User talk:MoFreedom

March 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Joseph McCarthy, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Joseph McCarthy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Joseph McCarthy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Joseph McCarthy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Army-McCarthy hearings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about exposing the truth than righting a great wrong. The public has a right to know the truth.

Although you consider Evans partisan (isn't that your POV?), the part I'm trying to insert relates to the NYT's article published in April of 1954 revealing the very things Welch accused McCarthy of revealing in June of 1954. That is not POV. That is historical fact.

As to the paragraph following the quote, consider this. Welch condemned McCarthy for supposedly outing Fred Fisher. But it was Welch that in fact outed Fisher. So, shouldn't what's good for the goose be good for the gander. Plus, I began the paragraph with "perhaps", meaning it was not a foregone conclusion, just a possibility, with the ultimate decision left to the reader. And the sentence that follows that is not Evans either. Rather, it is an accurate statement of fact.

Here's Welch's verbatim assertion about what McCarthy's supposed outing did to Fred Fisher: "Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. 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 would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

BTW, Fisher was unscathed by the incident & went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm & organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. He was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while McCarthy became a national outcast.

Have you recently watched the video, "Point of Order"? Because I believe my characterization of Welch gay-baiting Cohn during the hearings is accurate. McCarthy was the one that was discredited & embarrassed by the assertions. So, he certainly wasn't trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion. See what others wrote about that in the Army-McCarthy hearings. What I said was totally consistent with what the others said & came from the video, not anything Evans said.MoFreedom (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I did include the identical material. I took out the part about Welch being overly theatrical as perhaps my POV. Here's the deleted portion: "Welch was just playing to the TV cameras for all it was worth." The balance of my post is factual, as pointed out to you above. The cite to Evan's book is to the page where the NYT article is reprinted. I am not citing Evans for anything he said. I don't have to. The facts speak for themselves. Therefore, Evan's POV is not part of my post.

I also did not include the part about Welch gay-baiting Cohn during the hearings, although that is obvious to anyone who watches the video, "Point of Order," and totally consistent with what others were allowed to say on the Army-McCarthy Wikipedia cite.

There is no further POV in my posts; it now is totally factual & in conformance with Wikipedia standards. So, when you deleted my revised post, you were engaging in "edit warring."

So, when you say, "I note that you inserted the same material again without any attempt at discussion," I don't know where you're coming from. Please read all the material I've posted on this discussion page from top to bottom. Click on the edit link at the top.

What about the material I put in about Fred Fisher? I copied that from the Wikipedia info others posted at the Fred Fisher Wikipedia cite. But that got deleted too.

Requiring me to jump through additional hoops (the gauntlet of McCarthy detractors?) after I cleaned up my posts & conformed to Wikipedia's format appears to be intellectual bullying in an attempt to preserve your POV.MoFreedom (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note that it's a lot easier to follow a conversation if you reply immediately below the comment to which you are responding: it's hard to find how they relate otherwise. Please also assume good faith: my intention is to help you.  I'm sorry that you've taken that as "intellectual bullying," but you must expect to engage other editors constructively.  I've advised you on the appropriate way to approach other editors to discuss your proposed edits, which is at the article talkpage.  So far you've not done that.  Please do. The minor alteration you made doesn't address the concern I expressed about your portrayal of Evans' findings in Wikipedia's voice, or that you've phrased it in a manner that's not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. If you look at the article history you will see who reverted what, and why. I did not revert your latest edit, but did feel the need to bring it up here to help keep you out of further difficulty. Please remember that Wikipedia works on consensus, and you've failed to seek consensus or to address any of the concerns or suggestions I've made on this page.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of "discuss it on the article talkpage" have you missed?  Acroterion   (talk)   18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The NYT's article is reprinted on page 568 of Evan's book. The only reason I cited Evan's book is so people could read the NYT's article verbatim. But I will follow your advice about getting consensus over undisputed facts ("res ipsa loquitur"), if that's necessary. But why do I feel like Josef K (the protagonist in Kafka's, "Der Process") being assailed by the thought police?MoFreedom (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joseph McCarthy, you may be blocked from editing. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Joseph McCarthy. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC) The material I inserted is well documented & is clearly not vandalism. I included a cite to an article that appeared in the NYT on April 16, 1954. Are you saying that the article didn't appear? Why are you preventing material in the public domain from being posted. If it was my opinion, I could see your concern. But it is well-established fact. If you're a relative of Joseph Welch, I can understand. But please understand that relatives & progeny of McCarthy have been plagued & embarrassed by this for years. They're entitled to have the truth known.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Removing a well-documented post constitutes "vandalism."

Here's the reference, check it out yourself. Welch made his famous condemnation of McCarthy on June 9, 1954.

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=false

Because if we have to call third parties in to resolve this, they'll check it out.

Also, I have a copy of "Point of Order". If you don't believe what I'm saying in connection with that, I'll loan it to you.MoFreedom (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Vandalism on Wikipedia is narrowly defined and usually involves the word "poop." You were not blocked for vandalism (one of the warnings aside), you were blocked for determined edit-warring after several warnings after other editors removed inappropriate commentary. The article has a talk page: please use it to discuss your proposed edits and their justification. The removal of editorial commentary is required by Wikipedia policy, sourced or not: please see WP:NPOV. While there might be a way to craft a passage using the sources that describes recent movement in conservative circles to rehabilitate McCarthy, simply having a source is not a justification for inserting polemical statements in Wikipedia's voice, and under no circumstances may you edit-war to maintain POV statements. The issue is with POV, not the source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)is a statement of opinion in Wikipedia's voice: such a statement should at a minimum be summarized neutrally and attributed in the text to the writer who had the original thought, not just referenced. It should also not be spammed across three articles.   Acroterion   (talk)   01:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

But you deleted my factual statements, as well as, anything that could be considered POV. When you did that, you were committing "vandalism."

Here is the only paragraph that could be considered to contain POV, with my comments in parenthesis following the POV statements"

So, perhaps Welch's timeless reproach should now be aimed at him, and not McCarthy. (Welch could not have forgotten his interview with the NYT a few weeks before. So, isn't what Welch did to McCarthy below the normal standards of decency? Isn't my mild statement fair comment considering what Welch did? Plus, I started the sentence with the word, "perhaps," meaning the idea that followed was not a foregone conclusion--just a possible conclusion, among others, based on the evidence.) Welch was just playing to the TV cameras for all it was worth (This could be fairly characterized as POV.  But if you watch Welch's theatrical performance, all the while knowing he was conveying a false & destructive impression to the public, I think you'll conclude my characterization of him is fair comment based on the evidence.  You have to consider that what Welch did was a calculated & cruel act in an attempt to seriously damage McCarthy's reputation) 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.

Recognize that Welch created a false, yet long lasting impression of what McCarthy did in connection with Fred Fisher. McCarthy has been savaged in the public's mind for years for allegedly doing what he did not do. The impression of McCarthy that Welch painted in the public's mind was both false & intentional, causing lasting damage & suffering to both McCarthy & his family (he had a wife a child who were innocent victims). Yet, you're trying to protect Welch when he in fact had no sense of decency. BTW, Welch violated his canons of ethics as a lawyer & could have (should have) been disbarred for what he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXWynC0i46A

Here's what Welch accused McCarthy of doing: "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. (How could he not be if McCarthy at that very moment outed him?) 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."

In fact, Fisher was totally unscathed by the incident & went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm & organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. Plus, he was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while McCarthy became a national outcast.MoFreedom (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Several points:
 * Removal of material, especially POV text or soapboxing, is part of the usual give-and-take of editing the encyclopedia. It is not vandalism. Editors are expected to justify their edits and to build consensus by convincing other editors of the appropriateness and proportionality of their edits by using the talkpage that is provided for the purpose. You are expected to discuss your edits in the appropriate venue calmly and collegially.
 * You clearly have a point of view that you're trying to impose on the articles you've edited. You need to recognize that and to understand that that raises concerns among other editors. See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs: Wikipedia reflects the preponderance of mainstream scholarly sources. If some sources are arguing that McCarthy was set up, it may be appropriate to mention that in proportion to its coverage and currency among sources. It may not assume undue weight, out of proportion to published scholarship. See WP:RS and WP:V. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, deriving its content from the preponderance of published scholarship.
 * Evans is a very partisan source, and while that doesn't prohibit the use of his writings, he is not in the mainstream. Editors must approach such sources with caution.
 * You may not present an argument in Wikipedia's voice. You must appropriately attribute statements made by scholars, particularly if they are controversial or out of the mainstream. "Evans states..." is appropriate: "This is obviously true and everybody's been lying" is not.
 * The corollary is that you may not derive a conclusion or make a synthesis that is not explicitly stated in the attributed source in one place. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research or original thought. All material must be directly attributable to a published source.
 * This advice is offered to help you understand that editing Wikipedia is complicated, and simply declaring "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" just means that nobody will take you seriously. You must convince people that you're right, and that your edits represent mainstream consensus in secondary sources, or at least that your edits represent a significant alternate view in due proportion to its currency in the field.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is my proposed edit:

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 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 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) 23:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you take this discussion to Talk:Joseph McCarthy where editors with an interest in the subject can see it. My chief concern was to help you understand the lay of the land around here so you can avoid difficulties in the future. Please remember that edit-warring will result in a block, and that persuasion is vital to building consensus for your edits. As a comment on your proposed edit, you're still putting Evans' views into Wikipedia's voice: why not write about Evans' analysis (which would be of interest to readers) rather than deliver an anonymous statement of vindication?   Acroterion   (talk)   00:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about exposing the truth than righting a great wrong. The public has a right to know the truth.

Although you consider Evans partisan (isn't that your POV?), the part I'm trying to insert relates to the NYT's article published in April of 1954 revealing the very things Welch accused McCarthy of revealing in June of 1954. That is not POV. That is historical fact.

As to the paragraph following the quote, consider this. Welch condemned McCarthy for supposedly outing Fred Fisher. But it was Welch that in fact outed Fisher. So, shouldn't what's good for the goose be good for the gander. Plus, I began the paragraph with "perhaps", meaning it was not a foregone conclusion, just a possibility, with the ultimate decision left to the reader. And the sentence that follows that is not Evans either. Rather, it is an accurate statement of fact.

Here's Welch's verbatim assertion about what McCarthy's supposed outing did to Fred Fisher: "Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. 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 would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

BTW, Fisher was unscathed by the incident & went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm & organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. He was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while McCarthy became a national outcast.

Have you recently watched the video, "Point of Order"? Because I believe my characterization of Welch gay-baiting Cohn during the hearings is accurate. McCarthy was the one that was discredited & embarrassed by the assertions. So, he certainly wasn't trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion. See what others wrote about that in the Army-McCarthy hearings. What I said was totally consistent with what the others said & came from the video, not anything Evans said.MoFreedom (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, use the talkpage of the appropriate article and be concise.My aim is to give you some feedback on how to productively work within the structure of Wikipedia, not to discuss content at length or to engage in a debate on McCarthy..  Acroterion   (talk)   03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that you inserted the same material again without any attempt at discussion: that can be seen as a resumption of edit-warring, which, if continued, will result in an extended block. Please take the advice offered and use Talk:Joseph McCarthy to discuss the best way to approach the subject. Ignoring other editors will not make them or the problem go away.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

April edits
I've reverted your additions to the McCarthy article (and so has Location) because there's no consensus for your additions.


 * Acroterion & Location, would you please do me the courtesy of specifying your concerns? How can I modify my proposed post without knowing which of Wikipedia's editing principles I'm allegedly violating?

I've left your addition to the Welch article be. Though it could be worded better to avoid an implied contention, I think it's reasonably relevant and concise. Note that the preceding line gives the context that Welch felt that McCarthy's use of a national TV audience to condemn Fisher, which I think you're passing over too lightly in your proposed edits.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Acroterion, please note the "preceding line" is without citation & perhaps expresses someone's POV. Others think Welch goaded McCarthy into mentioning Fisher's affiliations, so he could publicly condemn McCarthy & mislead the public into thinking McCarthy had just outed Fisher.


 * But I've noticed that when it comes to McCarthy, it's okay to express your POV, as long as it's the popular POV.


 * Here's something else to think about. McCarthy has been roundly condemned for allegedly falsely accusing innocent people of having communist affiliations.  But in Fisher's case, even Welch admitted Fisher had communist affiliations.  Therefore, even if McCarthy had outed Fisher (which he didn't), why would speaking the truth be worthy of condemnation?MoFreedom (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The consistent issue here is that you don't have any material other than Evans and other partisan sources on the relevance of the Fisher revelations and their timing. You really need to do some general research to see what a broad cross-section of scholars have to say on the subject, rather than looking through blogs and Conservapedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Acroterion, I don't believe I need to review or post what a broad cross-section of scholars have to say on the subject. I believe a 5th or 6th grader could determine the relevance of the facts I propose to post.


 * Plus, you are imposing an impossible standard in that most scholars don't state the obvious for obvious reasons. Why should an accomplished scholar say 1 + 1 = 2 when everyone in his or her audience already knows the answer?


 * Here's a reasoned conclusion a 5th or 6th grader could arrive at: Since Fisher's affiliation with the National Lawyers' Guild was already public knowledge, McCarthy didn't do anything wrong by mentioning Fisher was affiliated with the National Lawyers' Guild at the Army hearings. And Welch was wrong to denounce McCarthy for saying that. I'm not proposing to say that, but the conclusions are inescapable for even a 10-year old.


 * I do not doubt your good faith, but your analysis and reason appear weak. No one besides you has raised that objection.


 * Are there others that join you in raising that objection, because I'm not convinced anyone besides you believes that?


 * BTW, this appeared on the Army-McCarthy hearings site: "At the time Brownell was seeking to designate the NLG as a Communist front organization, and McCarthy mentioning Fisher's membership violated a pre-hearing agreement to not raise the issue as it was still being litigated."


 * This bald-faced assertion did not have any citation, raising suspicions it was just unfounded rumor & innuendo. I was led to believe Wikipedia has precise editing standards.MoFreedom (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no serious objection to your edit to Welch, as I noted, which sticks to the verifiable facts. However, there's been plenty written about McCarthy, so there's no reason to resort to analysis instead of citing sources, and Wikipedia requires sources, not speculation. As to others with that view, everybody who's commented at Talk:Joseph McCarthy has had the same concern as I have, and that's been emphasized several times. You have no support on that talkpage. Just because I've taken the time to discuss this with you doesn't mean you can minimize the opinions of those who saw no need to repeat themselves.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Acroterion, no one but you has raised the relevance issue. Apparently, the relevance issue is crystal clear to them.  Just because others have weighed in on other matters does not mean they stand with you on this one.MoFreedom (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd note that nobody but you thinks it's important or appropriately constructed, so focusing on the word "relevance" or solely on my views at the expense of all others who have expressed concern isn't going to clear things up. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and there's no consensus that supports your proposed edits at this point.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion, what are the rules in case of a tie? Do you get to impose your POV (i.e., that it is not important?). Remember, we're past criticism of appropriate construction, because I posted what Jodon wrote & you commended.MoFreedom (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Army–McCarthy hearings. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Stop it. There is no consensus for your WP:POV edits.'' Dave Dial (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Dave Dial, someone keeps deleting my edits in Army-McCarthy hearings. Here're the problems with the current posts under the heading "Joseph Welch confronts McCarthy"


 * 1.	Here is the first sentence of the second paragraph: "At the time Brownell was seeking to designate the NLG as a Communist front organization, and McCarthy mentioning Fisher's membership violated a pre-hearing agreement to not raise the issue as it was still being litigated."


 * This matter is both without citation to authority & false.


 * Here's a verbatim quote from the June 16th, 1954 NYT's article: "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."


 * As you can see from the NYT's quote, the sentence I'm attempting to delete was fabricated by a dishonest McCarthy hater. The National Lawyer's Guild was not merely under investigation, it had already been listed by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as a Communist front organization.


 * When you let false information get posted on Wikipedia, it causes people to wonder what other information about McCarthy is false & undermines the entire process.


 * Plus, when people selectively enforce Wikipedia's editing rules, they begin to look like censors. Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the person(s) deleting my posts is a censor imposing his or her POV, because I'm assuming good faith here.  Instead, I'm trying to help them by pointing this out so they won't embarrass themselves any more than they already have (by showing weakness in their ability to analyze & reason).


 * 2. Here is the third sentence of the second paragraph:  His replacement by another colleague on Welch's staff was also covered by The New York Times.[14]


 * Footnote 14 refers to the famous dialogue between Welch and McCarthy at the Army hearings. You can read it for yourselves by clicking on the hyperlink.  However, nowhere in that exchange do either Welch or McCarthy mention the NYT's article, nor is there any citation to that article in their dialogue.  So, the statement is without proper citation.  I merely inserted the proper citation & part of the NYT's article.


 * 3. Here is the opening of the third paragraph:  "Infuriated by McCarthy's actions, Welch excluded himself from the remainder of the hearings…"


 * The fact that Welch did not participate in the remainder of the hearings is well known. However, there is no known evidence that Welch excluded himself from the hearings because he was "Infuriated by McCarthy's actions."  The reason why Welch excluded himself from the hearings would only be known by Welch.  If that post is true, then someone must have spoken to Welch about why he excluded himself from the remainder of the hearings.  That interview & what Welch said during it would require citation, and there is none.


 * If someone can cite to an interview with Welch wherein he said he excluded himself from the rest of the hearings because he was "infuriated by McCarthy's actions," then that information should be a part of the article. Otherwise, it is highly inappropriate.


 * 4. Last, I inserted the following sentence:  "Welch offered no explanation as to why he felt Fisher was entitled to privacy regarding his past affiliations with the National Lawyers' Guild."


 * The statement is accurate, relevant, & properly cited.


 * The only reason I can think of as to why Welch was so upset is he felt the publicity might shrink his law firm's billings & reduce the size of his share of its annual profits.


 * There is nothing in the record to indicate Welch's relationship with Fisher was anything other than business, which is what one would normally expect considering the tremendous difference in their ages.


 * Dave Dial, how did you determine there was no consensus for my proposed edits? And would you kindly point out the specific parts of my proposed edits that represent my point of view & that are not established fact? I'm sure you have solid reasons for your statements, & I'm looking forward to learning what they are.

MoFreedom (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoever, is reverting my edits, please stop. Hiding the truth will likely eat away at your psyche, doing damage to both your mind & your body. Regardless of how you rationalize things in your conscious mind, if you don’t do the right thing, your subconscious mind will turn against you & punish you in unimaginable ways. Sometimes accidents & illnesses aren’t always what they seem to be (they could be workings of the subconscious mind.)  http://shinelight.blog.com/2011/09/29/my-subconscious-mind-is-killing-me-%E2%80%93-part-iii/	  Hoped for gains will be trivial & short-lived, while the consequences may be enormous & last a lifetime.MoFreedom (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

February 2015
Please stop adding material that promotes a non-neutral view, as you have just done at the Saul Alinsky and Joseph McCarthy articles (and possibly others), and as you have been previously warned about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)