthy & the army hearings, & I thought (that in the interests of truth, fairness & justice) people had a right to know.MoFreedom (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedure aside, and more to the point, please note TransporterMan's comment that DRN is not a place to force inclusion in the absence of a consensus, and that while you've toned down your proposed additions, you've never substantively addressed my concerns, which I summarized at DRN. Those concerns are not solely mine. Acroterion   (talk)   18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN
Per the above, see Dispute resolution noticeboard. Location (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion was given a procedural close as other involved editors were not informed of the discussion. MoFreedom was told that he may relist the dispute with notification to other involved editors. Archived at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67. Location (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A kind of vandalism?
Somebody has been tampering with the Edward R. Murrow section, and they cite a "biography" of McCarthey written by Arthur Herman. The Herman book was reviewed in the New York Review of Books by Sam Tannenhaus, who says –

'''"Arthur Herman’s strange new study is both a biography and a “reexamination” of McCarthy’s place in postwar American politics. … Herman, an adjunct professor of history at George Mason University, is frankly admiring of his subject, and he seeks to vindicate McCarthy’s claim to being the leader of a serious, responsible movement. Herman contends that McCarthy’s “real role in the story of cold war anticommunism, and his place in the making of modern American political culture, remains unexplored and unexplained.” But his book offers almost nothing in the way of new evidence or fresh perspectives. On the contrary, it rehashes arguments advanced by McCarthyites half a century ago. Like them, Herman wantonly attacks and at times slanders Democrats and liberals, accusing them of having “shared a common vision of government” with the Communists who infiltrated the New Deal. Like them, he condones McCarthy’s crude assaults on Dean Acheson. Like them he casually traffics in distortions and defamations. Herman’s book is, in short, the most brazen example I know of a growing conservative historiography that seems to proceed from the belief that for too long parti pris liberals have shaped our understanding of the recent past, so it is up to partisans of the right to redress the imbalance and even the score—not by offering new evidence or careful analysis but by exposing the pretensions and hypocrisies of 'the other side.' "'''

Don't shoot the messengers (like Herman). Check out the manifold sources (road-maps to the truth) they've pointed out. I didn't cite Stanton Evans for anything he said or wrote. But his work led me to unassailable evidence, i.e., an article published in the NYT on April 16, 1954. That article completed reworked the landscape of thinking on the army hearings.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1228

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Eagle

http://photobucket.com/images/nazi%20eagle?page=1

http://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/0312427433 MoFreedom (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Further material on Annie Lee Moss is sourced to the magazine Human Events, which is clearly a partisan political source, rather than a neutral purveyor of facts; and note that the material on Moss is left in the form of a smear job, precisely as McCarthey had intended.

Since the material is clearly not neutral POV, and the sources are manifestly inadequate, I am deleting it. Theonemacduff (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think we are going to have to take a closer look at anything in the article that contains "however" or "in fact". These terms seem to frequently go along with the additions of revisionists. Location (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Theonemacduff & Location, the Venona transcripts (confirmed by examinations of the Soviet archives) identified approximately 349 Americans working in our government that had covert relationships with Soviet intelligence (NKVD & GRU). And we know that the Communists organized cells of 20-40 members (see Silvermaster spy ring and Ware spy group). Not every member may have been communicating directly with Soviet intelligence, or even had a need to. Likely, it was only the leader of the cell that communicated directly with Soviet Intelligence to minimize the risks of detection. So, each of those 349 persons may have had many others working for, and reporting only to, them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_and_Russian_espionage_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Silvermaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ware Elizabeth Bentley testified that after an agent got into a position of prominence in our government, he or she would use their position and/or influence to open portals for others to gain entry into (and employment in) sensitive areas of our government.

So, it’s likely that government records were taken (reminiscent of when Sandy Berger got caught stuffing classified documents down his pants), destroyed, or doctored and/or phony records were created & made a part of the record. Plus, many classified documents are sealed for years. Sometimes, it’s not possible to gain insights into the truth until those documents are unsealed.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/40th-anniversary/Nine-Historical-Archives-That-Will-Spill-New-Secrets.html

Men like Herman and Evans have gained new insights into newly declassified archival sources from the FBI, the National Security Agency, the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon, and the former Soviet Union, regardless of Tannenhaus’ claim. See for yourself.

So, “revisionist” is not a dirty word as you imply. We now have substantially more knowledge than we did in the 1950s.

Did any of this matter?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Keelhaul

http://morninginapril.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-terrible-revenge-book-review.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/spies031303.html

Many believe that the Communists in our midst helped shaped our domestic policies, our decision to go to war, & our post-war policies. And now many are starting to question whether Britain, France, & America should have even been in that war.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Harry_Dexter_White

At one time, most people thought the earth was flat. But as man’s knowledge expanded & gained in strength, “revisionists” came to believe the earth was round.

As knowledge improves, so should our views. Only “conservatives” get stuck in the past. True progressives seek to move forward.MoFreedom (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the links you've posted are germane to the topic at hand: please confine yourself on this page to improvements to the McCarthy article. Talkpages aren't a forum for general discussion, and such digressions are liable to be removed or hatted. Please also remember that Wikipedia is not citeable as a source for Wikipedia content, nor are most blogs, and most definitely not Conservapedia.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion, I think those comments & links tend to put the attacks on McCarthy in context & perspective. Recall that the primary knock on McCarthy was that he created a "red scare" when there was nothing to be concerned about. When viewed in the proper context, McCarthy starts to look more like Paul Revere pointing out the Soviets' Trojan Horse-like tactics than the hateful fear-monger his detractors portrayed him as.

At Yalta, America sanctioned slave labor as a form of reparations (something that was against our laws & our traditions, & outlawed by the Geneva Convention). Herbert Romerstein & Stanton Evans have recently gained access to newly released records that give us amazing insights into Yalta & Alger Hiss’s influence over the outcomes. (See “Stalin’s Secret Agents,” by Evans & Romerstein.)

Romerstein & Evan's new book suggests that much of the postwar suffering was aided & abetted by Communist agents embedded in our government.

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Deadly-Secret-Eric-Fettmann/dp/B004MPRWRI

The outcome? See "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956," by Anne Applebaum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerasia http://www.conservapedia.com/Chiang_Kai-shek

While we were withdrawing aid to the Chinese Nationalists, Stalin was ramping up aid to the Chinese Communists. http://www.republicanchina.org/WordPress/?p=14MoFreedom (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoFreedom (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:SOAPBOX. This approach is not going to gain consensus for your position. Also, please learn how to link to Wikipedia articles. You don't need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerasia ; you can simply say Amerasia . --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)