Talk:Joseph McCarthy

Legacy: Ongoing debate= Large expansion

It seems that the Legacy/Ongoing debate has been completely sabotaged now. The first few sentences are sourced and seem like something that would usually be found on wikipedia, but then resolves into what can only be desbribed as an extremely biased copy paste from several conservative books.

Its not just biased but also almost impossible to read. English is not my native language but Im a little nervous about writing on this subject myself but it definently needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evighedspanda (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the edits. Th4n3r (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a fundamental issue with this section. It starts by saying that "McCarthy's place in history should be reevaluated". But there is no statement what his current "place" in history is.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I was just going to comment on the same thing. I gather that the prevailing view is that McCarthy was a dishonest demagogue and a shameful blot on American history. A few conservative historians have argued that his fascist tactics were justified in light of actual Communist infiltration of the government. The section primarily emphasizes the latter viewpoint. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a simple reader who feels there is something off here, I can only say that the material in the Legacy section seems very biased towards 'revisionist'(?) views, and the whole thing in itself has an anti-communist or anti-soviet point of view, rather than a neutral one. 66.122.182.196 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading this I noticed that in the statement "McCarthy's place in history should be reevaluated" The word "should" is a subjective, and should be replaced by a more objective phrase such as "Some people think that McCarthy's place in history should be reevaluated"184.60.36.51 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The strange thing about this article is that today, in 2020, we have been through four years of paranoia about Russia far worse than anything McCarthy did. Today, though, the "Red Scare" came from the Democrats and those opposing it were Republicans -- the exact opposite of the original McCarthy Era referenced in this article. This rich irony deserves to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Just reading this article

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" Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_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:

• 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.

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?

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#Second Rewrite. 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#Ongoing debate 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)

Arbitrary break

Acroterion, how about this:

On April 15, 1954, Welch disclosed Fred Fisher’s connections to a Communist front group to the New York Times (“NYT”). The following day the NYT ran a front page story describing Fisher’s connections to that Communist front group and saying Welch would be replacing Fisher with another lawyer from his law firm. The NYT’s article even had a picture of Fisher. Several weeks later on June 9, 1954, Welch condemned McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings for mentioning that Fred Fisher belonged to the Communist front group described in the NYT's article. 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."

Fred Fisher went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm where he 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. MoFreedom (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC))

Again, why is this digression significant enough to merit three paragraphs about Welch and Fisher in McCarthy's biography, and how does it reflect a consensus of its significance among mainstream scholarship concerning McCarthy? Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's only two short paragraphs & a quote. As pointed out before, most people thought McCarthy outed Fisher, & he didn't. Plus, most people assumed that outing Fisher would cause serious & long-lasting damage to his career, & it didn't. That McCarthy supposedly outed Fisher & caused him serious harm were the sole reasons for Welch's, "Have you no sense of decency?" condemnation. Here's what Welch said after McCarthy mentioned Fisher was affiliated with the National Lawyer's Guild: "I regret to say, equally true that I fear he (referring to Fisher) 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." What could be more significant than pointing out that both conclusions were false?MoFreedom (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're making an argument, rather than citing how it's seen by scholars on the subject. Wikipedia reflects published scholarship, not the views, however reasoned, of individual editors. Does any body, apart from Evans, see this as significant? Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people might be interested in the truth, although you suggest truth and falsity may not be particular concerns for Wikipedia.

This appears in the Fred Fisher Wikipedia article: "Fisher's name was prominently publicized when McCarthy intimated on national television that Welch should get Fisher fired as a Communist."

But here's an accurate description of what happened (taken from the Wikipedia's Army-McCarthy hearings & the video, "Point of Order" that I suspect you haven't seen): "Welch challenged Cohn to give McCarthy's list of 130 subversives in defense plants to the office of the FBI and the Department Of Defense "before the sun goes down". In response to Welch's challenge, McCarthy suggested that Welch should check on Fred Fisher, a young lawyer in Welch's own Boston law firm whom Welch planned to have on his staff for the hearings. McCarthy then mentioned that Fisher had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a group which Attorney General Brownell had called "the legal bulwark of the Communist Party."[13]"

McCarthy did not suggest Fisher should be fired. (Apparently, it's open season for persons to post anything negative about McCarthy on Wikipedia.) The reason Welch replaced Fisher with another attorney from his office was because as attorneys for the army, they had access to confidential information regarding Communist infiltration into our government. Why would that be important? Read this (once you open the article, scroll down to Washington D.C.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby

Are you the only one that thinks my revised proposed post is insignificant? Do the others feel the same way?MoFreedom (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment asks if mainstream scholarship thinks the details concerning Welch and Fisher are significant: it is not my opinion or yours on McCarthy, Welch and Fisher (what you or I think is not the basis of article content) that anyone cares about. Please provide evidence, not reasoning, and please do the research in the kind of scholarly sources from which Wikipedia derives its content. I'm asking you to comply with Wikipedia policy on sourcing and evidence of acceptance in scholarship on the subject. You have not yet understood this, despite many attempts to help you to understand that you must produce evidence of significance in mainstream sources. At some risk of repetition, please review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, all fundamental principles of editing Wikipedia, which serve to isolate content from the opinions of editors. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what one scholar said in dwkcommentaries | Law, politics, religion & history: "The most famous incident in the hearings was an exchange between McCarthy and Welch on June 9, the 30th day of the hearings. Welch was cross examining Roy Cohn and challenging him to provide the U.S. Attorney General with McCarthy’s list of alleged Communists or subversives in defense plants “before the sun goes down.” McCarthy interrupted to say that if Welch was so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild.

In an impassioned defense of Fisher, Welch immediately responded, 'Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness …' When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: 'Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?'

The videotape of this famous exchange shows an unperturbed Welch delivering his oft-quoted remarks without apparent emotion, supporting the notion, in my judgment, that Welch was not surprised and had prepared his remarks.

Some of the participants thought that Welch’s questioning of Cohn was designed to goad McCarthy into talking about Fisher and that Welch had rehearsed his defense of Fisher. For example, Roy Cohn said Welch’s conduct that day was “an act from start to finish.” It started with Welch’s “sarcastic, sneering, coaxing, taunting” insistence that Cohn and McCarthy rush to find communists “before the sun goes down.” McCarthy’s raising the Fisher issue, Cohn insisted, “played squarely into Joe Welch’s hands.” And one of Welch’s clients, John Adams, agreed: “Welch was a master actor. He was . . . conducting a theatrical performance.” Immediately after the hearing that day, Welch was overheard saying to another lawyer, 'How did it go?'

Later that same day, Welch was observed crying outside the hearing room. Some thought it was provoked by the attack on Fisher. Cohn thought it was an act to engender sympathy for Fisher and the Army. I wonder whether they were genuine tears of anguish for Welch’s possibly baiting McCarthy to tell 'the Fisher story,' i.e., for using Fisher to make his point."

Is this the kind of scholarship you're looking for?

BTW, the author also mentioned: That night over dinner, Welch asked Fisher and St. Clair if there was anything in their past that could embarrass them if they were to be involved in the matter. St. Clair had nothing to be concerned about." Fisher, however, told Welch that he had been a member of the National Lawyers’ Guild with links to communists. "The next day Welch made a public announcement that Fisher was no longer involved and the reason for his withdrawal in an attempted preemption of any attack by McCarthy on Fisher and Welch. The New York Times reported this statement."

Instead of hiding it, let's put the info out into the public domain and see what scholars have to say about it. It's kind of hard for mainstream scholars to comment on things they don't know about.MoFreedom (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

By scholarship Wikipedia means published, preferably peer-reviewed authors and academics with a substantial reputation in history or politics (in this case), who aren't out on the fringes of their topic. That's where Wikipdeia gets its material. I'm not familiar with dwkcommentaries, but blogs aren't usable as sources on Wikipedia, except in narrowly-defined circumstances (usually where the subject is the blogger). So no, it's not usable on Wikipedia. As for your final comment, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning that it follows scholarship rather than leading it. It is not a place to reveal the truth, it is a place to present revelations that have already gained general acceptance among prominent mainstream sources. I really think that's the source of your difficulties here: you misunderstand the limitations that are imposed on editors on Wikipedia by the policies I quoted above. This is not a forum to reveal, debate or clarify matters that aren't already thoroughly examined, discussed and made a part of the general scholarship on any given subject.

I'm going to leave this discussion to one side for a day or two: I just had some fairly extensive dental work done this morning, and I don't want to be accidentally cranky or impatient as a result. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion, I hope you're feeling better, & look forward to your return in a day or two.

And I certainly understand how you feel about letting my proposed post see the light of day. In the movie, “A Few Good Men,” Colonel Jessup (played by Jack Nicholson) expressed the view “that some people can’t handle the truth.” Although I appreciate how persons like Colonel Jessup and you feel, it’s been nearly 60 years now that a false narrative has played in many (if not most) people’s minds. George Clooney’s movie, “Good Night, and Good Luck” portrays the popularly held perceptions. So, perhaps it’s time to let go of the false narrative & let the sun shine in. I think people are now ready to handle the truth. Plus, I’ve found that truth & light are excellent cleansing agents.

Did you realize that Edward R. Murrow had an ax to grind? His good friend, Laurence Duggan, who worked in the State Department, had been questioned about his communist ties and either jumped or was pushed out of a 14th floor apartment before he could say anything. Some think he committed suicide, but the KGB had ways of dealing with problems/embarrassments, as well. His shocking death at the age of 43 preserved his secrets. According to the account of Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood (1999), when in 1937 a man named Ignatz Reiss broke from Stalin's secret service, a pair of KGB assassins hunted down the defector in Switzerland and killed him to stop him from blowing the cover of Laurence Duggan and Noel Field another American official who secretly assisted the KGB. And here’s another shocking example of how the KGB dealt with problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

Plus, Stalin had assembled a gang of killers, probably unequaled in the annals of murder, arousing many people’s suspicions that they were involved. They were agents of the Soviet secret police - then called the N.K.V.D., operating in a special unit dedicated to terror & assassination. They were highly proficient & left little (if any) evidence of their handiwork. (See Chekisty: A History of the KGB by John J. Dziak.)

Sumner Welles (Duggan’s boss at the State Department) expressed doubts that Duggan had killed himself. Writing to a friend, Welles said: “I think there’s unmistakable proof that he had no such idea in his mind. And knowing him as you and I do, he is the last man on earth that would have taken his own life." (Welles to Guachalla, January 13, 1949, box 138, Welles papers, FDRL.)

Regardless of how he died, Duggan was indeed a Communist spy. When archival documents and decrypted cable traffic between Moscow, New York, and Washington came to light after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they confirmed that Duggan had been working with Soviet intelligence. Two of Duggan’s code names were "Frank" and "Prince." His handler was Norman Borodin, whose boss was KGB station chief Izhak Akhmerov. (Duggan was a close friend of Alger Hiss at Harvard and helped get Hiss a job at the State Department. Hiss was also a confirmed Russian agent. I use the word “agent” rather than “spy,” because they did more than give the N.K.V.D. classified information. They also helped mold American policy in order to help Stalin achieve his aims.)

It’s also clear that Murrow let his personal friendship with a clandestine Soviet spy cloud his judgment about the reality of Soviet espionage in the U.S. Letting personal bias creep into professional work constitutes rank amateurish journalism (that should be an embarrassment to the profession & hardly worthy of professional honor or acclaim). Murrow should have refused the opportunity or allowed an unbiased journalist to work on the McCarthy matters. Instead, Murrow used his power & position to do a journalistic hit job on McCarthy (an unjustified act of vengeance).

I'm not trying to post anybody's POV. We don't need any scholarly writers to opine on whether Welch revealed Fisher's connections to a communist front group, because it's now part of the public record. The NYT article was published on April 16, 1954. Anybody can verify that. The only things I'm trying to post is that Welch revealed Fisher's connections to a communist front group to the NYT on April 15th & condemned McCarthy for mentioning Fisher's connections to that same group on June 9th. Welch's condemnation of McCarthy on June 9th is also well established. So, what authorities that I cited in my revised proposal are you saying are unreliable? Please be specific.MoFreedom (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been very specific. You need to provide evidence that scholars consider the circumstances concerning Welch's knowledge of Fisher's membership to be significant, and you may not synthesize a discussion on that point from your own opinions and research. You must provide sourcing that indicates the significance of your proposed digression. Read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH in detail (they're part of the same policy). The discussion of synthesis is directly germane to this discussion, summarized by "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You're drawing a conclusion from the NYT article that the Times does not explicitly draw, not could it, since the article appeared before the events you're trying to discuss. In this case you're using a single before-the-fact source to draw a conclusion concerning Welch and McCarthy that the source does not explicitly draw. It is therefore unsourced and a synthesis of your own original research and your opinions, as your reasoning above makes clear. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion, I hope you're feeling better.

I've dropped my cite to the Evans book. So, the only source I'm citing is the NYT. The NYT said on April 16th was that Fisher was a member of a Communist front group (i.e., the National Lawyers Guild) & included a picture of him in the article. I don't think the NYT article draws any inferences. It merely reported facts. McCarthy repeated on April 9th that Fisher was a member of a Communist front group (i.e., the National Lawyers Guild) in the Army hearings. I don't see any inferences in McCarthy's statement either. It's a straightforward statement of fact.

Please repeat the part of my proposed post that you think draws a conclusion concerning Welch and McCarthy that the NYT does not explicitly draw. Please repeat it and put it in quotes, because I've read and re-read my proposed post several times, and I'm having a real hard time understanding what you're saying.

BTW, are you the only one that feels this way? And are you in communications with any of the other editors other than through Wikipedia?MoFreedom (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC))

A short first answer to the reference issue, trying to put it differently (I'll answer at greater length later): you can't use a newspaper article that appeared on a given day as a reference for something else that happened later. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I cited the April 16th NYT's article for what it said. And I cited McCarthy for what he said. Are you challenging the statements McCarthy made during the Army hearings on June 9th, because they're well established. If you'd like I can cite the video, "Point of Order." That production is a video taping & sound recording of what McCarthy said at the hearings that day.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring (again) issues of weight and mainstream-ness, why on earth would you wish to not cite Evans? You can't present an analysis otherwise (again, leaving aside the appropriateness of the analysis), because of Wikipedia policies on original research and neutral point of view. You're going backwards. As I've noted before, not only must you provide the reference, you must cite Evans in the text to give appropriate credit for his original thought on the implications of the earlier acknowledgement by Welch: anything short of that would have the air of plagiarism.

I never cited Evans for anything he wrote or said. Thus, there's no need to cite him in my revised proposed post. And the reason I didn't cite him is because you gave me the distinct impression you would not allow my proposed post if I did, because in your POV, Evans is not a mainstream scholar.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As for what the NYT article does not support, it's this: "Several weeks later on June 9, 1954, Welch condemned McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings."

Welch's condemnation of McCarthy is widely known & published verbatim on the Army-McCarthy hearings cite. I'm shocked that you challenge it. Millions of Americans are familiar with the "Have you no decency" part of it. Moreover, the condemnation was recorded (sound & picture) in "Point of Order." I can cite that if you like.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Fred Fisher went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm where he 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."

The Fisher material was copied from the Wikipedia Fisher article. The material was posted there without cite to any authority. If the information can't appear in my proposed post, then it shouldn't allowed at the Fred Fisher site either. If you won't allow me to post the information here, I propose to delete it there. But what harm can there be to telling people where I got the information?

Are you challenging my statement that "McCarthy became a national outcast." Really?MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• You can't make a synthesis by assembling facts from different sources that do not explicitly and individually form the same conclusion

If I did this, please repeat the language where it was done.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• You can't credit the Times with clairvoyance

If I did this, please repeat the language where it was done.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• You must credit Evans with his original thought in the text if you're going to offer any commentary, since he's the authority and source, and you can't be under Wikipedia policy

I merely propose to post what was in the NYT's article published on April 16th and what McCarthy said on June 9th. There are two independent sources for those, and Evans isn't one of them. There is no Evan's thought anywhere in my proposed post. If you think Evan's thought is somewhere in my proposed post, please repeat the exact language so I can see what you're talking about.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• You've still not provided any sources discussing the issue's significance in general scholarship

Here's what's said in the JM Wikipedia article: The most famous incident in the hearings was an exchange between McCarthy and the army's chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch.

And here's what's said in the Army-M hearings Wikepedia article: "In what played out to be the most dramatic exchange of the hearings, McCarthy responded to aggressive questioning from Army counsel Joseph Welch. ...the Army–McCarthy hearings ultimately became the main catalyst in McCarthy's downfall from political power."

My proposed post provides added information as to the most famous incident in the army hearings, an incident that pretty much ended the investigations into the Communists' penetration of our government & was a leading cause of the downfall of McCarthy. And you suggest there's no historical significance to that? I find your suggestion that there's no significance to my proposed post totally incomprehensible.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• You can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source or use it as a reference

The Fisher material was copied from the Wikipedia Fisher article. The information was without cite to any authority. If it can't appear in my proposed post, then it shouldn't be posted at that site. If you won't allow me to post the information here, I propose to delete it there. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My policy on communications with other editors is to do it on-wiki for transparency wherever possible. I've had no discussions with anyone on this topic by other means. You've seen consistent concerns raised by half-a-dozen editors on this subject, and despite the walls of text, you've gained no consensus for your proposed edits and have never acknowledged or indicated an understanding of the Wikipedia policies that have repeatedly been cited and explained.

I believe I've satisfied the concerns of the other editors. I've seen no evidence that your present concerns are their concerns. That's why I asked if you were in independent communication with them.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't fixable by rephrasing or re-jiggering references: the problem is that what you want to do isn't admissible by Wikipedia policies on original research, neutral point of view and appropriate weight. Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses.MoFreedom (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: "I believe I've satisfied the concerns of the other editors. I've seen no evidence that your present concerns are their concerns." You probably shouldn't consider a lack of response as an agreement with your position. It's likely that other editors have long since considered and dismissed your point of view on this and see you merely as being argumentative or disruptive. You've already demonstrated to the rest of us that you don't get it, so bludgeoning the process with walls of text is likely to be met with WP:TLDR. It's probably best to move on to a different article or subject because you're not going to make any headway here. Sorry. Location (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Location, thank you for chiming in. Would you please express your specific concerns with respect to my revised post? Do you likewise think that my new information regarding one of the most dramatic exchanges of the hearings lacks historical significance? Do you likewise think I express my own opinions in my revised post? Do you likewise think I've assembled facts from different sources that do not explicitly and individually form the same conclusion? And if so, does that violate any Wikipedia standards? Please be specific and point out the exact language you believe is not up to Wikipedia standards (and explain why).

Your statement that the other editors have long since considered and dismissed my point of view may not be accurate, since I've made multiple & substantial edits to my earlier proposed posts that they objected to. My new proposed post bears only slight resemblance to the prior ones. I tried to modify my proposed post in order to satisfy each of the editor's concerns. If you have legitimate concerns about my newly revised proposed post, please advise & please be specific. Generalizations provide me with little or no guidance. Thanks.MoFreedom (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It's the same entry over and over, you're just flipping sentences and replacing words. Location is right on this. Also, these threads are almost impossible to read because you do not indent and respond in the correct order. Not to mention the missing sigs. Don't take the lack of responses as agreement from the other editors who have objected to your attempts to edit this article. Look at it as the other editor are not bothering to respond because their is nothing new to respond to. I've adjusted the indention here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As Location said, just because editors don't appear to care to respond, doesn't mean they automatically agree with you, MoFreedom. Regardless of subject matter, or article editing policy, your penchant for writing a thesis here is probably counter-productive to your goal. The discussion is now very difficult to follow, and despite the real possibility that you may be making a valid argument, the presentation of that argument has I'm sure left editors such as (the very patient) Acroterion with a headache (and probably a toothache!). This could probably all have been done with a single paragraph and a short list of bullet points (for inclusion of verifiable sources). Once they would have been shown to be incompatible with Wiki-policy the discussion should have ended there and then. See HERE for an example of a well formatted (albeit brief) discussion.

Unfortunately, before a resolution is found, the burden is on you, MoFreedom, to become a better editor, not on other editors to try and find loopholes ad infinitum in your argument(s), and this may require some temporary stepping back on your part to see how other articles are written, and how other Wikipedia discussions are made. That's how I learned (and am still learning). -- Jodon | Talk 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the other editors jumping in. And I apologize for my lack of sophistication in presenting my comments in these discussions.

For everyone's edification, I set out my proposed post in its entirety below. Please provide me with your specific reasons as to why it's not an appropriate post under Wikipedia's editing guidelines.

My first paragraph contains 4 short, accurate statements of fact. They're followed by a verbatim quote from the NYT's article. The last paragraph was pretty much copied from Fred Fisher. I added that McCarthy became a national outcast (which presumably is the consensus opinion, right?) That's the entirety of my proposed post.

Thank you for your help.

[Start of proposed post]On April 15, 1954, Welch disclosed Fred Fisher’s connections to a Communist front group to the New York Times (“NYT”). The following day the NYT ran a front page story describing Fisher’s connections to that Communist front group and saying Welch would be replacing Fisher with another lawyer from his law firm. The NYT’s article even had a picture of Fisher. Several weeks later on June 9, 1954, Welch condemned McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings [9] for mentioning that Fred Fisher belonged to the Communist front group described in the NYT's article. [10] 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." [11]

Fred Fisher went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm where he 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.[End of proposed post] [12]MoFreedom (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC))MoFreedom (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My tooth (now replaced with a titanium screw for an implant) isn't MoFreedom's fault, at least. I am rather tired of explaining things, only to see a variant of the original, thoroughly-explained-as-unsuitable proposition reappear above. It's been proposed,. it's been rejected by consensus with lots of explanation, let's move on. MoFreedom, you've been polite and well-intentioned, and it might be best for you to gain more experience of Wikipedia policy and editing standards by editing other, simpler subjects for a while. There are 4.2 million articles out there right now, many in sore need of attention, and you need to gain some practical experience in this environment before making changes to high-profile articles on controversial subjects. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and as in any online community, it's best to try walking before running. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's patently obvious you and the others don't want my post to become public knowledge. But you alone are the only editor that has attempted to say why my newly revised proposed post doesn't meet Wikipedia's editing standards.

I've made a good faith attempt to comply with all the other editors' prior concerns, as well as your own. Your recent explanations don't make any sense, as I pointed out above. And the other editors' recent comments are just vague generalizations (more related to the process than the content). One merely pointed out that the burden was on me to become a better editor. And I'm desperately trying to do that & being extremely flexible in the process.

How about if I delete the last paragraph (the one that discusses Fred Fisher's subsequent career)? That would leave 4 concise statements of fact (the last of which is a harmless & uncontroversial introduction to the quote), followed by a verbatim quote. For the life of me, I can't see any imaginable reason why that post would violate Wikipedia standards. Here's how the newly revised proposed post would read:

[Start of proposed post]On April 15, 1954, Welch disclosed Fred Fisher’s connections to a Communist front group to the New York Times (“NYT”). The following day the NYT ran a front page story describing Fisher’s connections to that Communist front group and saying Welch would be replacing Fisher with another lawyer from his law firm. The NYT’s article even had a picture of Fisher. Several weeks later on June 9, 1954, Welch condemned McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings [9] for mentioning that Fred Fisher belonged to the Communist front group described in the NYT's article. [10] 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." [11][End of proposed post.][User:MoFreedom|MoFreedom]] (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

MoFreedom, assuming good faith also, and further to your own edits, I'll add my 2 cents worth, below. Bear in mind this is purely a mechanical exercise, I only do this from a copy-editing standpoint, as I am not dealing here with the valid concerns of the other editors regarding notability, neutrality, or verifiablility. Bear in mind also that I'm not recommending this for inclusion, I'm only giving you an idea of the type of approach that might be expected of you from Wikipedia, and I would highly recommend you to do as Acroterion suggests, and try and edit less controversial articles first, as well as read up a bit more on the basics of Wikipedia editing. In future you might consider using your sandbox to develop material for editing and eventual use in an article, and asking other editors to take a look and offer suggestions for fine tuning, as you learn the ropes of good editing, rather than spend all your time here engaging in an impractical discussion of epic proportions.

Edit of MoFreedom's proposed addition

On April 16, 1954, the New York Times ran a front page story describing Fred Fisher’s connections to a Communist front group and saying Welch would be replacing Fisher with another lawyer from his law firm. Several weeks later on June 9, 1954, Welch condemned McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings for mentioning that Fred Fisher belonged to the Communist front group described in the NYT's article.

• As you can see, in your first paragraph, I joined your first 2 sentences together, as your first sentence had made your second sentence more repetitive. I deleted your third sentence that said "The NYT’s article even had a picture of Fisher", which is irrelevant. Your fourth sentence is more problematical in terms of inclusion, as it leads into the existing article, but also requires a verifiable source.

• Your second paragraph was put as a reference, using an inline citation.

• Yes your third paragraph should be deleted as there is already an article on Fred Fisher.

• Calling McCarthy a "national outcast" is problematical, as it denies readers the chance to draw their own conclusions from reading the assembly of facts. However much you may believe that it is public consensus that "he became a national outcast" you are using Wikipedia to put words in people's mouths, thereby removing the neutrality that Wikipedia is at pains to maintain. However, if you can say that such a such a person actually used the words "national outcast" (such as Murrow, or some other high profile sources), that then may be more eligible for inclusion. But it has to be written the right way. And you have to bear these things in mind constantly when editing on Wikipedia.

Regarding your statement "It's patently obvious you and the others don't want my post to become public knowledge", I can only say this: Wikipedia guidelines are not just arbitration tools, but rather consist of helpful suggestions which should be borne in mind when a subject (or addition) is considered notable enough for inclusion, and to make it easier for editors to work together on articles without the added time and stress that would otherwise exist. Unfortunately you have provided a thesis on why your edits should be included instead of first familiarising yourself with the ground rules of inclusion. The other editors have consistently offered you opportunities to find out more about Wikipedia's editing policy for yourself, which for some reason you have been either unable or unwilling to do. You could have saved yourself a lot of bother. If you had shown that you were willing to follow the advice of more experienced editors it would have been easier for them to help you. My own advice is to close this discussion for the time being and return to it after you have more experience in editing, that way you will in time understand the issues that have been raised by the editors here, otherwise what you're facing is endless repeating and endless rejection of the same thing, if that already hasn't become painfully obvious. -- Jodon | Talk 22:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jodon, looks good to me. Very constructive, easy to understand. Wikipedia allows cites to Newspaper articles. Wikipedia:Citing Sources And I'll have no trouble rounding up a source to say McCarthy was a "national outcast". Check out for yourself how many negative comments about McCarthy there already are in the article. Thank you.MoFreedom (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

While I did say "I'm not recommending this for inclusion", and despite everyone's best efforts to get you to step back and just drop it willingly, you're still adamant. I have to admire your persistence. Being bold is also part of Wikipedia policy. However as I came to this discussion quite late it would be quite improper to ignore the concerns of all the previous editors. At the risk of having their heads explode with frustration, I invite the other editors to comment. I will accept a lack of response as non-approval. -- Jodon | Talk 00:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Jodon's edit, for reasons he's explained, is much improved, neutrally worded and avoiding editorializing and unsupported assertions. At this point my main concern would center on whether historians consider this to be significant. Has the April 16 story been noted and commented upon? Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean other than by Evans? -- Jodon | Talk 11:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion & Jodon: If more people knew about this, perhaps more would write or comment about it. But its hard to do that when their "right to know" is blocked.

But here are many people that believe the info is shocking & could revise many people's impressions about McCarthy's supposed indecent act during the Army hearings of mentioning that Fisher was affiliated with a communist front group.

McCarthy-Army hearings

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/071129

http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth4.htm

Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans (BTW, George Clooney cites Evans as one of the sources he used in making his movie, "Good Night & Good Luck.")

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/563576157 THIS IS A STORY, THIS IS WELL BEFORE MCCARTHY ... WE'RE SHOWING IS A "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE FROM APRIL 16, 1954. ... WE'LL BE SHOWING, THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF FRED FISHER.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080712-621356-no-sense-of-decency-in-democrats-attacks.htm http://bioleft.tripod.com/mccarthy.htm

http://www.corson.org/columnists/past_articles/d_west/2013/022213.htm

"Treason," by Ann Coulter

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-05-13.html

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-01-01.html

I know what you think about Coulter, so no need for comment there. But she does have a B.A. (with honors) from Cornell and law degree from the Univ. of Michigan, one of the best law schools in our nation, where she was an editor of the Michigan Law Review. She has also authored many books, and has earned her stripes as a columnist. Regardless of what you think about her, she's no lightweight.

Here's what's said in the JM Wikipedia article: "The most famous incident in the hearings was an exchange between McCarthy and the army's chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch."

And here's what's said in the Army-M hearings Wikepedia article: "In what played out to be the most dramatic exchange of the hearings, McCarthy responded to aggressive questioning from Army counsel Joseph Welch. ...the Army–McCarthy hearings ultimately became the main catalyst in McCarthy's downfall from political power."

My proposed post provides added information as to the most famous incident in the army hearings, an incident that pretty much ended the investigations into the Communists' penetration of our government & was a leading cause of McCarthy's downfall.

Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone could consider it insignificant.MoFreedom (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's another commentator that mentions the significance of my proposed post. Plus, there's some other great info in the article. Put http:www in front of it. tmmason.hubpages.com/hub/Army-McCarth-hearings-the-truth-The-Whole-truth-And-Nothing-But-the-TruthMoFreedom (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're presenting a series of partisan sources, none of them academics or independent scholars, and some of them bloggers or columnists. I'm sure I could find dozens more, and others on the other side of the fence, but we're not running a seesaw, we're looking for solid scholarship. Coulter's opinions on the subject are well-known, and she's written extensively about McCarthy, but nobody would call her a mainstream scholar - she's a commentator, and commentary is a poor source. I'd say Evans is the most prominent and serious of the people you list. As for your opening comment, you have cause and effect backwards. Wikipedia reflects scholarship, it does not drive it. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Publisher's Weekly mentions that scholars, having also used Soviet archives, concede Evans's position. If MoFreedom could dig up these scholars (or not) we might be a step closer to bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but have the government records, FBI files, and Soviet archives that Evans cites in his book been published? If so they might be eligible for inclusion/citation.

Evans could also be considered partisan, being a conservative. Perhaps a sentence could be added to include Evans' book, but it would have to show clearly that he was a conservative, and that his book has been mostly criticised for being revisonist biography. That way it would get mentioned but still would maintain a reasonably neutral tone. -- Jodon | Talk 11:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion & Jodon, Wikipedia is not generally a place where accredited scholars research matters. I've never seen a cite to Wikipedia in any scholarly research paper. Wikipedia is a place where interested persons go to get an overview of a subject. I didn't cite Evans, due to your concerns about him. He's merely one of the first to point out the NYT's story. But he is not essential to my proposed post. The facts speak for themselves. I propose to insert undisputed facts. Accroterion posed an argument that the material might be insignificant. And I'm suggesting that a lot of people (typical Wikipedia users) would be interested in this. Do you doubt that (even if you disagree with their political views)? If so, please review my position above about why I believe this info is significant, and enlighten me as to why I am wrong. I believe people have the right to know.

Jodon, it's not about "neutral tone" anymore, because I'm proposing to post what you wrote (and Acroterion commended). The sole remaining issue for discussion is whether the proposed post is "significant." And it was significant enough to be mentioned in the Army-McCarthy hearings.MoFreedom (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Acroterion has acknowledged the use of Evans (after a fashion), I was merely trying to provide an opportunity for you to use it, while keeping it neutral, thereby increasing the "significance" of the addition, which is what your goal is here. But I can see my 2 cents worth here is spent. Happy editing! -- Jodon | Talk 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'd consider Evans a significant dissenting voice, bearing in mind that Kirkus Reviews, for instance, calls his work "A detailed account of McCarthy and of the CPUSA marred by ideological blinders." Such sources must be used with care, and may not be presented as representing mainstream scholarship. The issue of whether the sequence of events described in the proposed edit plays a role in mainstream scholarship remains an issue.Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, to repeat what Acroterion said, you have cause and effect backwards - scholars don't cite Wikipedia, Wikipedia cites scholars. -- Jodon | Talk 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to post information (two short sentences) about a NYT's article that appeared prior to the Army-McCarthy hearings. Jodon was kind enough to put it into appropriate Wikipedia form, and Acroterion commended his work. Now, there are now no objections to my proposed post other than Acroterion thinks it is somehow unimportant. (BTW, the NYT thought the information was important enough to make a front page story out of it.) Does anyone agree with Acroterion on this specific point, or is he the sole person blocking me on this point? And if you agree with him, would you please be kind enough to explain why?MoFreedom (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/05/10/joe_mccarthy_was_no_witch_hunter.htmlMoFreedom (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN

Per the above, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joe McCarthy.3BMcCarthy Army hearings. 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67#Joe McCarthy.3BMcCarthy Army hearings. 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)

Herman and Buckley as sources

I know that it is fashionable among certain political polemicists to cite Herman and Buckley as sources for conspiracies against McCarthy, but material on Paul Hughes needs to be soured from someone other than these two unreliable sources. Seeing as how authoritative histories of Joseph McCarthy essentially make no mention of Paul Hughes, I've removed the section as a gross violation of WP:UNDUE and would ask that the section not be reintroduced without a mainstream historian of this subject being cited. Thanks.

jps (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think we are giving Herman WP:UNDUE weight. He has a revisionist take on McCarthy, which is worth mentioning in its proper context, but we shouldn't be citing large swaths of the article to a plainly-WP:BIASED revisionist historian (he is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.) It's also important to note this bias whenever he is cited for anything remotely controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Heroine addiction?

In the Harry Anslinger entry, it is mentioned that Anslinger helped McCarthy to get morphine to treat his heroin addiction, yet no mention of it is made here on McCarthy's page(?) tharsaile (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No Proof

Shouldn't the article introduction mention that McCarthy never proved any of his allegations of Communist spying? DocRuby (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What's the proof for your allegation? --41.150.72.248 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest reading a balanced view of Senator McCarthy before making absurd claims. Jtpaladin (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional Educational League of New York offered a $10,000 reward

According to AR Epperson in The Unseen Hand: " ...an organization named The Constitutional Educational League of New York "offered a $10,000 reward for any person who could prove that Senator McCarthy ever called anyone a Communist or a Communist Fronter who, in fact, was not. Although this offer was widely publicized from coast to coast, no one ever claimed that reward."

Furthermore,according to Epperson:

Now, in retrospect, it is possible to look at the record. Was McCarthy able to substantiate his allegations that there were at least eighty-one security risks in the State Department?

1. Fifty-seven of these cases were later summoned by a Loyalty Board and fifty-four of the accused confirmed McCarthy's charges by resigning under fire.

2. By November of 1954, all of the eighty-one persons on McCarthy's list had left government employ by dismissal or resignation.

3. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee revealed that, on June 27, 1956, the State Department's own security chief, Scott McLeod, drew up a list of 847 security risks in the State Department. It would seem that Joe McCarthy's major sin was that he underestimated the extent to which the Communists had penetrated the State Department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.72 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The article and its sources cotradict everything you've just said. Just because no-one's collected their money, proves nothing. He accused Ed Morrow, the ACLU, and the Democratic Party iself. The list? So quitting your job is tantamount to comitting high treason? And getting fired too? Were any of these people, what's the word, proven, to have ties to the Communists or to have done anything else remotely criminal? As for your 847 "risks", that could have been 847 people thought to be gay, having an affair, or all the other things someone could be blackmailed for. Let it go already. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It Was Actually Kathleen Kennedy who Claimed She Had A Different Godfather

Due to the McCarthy's ties to the Kennedy's, and because of her venture into politics, Kathleen is not at all any type of reliable resource. I had earlier claimed Ethel was the one who made this claim, but I read the source wrong. Ethel acknowledged it to be true and Kathleen claimed that she read her christening certificate and that Walsh was her godfather2601:447:4101:B820:311F:66E4:457A:1C18 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't who is or is not a reliable source; the issue is whether we throw every indiscriminate, poorly written fact into this article. This was a Good-rated article. Let's try to keep it that way. 32.218.47.203 (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Highly Biased after Years of Research

This article remains highly biased against the Senator despite the fact that there is a great deal of new information that exonerates McCarthy in many if not all aspects of the discussion. Many of the so-called "expert sources" that were critical of the Senator are in of themselves highly discredited. Someone with the energy to pursue specifics would be highly valued because I can't locate my previous notes on the subject and don't have the enthusiasm to pursue the greatly needed corrections. Jtpaladin (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So basically you have nothing to contribute to improving the article other than your opinion. Thanks. As for your notes, as I think you've been told many times before, they are OR. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Try this. This is my original work. These all have footnotes which I would be happy to add to this article. I did NOT take this from anyone else's copyrighted work. If you want to see the footnotes let me know.

This article remains highly biased against the Senator despite the fact that there is a great deal of new information that exonerates McCarthy in many if not all aspects of the discussion. Many of the so-called "expert sources" that were critical of the Senator are in of themselves highly discredited.

Again, this is MY WORK and not someone else's. If there is interest in adding this information to the article, I will be happy to provide the numbered footnotes, which are extensive.

Venona files

In 1995, when the Venona transcripts were declassified, further detailed information was revealed about Soviet espionage in the United States. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was among only a handful of people in the U.S. Government who was aware of the Venona project, and there is no indication whatsoever Hoover shared Venona information with McCarthy. In fact, Hoover may have actually fed McCarthy disinformation, or dead end files, in an effort to put pressure on relatives, friends, or close associates of real Venona suspects by threatening to reveal embarrassing information about them in a public forum if they failed to cooperate and reveal what they might have known about someone's else’s activities and associations.[23] And there is no indication McCarthy might have known he was being used by Hoover in this way.

On February 7, 1950, three days before McCarthy's acclaimed Wheeling, West Virginia speech, Hoover testified before House Appropriations Committee that counterespionage requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases. It is more important to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective."[24]

McCarthy is said to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has come to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure of 205 appears to have come from an oral briefing McCarthy had with Hoover regarding espionage suspects the FBI was then investigating. The FBI had discovered on its own five Soviet agents operating in the United States during World War II; defector Elizabeth Bentley further added another 81 known identities of espionage agents; Venona materials had provided the balance, and by the time a full accounting of true name identities was compiled in an FBI memo in 1957, one more subject had been added to the number, now totaling 206.[25]

Much confusion has always surrounded the subject. While the closely guarded FBI/Venona information of identified espionage agents uses the number of 206, McCarthy in his Wheeling speech only referred to Communist Party membership and other security risks, and not espionage activity. Being a security risk as a Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) member does not necessarily entail or imply that a person was or is actively involved in espionage activity. Venona materials indicated a very large number of espionage agents remained unidentified by the FBI. When McCarthy was questioned on the number, he referred to the Lee List of security risks, by which it appears Hoover was attempting to match unidentified code names to known security risks. Hoover kept the identities of persons known to be involved in espionage activity from Venona evidence secret. Hoover in the very early days of the FBI's joint investigation with the Army Signals Intelligence Service in May 1946 did precisely the same deception with a confidant of President Truman using Venona decryptions. Hoover reported that a reliable source revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names, Soviet agents Alger Hiss and Nathan Gregory Silvermaster were listed well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson” and included others beyond reproach, thus discrediting the Hiss and Silvermaster accusations, which actually were on target. Hence the Truman White House always suspected Hoover and the FBI of playing partisan political games with accusations of various administration members’ complicity in Soviet espionage.[26]

The Venona project specifically references at least 349 pseudonyms in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies, however not all were ever identified. In public hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) conducted by McCarthy, 83 persons pled the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. An additional 9 persons refused to testify on constitutional grounds in private hearings, and their names were not made public.[27] Of the 83 persons pleading the Fifth Amendment, several have been identified by NSA and FBI as agents of the Soviet Union in the Venona project involved in espionage. Several prominent examples are:

   Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;[28]
   Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[29]
   Virginius Frank Coe,[30] Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;
   William Ludwig Ullman,[31] delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
   Nathan Gregory Silvermaster,[32] Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
   Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
   Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;
   Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;
   Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;
   Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[33]
   Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;
   Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics;[34]
   Leonard Mins,[35] Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services;
   Cedric Belfrage,[36] British Security Coordination; founder the National Guardian.
   Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
   Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker;[37]
   David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

Venona transcripts confirm the Senate Civil Liberties Subcommittee, chaired by former Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946, had at least four staff members working on behalf of the KGB. Chief Counsel of the Committee John Abt; Charles Kramer, who served on three other Congressional Committees; Allen Rosenberg, who also served on the National Labor Relations Board, Board of Economic Warfare (BEW), the Foreign Economic Administration (FEA) and later argued cases before the United States Supreme Court; and Charles Flato, who served on the BEW and FEA, all were CPUSA members and associated with the Comintern.

While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholarship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complicit in espionage, many were considered security risks.[38] Known security/loyalty risks

In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall, calling to his attention a condition that developed and was continuing in the State Department. The memo stated that “ it was evident there was a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involved a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions. ”

Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee.[39]

The memorandum listed the names of nine State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." Ten persons were removed from the list by June 24. But from 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk.[40] In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.

Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriations Committee in 1947.[41] The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:

   Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]
   Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]
   Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]
   Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]
   Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]
   Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]
   John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]
   Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50] 

   Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]
   Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]
   John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]
   Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]
   Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]
   Stanley Graze, U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;[58]
   Ruth Marcia Harrison, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;[59]
   Myron Victor Hunt, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;[60]
   Philip Jessup, U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;[61]
   Dorothy Kenyon, New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;[62]
   Leon Hirsch Keyserling, President Harry Truman's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;[63]
   Mary Dublin Keyserling, U.S. Department of Commerce;[64]
   Esther Less Kopelewich, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;[65]
   Owen Lattimore, Board member of the communist-dominated Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal Pacific Affairs;[66]
   Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee, U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;[67]
   Val R. Lorwin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;[68]
   Daniel F. Margolies, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;[69][70]
   Peveril Meigs, U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;[71]
   Ella M. Montague, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;[72]
   Philleo Nash, Presidential Advisor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations;[73][74][75]
   Olga V. Osnatch, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;[76]
   Edward Posniak, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;[77]
   Philip Raine, U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;[78][79][80][81]
   Robert Ross, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;[82]
   Sylvia Schimmel, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;[83][84][85][86]
   Frederick Schumann, contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;[87]
   John S. Service, U.S. State Department;[88]
   Harlow Shapley, U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;[89]
   William T. Stone, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;[90]
   Frances M. Tuchser, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;[91]
   John Carter Vincent, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;[92]
   David Zablodowsky, U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;[93]

It would be highly educational for this Wiki to have such great information. I think it's embarrassing that this Wiki-page is devoid of any real substance. Jtpaladin (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we'd need the footnotes if we intended to use this, because Wikipedia requires verifiability in reliable secondary sources. But it's almost rude of you to dump this text here; it's poorly-formatted (nearly unformatted) and would require someone to substantially clean it up before it were usable for Wikipedia. Why don't you take it, place it in your user sandbox, add your footnotes, and wikify it, and then we'll decide if it fits somewhere in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is the longest Talk Page comment you've ever read then you haven't been here very long and seem clueless. This is just raw data. As I stated, I would do all the formatting and footnoting if there is interest in this information. I put this info here because before I go through the massive endeavor of adding this info to the article, I don't want to have some McCarthy-hater revert and disregard my work. After years of being an editor here I learned that it's better to discuss controversial matters before spending a lot of time adding it. What do you think? Are you in favor of me adding this info as long as there are proper formatting and footnoting? Jtpaladin (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think there is definitely value here to add, and I would be in favor of integrating it, but I must say that I tend to be an outlier of opinion when it comes to things like this. I think nothing gets attention and discussion like adding material to an article, so if you do work on this in your sandbox and it stays on the talk page, it's essentially hidden from most of the people who would have an opinion – plenty of people are all too willing to delete stuff from an article way before they will discuss at length the same material on a talk page. Also keeping in mind that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions on US Politics, so an edit war would be fatal for the losers. Perhaps you could run an RFC, although I would get this started in a sandbox where others could collaborate while the RFC runs. Who knows, you may even have sympathetic people help you do formatting. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that very reasonable solution. My problem is that there are people that watch this article and despite verifying and proper sourcing, etc. they delete my efforts. Years ago when I tried to improve this page, reverts were made without basis. I greatly appreciate your well reasoned response. Thank you. Jtpaladin (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Now watch the lunatics begin to revert my work.

When the Wikipedia Concept Is Unworkable

This article would an embarrassment if there were anyone who is "responsible" for the reputation of Wikipedia. All of the primary sources listed predate the release of the information from the VENONA intercepts. There is no excuse for this. Someone should read Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans (2007) and do a total rewrite. (And don't ask me.) This is a great test article for the Wikipedia concept. If you can't put an explanation of McCarthy's vindication by VENONA in the first two paragraphs, and keep it there, you should give up pretending that Wikipedia is a source for reliable historical information. Or at least, the warning over the vindication section of the article belongs at the head of the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.89.255 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. I have the info that would dramatically change this article because of in part, the Venona files. It's just too daunting of a task without support from other people for me to format and footnote my info.Jtpaladin (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm 1,5 years late on this comment but it might as well be addressed later rather than never: why would any of this make the current sources outdated? The reason McCarthy has such a bad name is that he led witch hunts in which the targets were unable to defend themselves, whether they were accused of being communist, gay or anti-American, whether it was true or not and whether it was justified or not. There has been no major consensus change among historians so this is merely revisionist history. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Every word of what you said is untrue. McCarthy's committee gave every right, protection, and legal counsel to anyone that appeared in the committee. If you take a look at the section below, "Highly Biased after Years of Research", you'll see that McCarthy was indeed correct and vindicated by the Venona files. Just because you want to keep using antiquated and discredited information is no reason to do it. The newest info we have on McCarthy paints a very different profile of a U.S. Senator who was wrongly attacked. Jtpaladin (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

External links deleted by overzealous patroller

Views on McCarthy

• "Has She No Shame?" by Joe Conason
• Senator Joe McCarthy (excerpt) by Richard Rovere
• "Editor Taints Recently Published Hearings: How Senate Historian Botched Data on McCarthy" by M. Stanton Evans
• "Levin and Collins Trigger Disinformation: Senate Historian Clams Up When Queried On McCarthy" by M. Stanton Evans

As a rule articles should not contain many external links. In a good article (which this is) the links should be included in the body of the article. They can be useful to link to things that do not fit in (for example copyrighted material or things that would not fit like databases). These should be kept to a minimum. Pro and con lists like those listed above are should not even be used in the article let alone an external links section where they cant be given due weight and context. AIRcorn (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just making the links available here to the interested reader. You don't have to turn everything into an argument. 32.218.42.122 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't add links to topics that don't directly relate to the subject. The genesis of Ann Coulter's views aren't germane to the primary topic. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you do just love to argue for the sake of arguing, don't you? 32.218.42.122 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You might want to think about your headers if you are not interested in editors defending their actions. AIRcorn (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no rule against an article containing external links or how many it should contain. What Aircorn epxressed was simply his own personal opinion. --Maxl (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable & Inaccurate

Unreliable authors who are perpetual haters of Senator McCarthy need to be stripped from this article. Much of what these so-called authors have done is lie, twist the truth, and use hearsay to concoct an absurd profile of McCarthy's work. David Oshinsky saying that the latest information is, "...fringe revisionist history" shows a definite bias against information that not only is part of the Venona Project but also of information that existed at the time. I've read Oshinsky's book and the whole book is nothing but misrepresentations, disinformation, lies, pure hate, and absolute garbage. I own about 20 books on McCarthy, most are anti-McCarthy diatribes, but there are also some that are very reliable and have no particular agenda. I consider myself one of the most informed individuals regarding McCarthy and have written extensively about him. About 10 years ago I tried editing this article and had constant problems with people that simply hate Senator McCarthy and revert my work. Well, now, I've returned and I will be keeping a much closer eye on this article. I'm going to start to closely monitor this article and update and cleanse it of inaccurate data. Do not revert the additions I made today without discussing your concerns with me here. No one wants a revert war. Jtpaladin (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

All I asked was is that if someone has a problem with anything I posted would be discussed here. Instead, all the work I added was removed without conversation. So, as I promised, I will re-add the information carefully following Wiki rules. Jtpaladin (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

You should seek consensus before adding what is obviously controversial content, instead of treating it like a polemic.12.11.127.253 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguments for vindication section

Considering the information I added today, much of this section is redundant. I will look at removing it and adding non-redundant info to the "Venona Project & Vindication" section. Jtpaladin (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Legacy section

This quote by William Bennett is utter garbage and merely an opinion. He has no credentials investigating Senator McCarthy. I completely disagree with his OPINION. This section will be removed shortly based on the fact that this is merely opinion and is even actually untrue. The anti-communist movement was in no way damaged by McCarthy, further, William Bennett provides no evidence. Jtpaladin (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Total Removal of "Venona Project & Vindication" section"

The ENTIRE section of the "Venona Project & Vindication" section was removed without any specific reasons for the removal of every single word in that section. This is all not appreciated and though I had been an Editor for about 11 years, I'm not following as to how every single thing I added was somehow wrong and needed to be removed. An example like, "This was wrong because..." or "This is what you need in order to comply with Wiki rules, you need to ...". Do you see how that the sort of advice would have helped. How can I possibly understand how anything I posted was in non-compliance with the rules of Wikipedia to which I've edited such a great deal of information? I even had the courtesy to create a section titled, "Arguments for vindication section" and not one person, especially the Editor(s) who removed ALL the information I posted. I realize that this page is crawling with perpetual Senator McCarthy haters (please don't try and deny it, I've had arguments with such people for years) I'll go over the info that I posted again, check it again for Wiki compliance, and give Editors or someone here willing to help me better understand the problem in which we find ourselves a chance to be able to add information that is accurate and verifiable. I'll wait 2 days and wait for a reasoned response and not having received anything, I will restore that information so easily discarded by someone else. Thank you. Jtpaladin (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

no. this is poorly written, and too many of the references are primary or questionable. the content and citations are poorly formatted (not befitting a GA), and much of it is extraneous this was the reason given by @Drmies:. I agree with such a reason, and Drmies' judgement and I concur with the removal. So unless you can address his concerns, don't bother restoring the section. Elizium23 (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, I thought my edit summary was clear enough. And really, that this was NOT up to GA-level should be obvious to any discerning editor. That is even before we get to the tone of the content (a YUGE amount of content, of course), which strikes me as pretty biased. Now, if you think that we're here cause we're McCarthy haters, then you can expect a response like "but you're a McCarthy lover", and so the very partiality you weaponize against your opponent comes right back at you. One more thing: if you think in terms of "having had the courtesy" to create this or that section, then I think you're on the wrong track. This is not a negotiation about party politics; we're writing an encyclopedia. And next time, please ping editors you're starting discussions with on article talk pages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is having server problems today so I can't respond in the way in which I would like to respond but I would like to make it clear that I am not a "McCarthy-lover". I'm someone that uses information from F.B.I. and Venona Project sources, and other verifiable and trustworthy sources to make a well-reasoned addition to this highly anti-McCarthy article. I will continue when Wikipedia servers are functioning normally and address every remark made to me in this section. Jtpaladin (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You're missing my point, Jtpaladin. No one is calling you a McCarthy lover, but if you start off by calling your fellow editors "McCarthy haters", you have only yourself to blame if you get accused in a similar way. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I also concur that this is mostly OR, not written in a manner reflecting the quality of an encyclopedia, and from JTpaladin's comments throughout this talk page, not written from a neutral perspective, or with any consideration given to fringe or undue.12.11.127.253 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Forrestal incident

Hi User:TheTimesAreAChanging and User:Arsenic99 - I don't see the point of adding this bit about Forrestal [1]. Is the point supposed to be that according to McCarthy, Forrestal was telling him that the US was purposefully "losing" to the communists as a result of internal treachery? If not, what is the point of the anecdote?

Honestly, the anecdote doesn't seem to have any very clear meaning, and for that reason I don't see any point to including it. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, it seems to me that that is exactly the meaning of the passage in question, and it's difficult to view the existence of this supposed cabal within the State Department as anything other than a WP:FRINGE theory. Furthermore, the excerpt is lengthy (probably violating WP:DUE), no secondary sources have been cited to verify its significance (it may run afoul of WP:OR to scour McCarthy's book for anecdotes that Wikipedia editors personally consider to be intriguing), and Arsenic99's revision doesn't include any in-text attribution that would make it clear to readers that the paragraph is based on McCarthy's book and not necessarily factual. Has anyone other than McCarthy confirmed that Forrestal in fact said these things?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, OK, glad to confirm that's the meaning and point of the Forrestal anecdote. I don't mind if it's a FRINGE view: if that's McCarthy's view, and his view is fringe, and this is his bio, we could still mention it. But I agree with you that we should find out if others also mention this anecdote. Either way, I don't think that we should include this lengthy bit [2]. At most we could summarize, McCarthy would write that US secretary of Defense James Forrestal told him that the American government was "losing" to communism due to pro-Soviet treason within the government, or something like that. -Darouet (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is literally something that shaped McCarthy's view that Joe McCarthy himself claims motivated his views and explains why he always attacked the Executive Branch. Removing it would be a huge mistake as it is so vital to understanding a persons' views on "Enemies Within" which was the title of the section. When I read "Enemies Within" section it DOES NOT explain why he thinks there are "enemies within." It's literally the most core part of his thinking from the most primary source possible: his own words. TheTimesAreAChanging was just vandalizing what I pasted and removing it constantly without discussing it when it has a primary source. Regardless of the controversial and toxic-figure that Joe McCarthy is--it is an indisputable fact, that there were communists within the State department back then. President Truman (D) himself, a fairly left-wing-minded president, fired over 1,400 people from the Executive Branch [I can provide a citation for this too if needed]. It's Joe McCarthy that believed that firing 1,400 number was too little by Truman. It goes to his entire ideological thinking and political career that ended up in flames and explains why he had 49% public support at one point. I don't see why we, as citizens, shouldn't be aware of the context of what shaped Joe McCarthys' view so as NOT TO REPEAT the craziness of McCarthyist era again. If we censor this information as TimesAreAChanging suggests such McCarthyist thinking will prop up again if people don't understand what caused it (and they will wonder why such information is being so actively censored). It is absolutely factual to suggest that the primary source is asked when one wants to understand what motivates and shapes the thinking of such a primary source. Primary sources are exactly what historians research when trying to learn about a person and build a biography. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 00:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Billmckern edited it to shorten it to make it more concise, summarized, and clear with an additional citation. So that should be sufficient for what you were saying Darouet to summarize it and shorten it. But " supposed cabal within the State Department as anything other than a WP:FRINGE theory" is not a fringe theory. It is a matter of record and fact. And even those who are very much against the era of McCarthyism for any innocents that may have been accused, authors, historians, and journalists alike agree spies existed. [3] — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 01:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Primary sources are exactly what historians research." Indeed, but Wikipedia editors are not historians. That's why we rely on secondary sources that can put McCarthy's assertions in their proper context, without which we have limited ability to assess the relevance or veracity of said assertions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, just as a point of clarification - a dispute over what content should or shouldn't be included in an article by regular editors isn't "vandalism" and Arsenic99 we should never describe it that way. -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at books on McCarthyism, I can't find a reference to the Forrestal issue. Of these, suggested by my local library:

• McCarthyism: the great American Red scare : a documentary history, New York : Oxford University Press, 1997
• McCarthyism: the realities, delusions and politics behind the 1950s red scare, Michaels, Jonathan, 1951-, New York, NY : Routledge / (Critical moments in American history.) 2017
• McCarthyism, Reeves, Thomas C., 1936-, Hinsdale, Ill., Dryden Press, (American problem studies) [1973]
• Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, Morgan, Ted, 2020

Of these four books, only the last two mention Forrestal. Each one does so just once, and not in the context of Forrestal telling McCarthy that the US is being sabotaged by communists in government. The Reeves book notes that Forrestal was one of a number of anti-Soviet thinkers who rose to prominence under Truman's administration (he's mentioned in a list of others). The Morgan book just mentions Forrestal's death.

Probably we can find some reference somewhere. Honestly I don't mind mentioning this in one sentence (like the one I proposed), but Arsenic your addition seems way too long to me, since we can't find any mention of this outside McCarthy's book. -Darouet (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The usual process is not to remove someones' content that has a primary source, that is definitely 100% vandalism. It's to go to the talk page to dispute it. Twice it was removed in the hopes that I wouldn't notice. The context is already proper: it is his own words about his own development of ideology that is informative and educational to a public audience. The veracity is his own experience. That is factual enough for any historian. Now could a senator have hallucinations (or imagined conversations to shape his views)? Doubtful and unlikely but even if he did we would understand why he thinks this way about the Executive Branch at the time (maybe he became more paranoid as a result of such conversations). We would know that he imagined a very specific conversation with a specific US Govt senior leader and wrote about it back in the day where others could contest it through counter-evidence (such as family members or close friends of James Forrestal disputing this assertion; can you find such counter-evidence?). Except no one did. Only the last two mention Forrestal is evidence enough that he had been involved in anti-communist (not just anti-soviet) thinking. Remember the US fought communism in the Cold War, not just the Soviet Union (created by communist ideology) unless you disagree with that too? So again, how is this controversial at all to talk about two US Govt folks (one in legislative branch, Senate, and one in Executive Branch, as Secretary of Defense) talking about communist infiltration of Western govts? It's already been proven without a doubt, so I'm not sure why the disagreement as if this conversation couldn't have happened? Are you aware of any counter-evidence where US SECDEF James Forrestal had sympathies with an ideologue from the 1840s named Marx?

Also for your concern Darouet, the section was shortened and summarized to be more concise. It should no longer be an issue. I haven't introduced anything controversial here; Joe McCarthy is a controversial and hated figure--but the idea of communist attacks (in the form of spies infiltrating govts) on the West is not disputed by any historian of any repute. Also I did not say "sabotage", sometimes it's not about sabotage but espionage, although I would assume, that communists did not want the US to succeed either so I'm not sure why you find this so far-fetched. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and thorough research, Darouet; I appreciate it!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Be consistent with "HUAC" and spell out "SACB"

Oh come on. Quite a lot of people know what the HUAC is, and yet, because not EVERYONE knows, you spell it out at least once ("House Committee on Un-American Activities"). I would expect no less from an enyclopedia. Good for you. But then you DO NOT spell out "SACB" in EITHER of the two places where it appears on the page. When I search Wikipedia for "SACB", I get to an article about some State Athletic Control Board, with no disambiguation-link. It's not READILY findable in Google either. Obviously this "SACB" is a LOT less well-known than the HUAC, and so if you were to choose one of them NOT to spell out, it should be the better-known "HUAC". How do you JUSTIFY this inconsistency in practices and rules?2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Category:Racism in the United States

I believe it should be removed. Not much information in the article backs the notion that McCarthy was some awful racist. Furthermore, examine this roll call. McCarthy voted for cloture on a Fair Employment Practices Committee bill [4] to help put an end to racial discrimination. Total random nerd (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Alleged homosexuality

The portion of the article discussing allegations of homosexuality is currently quite poor and is missing enormous amounts of context. It's mostly reporting unsubstantiated rumors spread by two of McCarthy's political opponents, and rumors that happened to be particularly damaging at that time. Hoover's FBI had vague reports of homosexuality on many figures, since it was a powerful political attack back then, and it doesn't count for much either. We'll never know the truth, but we should be *highly* suspect of the claims presented, and the article should reflect that.

The article needs to at least acknowledge the conflicted motives of Pearson and Greenspun, and Pearson's penchant for rumor-mongering. It should also mention how politically convenient accusations of homosexuality against McCarthy were in the context of the McCarthy-Cohn-Schine dynamic, particularly given the clear evidence of Cohn's homosexuality. The article, "The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics", would be a good source to discuss these political implications.

As it stands, the article gives the impression that it's extremely likely McCarthy was a closeted homosexual, when the opposite is probably the best conclusion given the available evidence. 68.181.17.68 (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

On the morning of May 5, 1994, the New York Post ran a column by Cindy Adams "Savvy Chris Spills the Beans on Roy Cohn." In her characteristically breezy manner, Adams wrote about Seymour’s book project (Chris Seymour was Cohn's long-time secretary), listing the secrets she would expose. (“How a porno flick was filmed in the office and business was conducted while someone was being whipped”; “How Sen. Joe McCarthy hid the fact that he was gay. . . .”)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/eavesdropping-on-roy-cohn-and-donald-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaria (talk • contribs) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Military Service; Quality of sources

Even among the greater part of sources cited, many of the claims given as concrete here are only suggested by the author at most, rather than being the words of the relevant person mentioned, or some other particular report. An example is the allegation that Maj. Glen A. Todd, McCarthy's commanding officer (Not mentioned by name here), "revealed" that McCarthy had forged a letter of commendation from him. In reality, this can be traced back to Thomas C. Reeves' "The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography" (1982). Here, the writer cites a letter from Todd sent personally to him in 1977, although not given at length, in which he supposedly denied having written or signed the letter, and otherwise remarked that Admiral Nimitz would have signed many such documents without a personal investigation of their adequacy. Regarding the signature, there are conflicting reports in sources cited here - the text of the letter (Including in Reeves, 1982) appears to be derived from newspaper articles on McCarthy. Some of the sources cited here make no mention of a signature from anyone other than Admiral Nimitz, and moreover some remove Maj. Todd from relation to it entirely, instead replacing him with Maj. Everett E. Munn. Reeves claims this to be a mistake of yet another newspaper article which eventually became common.

Returning to Reeves on the matter of McCarthy's leg injury from during the course of the war, as he is again among the most commonly cited in books which do give references (See "The Rise and Fall of Senator Joe McCarthy", 2009, cited here), these also appear to be mainly sourced from newspaper articles within his book; Although, regarding an initial fracture, Reeves does cite a personal letter to himself from the doctor supposed to have put a cast on his leg, George B. Barnes. It is unclear if the further remark claimed to be from McCarthy and placed before the relevant footnoting are also supposed to have been from this doctor.

The claim about McCarthy shooting "mainly at coconut trees", displayed twice in this article, appears mainly to be sourced from a number of sardonic comments made by McCarthy himself to the press, alongside, perhaps, interviews with Ken Smedley and W.H. Montfort, presented as former squadron members alongside McCarthy, cited by Reeves (Who presumably conducted them) in relation to stories of his being awarded a mock plaque "For destroying more coconut trees than anyone else in the South Pacific". The claim that this itself is the beginning of the name "Tail Gunner Joe" does not appear to have a direct source.

Regarding his having claimed to have flown 32 "aerial missions", better sourcing is needed generally. For the Distinguished Flying Cross, the medal awarded to him which is under scrutiny, 25 combat flights were what were needed. To To give the beginning of an investigation, Reeves also claimed that Maj. Todd, in an interview, said to have only certified 11 such flights, and that Smedley, Montfort, Munn, Wander (Another squadron member), and Todd all strongly denied the possibility of 32 combat flights during his time.

To finish, much of the sourcing in this section is considerably dubious and unduly second-hand. Other citations bring the seriousness of the section into question even more directly. The very page cited here in "Tapestry: The History and Consequences of America's Complex Culture" (2014) alleges that McCarthy lied about serving combat missions, or any missions whatsoever, as a gunner aboard a Marine Corps plane (The book claims he lied about serving on a B-17; Barring a source saying otherwise, this seems its own confusion, as he demonstrably served on a dive bomber); That he falsely obtained a Purple Heart through his claims about a war injury; And that he had "shamelessly campaigned on the premise that the Holocaust was a lie" in order to win over "German Catholic" voters in his region, having even done so successfully. The first two of these are demonstrably false, again, while the the third is so utterly bewildering and absent from any other mention of this notorious political figure I have seen that I must wonder what level of invention has been stooped to in its writing. This appears also to be the source where the supposed safety of all of McCarthy's actual combat missions is drawn from.

I hope I had already been clarifying, there are a number of allegations currently put forth as truth in this article, which are either entirely spurious, such as what has just been mentioned, and the claim that Maj. Glen A. Todd "revealed" a forgery (To name two), or are entirely unfit for this section of an encyclopedic article (Other claims about the safety of real combat missions, forgery stated as a fact without actual citations, "coconut trees").

I have not yet searched for the original newspaper articles, many of them from more local Wisconsin publications, from which so many allegations find their most original source to the utmost degree of thoroughness. For a complete rewriting and expunging of falsehood in this section, which is what is needed, I recommend the tracking down of these, if I do not rewrite the section and expunge its trash first. Zusty001 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding rank attained after World War II

This comment is based upon the [currently] Latest revision as of 05:04, 10 February 2023 of the article.

The second sentence of the paragraph starting with "Born in Grand Chute, Wisconsin", (which is the third paragraph in the "lede" part of the above mentioned version or "revision" of the article) still says:

Following the end of World War II, he attained the rank of major.

However, this seems to be contradicted by a sentence (later in the article) (in the third paragraph of the "Military service" sub-section of the "Career" section) that says:

McCarthy remained in the Marine Corps Reserve after the war, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Also, "note" that the "Military service" section of the Infobox at the top of the article contains an entry that agrees with the sentence that says "lieutenant colonel".

Shouldn't the sentence that says << "Following the end of World War II, he attained the rank of major" >> be changed? It seems to be wrong.

OR ... would that sentence be correct, if it were to specify that it is focusing [only] on his time in the Marine Corps, as opposed to the Marine Corps Reserve? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

McCarthy was never actually censured, he was condemned — a difference that matters

83rd Congress Senate Resolution 301: "Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned."

The only place in the resolution where censure is mentioned is in the introduction of the chairman of the committee to investigate McCarthy: "...chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins)..."

This indicates, as Tye points out in Demagogue that the Senators were too chicken sh*t to actually use the word censure and the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it was not officially a censure. The senators responsible ducked their duty and the historical record should reflect that.

From Tye, Demagogue, first full paragraph of Chapter 9:

From the beginning, critics had zeroed in on his reckless methods more than his Red-purging aims. The public felt the same way, heartily embracing the senator’s mission but recoiling at his meanness. So it was fitting that, the very day the Subcommittee on Investigations issued its verdicts on his ham-handed war with the Army, the full Senate launched hearings to formally censure its Wisconsin colleague for his incivility. A punishment that extreme had been meted out just five times in the chamber’s 165 years, and it amounted to a political death sentence. Given how fellow senators had enabled him over the years, it was no surprise that they focused not on whether Joe was right about his conspiracy of traitors but on how contemptuous he was of them and their sacred US Senate. “You’re the kid who came to the party and pee’d in the lemonade,” a Senate friend told him. Even as they finally reined him in, fellow lawmakers were reluctant to utter the unspeakable word “censure,” although that’s what their rebuke was in practice and how history would record it. Instead, they labeled it a “condemnation.”*

And that footnote:

* Senator Welker, a McCarthy friend, observed that “condemn” was an even stronger word than “censure,” saying, “You don’t censure a man to death, you condemn him to death.” Leviero, “Final Vote Condemns M’Carthy, 67–22,” New York Times.

Which indicates that there's an NYT article discussing condemnation by Welker. Vargob (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1202.html Vargob (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Tye on the actual ruling:

It was only when Senator McCarthy had personally offended enough of his colleagues—and when the public, as it always does eventually, had moved on to new crusades and crusaders—that his Senate enablers cried, “Enough!” Its resolution hadn’t used the word “censure,” so the parliamentarian ruled that it couldn’t officially be called that. Senator Herbert Lehman of New York, Joe’s most idealistic and consistent critic, noted a more fatal flaw in the version that passed without the original long list of McCarthy excesses. “We have condemned the individual,” Lehman said, “but we have not yet repudiated the ‘ism.’”

Vargob (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Senator Joseph McCarthy was right.

Look at what has happened to this country in the last 60 years. This man was very very right. 2601:8C0:900:1CA0:50D6:8AFC:4115:731B (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)