Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive 5

3rd Opinion

I have been brought here from WP:3, and I will review this article and its history over the next couple of days. I would like to note that we should assume WP:AGF and please do not refer to someone's edits as vandalism when they are done in good faith. Themindset 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

After 4 days of review:

Needless to say, KarlBunker has taken significant (if not complete) ownership of this article. From my examination of his past edits and his reverts of the last 4 days these are my conclusions:

• KarlBunker has become somewhat heavy handed in his treatment of other editors of this article.
• Meanwhile, many of the editors (often very new, or IP addresses) seem to be editing from a certain neoconish POV that espouses a kind of revisionist look at the history of the McCarthy era - and as such, many of KarlBunker's edits seem to maintain a NPOV that is in-line with current accepted historical research.
• KarlBunker's edits have in very large part been of high quality, and well researched; but this does not dismiss the fact that other editors may feel locked out.

My recommendation:

1. A renewed effort be made by all editors to establish a dialogue for the purpose of changes to sections of the article.
2. A well labeled section be created to acknowledge and outline the views of the Ann Coulter variety.
3. That "drive-by" editors, especially one-time IP editors be deterred from making uneven edits that break the flow and rythm of the article. In this, KarlBunker's efforts have been quite effective.

- Themindset 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Themindset -- Thanks for your comments. I agree that I can be heavy-handed with other editors at times, and I'll endeavor to stop that. I'm certainly not trying to make other editors feel locked out--I've seen too much excellent work by other editors to believe that my version should ever be the last word.

A section that outlines the views of the Ann Coulter variety is a great idea--a necessary addition to the article to make it complete, I'd say. KarlBunker 10:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking time to review changes of the last 4 days, but none of my concerns about bias or removing valid, relevant, cited an historically accurate contributions were addressed. I appreciate your view that the "Ann Coulter" variety should have a section, but I feel that it would not last long. Regardless of who contributes to it, they would be systematically modified to reflect the theme of the article. The theme of this article is to attack Joseph McCarthy and his work. I went through and reviewed every change made from the creation of this article. The article was written completel from a POV attacking the man. There have been many attempts before to add some balance to this article and they have almost all been deleted. Those that main must include some opinion why they are false. It is true that the typical view of McCarthy was he was evil, it doesn't make it accurate or they only view. The article needs to be re-written in its entirety from the top down in a balanced format, with actual sited material that are relevant to the history of the man. Things he said, things he did, things he believed in. There can be a section or sections for critics, but it should not be the purpose of the article. It is true that larger percentage of people believe McCarthy to be evil, but the majority of the masses have little understanding of McCarthy, the times or the nature of those who attacked him. I feel that the facts of the times need to be shared for the sake of history. It is true that the history books are written by the victors, but they are often replaced with more accurate versions. McCarthy was unfairly attacked in his life, driven to drink and work himself to death. He died fighting; the masses and those who knew him loved him. He cannot defend himself now and those that truly knew him are all but gone. It is true that there are 10 times more books and newspaper articles that attack him senselessly, but they only serve to hide the true nature of the man. Few men in history have been loved more then McCarthy and at the same time attacked so unfairly.

Most of the world hates the United States, should write the page about the United States? Most of the world does not think Jesus Christ was the son of our heavenly father, should they be the ones who contribute to his page? Many of the KKK hate Martin Luther King, should only they be allowed to edit his article? Should the only voice On George W. Bush's page be those in the world that hate him? This is more then one post and more then one contributor, this is about the purpose of Wikipedia. I am not asking to re-write history, but to actually provide information not just repeat opinions and commentary. Let the facts speak for them selves. Let the opinion of this man be neutral, but more importantly let it be valid. Constantly saying he was bad and attacked people is a waste, give an actual example of what he said, not just quote those who attacked him. Every section of this article seems to end with some explanation about how McCarthy was bad, or evil, or wrong, or not supported. Every section must conclude this way, even the lead ends saying McCarthy never really cared about Communism. This could not be farther from the truth. He could of backed down many times for the sake of his political career, for his healthy, for his name and for his family, but he did not. He had nothing to gain personally by fighting communism, still he did it. I am not going to argue every point in this article, because it is ALL very poorly written. It must be re-done.

My recommendation are

1. For the "KarlBunker" variety stop deleting valid, informative, cited contributions.

2. Establish a separate page to re-write the article with balanced and fair and accurate.

3. That we take our time and make sure is not too long and better organized.

4. That many of the valid, informative, and cited contributions be restored, ASAP.67.33.138.148 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you try writting that article in your userspace. I've started it for you User:67.33.138.148/Joseph McCarthy. Please let us know at this talk page when it is completed - this is a great opportunity, as no one is going interfere with your composition... and any valid sections (or even the entire article) could potentially be transferred over to the mainspace. Themindset 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the opinion of most historians [etc.]"

This is a baseless, uncited and highly unlikely opinion. Regardless if a historian could be found to say this, he could only be speculating on the personal motivation of Joseph McCarthy. Those that know him best, who worked with him might know is personal movations, but even then it would be only opinion.Mantion 08:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not baseless, and rather than being unlikely, it's an obvious fact it you look at the body of current literature on McCarthy. The fact that it's a speculation on McCarthy's motivations was specifically stated, so that's not a criticism. However, it was uncited, so I accept your removal of it. KarlBunker 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy's Blacklist

I know he blacklisted individuals other than celebraties.. Does anyone have a copy of McCarthy's blacklist?--Vercalos 01:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? You know Joseph McCarthy and his committee blacklisted people? Are you confusing Joseph McCarthy with HUAC? Joseph McCarthy did question authors who worked for and wrote for government agencies, but I don’t recall ever reading he “blacklisted” people. I could be wrong, if you find that list make sure you tell me about it ok?Mantion 08:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I do not believe even HUAC blacklisted anyone. People who were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers by HUAC and, possibly, McCarthy were blacklisted by various entitites. Any reports of blacklisting resulting from McCarthy's actions would, of course, have to be properly supported by reliable sources. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do know that my grandmother was liberal enough to be put on McCarthy's blacklist without being an actor..--Vercalos 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And what particular privilege, service, or mobility was denied to your grandmother by McCarthy? McCarthy was not in a position to actually deny much to most people. Other entities may have blacklisted people that McCarthy named, but that is not the same as saying he blacklisted them. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For a discussion of blacklisting, see McCarthyism. KarlBunker 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy never Blacklisted anyone. He had no power to do something like that. That is an utter lie perpetrated by the Communist Party U.S.A. Anyone that is still falling for that nonsense is living in the revisionist nonsense of the crackpots who lie about what McCarthy did and did not do. Jtpaladin 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be some confusion with the "Wheeling speech", in which he claimed to have a list of communists. -Will Beback 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article candidacy

I came here to review the article and reluctantly decided not to pass it. Although it's comprehensive and well referenced, the continuing controversy section presents only one side of the controversy it describes. Durova 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But the other sides view of McCarthy is the WHOLE REST OF THE ARTICLE :)The other side, that McCarthy was wrong about Communists, is the prevailing view. Judgesurreal777 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Even apart from Judgesurreal777's comment, I don't see how this criticism applies. The continuing controversy section very clearly presents an opinion held by some authors, and mentions problems with a part of the basis for that opinion. Not knowing your politics Durova, I honestly don't know which "side of the controversy" you think is presented and which side you think isn't. Perhaps you could clarify. KarlBunker 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I'm not failing the candidacy. I'm explaining why I didn't pass it. My personal politics are irrelevant: here my function is as an editor interpreting site policy. If Judgesurreal777 thinks the rest of the article violates WP:NPOV in McCarthy's disfavor, then by all means add relevant text and citations elsewhere. The problem with this section is that it purports to be about recent controversy, yet presents only one set of opinions: those who would vindicate McCarthy. The section fails to offer opposing rebuttals or to give the reader an overall sense of how well or poorly these reassessments are being received in academia or the larger society. I think this is a concern that can be addressed while the nomination remains open so I'm stating my misgivings here in the hope that it improves. Best wishes, Durova 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for your comments, and I would suggest that everyone proceed with caution if this overall sense is written, since the point of the section was to express an opposing view, not be commented on to show how they are false by those who disagree. :) Judgesurreal777 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me also for your comments. I didn't mean to suggest that your politics were relevant; I was only saying that they would have given me a clue as to which side of the argument you thought was missing. Your clarification answers that question, and I think you have a good point. Currently there are some facts noted in the section that are partial rebuttals of the opinions stated, but some opposing opinions might be good too. Also, I don't think Judgesurreal777 was saying the rest of the article violates WP:NPOV; he's only pointing out that the "anti-McCarthy view" that is the prevaling opinion of society at large is reflected in the article. KarlBunker 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Karl :) Judgesurreal777 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see these comments taken in the positive light they were intended. Since Senator McCarthy was one of the very few statesmen in U.S. history to be censured (or nearly so) while a senator in office, a section that purports to describe critical reevaluation of his legacy should be a very serious matter. I wouldn't worry about space limitions - within reason - yet the reader ought to come away with enough information and references to form an opinion about whether recently released Cold War documents really do throw his career in a different light than the previous public consensus had concluded. Since it isn't our job as editors to assert any conclusion, just summarize the best information from experts on both sides and give a sense of how much weight these vindications have held with the scholarly community and the public. Durova 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked someone would consider this an article let alone a good one. I it poorly organized, generally lacking reliable sources, has a specific agenda to attack McCarthy and his work as he was attacked in his day. Though it allows views common of the time in support of McCarthy, it quickly attacks them and dismisses them. The article has no basis in history, and does not reflect the man. It starts off attacking his work and continues through out the article. Someone reading this article would think McCarthy was hated in his day and thought to be a evil and ineffective politician. The entire article needs to be re-written from a NPOV with out an agenda and it should contain. It is ok to site his critics and their views but it should not be the point of the article. The article should only contain relevant information, which are of little dispute. Constantly citing Books and Newspapers who had an agenda is not a way to teach, learn or understand history.Mantion 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Author Label

The term "right-wing" or "controversial" should not be needed. Should we go through and describe authors who attacked McCarthy as "left-wing" or "controversial"?Mantion 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The right wing authors in question are so extreme that it may be deceptive and POV to leave out any characterization of their position on the spectrum. I'd be curious what other people think about this. KarlBunker 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine going through and labeling all the authors, reporters and politicians who attacked McCarthy as "left-wing" or "controversial" as most of them were or are exactly that. I would prefer it actually. It would be nice for people to know the nature of all the people who attacked McCarthy in his day and today.Mantion 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of homosexuality

This paragraph was recently edited by User:Rjensen to say that the rumor was rejected by a number of scholars, and the following footnote was given as a reference:

The allegations are rejected in Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy p. 68; Robert D. Dean, Imperial Brotherhood: Gender and the Making of Cold War Foreign Policy (2001) p. 149; Kyle A. Cuordileone, Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War (2003), p. 94; Geoff Schumacher, Sun, Sin & Suburbia: An Essential History of Modern Las Vegas (2004), p. 144; Thomas Patrick Doherty, Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture, (2003), p. 228. Reeves, Life and Times p. 512

I was able to check 5 of the 6 references, and with the exception of Rovere, none of the authors state an opinion that the rumor was false. They all, to varying degrees, state the opinion that it was reprehensible for Hank Greenspun and others to make the accusation, but that's different. Rjensen, I notice that you removed the Reeves reference in your most recent edit. I wasn't able to check that citation, but I left it in the article anyway. Should I remove that one along with the others that I've removed? KarlBunker 10:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the scholars accept the rumor. Do not remove solid citations from numerous scholars please--that is vandalism. Gay bashing was a major technique to destroy people in the 1950s and Wiki readers need to know it. Here are some of the quotes from the scholars:

• “There was a lot of time spent investigating” allegations of homosexuality, said Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, “although no one came close to proving it.” Dean p, 149 in a chapter called “Lavender Baiting”. Dean notes that Drew Pearson “relied primarily on the Washington rumor mill and on printed innuendo.” (P. 148)

or:

• “Greenspun continued to run unrestrained attacks on McCarthy, many of them libelous on their face.” Neal Pierce, The Mountain States of America p. 170
• “Liberals actually vented their hatred of McCarthy with a heft dose of the senator’s own medicine.” Drew Pearson’s “dubious testimonies” were used by Greenspun Cuordileone p 94
• “ Greenspun descended into mud-spewing rhetoric that would make the National Enquirer blanch.” Geoff Schumacher p 144

No scholar --not one-- believes this sort of gay-bashing falsehood, and Wiki should make that clear. Rjensen 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To start with a minor point, you're misusing the term "gay-bashing." That means to physically or verbally attack someone because they are, or are believed to be, gay. To attack someone by alleging that they are gay is not gay-bashing.

Anyway, all the quotes you've written out substantiate my point. None of these authors give an opinion on the truth or falsity of the rumor. As I said, they simply give their opinion that the rumor-mongering was distasteful or worse. To say that these have "rejected the rumor" is inaccurate and misleading. For comparison, see Rovere's book, where he specifically addresses the rumor and concludes that it was probably false.

However, you do raise a valid point: No reputable scholar that I know of has voiced an opinion that the rumor is probably true. That should be noted in the article, as you say. I'll correct it accordingly.KarlBunker 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I improved Karl Bunker's treatment. Gay bashing is the correct term (see Wiki) and the issue is especially important in 21st century, with whole books on the topic (like Dean's--that is why references are needed). As for Greenspun's libelous allegations that wouldmake National Enquirer blanch, they can go in a footnote rather than despoil the text. Rjensen 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, I have repeatedly explained the problems with your edit to you, and your only response has been to repeat yourself, repeat the citations that I say don't support your argument, and replace the erroneous parts of your edit. You have not addressed the points I have made in any way. And now you've increased the errors in your edit by using the term "gay bashing" after I explained that it's the wrong term. And once again you support your position by citing a source (gay bashing) that contradicts your position.

If you believe that I am wrong, explain to me how I am wrong. Explain to me how these authors that you cite are "rejecting the rumor," when it looks to my like they're rejecting the act of rumor-mongering. If you can't do that, then your edit is incorrect by your own admission. KarlBunker 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gay bashing is the correct term. KarlBunker mistakenly thinks it means only physical violence and he's plain wrong. Anyone can read the Wiki article: it "designates verbal confrontation with, denigration of, or physical violence against people thought to be...gay". How do authors reject a rumor from 50 years ago? They call it libelous, or based on innuendo, or quote a leading journalist who says there is no evidence, or they compare it unfavorably to the National Enquirer. That's how it's done, and I cited the evidence word for word. KarlB by contrast has not found a single reliable source that says the rumors were probably true. More important, Wiki must take a larger perspective when dealing with one of the main characters of the 1950 era. Gay bashing was a major issue in the 1950s era and its use against McCarthy was, I believe, the most prominent person who was so attacked. (Eleanor Roosevelt was also attacked.) For example a recent article explains: "In this essay, I examine more closely the sexual smearing of Joe McCarthy in order to elaborate the cultural logic and political practices of the era that bears his name. The terms of the sexual attack upon McCarthy responded to his own self-presentation as a Washington outsider, a self-made, autonomous, and aggressive representative of the common man. This gendered persona was destabilized by portrayals of the senator as dependent upon, dominated by, or beholden to men without a legitimate claim to political authority. ... Focusing on McCarthy illustrates how homophobia could be used as a political tool, even against one of the figures most closely associated with the anticommunist and antihomosexual campaigns." (quoting "The Smearing of Joe McCarthy:

The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics" by Andrea Friedman in American Quarterly 57.4 (2005) 1105-1129. Rjensen 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"KarlBunker mistakenly thinks it means only physical violence and he's plain wrong" Yes, that would be wrong, if I had ever said it, but I didn't. "KarlB by contrast has not found a single reliable source that says the rumors were probably true." Yes, that's correct. That's why I have never argued that the rumor is true, nor have I ever tried to suggest that in the article. On the contrary, I added an edit (which you removed) saying that no reputable McCarthy biographer had said it was true. I've asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on this; perhaps that will help. KarlBunker 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrogant editing by KarlBunker is unacceptable. ("rumors persist" he says about McCarthy. Nonsense.) KarlB has not done the research and seems unfamiliar with McCarthy--what sources he uses, who knows? tell us about those "rumors" that "persist" in 2006 and tell us why Wiki should endorse them. His solution is to remove scholarly references that contain information and replace them with rumors. This is too important an article to be garbled by uninformed hands. KarlB needs to start reading--try the Friedman article in AQ. And please stop reverting editors who have done the research and do know the material and who do not report rumors. Rjensen 10:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, let's calm down. Currently, we're actually not that far apart in what we want to put in the article. In case you don't understand this yet, let me start by saying that I am not trying to put anything into the article that suggests that this rumor is true or that any reputable author has ever said it was true. I think we've both gotten a little overheated in some of our comments, and I apologize for my role in that. My main objection to your current version is that it's too long. It gives a lot of attention to something that doesn't deserve much attention because A) it was a slimy reprehensible act of rumor-mongering on the part of Greenspun and others, and B) it never had any real impact on McCarthy's career.

To correct this, I suggest we use a shorter version of your edit:

In 1952, using rumors collected by Drew Pearson, Nevada publisher Hank Greenspun wrote that both McCarthy and Roy Cohn were homosexuals. Greenspun drew heavy criticism for this, and no reputable McCarthy biographer has accepted the rumor as probable. McCarthy dated many women, including Joseph Kennedy's daughters; in 1953 he married Jean Kerr, a researcher in his office. He and his wife adopted a baby girl in January 1957, shortly before McCarthy's death.

As you can see, I accept putting the actual quote into a footnote, I accept removing that the "rumor persists" and I accept using your long list of citations. I see that you're no longer saying that all these authors "rejected the rumor," and that was my main objection. I've removed the irrelevant material about McCarthy calling Greenspun an "ex-communist", etc. since that incident wasn't the only cause for the feud between the two men. With a short mention like this, the rumor is disposed of with no more attention than it deserves. This version isn't perfect, since it doesn't allow for the fact that the rumor was true with regard to Roy Cohn, and readers who know that might think the article is trying to hide that fact. But right now I can't see how to insert that point without making the section long-winded again.

In case you still want to use the term "gay bashing," please see here, here, here, here, and here. The term means to attack someone, physically or verbally, because he or she is gay. Naturally, since people who engage in gay bashing can't always know if the person they're attacking is actually gay, the full definition includes "because he or she is gay or is thought to be gay." But it does not refer to attacking someone by alleging that they are gay. By saying that McCarthy was a victim of gay bashing, you are suggesting that McCarthy was gay--and I don't think that was your intention. "Lavender baiting" is the correct term, but it's unfamiliar to most people. KarlBunker 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the position that "gay bashing" does not apply here, as the matter relates only to allegations of homosexuality as a means to tarnish someone's reputation. I don't have a problem with the use of "gay bashing" when it is applicable - not in the context under discussion. RogerJ 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I got an idea, lets drop the whole homosexual topic from the article all together. I mean I could start a roomer that McCarthy had sex with chickens, put it in a news paper I own, write it in a book which I publish and then have people write about it for 50 years. To even include any mention of homosexuality in this article is really a waste of time. Yes I am sorry that a bunch of liberals who hated McCarthy got together and started roomers. Is it possible that McCarthy was homosexual, I guess, but it is just as possible that he has sex with chickens and I don't see that mentioned in the article? What do you have something against chickens and the people who make love to them. I think this is done, the unlikely, unsubstantiated and repeatedly disputed rumor has no place in this article and all mention of it should be removed in it's entirety. There is no need to keep debating it, even denying the rumor only supports it. I guess it does show a perfect example of how the liberal controlled media made up things to attack the man, but still I don’t think it serves anyone who wants to know about McCarthy to even bring it up. Unsubstantiated, politically motivated, hate speech is not dignified and not worthy of what Wikipedia is to stand for.Mantion 16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone had started such rumours against McCarthy, and these rumours were of some historical significance regarding politics and public opinions... I agree with you that it's not hugely important, but I do think it does deserve a passing mention. RogerJ 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you think it deserves a passing mention? So what are we going to say.

"A newspaper owned and operated by a highly liberal and self admitted anti-McCarthy agenda, started a baseless rumor that McCarthy was a homosexual, because name calling is a highly prized liberal policy. Though the newspaper had no evidence for this rumor, and suggested that because a possible homosexual worked for McCarthy, that some how McCarthy had to be gay. In the eyes of many liberals at the time, if you have an employee that is gay, you yourself must be gay. Calling McCarthy a homosexual was an affective insult because most democrats and liberals at the time had no tolerance for homosexuals or people that hired them. Though the newspaper had no more information than the average person on the subject they had a printing press and some how, what they make up, no matter how false or baseless, must be some how right. Even thought not a single person who worked with McCarthy in the private sector or government agencies, or people who served with McCarthy in the military, nor any friends of McCarthy, nor any family members or even people in his home town had ever come forward to support the rumor made up to attack the man, and that people closest to McCarthy denied the claims. The simple fact that a ultra left wing news paper thousands of miles from Washington DC or Wisconsin some how had specific knowledge and deserves mentioning 50 years later. I mean they had a printing press, of course what they wrote is important."

Possible titles for the section;

"blatant examples of how liberals attacked McCarthy by making up things and then repeat the clam in books and newspapers until people give it credibility and thus someday will be believed to be true"

"liberals hated McCarthy and the fact that a homosexual could be working for the government"

"McCarthy is a poppy head and were going to call him names"

I think the last one is best.. You know I saw in a bunch of newspapers a bunch of times that Hitler is still alive, there is even an reported FBI file on the subject, I better hurry up and edit Hitler's article because it says he committed suicide and no mention that he is still alive. What do you think? I guess it is different, I mean if McCarthy for some reason was a homosexual, it would totally change history, but Hitler being alive really wouldn't be that significant. Now if Hitler was gay... HMMMMMM.... I think I am going to buy a press and print an article about how Hitler was a homosexual... Because that is soooo mature.. ARE WE DONE WITH THIS.. I will be removing any mention of homosexuality from this article because it really, really, really is immature and doesn't matter. I will leave the rest of the liberal made up lies for now Mantion 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it does matter. Why do we have an article on McCarthy is he told lies--because McCarthyism is important index of the mood of the 1950s. Why do we say his enemies told this particular lie about him? Because that too tells us about the 1950s. Before erasing stuff read "The Smearing of Joe McCarthy:

The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics" by Andrea Friedman in American Quarterly 57.4 (2005) 1105-1129. And yes it is important that McCarthy called Greenspum an ex-communist (Joe did that you know). Rjensen 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So your saying we should include the rumor about McCarthy being a homosexual to give the reader an understanding that liberals made up stuff to attack the man? Should we have a section specifically about various lies and misrepresentations of authors and reporters??Mantion 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I would like to review this article, but at this stage there has been too many recent changes and the article would not pass based on the stability criterion. However, I see a lot of work has been done and it is approaching stability. I recommend that you self-remove the nomination right now and finish the current set of work. Then when you renominate, please leave a message on my talk page and I will review it right away.

By the way, in order to avoid the anonymous vandalism, you may want to consider semi-protection. That way more productive work can go along without worrying about all those reverts. RelHistBuff 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777, since you made that nomination, I'll leave it to you to remove it if you want to. KarlBunker 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I guess we'll put if off, shame though since its getting so good, despite what some people are saying. Judgesurreal777 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If nothing changed on this ever again, are you seriously thinking it could be a good article? It is just a bunch of liberal dominated ideas attacking a man for no reason. It would be like letting Ann Coulter, New Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and every concervative writing the article on Bill Clinton? I mean isn't it clear by now that McCarthy wasn't hated or feared in his day as all the liberals make him out to be. Come on people lets look at history as it really happened, not just in the very one sided views of the liberal controlled newspapers and ultra liberal publishers. No reasonable person could say this is a good article. I will be changing the lead as I said I would a number of times with out objection.Mantion 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, by "history as it really happened", you mean "history as you would like it portrayed". Unfortunately for you, no historian or biographer, with the exception of Ann Coulter and some and ultra-right-wing bloggers, has written anything like the "history" you would like to see. And since Wikipedia relies on the existing work of outside authors for its facts, and Coulter and blogs are not valid sources, you will not be able to rewrite the article to suit your POV and still have it be correctly referenced. KarlBunker 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on lets face reality. The article is terrible. It isn't your fault you've done what you can. It is unorginized full of name calling of the time and by current people. It hardly a representation of McCathy, his side is hardly represented. There are few if any quotes. There are few or any details. Many of the sources are highly bias. In general the article is too long and NOT a NPOV. yes your right it isn't the history which I would agree with. I want a history that puts the view of his oppsition on the same level as the views of the supporters. Lets get rid of the repedative name calling and deal with the man. Lets drop all the stuff about the time in history, and deal with just the man. Yes people lost their jobs, that is true, but McCarthy never killed a person. I agree I never met the guy, but I have read thousands of lines of hearings and read through the entire history of this article. I have read 3 books on the subject and any website I could find on the subject. Yes a bunch of writers and journalist did not like the man, doesn't mean there view is the correct one. Lets start over and make this details. Instead of saying he ruined peoples lifes with baseless accusations, lets just provide examples of what he said and who was affected. There is so much hearsay in this article it is sickning. Authors go on to say what presidents thought but never said. If a president or high offical had an issue with McCarthy they would of said it in public or in an autobiography. Lets write an artical that talks only about the man and not completely critcal from begging to end. People lost their jobs because their empoyeers felt they were connected to communism. McCarthy was only one man in a national fight. Lets give him a fair article that doesn't just slam him.Mantion 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, your comments on this article are endlessly, endlessly, endlessly repetitive. Wouldn't it be easier and less trouble for you if you just copied and pasted your comments of a few days ago? Why do you spend all this time typing out the same few thoughts over and over with slightly different wording? I've already rebutted everything you say here several times before, so I'm not going to do it again. KarlBunker 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be because my objections never get addressed. Can I set up a page somewhere and make my own version of McCarthy and then we can see what I mean, and then use thatMantion 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your objections never get addressed because virtually no one agrees with them. If you try to make sweeping changes to the article with the type of slant that you're suggesting, every editor for miles around will be jumping on the article to RV it. KarlBunker 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead changes 1

"During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy gained notoriety for making "freewheeling"[1] accusations of membership in the Communist party or of communist sympathies. These accusations were largely directed towards people in the U.S. government, particularly employees of the State Department, but included many others as well."

Don't need "During his ten years in senate" Redundant

"Freewheeling" - Was a term of politically motivated democratic senator, be like saying 'Bush is "incompetent" in the lead to bush article, just because a democratic senator said it doesn't mean it is accurate. Instead of calling McCarthy names, give actual examples of what he said or did and let the people decide if he was "freewheeling" in his "accusations".

"Accusations" - Investigation is more appropriate, because that is what he gained notoriety for his investigation of Communist in the government.

"Communist sympathies" Not sure this needed, if a person has sympathies with an ideology then aren't you a part of that ideology just to a lesser point? I mean is there something called a "republican party" and a "of republican Sympathies". Plus McCarthy wasn't investigating claims about Communist in the government...

"People in the U.S. Government, particularly employees of the state department....." Kind of long. McCarthy was investigating Communist in the U.S. or Federal government.. If he found people in the state department that is fine, it wasn't the only place he was looking. If in his investigations he found other communist in other areas, that is fine, but he gained notoriety for his work, which was focused on Communist in the Government.

"Spy", McCarthy used this term, almost all politicians used this word, spies have been a concern though out history.. Why is it not used. Wasn’t McCarthy looking for spies or operatives?

"Soviet".. No mention of soviets, Even though there were Soviet operatives or spies in the government and McCarthy work and work of many politicians revolved around this threat.. It was a major concern of the time, people were executed for being soviet operatives... why is it missing..

"Aggressive" most books, newspaper articles, radio and TV broadcasts and other politicians used the term aggressive when referring to McCarthy. Some people felt his aggressive style was good, many in the media felt his aggressive style was bad. It is a completely accurate adjective to how McCarthy behaved, it does not pass judgment good or bad. Lets describe the actions of McCarthy with out bias and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion.

....

the new Paragraph

"McCarthy gained notoriety for aggressively investigating claims of communist and soviet operatives inside the Federal Government"

This is an accurate line, it is to the point, it does not suggest that he was soviets operatives or communist only that there were claims of it and he was investigating it, just like member of the house were doing before McCarthy was a senator. I did not pass judgment condemning his actions or giving it praise, it is what he did and that not saying it is good or bad.

Because it is only one line it does not need it's own paragraph and I will attach it to the previous paragraph.

Sorry for the long explanation, I just want people to see the logic and reason behind the change instead of just calling it POV and reverting it. Mantion 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You surprise the heck out of me, Mantion. That edit is far more reasonable and rationally defended than I ever would have expected, based on some of your previous comments. I don't think it gives anything like an accurate picture of how McCarthy is remembered by history, but it has some good points. KarlBunker 09:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A term of 4 years because of death, resignation or impeachment is still a term.. True it isn't a whole term but it is still a term of 4 years. Nixon had 2 terms, even though he resigned. Anyways two terms is more intersting and there are people might not know that senators serve 6 year terms. The might think they are like house and only serve for 2 years. I don't really care just think 2 terms is more informative, and less redudent.Mantion 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Shorter is better.

Though the content of this article is lacking, I still think it is too long.. To many words are used to say a simple idea.

For example the Lead, why bother putting "During the last seven years of his career in the Senate, McCarthy gained notoriety... I mean I think the last 7 years of his life was ok, becuase it at least tells the reader he died in the thick of it. To be honest McCarthy gained notoriety in 2 or 3 years of his career in the senate. The rest of the time he was attacked and called names. So really as it stand now it is inaccurate and will give the reader a false impression. I figured 2 terms was ok as well.. I mean FDR was the only 4 term president event though he died a month into his 4th term. So 2 terms at least told the reader McCarthy served 2 terms in the senate, as many people don'tt know how long a senator is elected for.

SO.. seeing that nothing is gained by "during the last 7 years of his career in the senate...." is both misleading and inaccurate I will remove it to the original form that I wrote. Please be considerate of those who actually read these articles for information. They don't need extra words, that are misleading and Inaccurate. Mantion 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that nothing is gained with this phrase, and that it's misleading and inaccurate, but you don't support those opinions, except to suggest that reducing the article by 10 words is somehow important. It would be more accurate to note that his career was only notable for about 4 of its last 7 years, but I can't think of a way to phrase that without making it hopelessly awkward. Meanwhile, more information is better, even it it costs 10 words. KarlBunker 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, there is a simple alternate wording that's both brief and accurate, which I've inserted: "In the years 1950 through 1954..." I like having the exact date range of the notable portion of McCarthy's career in the introduction, because it's surprisingly brief. McCarthy is often unfairly blamed for the entire historical period known as "McCarthyism," when in fact his role in McCarthyism, while major, wasn't essential or all-important. He's just the person who had the "ism" attached to his name. KarlBunker 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't matter what years he gained in popularity. Not in the lead. and your right it is 10 words or so, but I don't have time to go through this thing from begging to end yet. I will someday but not now. The article is way tooooooooooo Long with TOOOOOO many extra words. The reader should know in the lead why we still talk about McCarthy and how he became a national name. I supported my opinions, far more then you suppported the need to put some sort of date range on it. The readers looking to learn something don't really care in the intro what Years you think he rose to a house hold name.

I don't think any adjetives to explain McCarthies notoriety are needed either. You can explain all that in the body. Please Work on cutting down the size of the article instead of adding words that made no difference. Does it matter that McCarthy gained popularity in 1950 or 1949??? NOOOOO, it would only be relevent in proving a point when a timeline of events were important to know..

Gome on guys lets make this article better, lets cut out all the needless adjetives, put more quotes of the man or about the man. More primary source material. This is not a place to go and spew out what you think of the man.. This is a place to give a snapshot of the man and other RELIVANT information. If you want to put the years McCarthy became a house hold name, make a section just on that.

Start working on cutting down the second part of the lead.. I have to spend so much time tring to keep the first part short and relivant.Mantion 22:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, there's a difference between supporting your opinion and repeating your opinion. All you've done is the latter. In fact, since you're arguing about an edit that saves seven words, any mention of article length is pretty silly in that context. The only thing I see with too many words here are your pointlessly repetitive comments. Writing words like TTTTThis isn't helpful either. If you want people to pay attention to you, try to write like an adult. KarlBunker 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't care if you pay attention to me, I repeat myself because you don't listen to what I say ten attack me never addressing my points. yes 7 words is worth not including if it is irrelavent. As I said the whole article needs to be reworked, and if it is your intention to just RV my work until you get your way with out discussing a thing that is fine. I guess it is your article then. My point is simple stop wasting time on the first part of the lead and work to make the rest of the article better.

Second you have yet to explain why the years he gained noteriety matters, no have you sited it from a reliable source, you were not a live, I am sure you are not an expert on the subject. if you wish to edit peoples work you should explain yourself first. Lets cool it with the personal attacks okMantion 04:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"...gained notoriety"

User:Rjensen takes objection to the phrase "McCarthy gained notoriety…" I believe that phrasing is correct and neutral.

"Notorious" is defined as "famous for something bad." The definition does not imply that one is universally hated or that the notoriety is fair. Furthermore, the article is written from a current (2006) point of view. By today's standards, there is no question but that McCarthy is "famous for something bad." There is no serious scholar or biographer of McCarthy who would disagree with this characterization. Even those few who defend McCarthy would agree that he is "notorious." For proof, you need look no further than the title of the most defensive McCarthy biography in print: Arthur Herman's "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator." When an opinion is agreed to by every notable scholar in the field, it is not "POV" to reflect that opinion in an article. KarlBunker 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead changes 2

I need some help as I can't think creativly right now. The second paragraph is very poory written. It starts off talking about the period of time. There are pages addressing this topic and though I think it is important to describe the time as it affected McCarthy, it is not needed in a article about the man.

McCarthy had no affect on the times. The house had began investigating Nazi's, Communist and Loyalty risks to the nation in the private and public sector. Those that know McCarthy best and all accurate reports of the time show that McCarthy was not looking to put people into jail, he was not looking to ban them from making movies or writting books. He did not black list anyone nor did he try anyone for treason. He focus was on the Federal government and those that worked for it or were attacked to the government. I have read hundereds of pages of transcrips and yes he questioned people like many writters who were not directly on the pay roll, but they were either witnesses or were indirectly related to the Federal Government. He didn't care about the average Jo writing a book about the USSR or communist in China. He cared about people in positions to influance decisions or those who had access to sensitive information in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The term McCarthism was made up to ATTACK Joseph McCarthy by a CARTOONIST who hated MCCATHY and who made money ATTACKING HIM. Since ANN COULTER is brought up time and time again I will use her as an example. In many off her books she reffers to Bill Clinton as "THE FELON" Yet I don't see that term in the lead to Bill Clinton. Some of you are jumping at the bits to point out that Ann Coulter is one sided, a republican, not balanced, has an agenda, politically motivated... In some way you don't think her pet name for President Clinton is not valid. BUT NEITHER IS MCCATHYISM. The term does nothing more then attacks and belittles the man. It was made up by his enemies and slowly made his way into a dictionary somewhere. No one uses this term in real life. It has no meaning, it has not significance.. Only to those who pationally hate the man they never met, think it is a highly important word.. IT is not. It is up there with "Bushism" or "Clintonism". Is is not relivant to know the man. Unless it was clearly explained as a term used to attack the man, because that is simply what it was. People in the government at the time use the term, it made it into text books, because most of them are edited by people with an agenda. In a historical view of the time, it is just another name that got thrown around. Does the term explain a view yes. An opinionated, one sided view and should be saved for the body of the article.. Not to set the tone to the reader. This article should not have an agenda but to share relivant information framed as such..

TO THAT END

I think the second part of the lead of course should be dismantled and any relevant information be moved to other parts of the articles and framed properly.

The second part of the lead should convey the following in as few words as needed with out retoric.

1) McCarthy was polorizing in his day and today. 2) He was opposed and supported by Different government officials, newspapers and other media. 3) That his message and goal were supported by the masses, but many disagreed with his technique. 4) That 67 members of the senate voted to Condemn Senator McCarthy on actions pertainint to rules and ethics but was not removed. 5) Some mention of his decline in popularity and death in office

These are all important points that the reader should know about. I think these 5 points can be worded fairly and with few words. No need to push an agenda only convey the information.

I think these 5 things might be more information then the lead needs, but it gives a complete account of the man we are decribing in this article. None of them have an agenda, no supports only one side

I think a 3rd paragraph of one sentance should also be included in the lead to complete the intro into McCarthy stating that his place in history is still feercly debated, mostly because the reader should be prepared for the mud slinging and praise to follow. It give an explination as to what is going on in the article.

These are my opinion, I would like to know what you all think, including you KARLBUNKER. If you think some things should be included and other removed please let me know but don't get into too much of a tiff, this is the discussion page, lets try to make this article better.. Sorry for all the typos and grammer mistakes.. I just don't have the time..Mantion 22:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"McCarthy had no affects of the times."

Mantion, this sentence shows such a complete and utter ignorance of the subject (as well as a profound ignorance of English) that I didn't bother reading any further.KarlBunker 02:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am sure there were a lot of grammer mistakes, I myself have no idea what I was trying to say. I was in a hurry with people ignoring me. Seeing that you don't listen to reason I won't bother to go back and re-write it.Mantion 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading that one statement "McCarthy had no affects of the times" it should of been "on the times". I made the correction, I am not sure how much you have researched the subject matter, my point is explained. It is simple and YES I will repeat myself, McCarthy was not the first nor the only one attacking communism. The begging of the paragrah is "During this period". The article is not about the period it is about the man. So I will make changes seeing as you did not care to discuss it.Mantion 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not Vandalise

I have been discussing the lead for months now. None of my points had been disputed or even addressed. I have only been personally attacked or said I just repeat myself. I gave every attempt to allow input, feed back and suggestions. The Lead was vague not on topic and largly irrelivent. It set the tone and had an underlining agenda. I have made these changes for the benifit of the reader, I feel it is fair and accurate. It is relivant and conveys information about the man. It is a breif summary of the man and gives the reader a perspective with out bias.

PLEASE DO NOT VANDALISE my contrabution, as it has been in the past. There is a history of simply destroying ones work with out discussion or reason. Much of my contrabutions have been flat out deleted even after careful researching and citing the information.

My work is not final, I don't think it is my best work but it is far better then the ramblings it replaced. It is on Subject but please help me make it better. DO NOT JUST DELETE IT karbunker. This is NOT your article. I have brought up all my points many times asking for input, you choice only to insult me, that is fine.Mantion 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, what you've changed the intro to is very poorly written, contains uncited opinions, has added POV, and is not particularly unencyclopedic. It isn't far better, it's considerably worse than what it replaced. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussing it.Mantion 07:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph beginning "McCarthy is one of the most divisive people in recent US history," This opening sentence is incorrect--opinion about McCarthy is quite uniform. The fact that you and a few other right wingers happen to disagree with the opinion of the vast majority doesn't alter that. If you can cite a reliable source that agrees with that statement, I'll agree to including it in some form. If you can even find a right-wing blogger who's said such a thing, I'll be darned impressed. Apart from that, this paragraph simply repeated material that's covered later in the article. If you think the article is too long, repeating information in it doesn't seem like a good way to make it shorter. KarlBunker im12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker seems unaware there is controversy about McCarthy, and that everyone shares his personal judgments. Wrong. (he should read say, National Review) Indeed there is disagreement right here on this page among editors. Wiki can do without particular POV wording (like "notoriety") inserted in an important article. Rjensen 14:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, I responded to your edit re. "gained notoriety" above, in the section "...gained notoriety." If you disagree with the points I raise there please respond to them. KarlBunker 14:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Josephy McCarthy has always been disputed in his time and ours. He didn't have a 0% approval rating, He always had a large portion of the population supporting him, that is who he served. Through out history many people have written very fair and unbias books about McCarthy unfortunatly they weren't allowed to write for the text books you and I read in school. After actually researching the subject you find that MOST people who knew McCarthy well supported him through the years. There is debate over weather he was effective, used the proper technique, that doesn't mean he was hated like you hate him. I think it is time you stop calling people uninformed and telling others their view on the subject is opinion and your views are fact. It think it is time you start doing some research and understanding the subject. But I am not going to waste more time on you. You don't debate the substance of anyones argument you just call them names and delete what they write if it doesn't agree with your narrow view on the subject. It is not the only view, it is more popular then the other side, but not by much. Even at the height of attacks on McCarthy by the media and opposing senators his approval rating was 35% for and 46% against. This is according to the gallup results in the article the lead is to represent. That is not as one sided as you think. So I wonder if I am uninformed. Should not the lead represent the view of the article? I will put my section back in until you can show me proof that he was not divisive because the facts are pretty clear.

Next time discuss it before editing work or delete contrabutions. I discussed changes over and over again you never addressed the subject of my discussions only called me names like uniformed and things like that.Mantion 19:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being accepting on other peoples work, I will cite all the other statements as soon as possible and will find exact quotes if that is ok. I assume I have more then a day to do such things as I will be busy the rest of the weekend. Mantion 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to a library right now. I am on the road right now kind of a vacation around the US. I provided some basic citations, they are better then nothing and I will find better citations for everything in time. I am not an expert on the formating I only know what I have figured out looking through wikipedia and else where. If the formating is not correct please change it. Thanks again for allowing my work to existMantion 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you added is badly written and consists mostly of repetition of material that's already in the article. If in fact any reputable source ever did refer to McCarthy as "one of the most divisive people in recent US history" that would be interesting and worth adding to the article. If you can provide an actual citation, I'd be happy to put the statement in, with a correctly formatted reference and written in adult English. Meanwhile, you've got me curious, so I'll do some looking for a valid source myself, starting with the one you named. KarlBunker 02:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Karlbunker are you done with the whole name calling thing. It is getting old. I said the paragraph is not perfect and asked for people to contribute to make it better. I think it is very interesting information and yes it is repeated elsewhere in the article. Often information in the lead is included elsewhere. The lead in many cases gives a summary of information in the article. I am not sure what you would consider a reputable source is. So far I have gathered that anything you don't agree with is not reputable. McCarthy is divisive, the if you read through these discussions on it and read all the contrabutions you delete with out justification you would know this to be true.

As I said many times and will say again, you never spoke up when prompted before changes were made. The whole article needs to be restructured and rewritten. This article should represent the history of the man when he was alive. Not 50 years of single sided attacks. He was not the worsed guy to ever walk the planet and a whole lot of people in his time love the man and considered him a hero. That is my point, That is the side that is missing in this article. Everything I contribute does not have an agenda and represents both views of the man when he lived. So are you done trying to attack me or do I need to go through and make a list of your attempts to insult me?Mantion 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

sympathizers

Communist in the goverment describes both communist party members and sympathizers. Mantion 06:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead

As I stated before and must repeat myself again, leads give a summary of the subject matter. Almost all the information in the lead will be addressed in more detail later in the article. example

"George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001. He was re-elected in the 2004 Presidential election and is currently serving his second term. He formerly served as the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. A Republican, he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families, being a son of former president George Bush and elder brother to Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida. Supporters and detractors alike refer to him by the nickname, Dubya, playing on a stereotyped and generalized Southern pronunciation of the letter W. Bush is known as the fifth Methodist president in the United States, in terms of religion.

Bush was an entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas, and owned an oil-drilling company called Arbusto, which means bush in Spanish. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, and after working on his father's presidential campaign, he purchased a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team. In 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas where he worked on education reform, school finance reform, tort reform and sponsored the largest tax cut program in Texas history. He was re-elected as governor of Texas in 1998. Bush won the 2000 presidential election as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest. Although he did not secure a majority of the popular vote, he did win the required number of electoral votes after a very close battle in the state of Florida. As President, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act, and has made efforts to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives, the Palm Sunday Compromise and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global War on Terrorism and ordered the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan which he publicly stated was in order to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda and to capture Osama Bin Laden. In March 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force.[1]. Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Bush committed the U.S. to establishing democracy in the Middle East, and specifically in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the short term.

A self-described "war President",[2] Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority vote in 16 years.[3] Since his re-election, he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals, as well as domestic issues such as federal funding of stem cell research, Hurricane Katrina, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, record budget deficits, the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, and a number of scandals, such as the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal and the Plame CIA leak controversy. According to opinion polling, his popularity has declined."

This is the lead for George W. Bush. Though I think it is long I am not the final say in such things. But all things mentioned in the lead are repeated in the body of the work.

second example

"John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), also referred to as John F. Kennedy, JFK, John Kennedy, or Jack Kennedy, was the 35th President of the United States. He served from 1961 until his assassination in 1963. A member of the politically prominent Irish-American Kennedy family, he is considered an icon of American liberalism. His leadership during the saga of the ramming of the PT-109 during World War II led to being cited for bravery and heroism in the South Pacific. Kennedy represented Massachusetts during 1947–1960, as both a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He was elected President in 1960 in one of the closest elections in American history. He is the only Roman Catholic so far to serve as President of the United States.

Major events during his presidency included the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, early events of the Vietnam War, and the American Civil Rights Movement.

John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Official investigations later determined Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin, though numerous conspiracy theories exist. His assassination is considered to be a defining moment in U.S. history due to its traumatic impact on the nation as well as on the political history of the ensuing decades, his subsequent branding as an icon for a new generation of Americans and American aspirations, and for the mystery and conspiracy allegations that surround it."

Again almost everything in the lead is covered in the body.

third example

"Adolf Hitler (help·info) (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933, and "Führer" (leader) of Germany from 1934 until his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party.

Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crisis after World War I, using charismatic oratory and propaganda, appealing to economic need of the lower and middle classes, nationalism and anti-Semitism to establish a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship. With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"). He ordered the invasion of Poland, after which England and France declared war on Germany. The conflict came to be known as World War II. At the height of its power, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe, but it and the Axis Powers were eventually defeated by the Allies. By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

In the final days of the war, Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker in Berlin with his newlywed wife, Eva Braun."

Now I shouldn't have to give examples of these things but Karlbunker seems to think this is his article and it should fit his format and not normal format of Most Wikipedia articles.

Please Discuss changes, especially when destroying other contributors workMantion 06:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead changes 3

"During this period, people at every level of society were suspected of being Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers and were the subjects of investigations and questioning regarding their beliefs, affiliations and statements. These inquiries were conducted by a variety of federal and local government committees as well as by private sector "loyalty review" agencies."

During which period. Huac was 1938-1975.

Does this sentance deal with the work of the man or the work of 'a variety of federal and local goverment commitees as well by private sector "loyalty review" agencies'

I think the lead should discuss the man and his work, not the work of a nation. Yes the nation as a whole was fighting communism. This sentance seems to suggest that only the 4 years between 1950-1954.

The sentance as I stated before does not DEAL WITH THE MAN OR HIS WORK.. It should not removed.. In the mean time I will add a date range of 1935-1970 as that was when most investiagtions into communism took place.Mantion 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your latest batch of comments, Mantion, but I did notice this sentence: "As I said many times and will say again, you never spoke up when prompted before changes were made." This is incorrect. I don't always read and respond to all of your comments, because (like your latest batch) they're too long, are endlessly repetitive and largely devoid of rational content. I'm not always willing to read through your latest diatribe every time you feel like rewriting it with slightly different wording. I believe at some point I have responded to each of the few unique points you've tried to make. But I haven't been as willing as you are to mindlessly repeat myself.

Re. your recent insertion of the date "1970": This is patently absurd. "During this period" could be more specific, but your edit isn't the way to do that. By inserting an arbitrary date like 1970, which has nothing to do with either McCarthy's lifetime or the course of anti-communism in America, you make the article look embarrassingly amateurish and silly. KarlBunker 13:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you modified the "The most controversial american" statement to be a direct quote, with an attribution and reference. This is much closer to being right for the article. However, the person who made that statement should be named in the article, and should preferably be a notable person in his own right--so that the reader has some reason to care about the statement and consider it notable. Since Robert W. Wells was a fairly unknown reporter, he doesn't fit that bill. The rest of the paragraph, as I've noted before, repeats information already in the article. If you have some response to that complaint. please state it BRIEFLY here. You may have responded to it somewhere in your comments above, but like I said, that batch of verbiage is too long and I'm not going to read it. KarlBunker 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. There might be some good content in the vast amount of verbiage above, but I'm not going to spend the time reading it to see if it justifies the bad grammar and general intellectual messiness of the proposed changes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you choose not to read, then don't partake in the discussion. Saying something might be valid but your not going to read it is not a discussion...Mantion 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nope. I'll partake in the discussion exactly as I see fit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

McCarthyism is distinct subject

This is the biography article. McCarthyism is used by historians to designate a much broader activity involving many other people besides Joe McCarthy. Using a college dictionary as a major source is discourages by Wiki rules on reliable sources.Rjensen 16:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You make two statements here, neither of which supports the edit you made. The first statement is true, and your edit removed the information which noted this fact from the article. The second statement is not true. When a person's name has been made into a word, an obvious--even necessary--source is a definition of that word. And you don't even attempt to justify your removal of the paragraph describing McCarthy's physical attack on Drew Pearson. This is obvious POV-pushing, and "is discourages by Wiki rules." KarlBunker 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete the McCarthyism section only moved it toward the end where it belongs. A college dictionary is inadequate compared to the much more advanced resources (like Safire's New Political Dictionary). Wiki warns against using these tertiary sources. As for the "physical attack" -- get real, this shoving match section was humor maybe? Rjensen 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"As for the "physical attack" -- get real..." If you believe that, you should probably read something about this subject that you mistakenly consider yourself competent to edit. No serious scholar, including McCarthy's strongest defenders, has ever suggested that this attack was anything other than very real and very serious. KarlBunker 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

very serious attacks leave people in the hospital--see the new Huey Long movie! Rjensen 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, if some drunk kneed me in the groin, I'd consider it a pretty serious attack. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is 100% correct. I have been saying this from day 1.Mantion 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Second paragraph as stated before is not relivant to topic. First half were investigations McCarthy had nothing to do with. The second half is a political attack made by a Political Cartoonist, not very important to the topic, should be moved to lower in the paper. Mantion 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. A discussion of McCarthy's historical context obviously belongs in the article and in the introduction. "Stating" that it isn't relevant isn't the same as logically explaining how it isn't relevant. Here's an example of how to start by saying that something isn't relevant and then proceeding to support that statement with a logical argument: The fact that "McCarthyism" was first coined by a cartoonist is irrelevant. Regardless of its origin, it has become a widely recognized word that is in dictionaries. KarlBunker 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have stated this problem before in great detail and explained it many times. Each time you claimed it was too long to read, insulted me, called me repeditive or in some way never addressed any of my concerns. You said state your problems breifly, so I did now you want an explintation. As I stated before the first part of the paragraph deals with investigations which had nothing to do with McCarthy, and the second part is mearly stating a term used to attack McCarthy then defining it. It has also been stated it is not a reliable source. All these arguments have been made you just keep telling people they are repeating then go around deleting peoples work with no reason given.

Almost all leads are summaries of the body and almost all the information in Leads are repeated in the body of the work. If you don't like how my paragraph is written, please explain why and which part, discuss before delteing or editing please, I have asked you this over and over again, this is not your article.Mantion 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being brief this time. Putting McCarthy into historical context, in this case, serves as the best summary and introduction tot he article. Your paragraph, in contrast, is just a random collection of facts. As I said before, if you had a worthwhile source for a statement to the effect that he was a very divisive person (which was true, during his lifetime) that would be a good addition to the introduction. As I said before, having an unknown person, whom you don't name, say that is pointless. As for a dictionary definition being an "unreliable source," once again you aren't supporting this opinion; you're just repeating it. In what way is a dictionary "unreliable"? Yes, McCarthyism is, in part, a term used to attack McCarthy. The fact that this term is in dictionaries is a demonstration of how universally McCarthy--rightly or wrongly--is looked upon as being a bad person. You may dislike that fact, but you're not supposed to remove facts from Wikipedia just because you dislike them. KarlBunker 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is has so much un cited perosonal opinion all over it. I cited an important newspaper of the day. Just because you don't personally know the reporter doesn't mean it is not valid. I can find hundreds of examples of the day that say McCarthy was Charming and likeable. It was his tacticks some people felt were not valid, while countless others rallied behind his cause. When McCarthy was re-elected in 1952 22% of the people Apposed him and around 19% supported him Nationally. Just because the average person passing by thinks McCarthy was a bad man doesn't make it fact. I am sorry. McCarthy died in 57 it would be nice to report on him as he was known in that time. Maybe you can give me a list of "worthwhile sources" that I am allowed to use. Unfortunatly I don't have time to go to the library and look up 60 year old newspaper reports right now but I will. Anyways maybe you feel putting McCarthy into historical context serves the best. I and others, think it best to stick with the tradion of Wikipedia and include what you call "random facts". I sited 3 articles above that included what you call "random facts" you didn't read it. I will bold face my text so maybe you can read at least what I wrote. My paragraph is valid, informative, small and interesting. It is the typical lead that give a summary of the article to come.

You admit McCarthyism is a term to attack McCarthy. It was used to discredit his work and attack him by his opponents. "Warmonger" has been used to describe countless presidents. Many of these would be considered "facts". Yes it is a fact that people called Reagan a "warmonger". But it is not in the lead. I have no problem with McCarthism being used in the body, so long as it is put in the historical context of the time when McCarthy was alive.

Wikipedia is a place to come and read historically accurate, and factual articles, not drive an agenda. It seems as you wish to attack McCarthy and cite the modern view of the man as "historical". I am sorry but your view of McCarthy is not acurate of his time. I wish to show an accurate view of the man at the time, not the rewritten history known today. I think this is the heart of our dispute. Thank you for addressing some of my concerns and with out personally attacking me this timeMantion 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The norm for any current work examining the life of a historical person is to use the standards and knowlege of today. How that person was viewed in the past should always be a part of an article about that person, but the article can't somehow pretend that it's still the year 1952, and only consider how he was viewed in that year.

As I've said before, this article is critical of McCarthy because history is critical of McCarthy. The vast majority of scholars in the field are critical of McCarthy. If you want to write something that isn't critical of McCarthy, please feel free to write a book of your own. In Wikipedia, the rule is to reflect the work of current scholars. If you go write your own book, you can put anything you want to in it.

However (as I've said before), for the most part the article is not critical of McCarthy, and contrary to what you say, it does not have un-cited personal opinions "all over it." It describes documented facts, and the reality is that those documented facts often make McCarthy look pretty bad. If you have counter-examples to that, please provide them.

As for your summary paragraph, this is a stylistic difference. It is painfully obvious that you don't have much familiarity with written English, so I offer that fact as evidence that my sense of what works, stylistically, is far more trustworthy than yours. KarlBunker 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So your arguement is we should not have a historically accurate article on McCarthy because information of 1952 is no longer valid. The quote in the newspaper I fournd was 1957, is that no longer valid either? Is that what historians do is look at history, then decide write it their way? I am sorry but if this article is about McCarthy it should have a basis on how he was viewed in his life time.

It is fine to include information and views of people decades later, especially if new information is availible. As no historians had access to most of McCarthy's investigations. Nor did they have access to investigations of the FBI, and other agencies that McCarthy had accesss to. In the last Few years that information has been release to the public and historians for the first time. So yes if we want to include information that has resently been declasified, that is fine, if you want to include authors that formed their opinions based on new information, that is fine.

That said, we can not ignore the facts of the time because some historians came to a different conclusion. The reality of the time is clear, many people hated McCarthy and many people supported him. Saying that I can not include a quote from 1957 because it differs from what you thought, or you don't know the reporter, is just plan wrong. This isn't your article.

My paragraph is in the tradition of most wikipedia articles in that it gives a summary of the body of the article. The paragraph should be included. If you want to include the "work of current scholars" that is fine. I support that, I encourage that. BUT we should not ignore newspaper reports and other valid informatin of the man when he was alive.

In my opinion the lead should be a summary of the body of the article, not the one sided critical view of the subject. Ann Coulter's views are not included in the lead of Bill Clinton or as she called him "The Felon". Mantion 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not arguing that the article should be inaccurate, or that it should ignore facts. I'm arguing that it should not parrot the viewpoint and opinions of the general public of 1952. The article already notes, in considerable detail, that McCarthy was supported by many during his lifetime.

If you go to the policy page at Wikipedia:Verifiability, you'll see the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In other words, what you or I believe to be the "truth" about McCarthy doesn't matter; what matters is what scholars in the field have said. In the view of the vast majority of contemporary scholars, McCarthy was a negative and destructive influence on his country. The article does not accurately reflect this. In its attempt to be neutral and to placate fringe McCarthy-supporters like you, the article is already too "easy" on McCarthy. If you would read some mainstream biographies of McCarthy instead of wingnut bloggers, you would see that that's true.

I explained why I don't think the newspaper quote is a good addition: It's a statement of opinion, coming from someone who's non-notable, so the reader has no reason to care about his opinion. That's why statements of opinion in WP are usually in the form "Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson has written..." As I've said, a similar quote from someone notable would be a good addition. KarlBunker 11:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

nuanced, sophisticated version includes multiple perspectives

Lots of things were happening that made McCarthy important--Alger Hiss and China, for example. Removing them strips the article of its historical context and oversimplifies the story to a junior-high-school level. We have to get beyond good-and-evil arguments (or evil-and-good arguments) to see the complexity of a major episode. Thus it is essential to explain why McC appealed to so many people--if he had not done so he would have been a minor character. Herblock was one of the 3-4 most important of McC's enemies in 1950 and historians credit him with inventing the term (see Safire); his cartoon is fair use (we use one page out of 200 page book, and the article discusses the cartoon's importance). Rjensen 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing of the historical context was removed. China, Alger Hiss, spies, investigations, Herblock as the first user of "McCarthyism", all are present in my edit. Read past the introduction of the article and you'll see that all of these are already there. What my edit removes is text inaccurately assigning all investigations that revealed spies to the FBI (various committees played an important role too), the inaccurate description of McCarthy's investigations and accusations being confined to Communists in the Federal Government (he investigated the army, educators, authors and others), and the repetitive and inappropriate mention of Herblock in the introduction.

I'd like to see the Herblock cartoon included in the article (though not in the introduction, as that's plain silly). As I noted in my comment, it used to be in this article but was removed because it didn't conform to correct usage. Apparently it's only allowable to include a copyrighted work like this in an article about Herblock.

I've explained my use of "notoriety" before. He "gained notoriety", period. Rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, he is "famous for something bad." The liberal/conservative politics of an observer doesn't affect the correctness of the word. If you have a response to these arguments, please state it. If you don't have a response then simply replacing that edit is only disruptive and not a good faith edit. KarlBunker 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy became "famous for something good"--It depends on who you ask, I suggest. Polls showed that about half the people supported him. As for cartoon, The Fair use criteria are all met (it uses only one page out of 360 in his book)--and this article certainly is about the cartoon and uses it as a primary document (rather than use it as mere decoration.) There is no substitute artwork that can show the historical reality that Herblock invented the term. I checked the major online newspapers, and the OED. Herblock was certainly first--and very visible and important. Rjensen 15:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The current majority opinion, by far, among laymen and scholars is that McCarthy "gained notoriety." There may have been a majority who held a favorable opinion of McCarthy in the past, but this article is written for today's readers from a current perspective. However, for the time being I'll change the text to "became noted for". This isn't as accurate as "gained notoriety," but at least it isn't as juvenile as the current "dueling viewpoints" version.

Your latest edits bog down the introduction with a discussion of the word "McCarthyism", as if that was key to an article on McCarthy. As I said, Mention of Herblock and a full discussion of the word McCarthyism is already in the article, it its appropriate context. KarlBunker 15:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl your wrong, your just wrong, how many people have to say the same thing. Stop with the agenda, this is not your tread, you don't get to decide what the purpose of the Lead is, or what facts from the 50's we can't use, or who is a valid newspaper reporter. Your abusive, you spend all day here but say you don't have time to read arguements. You insult people instead of addressing subject. You ask for proof, when it is given you say it doesn't matter anyways. You have hijacked this article long enough. You should not have to call McCarthy names, if he is a bad man let his actions speak for them selves. If you want to show how he was vied, find a comment, and put it in the proper context. Supporters of, opponents of, Republican senator, democratic senator.

Current schollars don't support Bush, but "Bushism" is not cited in lead if at all. You don't see warmonger, nazi, hitler, fascist or any of the things he is called, in his lead. Polls, newspaper acounts and the fact that thousands lined up all day to pay respect to him show he had a large support group. The fact he had a lavish presidential style funeral and people lined up all day to pay respect to him. A lot of people, even his opponents liked him. Were not saying the article should make him out to be a saint, only it should include accurate, verifiable information. Then the reader can decided how they feel about the man. If he was so vial and evil his actions should make that obvoius, quoting a bunch of anti-mccarthy writers isn't proof he was a bad man. Your views of him are just inaccurate. Were you alive then? Did you meet him? Did you work with him?

There are articles for McCarthism, Red Scare and Anti-communism.... This article is about Joseph McCarthy.Mantion 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If facts are missing from the article, tell me what they are. If incorrect facts or unsupported opinions are in the article, tell me what they are.

I have explained where I think your edits and ideas are mistaken. I have explained, a ridiculous number of times over, that an article about McCarthy cannot ignore what McCarthy is famous for (and now I've just explained it again). I have addressed your comments point by point (when you're reasonably brief) and you ignore what I say and just repeat yourself and complain that I'm not "addressing subject". If I'm so darn "wrong" then it should be possible for you to explain where I'm wrong by responding to what I say, instead of whining about what I supposedly don't know and what you think my "agenda" is. KarlBunker 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine then put a line in saying "McCarthy is famous for "insert a quote" then cite that source and move on. You don't have to spend a whole article trying to restate what people already think he is famous for. Then the rest of the article can be about McCarthy, the fact that he was popular to many, that he was well liked by people who knew him best, that he died in office, that he had a wife and an adopted child. People do want to know a bunch of things about McCarthy famous for "what ever you decide". People want to know thing he actually said, who supported him and who didn't, peaple are very currious of weather he was right or not, if there were actually soviet spies in the government and what the motives for people who attacked him. One fact that is missing is he had a large group of people who hated and attacked him and a large group that loved and supported him. Another fact is that he was considered a charming likeable guy. and if you want I will go through and find "Unsupported Opinions" in the article if you want. And if I tell you will you remove them?

The argument as of now is on the LEAD and what should and shouldn't be included in it. Half a paragraph dealing with investigations not pertaining to McCarthy, and half a paragraph about a political slogan used to attack the man and it's definition that seems to undermind the man's work. Saying "Bush became known as an idiot" the defining idiot to validate the attack is crazy, and you don't see it. Tell me why a term used by one side to attack and discredit the mans work, is some how not Opinion. Yah it made it into a dictionary, that doesn't mean it isn't opinion. Regardless if it is popular opinion amoung "scholars".Mantion 06:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The main thrust of your argument seems to be that the article should ignore what scholars say about McCarthy (or reduce it to a single quote), and instead should focus on something else. That's a good thing, because it means that your argument isn't with this article or with me. Your argument is with the rules of Wikipedia. I suggest you go to User talk:Jimbo Wales and tell him how you would like the rules of Wikipedia changed. You can stop telling me, because I don't own Wikipedia and I can't change the rules.

One fact that is missing is he had a large group of people who hated and attacked him and a large group that loved and supported him.

No, that isn't missing. That many people liked and believed in him is perfectly evident from the elections he won, the power he had and in the opinion polls that are quoted. You list several other things that "people want to know," and all those things are already in the article. Are you saying that those things are all that readers want to know? That readers don't want to know about McCarthy's place in history; they just want to know that he had a wife and baby daughter, etc.? If that's what you're saying, then again, your argument is with Wikipedia rules, not with me.

Another fact is that he was considered a charming likeable guy. Yes, it is missing from the article that some people thought this about him. I'll look for a reference and add it, or you can.

Your analogy with Bush and "idiot" doesn't apply and makes no sense. You've used analogies like this about a thousand times in your comments, and they've never "worked". In general, analogies aren't a good way to argue a point. It's better to stick to actual facts.

I repeat again that the lead notes the historical context of McCarthy's career, and notes what he became famous for. McCarthy is fairly unique among historical politicians in that he became famous for a single thing (again, this is what scholars say). A general survey of his life and career in the article introduction wouldn't make that clear and therefor would be misleading and incorrect. KarlBunker 08:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Later...

In response to your suggestion, I've been looking for some source I can quote about McCarthy being "liked" or "loved" or "likable" or "charming" or something like that. This would be a difficult thing to find using the index of a printed book, so I've been looking online, using both Google's web search and book search. Here is a partial list of searches that I tried:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

Mantion, I ask you to click on each one of these links and look through the results they return. You might find it educational. See if you can find any usable quote from a notable author about how "well loved" McCarthy was. Maybe you'll find something I missed, or maybe you'll come up with a search that I didn't think of and find something that way. But take a look at these results and think hard about how "unfair" this Wikipedia article is, compared to what virtually every human being on the planet Earth has to say about McCarthy. KarlBunker 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for wasting your time putting together a useless google search list? Is that how you form your decisions, by Googling things and then using that as your information, LOL. If you did that you would think Bush was an idiot, who is part of the Nazi party. Anyways, I have read maybe 15 books on the subject. Some of the books turned out to be worthless and a waste of time and just skimmed through looking for actual information. I will be happy to find countless refferences to the fact that McCarthy was considered very charming and was well like by people on both sides. But of course you will just say those sources are worthless.. So Should I bother finding them? I am on the road now and won't have a chance to do it till next week.. I have also read a number of different news paper articles, speaches and many other materials. Remember I went to public schools, I thought McCarthy was the devil at one point, then I started researching it.. This is the same with most things I learned in History, when you look into them you find out what you thought you knew, isn't even close to being right.

On a side note I was at the Truman library yesterday. I found it very interesting. Did you know his approval ratting was 22 in feb 1952? wow that is low.. 2 years later McCarthy the guy you clamed to be hated had a low of 34 with 21 percent of the people not having an opinion.. If this man was so hated and had no supporters why such high approval ratings? In fact when you look into it, most presidents had approval ratings in the 30s. And those are presidents, they don't have 21% with out an opinion. So by just approval ratings alone McCarthy was not as hated as you seem to think. Maybe you need to actually look at newspapers of the time and creditable fact based books on McCarthy and the time period. "You might find it educational"... Or you could just keep googling.Mantion 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, I would like to point out that civility is not optional here. Please talk to other editors in a repectfull fashion. HighInBC 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Like he said, Mantion. When you're ready to be civil again, I'll be happy to respond to any argument or comment you care to make. In particular, I'd be curious if you could clarify your comments about google searches. It's not about me "forming my decisions", it's about finding a useable quote from a reputable author. Google's book search can be especially useful for this purpose. KarlBunker 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC maybe you can be a little more specific as to what you are talking about?

Karl, you can respond to my argument now if you want because it was plenty civil, far more civil then you have been towards me. Do you want me read through your comments and make a section about your insults towards me and others? Google is a great tool, but when looking for information 60 years old, google isn't the best tool. Lexus Nexus searches and other such searches aren't even good for 60 year old subjects. well not to bring up any new subjects because you still need to respond to my last comments.. You always seem to make some excuse not to respond.. SO I will wait.Mantion 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, I can see why Karl would be reluctant to pursue further dialogue with you when you begin your message thus: "Well thank you for wasting your time putting together a useless google search list?" However, I am interested in your assessment of the 15 books you've read on the subject. Could you tell us (a) what they are, (b) which ones you decided are "worthless and a waste of time and just skimmed through looking for actual information," and (c) how you determined that they were "worthless and a waste of time" (and whether that was before or during the skimming process)?

Also, there's no need to wait for Karl. I think we could all benefit from taking a look at a few of the "countless references" you've said are availbale to the effect that McCarthy was "well like[d] by people on both sides." Others might turn to junk or extremist sources in a contentious matter such as this; however, since I assume we're both talking about references to responsible, accredited academics or mainstream political figures of whatever leaning, I promise for my part not to say such "sources are worthless," whichever position they support. I look forward to reading what you come up with. Best, Dan—DCGeist 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mantion, I'm not sure what argument you think I didn't respond to, since your argument consisted mainly of "LOL", and I did respond to that by pointing out your error in characterizing my use of Google as something to "form my decisions." You have now presented a new argument: that Google isn't adequate for searches of historical subjects, so I'll respond to that. You're correct that Google's web search is often not very good for finding scholarly material, but one can often find articles and excerpts from books by reputable authors. More to the point, half of my searches, as you would have noticed if you bothered to either click on the links or fully read my response above, were made using Google's book search. Since historians publish books, a book search is a perfectly valid way to find historical information.

And please don't bother repeating your contention that most or all books about McCarthy are biased against him. I've already responded to that by explaining that if you believe that, your argument is with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, not with me.

I agree with DCGeist in being eager to see what sources you have. Since you say you don't have access to them at the moment, perhaps we could put this discussion on hold until you do. Then perhaps you'll be able to present something more useful and compelling than your personal opinions. KarlBunker 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

DCgeist I am very pleased to answer your questions that you ask. I have been looking to have a discussion, Normally I just get insulted, told I am only repeating myself, that nothing I bring up is worth discussion or that I am clueless or the subject is changed by giving me a list of 19 Google searches that show nothing relevant then being told “You might find it educational”.

As I said before I read maybe 15 books on the subject. I didn't say I read them last week. I might of read more then 15 or less then 15, It is a guess. I became interested in McCarthy shortly after I broke off an engagement 9 years later. I spent a lot of time in the library as I worked nights and was often bored during the day.. Now that being said I don't have a list of all the books I read. I had no idea that someday I would have a chance to share what I learned. I didn’t make a list or write a paper I did it for personal knowledge because I love history and after finishing school I was shocked by how wrong the information I had been fed was. So yes I wish I could tell you the exact number and names of the books, but that simply is not possible. As for the books I didn’t find reading and only skimmed through, they were mostly un cited or simply stated opinion or repeating the opinions of another book It was truly sad how many authors had never met the person, talked to a co-worker a family member, or anyone that even knew McCarthy. Needless to say I read most any book on the subject and the time while I was in Colorado Springs.

A few years ago I did read one that I remember because it was so similar to my own conclusions on the subject. Which is very rare, that you find a book who echo’s your own thoughts. Needless to say I didn’t remember it correctly and had to look it up after I found this page on McCarthy. In my opinion the best book on the subject of McCarthy is, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator" by Arthur Herman. It is the best because it is very fair. Most books on the subject are from authors that Hated McCarthy or Supported McCarthy.. You often miss part of the story when people seem to have picked sides and often get fed inaccurate information. I do not have access to that book as I never bought it, I wish I had bought a truck load of them, because it seems to be out of print now and seems to have increased in value. Well my library system says they have 2 copies so maybe I can pick one this week.

It should be obvious I am found of this book and author because I often cite his work. So to keep you busy here is the interview that got me to read his book a few years ago..

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1553

Here are some quotes from the interview

"think he was--from the people that I have interviewed who did know him, he was someone who was a warm, engaging, intensely physical man. He was the kind of person who corners you and buttonholes you at a party, takes hold of your lapel, has his arm around you from the other side here, who--who is charming and engaging, has the ability to--you know, this--this sort of gruff and rather vulgar sense of humor here. He is the kind of person who's, you know, very, very popular in male locker rooms and in--and in barrooms here. And most people found him--even his--even his political opponents--found him to be a very likable--likable individual here."

"BRIAN LAMB, host: Arthur Herman, author of "Joseph McCarthy," why do you think we needed to re-examine the life and legacy of America's most-hated senator?

Professor ARTHUR HERMAN (Author, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator"): Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is that we now know a lot more about the times and the context in which McCarthy had his political career and built his career of notoriety. We also know a lot more about Joe McCarthy, the man, and about his own life. And what I wanted to do was to really put it together in a book that would give people a broad introduction, both to the period, but also to Joe McCarthy, the man; to understand who he was, why he has the kind of tremendous re--reputation and notoriety that he does and to understand where that came from, what the origins of it were and maybe to sort of rethink just what we really do--h--how we really assess Joe McCarthy now, with almost 50 years of distance between ourselves and him."

"LAMB: But in the end he also had a state--or Senate funeral.

Prof. HERMAN: Yeah, which was an extraordinary thing, and it was, in many ways, a kind of--well, it was a couple of things. One was, I think, there were a lot of senators who voted for censure who had their doubts about the grounds for doing so. There had to be a way to stop Joe McCarthy. He had simply gotten out of control, had really sort of stretched the envelope of the institution by his excesses and by his reckless accusations. There had to be a way to stop him; censure seemed to be the way to do it. But the effect that it had on McCarthy, the--the tremendous physical and mental decline that McCarthy suffered as a result of it, I think came as a shock to everybody, and his death coming so quickly after the censure, there was a feeling that--on the part of the Senate to--that--in a--in a part of the Senate to kind of make amends for this by giving him this kind of--this kind of funeral, which would ordinarily only be reserved for Supreme Court justices or for--or for presidents."

Well anyways it is a good interview if you haven't read it yet, you might want to.. I agree with much of it.

I stumbled on to this page, and was stunned how wrong it was. I don't really have the time you all have to read it every day. So you will have to be patient for me to find the countless references to him being "likeable" I know I read it in many books and other printed media. I not saying everyone supported him and his actions, but it was all politics. He wasn't attacked for his personality. On Nov 8 1954 the "Catholic War Veterans of New York presenting McCarthy with 250,000 signatures of citizens protesting his censure". And just to repeat myself 30,000 people lined up to pay final respect for Joseph McCarthy.

I will try to be as fast as possible in finding sources for you, thanks you for actually responding to what I wrote.Mantion 07:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I was just thinking about all these reports I've been reading about Hillary Clinton and John McCain (talk about opposite sides!) knocking back shots together (or...uh...not) and wondering how much, if anything, their social skills will have to do with ultimately defining their place in history. I mean, as I understand it, if you were a Communist toadie in favor with Mao, you got treated to one HELL of a party (though, of course, the Chairman kept all the really HOT 15-year-old hotties for himself)--how do you think that should be reflected in the way we report his legacy? Anyway, looking forward to reading through those sources. Best, D—DCGeist 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mantion: Currently the best deal for Arthur Herman's biography is "new & used" in Amazon UK: [20] About $25, including shipping to the U.S. KarlBunker 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Crucible

It seems like something about The Crucible should be added. If I remember correctly, didn't Arthur Miller write it to compare the hearings to the Salem Witch Trials? 75.47.112.82 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's covered in McCarthyism. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral section heading

A straightforward question: Which of these two section headings is more neutral?

In my opinion, "Continuing controversy" is. "Recent new support for McCarthy" makes the statement that the evidence discussed in the section "supports" McCarthy. As is stated in the section itself, not everyone agrees with this characterization. Rjensen states in his edit summary that the word "controversy" is POV. I submit that, as the content of the section makes clear, this is a factual description. KarlBunker 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But why emphasize it as "controversy"? How about something like "Recent interpretations of McCarthy"? I agree that "controversy" in this context verges on POV.

Regardless, we should reduce the emphasis on Ann Coulter's opinion here; she's not a reliable source of historic analysis, given her extreme points of view in pretty much every category. I don't to get into an Ann Coulter debate, but we do need to consider the source here. There are other and better, more scholarly sources for the same argument, and they should take prominence. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying, but I'm just not gettin' it. My dictionary defines "controversy" as "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." Isn't it the case that this section is about disagreement? Or to look at it from another angle, if you think this word expresses a POV, what is the POV? Can you rephrase it? Also, I would like to see an opinion regarding the current heading: "Recent new support for McCarthy." Do you think that's neutral?

I agree that Coulter isn't a reliable source, but she is a notable "voice" in this particular issue. The section uses a few direct quotes from her to give a sense of where she stands. It doesn't use her as a source of scholarship. As for "other and better, more scholarly sources for the same argument," I'd love to hear of any that you know of. The section mentions a couple of "others", but I'm not sure they're much "better". KarlBunker 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't like the other title either. It just feels clumsy. My suggestion was too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say "Continuing Controversy" but IMHO the heading would be changed period since neither one is reall an NPOV. --teh tennisman ^{Speak your piece!}_{People person!FREE STUFF CLICK HERE} 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ongoing debate"? -Will Beback 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Recent new support for McCarthy." recent = true & NPOV; new support = true & NPOV. Alas, I think some people don't want there to be any recent new support for McCarthy and so want to minimize the point. That's POV editing. Rjensen 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just the word 'support' brings in POV to me. Support means being on one side (both sides if you're really capable), and so doesn't it imply bias? I haven't read the article, but if McCarthy is 'good', then support is good, but if MaCarthy is 'bad', then support would be resented. Which is why I don't think Rjensen is being as NPOV as he thinks. Maybe some word other than support? Or like Will's suggestion, "Continuing debate" or "Recent new debate concerning MacCarthy".130.95.106.154 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is reporting there is new support for McC--that is, he has new supporters. POV is to tell readers what side they ought to take. Rjensen 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to the fact that this is a longterm project, there is a prejudice against using "recent" in Wikipedia articles. How long does something stay recent? When do we come back and edit the heading? Let's pick a heading now that won't become dated. -Will Beback 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Recent" should be good for a few years. The article gets updated daily so obsolescence is not an issue. Rjensen 10:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

'Update' is not the term I would use to describe what is going on here. Avoiding 'recently' is a matter of encyclopedic style, not a question of how often the text is edited. -- Donald Albury 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ongoing debate" sounds good to me. I think the word recent should be avoided see WP:MOS#Date and time. GameKeeper 11:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

From Third opinion:

I think since you have a section about his condemnation, it would be plenty neutral to have a section called Recent support or just Support or something like that after it. Could that not be a good place and name for the information? HighInBC 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No Wonder Every Teacher Warns Against Using Wikipedia as a Research Tool or a Source!

The article on Joe McCarthy is so biased, I don't know where to begin! For one, Senator McCarthy HAS been vindicated by the Venona cables! Almost EVERY SINGLE charge he made has been verified! Why doesn't anyone admit this without making pathetic excuses like: "Of the many individuals that figured in McCarthy's investigations or speeches, most were already suspected of being Communists or at least of having leftist politics." Is that not beside the point? Was Senator McCarthy trying to establish factual evidence for fun?! NO! NO! NO!!! He was trying to weed out communists from OUR GOVERNMENT!!! By printing this stuff, you are serving no legitimate purpose! The sad thing is, most people assume this website is a real encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regalseagull (talk • contribs)

But we had such a nice time at the Temperance Society meeting. What ever has come over you, my friend? Have you, perhaps, run out of snuff?—DCGeist 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Regalseagull, most people seem to find references to reliable sources to be slightly more compelling than capital letters and exclamation points. If it weren't for that annoying little fact, you'd have a valid point there. KarlBunker 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to get to the library, just wanted to point out that Regalseagull is for the most part correct. This article is.. Terrible.. As I have said before it needs to be rewritten based on the man, things he actually did, people he actually charged, things he actually said. This article has baseless accusations, either lacking citation or citing nothing but McCarthy's enemies. If he was so bad his actions would speak for himself. Why is there no list of people McCarthy actually attacked. The lead is better but still off track, it should be like all other articles in giving a summery of the rest of the article. It should not set the stage it should not explain the times. That can be done in the body of the article if needed. Not to mention there is a separate article for McCarthyism, Red Scare, Anti-communism. This article is about the MAN, not the time he lived in...Mantion 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Mantion. Great to hear from you again. I was interested to see you "point out that Regalseagull is for the most part correct." You must be referring to his statement "Almost EVERY SINGLE charge he [McCarthy] made has been verified!" I wasn't aware of that at all. Here's a few major charges made by McCarthy--I'm looking forward to you supplying the evidence that they've been verified so we can get that in the article:

• McCarthy claimed to have the names of 57 "known Communists" working at the State Department
• He later claimed to have the names of 81 "known Communists" working at the State Department
• He claimed that American citizens Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service, and Philip Jessup were disloyal and either Communists or actively pro-Communist
• He claimed that diplomat John P. Davies had attempted to "put Communists and espionage agents in key spots in the Central Intelligence Agency"

Of course, there are many more, but those are a few big ones for starters.—DCGeist 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• • • Note the word "almost"

Oh yeah, did you hear the one about McCarthy picking the number '57' after seeing a Hienz Ketchup bottle!?! HA! The truth is--- ---no one knows what number he cited at ehe Wheeling speech... And even if there were differences in the numbers, I figure it was worth it... He made his point, and alerted the American public to the issue... Maybe McCarthy wasn't such a bad guy after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regalseagull (talk • contribs)

I'm so confused, nobletern. What point are you making with your advisory to "Note the word 'almost'"? Please tell me you're not admitting that virtually none (or, as you might put it, NONE) of McCarthy's major charges has ever been verified? I'm terribly disappointed...I mean...DISAPPOINTED!!! You swore that "Almost EVERY SINGLE charge he made has been verified!" I want to believe you, nobletern. Just tell us--which ones? I listed his most famous charges--surely they are what you were referring to, buddy, because there's no way you could be arguing that we should just judge McCarthy on the basis of trivia.

By the way Big Bird, I didn't say a thing about the Wheeling speech. We know for a...uh...fact (you do believe in those, right?) that McCarthy later said he had the names of 57 "known Communists" in the State Dept., and we know for a...fact that he, again later, said he had the names of 81 "known Communists". What were those, nobletern? Were those...you know...LIES? (I know you believe in those!) When McCarthy claimed that your fellow citizens (you are an American, are you not, nobletern?) Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service, and Philip Jessup were disloyal, has that actually been verified or was your boy McC just dragging their names through the mud for...how did you put it?...fun.

Anyway, surely he made some minor, li'l charges that nobody paid much attention to at the time that have now been verified. Tell us what they are, nobletern. I know you wouldn't dare open your mouth unless you had the hard, cold facts at your disposal. Please be good enough to share them with us now--along with your verifiable sources, so all the doubters can be shown the regalseagull TRUTH.—DCGeist 06:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Who keeps erasing my comments to Mr. Geist? --regalseagull

regalseagull -- You can sign your comments by typing 4 tildes, like so: ~~~~, though of course you have to be correctly logged in under your username for that to work. You can learn more about the basics of Wikipedia by going to Wikipedia:Introduction and browsing through the links. Another link you should especially investigate is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

And lastly, please note that this page, and Wikipedia discussion pages in general are not a chat room, and not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

KarlBunker 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In the "On going debate" chapter, it should be clearly stated that the "modern" authors who want reevaluation of McCarthy are either conservative or anti-communist authors, i.e. Ann Coulter and William F Buckley are obviously a conservative author, while John Birch Society is an anti-communist organisation. Without stating these facts, the words "some modern authors" has a slight misleading intention. The words sound like "neutral authors" or "authors based on the perception of the majority of the people", which of course is not true.