Talk:United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwood97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Too much direct quotation
The article contains far too much direct quotation from the report. All those paragraphs should be summarized down to a manageable level; we don't need the full text here. (And I'm of the opinion that more "claim quotes" are probably in order in the non-quoted part of the article, to make it clear that the nonsense claims of the committee's report are in fact the claims of the committee and not of an impartial analysis. Otherwise it borders on (exceedingly outdated) POV-pushing.)  121a0012 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you got your way, but this article is missing the main controversies that the Dodd report alleged, such as the covert desire to merge the USA with the USSR, the desirability of involving the USA in a war and the intention to take control of American education in order to achieve these ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.9.46 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@121a0012 Given that you have labelled the claims nonsense, it is quite clear that your alterations would be difficult to consider NPOV. The claims are just that, they make suggestion but can not be dismissed based on mere criticism without factual and documented presentation as the claims have in their favour. Given Wikipedia's goals, both the claims and counterclaims by reliable sources (such as investigators and members of senate should be considered) should be included insofar as it gives context to the article (though, agreed, within an overall summary's conciseness).

I would also like to note that in the context of who was involved (Wayne Hays) and his notoriety as a bully, it should be of no surprise that the Reese Commission received such criticism. And again, given that two political parties affiliations are at stake, some POV should be expected (though balanced, if possible). We should remember that is not our goal to ONLY present neutral points of view, but rather that the article itself is not written in such a way that it sides with or espouses those views, unilaterally or bilaterally.

Disagree, not enough direct quotation. Typenolies (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Confusion Brooks Hays vs. Wayne Hays
An editor has used Brooks Hays in a few places where I'm sure Wayne Hays is consistently the correct figure from sources. I will proceed to correct these instances.

I'd like to note that a table is given for the majority on the Cox Commission, whereas the Reece Commission does not receive the same treatment (odd...). I am also confused in the matter of whether Hays served as acting chairman afterwards. Wasn't that (as mentioned earlier) Reese? I will let the statement stand for now, until I do more digging.

I'd like to see in general a lot more background information given to this article and its surrounding controversies, given the rather prolific documentation regarding the committee (even if unbalanced). Typenolies (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement
The article could make clearer that the first authorization of the committee occurred in 1952, when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, and that a new iteration of the committee was then created in 1954, at which point Republicans controlled the committee. A biography of B. Carroll Reece by Suzanne Bowers, Republican First, Last, and Always apparently includes a full history of the committee's work and could be a useful source for additional information. Gothamscholar (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)