Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions

This page provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Joseph McCarthy article.'''

This page should summarize the current consensus surrounding the questions' answers.

Please:
 * DO help us answer frequently asked questions about the article.
 * DO NOT sign your edits on this page.
 * DO use edit summaries to describe your changes on this page.
 * DO NOT discuss anything on this page.
 * Conduct discussions on Joseph McCarthy at the Talk:Joseph McCarthy page.
 * Conduct discussions about this FAQ page at Talk:Joseph McCarthy.

How did the article get the way it is?
Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found at Talk:Joseph McCarthy and its archives

Were McCarthy’s claims substantiated?
Why does the article say “McCarthy's … inability to substantiate his claims…”?


 * McCarthy never succeeded in substantiating specific claims about numbers or names of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers that were inside the federal government and elsewhere. Other investigators have been able to identify the existence and names of such people.


 * Counterpoints and answers concerning “McCarthy's inability to substantiate his claims:”


 * Since others did find spies and communists, doesn’t that make McCarthy correct?
 * Just suggesting that “there are criminals out there” doesn’t mean one knows who they are and what they did, even though the statement is literally true. See the discussion below under "Wasn’t McCarthy right?"


 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7, Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7 and atTalk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

McCarthy’s “sensational” claims
Why does the article refer to McCarthy’s “sensational charges?”


 * ”Sensational” is a term widely used by McCarthy biographers, both sympathetic to him and critical of him, to characterize his charges. See, for example, Oshinsky where it is used ten times and Herman where it is used three times.


 * Counterpoints and answers concerning “sensational”:


 * Isn’t the word “sensational” biased because it emphasizes “exaggerated, superficial, or lurid” aspects of the charges?
 * The core definition of “sensational” emphasizes that it produces or is designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, or intense interest; hence the word aptly describes the reaction that it achieved at the time.
 * How about “dramatic?”
 * “Sensational” says it best.


 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7 and at Talk:Ralph Flanders. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

McCarthy’s “attacks”
Why does the lead paragraph use the word “attack” in reference to his investigations of those whom he suspected of communism, communist sympathies, or disloyalty inside and outside of government?


 * The main body of the article uses the word or a variant six times.


 * Counterpoints and answers concerning "attacks":


 * Isn’t “attacked” a loaded word and inappropriate for Wikipedia? Doesn’t it imply destruction of opponents?.
 * ”Attack” is a term commonly used by commentators at the time (e.g. Acheson ) and in recent coverage of the period.


 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

Cause of death
Why does the article say “The official cause of death was acute hepatitis; it is widely accepted that this was brought on by alcoholism.”


 * The death certificate reports the cause; numerous reliable secondary sources blame his death on alcoholism.


 * Counterpoints and answers regarding McCarthy and alcoholism:


 * Isn’t it wrong to speculate beyond what the death certificate says on cause of death, if there is no medical evidence?.
 * Multiple reliable biographers agree that alcoholism was the proximate cause.


 * Isn’t the term “alcoholism” pejorative and therefore not appropriate to Wikipedia?
 * Alcoholism is a recognized term to describe a condition that causes a person to drink sufficiently to cause negative health consequences.


 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7 and Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

“Censured” versus “condemned”
'''Why does the article state that the Senate "censured" McCarthy but the actual resolution says they "condemned" him? Is there a difference between the two?'''


 * There is no legal distinction between the two in Senate tradition. A senatorial motion to censure is just a way for the senate to express its disapproval of one of its members. In doing so, the Senate used the word “condemned.”


 * Counterpoints and answers concerning “Censured” versus “condemned”:


 * If the final resolution said “condemned,” why isn’t that how it should be referred to?
 * The two are viewed as synonymous. After the resolution was passed, a McCarthy supporter in the senate pointed out that the word "condemned" was used in the final motion rather than "censured", so it shouldn't be called a motion to censure. Virtually no one, inside or outside of the senate, has agreed with that point of view.


 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7 and Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

Wasn’t McCarthy right?
Why does the article not endorse the view of some modern authors that McCarthy's place in history should be re-evaluated?


 * Some writers who have tried to defend McCarthy have claimed that specific accusations were valid. Others suggest that McCarthy had a positive overall impact by increasing the nation's awareness of communist infiltration. Most current scholars agree that McCarthy was incorrect in the specifics of his allegations.


 * Counterpoints and answers concerning new views on McCarthy:


 * Don’t the Venona project files, or evidence from Soviet archives, prove that McCarthy was right about there being Soviet agents in the United States?
 * '' Some authors claim that there were ca. 350 Americans who had a "covert relationship" with Soviet intelligence, based on their interpretation of the Venona project. Those referred to were not all characterized as "agents," and the Venona cables were intercepted between 1942 and 1945, not the post-war period of McCarthy. There is very little overlap between the people McCarthy accused of being Communists or Soviet agents and those who are described in Venona or other later evidence.


 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7 and Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. If you feel that there are additional considerations to be added or discussed, please leave your suggestions there or at Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 7. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.