Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Gardasil

2007-05-28T05:54:38Z

JohnSmith: /* Reverted Liberal Bias */

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Gardasil

2007-05-28T05:24:27Z

JohnSmith: Why remove a properly cited text and replace it with uncited original research?

'''Gardasil''', the recently-available HPV vaccine, protects against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which are sexually transmitted diseases that are endemic in the human population and which approximately 80% of sexually active adults carry <ref>http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hnf/hnf_6403.htm</ref>. These strains of HPV have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases and may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects. <ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.[http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf]

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known and there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine. Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine. Under clinical trial conditions, the reports of adverse or severe reactions were not any higher for those receiving the vaccine versus those receiving a placebo.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) <ref>JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007</ref> disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.

Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine ("Gardasil") and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

Alternative means of protection against cervical cancer include abstinence, and condom use, which does not provide absolute protection, but does significantly reduce the likelihood of HPV transmission.<ref>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2645</ref><ref> Report to Congress 2004: Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gerberding, J.L., M.D., M.P.H. (January 2004): pp. 3-4. http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/2004HPV%20Report.pdf</ref> HPV infection can be detected by pap smear which is effective if done regularly, but does not ''prevent'' infection, only allows for treatment to prevent progression from infection to cancer. <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#cancer</ref>. Condoms are not a safeguard against infection
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said in a report published in the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

----
<references/>

Gardasil

2007-05-27T20:39:33Z

JohnSmith:

Muhammad

2007-05-27T17:53:54Z

JohnSmith: /* Life of Muhammad */

== Life of Muhammad==
Muhammad (A.D. 570-632) or Mohammed, was the founder of Islam. He began life as a wealthy tradesmen, one of the elite of his city of [[Mecca]]. He claimed to be privy to certain [[revelations]] in middle age, speaking of a need to abandon worship of the many gods who dominated Mecca's religion at the time, and worship the one God, [[Allah]].

These early revelations spoke of a need to return to the [[monotheism]] of [[Abraham]]; in this way, at an early age, Muhammad saw himself as reviving an ancient faith, a perceived correction to [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], and restoring his people to what he saw as their rightful position as the true founders and heirs of monotheism. In these revelations, submission to the will of God - [[Allah]] - was critical. Muhammad's fledgling religion continued to develop throughout his life, through periodic revelations often relating directly to events currently facing his new faith.

The faith caught on slowly, winning only a few converts in Mecca (the first being his wife, Khadija. Under increased pressure and ostracism from elders in Mecca, Muhammad began the [[hijra]], an organized exodus of his followers from Mecca to the city of [[Medina]]. [[Muslims]] date the formation of their religion to the ''hijra'' itself, even beginning their dating system at this point.

At Medina, the new Muslims immediately adopted an aggressive stance, seeking to coexist with the [[Jews]] living in Medina on ''his'' terms. The encounter ended badly, though, with Muhammad dividing and conquering the Jewish groups in Medina, ordering the massacre of the [[Qurayza]] [[Jewish]] tribe, as they refused changing their [[religion]] to his submission, after (possibly) fabricating a cause to break what is called by modern historians the [[Compact of Medina]].<ref>Berkey, ''The Formation of Islam''</ref>

A controversial point of Muhammad's life was his marriage to [[Aisha bint Abi Bakr|Aisha]], daughter of [[Abu Bakr]], who was six years old at the time of marriage.<ref>''Sahih Bukhari'' 5:58:234</ref><ref>Sahih Muslim 8:3311</ref> The marriage was consumated when Aisha was nine.<ref> D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40</ref> The narratives describing her age at marriage as six are narrated by Aisha herself. Though Aisha was known to use numerical substitution in other hadith, such as in the hadith of Laylat Al-Qadr where she substituted 1 for 21 and 3 for 23, which is a common way of referencing numbers in Arabic when the base number is established. Some scholars argue that she could have been speaking in such numerical substitution when narrating the Hadith regarding her age at marriage, thus rendering 16 as 6 and 19 as 9.<ref>Hakim Niaz Ahmad, '' تحقیق عمرعا،شہ صدیقہ (Research on the age of Ayesha)'', Mashkoor Academy, [[Karachi]].</ref> There is additional disagreement over her age at marriage, and a number of Islamic scholars believe that Aisha was older at the time of marriage. <ref>495|525|58,495,10,66,675,15,76,735,45,66,870,15|-1|0</ref><ref>Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, ''[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Age_of_Aisha Age of Aisha]'', Al-Rahman Publishing Trust, [[Karachi]]</ref><ref>Maulana Muhammad Ali, ''The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad'', p. 30, 1992, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat, ISBN 0-913321-19-2</ref>

== After Muhammad's Death ==

Muhammad's death at an early age caused the splintering of his religion into new sects, over the question of succession. The groups called themselves the [[Sunnis]] and the [[Shiite|Shi'as]]. Many attribute this split to the high degree to which authority was centered in the powerful character of Muhammad himself: without his powerful personality, the movement could not survive intact.<ref>Bernard Lewis, ''What Went Wrong''</ref>

The failure or splintering of movements built around a charismatic leader is a recurring sociological problem, often studied by psychologists, and referred to as the problem of the [[routinization of charisma]]. [[Christianity]] faced the same problem, and many attribute the conquest of this problem to the leadership of the apostle [[Paul]].<ref>Maximillian Weber, ''Theory of Social and Economic Organization,'' in the chapter "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization," see also Len Oakes, "Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities"</ref>.

In accordance with the Islamic [[hadith]], it is considered proper to add an honorary phrase of "Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH)" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam (or SAW)".

==See Also==
*[[Islam]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades)

== Notes ==

HIR | Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah [http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religious people]]

Muhammad

2007-05-27T17:53:21Z

JohnSmith: /* Life of Muhammad */

== Life of Muhammad==
Muhammad (A.D. 570-632) or Mohammed, was the founder of Islam. He began life as a wealthy tradesmen, one of the elite of his city of [[Mecca]]. He claimed to be privy to certain [[revelations]] in middle age, speaking of a need to abandon worship of the many gods who dominated Mecca's religion at the time, and worship the one God, [[Allah]].

These early revelations spoke of a need to return to the [[monotheism]] of [[Abraham]]; in this way, at an early age, Muhammad saw himself as reviving an ancient faith, a perceived correction to [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], and restoring his people to what he saw as their rightful position as the true founders and heirs of monotheism. In these revelations, submission to the will of God - [[Allah]] - was critical. Muhammad's fledgling religion continued to develop throughout his life, through periodic revelations often relating directly to events currently facing his new faith.

The faith caught on slowly, winning only a few converts in Mecca (the first being his wife, Khadija. Under increased pressure and ostracism from elders in Mecca, Muhammad began the [[hijra]], an organized exodus of his followers from Mecca to the city of [[Medina]]. [[Muslims]] date the formation of their religion to the ''hijra'' itself, even beginning their dating system at this point.

At Medina, the new Muslims immediately adopted an aggressive stance, seeking to coexist with the [[Jews]] living in Medina on ''his'' terms. The encounter ended badly, though, with Muhammad dividing and conquering the Jewish groups in Medina, ordering the massacre of the [[Qurayza]] [[Jewish]] tribe, as they refused changing their [[religion]] to his submission, after (possibly) fabricating a cause to break what is called by modern historians the [[Compact of Medina]].<ref>Berkey, ''The Formation of Islam''</ref>

A controversial point of Muhammad's life was his marriage to [[Aisha bint Abi Bakr|Aisha]], daughter of [[Abu Bakr]], who was six years old at the time of marriage.<ref>''Sahih Bukhari'' 5:58:234</ref><ref>Sahih Muslim 8:3311</ref> The marriage was consumated when Aisha was nine.<ref> D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40</ref> The narratives describing her age at marriage as six are narrated by Aisha herself. Though Aisha was known to use numerical substitution in other Hadith, such as in the hadith of Laylat Al-Qadr where she substituted 1 for 21 and 3 for 23, which is a common way of referencing numbers in Arabic when the base number is established. Some scholars argue that she could have been speaking in such numerical substitution when narrating the Hadith regarding her age at marriage, thus rendering 16 as 6 and 19 as 9.<ref>Hakim Niaz Ahmad, '' تحقیق عمرعا،شہ صدیقہ (Research on the age of Ayesha)'', Mashkoor Academy, [[Karachi]].</ref> There is additional disagreement over her age at marriage, and a number of Islamic scholars believe that Aisha was older at the time of marriage. <ref>495|525|58,495,10,66,675,15,76,735,45,66,870,15|-1|0</ref><ref>Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, ''[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Age_of_Aisha Age of Aisha]'', Al-Rahman Publishing Trust, [[Karachi]]</ref><ref>Maulana Muhammad Ali, ''The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad'', p. 30, 1992, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat, ISBN 0-913321-19-2</ref>

== After Muhammad's Death ==

Muhammad's death at an early age caused the splintering of his religion into new sects, over the question of succession. The groups called themselves the [[Sunnis]] and the [[Shiite|Shi'as]]. Many attribute this split to the high degree to which authority was centered in the powerful character of Muhammad himself: without his powerful personality, the movement could not survive intact.<ref>Bernard Lewis, ''What Went Wrong''</ref>

The failure or splintering of movements built around a charismatic leader is a recurring sociological problem, often studied by psychologists, and referred to as the problem of the [[routinization of charisma]]. [[Christianity]] faced the same problem, and many attribute the conquest of this problem to the leadership of the apostle [[Paul]].<ref>Maximillian Weber, ''Theory of Social and Economic Organization,'' in the chapter "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization," see also Len Oakes, "Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities"</ref>.

In accordance with the Islamic [[hadith]], it is considered proper to add an honorary phrase of "Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH)" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam (or SAW)".

==See Also==
*[[Islam]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades)

== Notes ==

HIR | Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah [http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religious people]]

Muhammad

2007-05-27T17:22:15Z

JohnSmith:

== Life of Muhammad==
Muhammad (A.D. 570-632) or Mohammed, was the founder of Islam. He began life as a wealthy tradesmen, one of the elite of his city of [[Mecca]]. He claimed to be privy to certain [[revelations]] in middle age, speaking of a need to abandon worship of the many gods who dominated Mecca's religion at the time, and worship the one God, [[Allah]].

These early revelations spoke of a need to return to the [[monotheism]] of [[Abraham]]; in this way, at an early age, Muhammad saw himself as reviving an ancient faith, a perceived correction to [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], and restoring his people to what he saw as their rightful position as the true founders and heirs of monotheism. In these revelations, submission to the will of God - [[Allah]] - was critical. Muhammad's fledgling religion continued to develop throughout his life, through periodic revelations often relating directly to events currently facing his new faith.

The faith caught on slowly, winning only a few converts in Mecca (the first being his wife, Khadija. Under increased pressure and ostracism from elders in Mecca, Muhammad began the [[hijra]], an organized exodus of his followers from Mecca to the city of [[Medina]]. [[Muslims]] date the formation of their religion to the ''hijra'' itself, even beginning their dating system at this point.

At Medina, the new Muslims immediately adopted an aggressive stance, seeking to coexist with the [[Jews]] living in Medina on ''his'' terms. The encounter ended badly, though, with Muhammad dividing and conquering the Jewish groups in Medina, ordering the massacre of the [[Qurayza]] [[Jewish]] tribe, as they refused changing their [[religion]] to his submission, after (possibly) fabricating a cause to break what is called by modern historians the [[Compact of Medina]].<ref>Berkey, ''The Formation of Islam''</ref>

A controversial point of Muhammad's life was his marriage to [[Aisha bint Abi Bakr|Aisha]], daughter of [[Abu Bakr]], who was six years old at the time of marriage.<ref>''Sahih Bukhari'' 5:58:234</ref><ref>Sahih Muslim 8:3311</ref> The marriage was consumated when Aisha was nine<ref> D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40</ref> However, there is disagreement over her age, and a number of Islamic scholars believe that Aisha was older at the time of marriage. <ref>495|525|58,495,10,66,675,15,76,735,45,66,870,15|-1|0</ref><ref>Hakim Niaz Ahmad, '' تحقیق عمرعا،شہ صدیقہ (Research on the age of Ayesha)'', Mashkoor Academy, [[Karachi]].</ref><ref>Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, ''[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Age_of_Aisha Age of Aisha]'', Al-Rahman Publishing Trust, [[Karachi]]</ref><ref>Maulana Muhammad Ali, ''The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad'', p. 30, 1992, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat, ISBN 0-913321-19-2</ref>

== After Muhammad's Death ==

Muhammad's death at an early age caused the splintering of his religion into new sects, over the question of succession. The groups called themselves the [[Sunnis]] and the [[Shiite|Shi'as]]. Many attribute this split to the high degree to which authority was centered in the powerful character of Muhammad himself: without his powerful personality, the movement could not survive intact.<ref>Bernard Lewis, ''What Went Wrong''</ref>

The failure or splintering of movements built around a charismatic leader is a recurring sociological problem, often studied by psychologists, and referred to as the problem of the [[routinization of charisma]]. [[Christianity]] faced the same problem, and many attribute the conquest of this problem to the leadership of the apostle [[Paul]].<ref>Maximillian Weber, ''Theory of Social and Economic Organization,'' in the chapter "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization," see also Len Oakes, "Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities"</ref>.

In accordance with the Islamic [[hadith]], it is considered proper to add an honorary phrase of "Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH)" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam (or SAW)".

==See Also==
*[[Islam]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades)

== Notes ==

HIR | Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah [http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religious people]]

Muhammad

2007-05-27T17:08:54Z

JohnSmith: Aisha was not Muhammad's wife until much later in his life.

Muhammad

2007-05-27T16:29:28Z

JohnSmith: Remove POV

Selman v. Cobb County School District

2007-05-27T15:09:54Z

JohnSmith:

In 2004, the [[ACLU]] filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers.

The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>

An [[Amicus Curiae]] (friend of the Court) brief was filed by several organizations opposing the anti-evolution disclaimer required in Cobb County.<ref>Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups, Selman v. Cobb County School District [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref> The organizations were [[Colorado Citizens for Science]], [[Kansas Citizens for Science]], [[Michigan Citizens for Science]], [[Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education]], [[New Mexico Academy of Science]], [[New Mexicans for Science and Reason]], [[New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education]], and [[Texas Citizens for Science]]. They argued that "Intelligent Design advocates misrepresent evolutionary science", and that "there is no genuine scientific controversy over the validity of evolution".

The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal due to irregularities in the handling of evidence and its preservation in the court records.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was remanded to district court for a retrial, but was settled out of court prior to that retrial. An [[Amicus Curiae]] (friend of the Court) brief was filed by Foundation for Moral Law, Inc. in support of the defendants and in support of reversal. They argued that the constitutionality of the stickers placed on science textbooks should be determined by the text of the first amendment, not "judically-fabricated tests", because the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, and "the [[Lemon test]] and other constitutional counterfeits foment hostility toward religion and its adherents"; that the school board's placement of a sticker on certain science textbooks is not a "law respecting an establishment of religion"; and that the textbook stickers did not violate the text of the Georgia Constitution.<ref>Amicus Curiae of [[Foundation for Moral Law, Inc]], Selman v. Cobb County School District [http://scit.us/cobb/moore-amicus.pdf]</ref>

The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Establishment clause

2007-05-27T15:07:15Z

JohnSmith: New page: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment restricts Congress with regards to public practice of religion. The text of the clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an...

The Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] restricts Congress with regards to public practice of religion. The text of the clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As a result of this clause, the government may not establish an official state religion, nor give political preference to one religion over another.

The Establishment Clause is also complemented by the [[Free Exercise Clause]] which continues "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In addition to being restricted from favoring one religion over another, the government may not unduly restrict one religion over another.

Gardasil

2007-05-27T14:48:00Z

JohnSmith: Just because you don't like an edit doesn't make it liberal. Restored cited and factual information.

'''Gardasil''', the recently-available HPV vaccine, protects against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which are sexually transmitted diseases that are endemic in the human population and which approximately 80% of sexually active adults carry <ref>http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hnf/hnf_6403.htm</ref>. These strains of HPV have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases and may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects. <ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.[http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf]

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known and there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine. Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine. Under clinical trial conditions, the reports of adverse or severe reactions were not any higher for those receiving the vaccine versus those receiving a placebo.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) <ref>JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007</ref> disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.

Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine ("Gardasil") and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

Alternative means of protection against cervical cancer include abstinence, and condom use, which doesn't provide absolute protection, but does significantly reduce the likelihood of HPV transmission.<ref>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2645</ref><ref> Report to Congress 2004: Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gerberding, J.L., M.D., M.P.H. (January 2004): pp. 3-4. http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/2004HPV%20Report.pdf</ref> HPV infection can be detected by pap smear which is effective if done regularly, but does not ''prevent'' infection, only allows for treatment to prevent progression from infection to cancer. <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#cancer</ref>. Condoms are not a safeguard against infection
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said in a report published in the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

----
<references/>

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-23T23:27:09Z

JohnSmith: It's not CP's place to say who can and cannot be trusted.

[[Image:Bgnfy6n.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''' is the current president of the [[Iran|Islamic Republic of Iran]], and the former mayor of [[Tehran]]. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of [[Islamic]] fundamentalism, strong anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into [[Nuclear program of Iran|producing nuclear technology]], possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor.[[Image:Hostage.jpg|thumb|240px|right|The AP photo.]]

The inset photo taken 26 years prior shows a man looking very much like a younger version of today's Ahmadinejad at the time of the 1979 [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] as someone involved with the hostage taking. Five former American hostages have stated that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. A former US intelligence officer, said "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body." <ref>*[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4115 Ahmadinejad - Hostage Taker?], Daniel Pipes ''Kommersant'' (Moscow daily), November 13, 2006.</ref> However, some former hostages dispute this claim. <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref> Additionally, a number of individuals who were actually involved in the hostage taking have denied Ahmedinejad's involvement. <ref>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16</ref> <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html</ref> A CIA report was commissioned to determine whether or not Ahmedinejad was involved in the hostage taking, and that report determined that the evidence was at best inconclusive. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2</ref> <ref>http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html</ref>

Ahmadinajed's foreign policies have been criticized by many within his country and government, who think he is too extreme and will cause their country to be attacked by the [[United States]].

Former Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] has often compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to [[Adolf Hitler]].{{fact}}

==Rerefences==
<references/>

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]

Talk:Joseph McCarthy

2007-05-22T21:46:19Z

JohnSmith:

{{protect|RobS}}This article is horrendously written. Truly. Would someone with some good sources tear it apart?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'd take a look at it now, but I'm going to work soon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It seems a shame to mention only the horrid propoganda about this true American hero. Maybe we can work out a compromise. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 12:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The latest version, although stripped down, is more respectful to this great man. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 14:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Although the wikipedia article continues to smear and blacken the name of this great American, I was able to use some of it as a base to flesh out this article to provide some more detail about the great Senator. I hope you like it.
{|
| style="background:orange" | [[Image:ccbyncsa.png|right]] This comment was left by [[User:frijole|frijole]]. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US] license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ license page] for more information.
|} 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Long live the Communist Party of the United States! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==General discussion==

VENONA Files section should be a separate article in my view.

Well... I hate to go against the grain but the only reason why he's notable is because of the bad things that he did do. And this is the new century, do we really need to keep acting like communism is still the big bad enemy? Last time I checked most communist countries fell out of power, sans China, and democracy still reigns over most of the world. And are the flowery words really needed? Of course it's heroic, what kind of a liberal fool are you to have to be told as such? --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Go ahead and list the specific bad things that he did. Just don't put meaningless generalities, such as saying that he was "discredited". I put in the actual censure finding against him. Someone else put in how he exaggerated his war record. Do you have anything else to add? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Basically what happened, IMO, as one who has studied this period at length, the FBI & NSA kept Venona evidence a closely guarded secret for several reasons, so they needed evidence ''from other'' sources to go into a court of law. Now, if the FBI led McCarthy to a prime suspect, that would tip the KGB that the US had evidence to suspect such a one. And the Communist conspiracy, which in fact was found to exist based upon several US Government Reports from the 1960s on, was extremely large scale indeed. No fewer than 400 involved, most likely at least 800, and possibly as high as 1200. There were two CPUSA organizations, the "open party", and the "underground apparatus". In my view, the FBI gave McCarthy basically dead-end files.

:::Here an understanding of the relationship between Hoover & McCarthy is necessary. McCarthy was an ex-judge, and Hoover a cop. So the relationship was not unlike any routine law enforcement official going before a judge asking for a search warrant based upon the evidence in hand. But this was not a Court, and McCarthy was willing to use his Legislative Committee to more or less perform an Executive and quasi-Judicial function. The FBI didn't want to tip its hand regarding its real suspects, and the Communist Party membership was quite often an intimate family affair. So the FBI in many instances would hand McCarthy a file of, say, a brother-in-law to the real suspect. Now the person called before Committee may have been a member of the open party, and may have even known his family relative was involved in some questionable things, and the persons' FBI file may have had some dirt or embarrassing thing in it, so they were essentially being blackmailed -- rat out somebody you know, or all this junk in your file becomes public.

:::That's moreless my picture of how it worked. The question remains did McCarthy know he was getting bogus info from the FBI, and I would likewise say he did not. This infact explains the Army-McCarthy hearings, cause Army Signals Intelligence is who handled Venona, and I think at some point McCarthy realized the files from the FBI were dead end, and that info originated somewhere in the Army, so it appeared the Army was hiding something, which indeed they were, the Venona project. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Let me give 3 illustrations how this theory works. Communist Party cells worked as ''cadres'' often using family members.

::::(1) Ruth Greenglass's testimony sent her brother and sister-in-law, Julius & Ethel (nee Greenglass) to the electric chair.

::::(2) Oppenheimer was a member of cadre that consisted of his wife, Kitty Harrison, and his brother Frank Oppenheimer.

::::(3) Alger Hiss, according to Venona, lead a group "largely consisting of his relatives", i.e. his wife Priscilla Hiss and brother Donald Hiss.

::::(4) Here's a forth; Flora Wolschin, and her parents, Maria Wicher and Enos Wicher were all Venona spies.

::::(5) Here's another; John Abt married Harold Wares widow. Abt was a KGB operative identified in Venona and Ware once headed the group Hiss, Chambers and Harry Dexter White all belonged to.

::::So it very often was a family affair. The FBI decided it would not use VENONA materials to prosecute cause that would reveal to the USSR that the US had broken its codes. The US was faced with two problems: (1) remove security risks, both known & unknown from sensitive jobs; (2) prosecute, if possible, using evidence ''other than'' Venona those known to be in the service of the KGB ''without disclosing in an open courtroom the nature of the proof''. But as a matter of priority, given the serious dangers at that time of the Soviet Union gaining nuclear know-how from American citizens, removing them from sensitive jobs ''was more of a priority'' than prosecuting for espionage. And there remained the problem that many code names had yet to be identified, i.e. the FBI knew they were there but didn't know who they were.

::::So this is were my theory of Hoover's relationship to McCarthy comes in. Hoover most probably held back the files on the prominent suspects involved in espionage activity, but often had files on relatives or close friends who in many instances also had been party members at one time though not necessarily invovled in espionage.

::::The closed door transcripts were released about four years ago. Some are quite interesting, others have remarkably shocking drivel, like it being revealed someone had once been arrested in a public mens room with another man. This sort of stuff, in a closed door hearing, smacks of strongarm intimidation tactics. Though I do not beleive McCarthy knew he was being used by Hoover this way. McCarthy probably got the idea from Hoover that whoever they were investigating was either the big fish or was gonna lead them to the big fish, probably not knowing the FBI had little more evidence other than a certain family member had once been a member of the open, or above ground party, and guilty of some embarassing stuff at one time. Needless to say on the other hand, these sort of intimidation tactics to get somebody to rat-out a family member who perhaps was facing the electric chair, by exposing in a public forum all sorts of things someone may not wish to have known, has generated the intense hatred for McCarthy that still fuses some people with anger at the mention of his name. But the story doesn't end there. There is moral responsibility on the part of cowards who knew the "conspiracy" was real, and let innocent people be abused while pretending to be victims themselves.

::::One final comment, the perception of the threat of nuclear war was very real, as was the perception the US government under both Truman & Ike (Dem & GOP) was covering something up. And yes, now we know they were covering up the fact the US was reading Soviet codes. But the real threat was to remove all known & suspected security risks.

::::As Moynihan said, "Ignorant armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Addendum: McCarthy being ridiculed for not have caught a single spy really should be regarded as a credit to keeping secret the VENONA program of reading Soviet codes. Pity such secrecy failed in keeping secret [[Atomic bomb]] secrets which led to the insane nuclear arms race of the [[Cold War]]. And the cost in domestic partisan warfare. [[Richard Nixon]] rose from an obscure backbencher to the Presidency by putting in jail the first General Secretary of the Hope of Mankind, i.e. [[United Nations]]. The vendetta to get Nixon for that is what [[Watergate]] is all about.

:: So how many innocent lives were ruined by McCarthy's false accusations? There are lots of articles that say that McCarthy did harm, but hardly any that specify the harm. If you can specify the harm, then go ahead. Just saying that he ruined people is worthless. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "ruined?" As far as I know, there is no point by point, alphabetical list of the names of people whose lives were badly affected by McCarthy's irresponsible accusations, but it's certain that careers were needlessly damaged, some of them ended. The people McCarthy injured include Reed Harris ( lost his job), Dr. Julius Hlavaty (long career in the NY public schools ended), and Raymond Kaplan (suicide). I don't know how many people were in Mr. Kaplan's family, but I'm pretty certain he had a wife and children, so their lives were undoubtedly pretty badly affected. And if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated, the list of damaged lives expands dramatically.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am looking for actual facts, not conclusory propaganda. Reed Harris resigned his government job. He was asked about writing an essay that favored Communists teaching in the schools. Raymond Kaplan was not accused of anything, and had not been called to testify. He was an engineer with knowledge of VOA transmitters not functioning properly, and he might have been called if he had lived. But how is McCarthy to blame? Are you saying that the Senate should not have been investigating the VOA transmitter failure? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::''"if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated"''
::Yes, we had these debates ''in extensio'' in Wikipedia. For example, Harry Dexter White who died three days after a HUAC hearing in August of 1948, nevertheless was a "victim of McCarthyism", nevermind the '''fact''' that he was (1) dead and burried when McCarthy waved his list of 57 Communists in February of 1950; (2) was dead and burried when McCarthy held hearings; (3) never testified before any Senate hearing chaired by Joseph McCarthy; (4) Joseph McCarthy never served in the House of Representatives. Now, per Wikipedia's own policy of WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AWT, no one ever produced any evidence Harry Dexter White "denied charges before a McCarty era hearing". I burried Mr. White umteen times only to have him resurrected to deny charges before a "McCarthy era hearing". In this instance, I would suggest Conservapedia implement Wikipedia's own policies which they steadfastly refused to do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that Harry Dexter White died shortly before McCarthy waved his famous "list" does not make him any less a victim of "McCarthyism" though I would not call him a victim of McCarthy himself. We still use the word "Boycott" to refer to what happened in Montgomery in the 1960s even though Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott had been dead for decades. I've also heard the word "Maverick" used to describe nonconformists who lived and died well before Samuel A. Maverick had his ranch in Texas and nonconformists who lived long after Mr. Maverick himself had died. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, those are good points. So the discussion has gone from writing an accurate historical narrative to "framing issues" for propaganda purposes. I think we need to establish facts (which I have an extensive contribution list in Wikipedia) and deal with propagating interpretive views of facts some other time. Richard Gid Powers 1995 book separates "irresponsible anti-communism" from "responsible anti-communism". The deliberate use of invidious pejoritives after users have been "politically profiled" in Wikipedia is something I do not think is practiced here. Here, by precedent, I hope we can write straight forward historical narritives and leave out conclusionary premises. It simply a matter of employing the historical method, not beginning with a conclusion we intend to end up with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Censure==
AmesG has repeatedly removed the actual grounds for censuring McCarthy, leaving the reader the false impression that McCarthy was censured for his anti-communist investigations. In fact he was exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges. McCarthy was censured for failing to cooperate with the subcommittee that was investigating him, and for insults to the committee that was trying to censure him. If there is some error in my description, then please address it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the actual Senate resolution that passed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

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

:Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with "deliberate deception" and "fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a "lynch-party"; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.

::Basically, McCarthy was "condemned" for name calling. My we've come along way, I routinely hear Seantors engage in invidious name calling of other Senators or the President on televsion. And many of McCarthy's detractors today have little more than name calling to impugn McCarthy with.

::As to discussing "McCarthyism" and its "victims", Venona evidence shows many "McCarthy vicitms" were not victims at all. ''In fact'', now we must judge the moral responsibilty of guilty parties who kept silent and allowed others to be victimized by their silence. This is as important an aspect of the investigation as anything else. If McCarthy was a demon witchhunter, those guilty parties who feign innocence and allowed others to be smeared, basically to save thier own tails, so to speak, are EQUALLY guilty of creating an atmosphere of "hysteria", or however you wish to characterize it. So this whole discussion really begins with examining Comintern activities which started about 1919, and about 1921 in the United States. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

What did the Venona Papers say about Annie Moss? Julius Hlavaty? Raymond Kaplan? Reed Harris?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rschlafly-- Facts ==

What happened to Reed Harris, Dr. Julius Hlavaty, and Raymond Kaplan is not "conclusory propaganda, but fact. Reed Harris was not just questioned, but repeatedly attacked by McCarthy for opinions he'd expressed as a student twenty one years before in a book about the commecialization of college sports, KING FOOTBALL. The book had included a defense of the right of Communists to teach. Do you seriously consider the statement "Communists have the right to teach" so outrageous that it calls for someone to be forced to resign from their job? As for Raymond Kaplan, his rather lengthy and detailed suicide note makes it plain that it was being called to testify before McCarthy's committee that terrified him. ""You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," he wrote. "I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can't take the pressure upon my shoulders any more." Given that Harris had been forced to resign for something he'd written more than two decades before, Kaplan's fear was not unfounded. And the VOA hearings were not just some sort of technical inquiry into why a transmitter malfunctioned. McCarthy's contention was that it was part of a dastardly Communist plot within the VOA, and his investigation included questioning witnesses about their church attendance and religious beliefs and purging VOA overseas libraries of such dangerously "subversive" authors as Dashiell Hammett and Theodore H. White. --PF Fox 13:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I do believe that it is fair game to ask a govt official about a pro-communist opinion that he expressed in a book. But my opinion is irrelevant. If it is somehow notable that McCarthy asked these questions, then go ahead and insert that into the article. However it is just false left-wing propaganda to say that McCarthy ruined any innocent lives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How is it "pro-communist" to say that communists have a right to teach? Are you pro-liberal? Do you think liberals have a right to teach? Does the fact that I think libertarians have a right to teach make me "pro-libertarian," even though I generally disagree vehemently with libertarians?

And yes, in the context of a discussion about McCarthy and what made him so unpopular, the fact that McCarthy got people fired, drove at least one man to suicide, needlessly ended the career of at least one popular and valuable teacher in the New York public school system, purged books by noted and important authors from VOA libraries and grilled people about their religious beliefs in hearings is "notable." Under what circumstances would it NOT be "false left-wing propaganda" to say that a politician had "ruined innocent lives" if not to say it about a politician who repeatedly impugned people's loyalty and ended their careers for simply having political beliefs he disliked? What would McCarthy have had to do to qualify in your mind as "ruining innocent lives?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: As I said, my opinion about whether public colleges should be promoting communism is irrelevant. I just want facts. McCarthy had no dislike for Kaplan's political beliefs, and did not drive him to suicide. Kaplan's suicide was all the more reason for McCarthy to investigate what VOA did. Whether McCarthy acted "needlessly" is a matter of opinion. Some people think that McCarthy did not do enough to uncover communists.
:I am looking for facts here, not just conclusory leftist opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you consider it a "fact" that believing communists have a right to teach makes you "pro-communist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to debate my personal definition of "pro-communist". The facts are that Harris published some communism-related opinions in a book, and McCarthy asked about those opinions. If asking that question was McCarthy's greatest sin, according to his leftist enemies, then go ahead and put it in the article. Just don't put in your leftist propaganda. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing unreasonable about asking you to define your terms. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: To answer your question, I was using the term "pro-communist opinion" in the sense of expressing an opinion in support of communists. Harris did that in his book. It doesn't necessarily mean that Harris belonged to the Communist Party or anything like that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does saying "Communists have the right to teach" qualify as an "opinion in support of communists" unless you equate supporting the rights of a group with supporting that group's aims?

: Expressing an opinion that Communists have a right to teach in the public schools is obviously expression an opinion in support of those Communists who want to teach in the public schools. McCarthy gave Harris an opportunity to explain his opinion. If you want to know more about Harris's opinion, read the transcripts instead of asking here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Joe Stalin, who CPUSA members served under, also "ruined innocent lives". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. What's your point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Comparing a mass murderer of 40 million people with someone who allegedly inspired somebody to commit suicide is a bit disportionate, don't you think? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Where and when did I compare McCarthy with Stalin?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:The same language "ruined innocent lives" can be applied to Joseph Stalin and to Joseph McCarthy. Let's not talk past each other. As to the question, "can a Communist teach in a public school?", what ''is'' the question? Can a government employee also be a member of the Communist party?, or can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold Communist ideology? Please be specific. No need to parse this junk anymore. Most of these people are dead, and we do have a record of facts now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafley's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

I think the question being posed when someone asks "can a Communist teach in a public school?" is pretty clearly "can a Communist teach in a public school." The answer, as far as I know, is "yes," since I am aware of no law that bars people from government service based on their politics. If there are some Red Scare era laws still on the books that bar Communists in this manner, I suspect they would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, any more than some past laws barring atheists from testifying or adopting children or making atheism a criminal offense, or defining Communist parents as legally unfit would stand up. The answer to your other question, "can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold communist ideology" is also a "yes." It also prompts the question of what you consider "communist ideology." I've seen advocacy of limited gun control, membership in the ACLU, and support for Howard Dean's run for the presidency described in that manner.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. So that gets to some of the specifics. I don't believe the question here is whether a person can teach today holding those views, and I agree with you on that. Holding those views and communicating them today in a classroom as doctrinal is different discussion for a different time and place. The question for this bio page is, Was it illegal for an employee of a local school district to hold CPUSA membership, as I understand the question to be. Merits of the law is an entirely different matter.

:Then I can assume we also may agree using the same language to describe McCarthy that has been used to describe a few recent despicable mass murderers in history is clearly over the top and out of bounds. Was McCarthy a monoster? I don't know, perhaps. Was he human? Yes. McCarthy is the godfather of two of Robert F. Kennedy's living children. Clearly, clearly, the depictions of McCarthy elsewhere as a subhuman, if not inhuman, or non-human really say more about McCarthy's detractors than the do McCarthy.

:An editor here in Conservapedia, who identifies himself as being 16 yrs old, told me Arthur Miller testified before McCarthy's Committee. Where did her learn that junk? These are the living lies I hope we can finally put an end to.

:Simply put, McCarthy was half right, and half wrong. Likewise many of McCarthy's critics were then, and remain, half right and half wrong. Let's not whitewash ''the facts that we do know now'', any further. "Ignorant Armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the question is, does getting someone fired and/or ending their teaching career qualify as "ruining" someone's life. I believe it certainly can. At the least it is a detriment. And I don't know why you assume "we may also agree" that saying "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" qualifies as a comparison to Joseph Stalin. I can only assume you missed my response, so I'll repeat it here and italicize it so you'll be sure to see it.:

''I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafly's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

''
There was an Arthur Miller mentioned during the McCarthy hearings, though I don't know of Miller himself actually being called before McCarthy. Given that he also called in Howard Fast for grilling, it wouldn't be surprising if he were. Miller did quite definitely get called before HUAC, however, and was convicted of contempt for refusing to name names. His play about the Salem Witch Trials, THE CRUCIBLE is a parable for McCarthyism, drawing some pretty biting parallels between the mentality behind Salem and the mentality behind much of the Red Scare.

The claim "McCarthy was right" presumes, by the way, that at issue was the premise that espionage was taking place. It should be noted that nobody during the Cold War, liberal or conservative, denied the existence of Soviet espionage. At issue was McCarthy's methods which, as I believe I've illustrated, were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody denied Soviet expionage?! There were plenty of leftists who denied that Alger Hiss or anyone else was a spy. I also don't agree that you have illustrated what you say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly the same as denying that espionage itself took place. And how have I not illustrated that McCarthy as reckless, irresponsible, and dishonest? I've described instances where he lied, accused, and misrepresented. The declassification of the Venona papers don't change that behavior. In fact, Venona shows that the majority of those he named as "disloyal" did not deserve the treatment he gave them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Support from Ann Coulter ==

What the hell is this? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? Ha Ha Ha you guys are insane. -- --[[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Technical problem==
I created the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] which links from the mainspace but still shows up as a red link. Can anybody help? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==205 or 206==
[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Belmont to Boardman, November 26, 1957]

:''Based on the investigations from [Venona project] information we have identified 206 persons involved in Soviet espionage activities who have at one time been active in the United States or which activity has had some United States ramifications. Of this number we already had received information from other sources including espionage involvement on the part of 87 of these persons. However, 119 persons were not previously known to us as being involved in espionage and have been identified through investigation in this case.

''A chart explaining these figures in more detail is set out.

<center>''SOVIET ESPIONAGE AGENTS IN [VENONA] CASE</center>

{| border=1
! ''Total Number Involved in Soviet Espionage''
! ''206''
|-
! ''Number Previously Known to Us from Other Information''
! ''87''
|-
! ''Number Not Previously Known to Us
! 119 ''206''
|-
! ''Soviet Officials Not Now in the United States''
! ''61''
|-
! ''Other Persons Not Now in the United States
! ''40''
|-
! ''Persons Deceased''
! ''11''
! ''(Burd, Duggan, Golos,a. Ivancic, Kournakoff, Lauterbach, Malisoff, Sabatini, Staple, White,b. Briggs)''
|-
! ''Persons Now Cooperative with Us''
! ''14''
! ''(Bentley ,c. D. Greenglass,d. R. Greenglass, Black, Elitcher, Gold,e. Menaker, Miller, Moczulski, Morros,f. Jack Soble, Myra Soble, York, [redacted])''
|-
! ''Persons Who Have Been Prosecuted''
! ''15''
! ''(Brothman, Coplon, Fuchs,g, Gold, Greenglass, Gubitchev,h. Moskowitz, J. Rosenberg, E. Rosenberg, Slack, Sobell, Jack Soble, Myra Soble, Perl, Hiss)''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Silvermaster Network''
! ''29''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Mocase''
! ''5''
|-
! ''Other Persons Now in United States''
! 43 218
|-
! ''Less Those Counted Twice, Described Below''
! 12 ''206''
|}
==Pointers==
*''Restoring talk page comments removed by'' [[User:PF Fox]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304]
'''Let me make three pointers to concerned editors & Admins about the army of sockpuppets who will attack this article''':

(1) they will try to define [[McCarthyism]] and the "McCarthy era" as dating from 1948 onwards;

(2) they will try to define "the Second Red Scare" as dating from 1948 onwards & make it synonymous with McCarthyism.

(3) they will impugn and slander the sources of information in absence of any valid rebuttal.

This blatant propagandizing which they view as a high priority should be resisted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Where am I guilty of #1?

Where am I guilty of #2

Where am I guilty of #3?

And what did I post that was untrue? I'd really like to know.

As I said earlier, if I removed comments it was inadvertant.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There was a section between where you edited and what you deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304] The comment removed specifically refered to an army of sockpuppets who will attack this page. One such sockpuppet attack [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=44074&oldid=44069] just occurred as you were adding a volume of content, some of which has been deprecated by its own authors. Pardon me, but this Wiki ''deja vu'' all over again.

:While the page is protected you can place your proposed inclusions here on Talk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't remember even seeing a comment about sockpuppets, so if I removed such a comment it was accidental. And I'm not sure what you mean by "sockpuppet" here. My understanding is that it's an online term referring to a post under an alias by someone already taking part in a discussion. I don't do that and I hope you aren't implying that I do.

You still haven't explained what I posted that was untrue, or why you removed, not only that small reference to Schrecker, but references to actual transcripts of the hearings and an audio. I'd really like an answer. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is an obvious effort by sockpuppets to disrupt editing. You are welcome to propose language for inclusion here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest you add:

_____

It was McCarthy's charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence. During his famous February 9th, 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia at the Colonnade Room of the McClure Hotel he stated:

And ladies and gentlemen, while I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”[6]
The State Department denied McCarthy’s claims. In a radio interview in Utah the following day, McCarthy had changed the number to 57, and on February 11, in Reno at the Mapes Hotel, McCarthy again invoked the number 57 instead of 205, and named Robert Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Keeney and Harlow Shapley as being on the list. Several days later, when McCarthy was speaking to the Senate in Washington DC, the number had changed to 81.

The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy offered evidence for his claims by going through the Lee list. There were marked differences between what the Lee report actually said, and what Senator McCarthy claimed on the Senate floor. For instance, the Lee list read:

“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has been no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." [8]

___

I have removed the single reference to Schrecker Material. If there is anything here you consider untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department and the administration of President Truman and a United States army research laboratory. In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged from the libraries at the urging of McCarthy’s staff were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jean Paul Sartre, and Theodore H. White.

The VOA hearings that resulted often involved closely questioning witnesses, not about the transmitters, but about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he had studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. [9]

Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days of testimony about statements he’d made in a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending statement had been the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. [10]

Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about his personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. [11]

One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened at being called before McCarthy's committee that he committed suicide after writing a lengthy suicide note, which specifically referenced the issue he was being called to testify about, that being the placement of transmitters. "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes made," he wrote. “....You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect,” he wrote. “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” [12]

After the VOA investigation, many of its problems were corrected. No evidence of sabotage was found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

___

This used no Schrecker material. If any of this is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

___

McCarthy’s 1953 investigation into the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was prompted by a defecting East German Scientist’s claim of having seen microfilmed documents from that center..” [13] An investigation had led officials to the conclusion that he was unreliable, but Senator McCarthy’s subcommittee still began holding hearings on the case, suspending, among others, researcher Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [14]

The Army averred that no documents were missing and its own investigation had found no evidence of a spy ring, maintaining that what the defecting scientist had seen had probably been Signal Corp data that had been shared with the Russians during the War under Lend Lease. Still, the investigation went on. When electrical engineer Carl Greenblum broke down and wept during Roy Cohn’s cross-examination and had to be led, visibly upset, from the closed door session, McCarthy announced to the press that “I have just received word that the witness admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” Greenblum’s name was leaked to the press and he and his family were harassed, a hammer and sickle was painted on the door of their house. Greenblum explained that he'd been upset about the death of his mother two days before, and that after he’d broken down he’d “sent word that I wanted to go back and tell my story from the beginning. That may have been interpreted to mean I was lying but that certainly was not the case.” Greenblum was fired from his job, but reinstated in 1958. [15]

The fifteen hearings resulted in no indictments of any individuals, and established only that a few Communists had worked at Fort Monmouth from 1941 to 1947 – something that was already known by the Army -- and that there had been a small communist cell at one of their subcontractors in Nutley New Jersey. There was no substantive evidence to connect these groups or individuals to espionage.

___

None of this contained any Schrecker material. If there is anything here that is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s career were the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. McCarthy had already alienated the Army with his treatment of General Ralph Zwicker, the Commander of Camp Kilmer who had angered McCarthy by refusing to defy an executive order that forbade him to release names to McCarthy during McCarthy’s investigation into the promotion of an army dentist named Irving Peress who had invoked the Fifth Amendment while filling out the military loyalty questionnaire. McCarthy had implied Zwicker was lying and strongly implied that this World War II veteran, who had served at Normandy and the Ardennes and had been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters and Arrowhead, the British Distinguished Service Order, and the French Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre with Palm, and that he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” [16]

The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

From the day he addressed the Senate in 1950, paraphrasing excerpts from the Lee List, Joseph McCarthy had based much of his momentum on showmanship. In the Army McCarthy hearings he met his match in the army’s counsel, a 62-year-old Republican attorney from Boston named Joseph Welch who succeeded in baiting McCarthy into displays of open sarcasm and malice. As a result, the press coverage that had, before, been McCarthy’s best friend now became his worst enemy.

The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn, McCarthy excused himself, left, then returned and, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher. Cohn was horrified by this breach, and sent McCarthy a note reading, “This is the subject which I have committed to Welch we would not go into. Please respect our agreement as an agreement because this is not going to do any good.” (The agreement had been that if Welch would not bring up Cohn’s military history, McCarthy would not bring up Fred Fisher.) McCarthy acknowledged this only with the comment, “I know Mr. Cohn would rather it have me go into this," then went on to say:

“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”

This was, as Roy Cohn knew, a miscalculation, likely only to genuinely infuriate an opponent who was not going to become flummoxed or lose control as past opponents had. It was a bit of showmanship – McCarthy knew full well about the agreement and knew Welch was aware of Fisher’s past – being unwisely used against a superior showman.

“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. He concluded with the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” [17]

___

None of this contains any Schrecker material. If anything here is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy’s most enduring legacy may be in giving a name to the conflation of dissent with disloyalty, a tendency to cite criticism of an administration as if it were evidence of treason, or even treason itself – “McCarthyism.” Perhaps an inevitable result of the Cold War era, “McCarthyism” was the acceleration of something that had existed before McCarthy became famous, and waxed and waned long after he had dropped from public sight.

If any of this is untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

The overwhelming majority of those who McCarthy named and whose lives he affected, however, are not mentioned in Venona. Reed Harris is not identified as an agent. Nor is Aaron Coleman, or Gustavo Duran, or Harlow Shapely, or Fred Fisher. Nor are most of the many, many teachers, writers, performers, filmmakers, and workers who lost their job and even careers as the result of McCarthyism.

If any of the above is untrue, please point it out. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. I will review it in detail (may take sometime). It is a bit lengthy, and there are several other things that need to be discussed; for example, what does "McCarthy named" mean? There are numerous examples of "being named" a CPUSA member, yet not involved in espionage. Or what does it mean to "be investigated"? Giving testimony is not necessarily "being investigated". And another point, McCarthy primarily was investigating institutions, not persons. So we have about 50 years of much bad information to unravel. So let's try and find some common ground to begin with. Thank you again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

By "McCarthy named," I mean he either stated outright or announced his suspicions in public, as he did with with Durand and Service, or summoned individuals as witnesses and cited them as possibly disloyal. Yes, indeed, there are numerous cases of people "being named" as communists but not involved in espionage. The resulting damage to an individuals career could still be pretty bad.

As for the word "investigated," giving testimony certainly qualifies as being investigated if that testimony consists of you being interrogated about your beliefs and your personal and professional life, AND having other witnesses being questioned about your beliefs and your personal and professional life. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:(a) "being named" is not specific enough; should read "being named as holding CPUSA membership", or "being named a spy". Those are two ''entirely different'' things. (b) giving testimony is not the same as being investigated; the person giving testimony may have been subpoenaed to answer question about the activities within an institution, organization, or of other persons. Further, the fact the person giving testimony may have held CPUSA membership, but was not themself being actively investigated, hardly qualifies them as being a victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:(c) Argueing over numbers, i.e. was it 205, 87, 57 etc. is moot at this point. Would you agree?

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "investigate" means "to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry." That most certainly applies to testimony in which the witness is repeatedly questioned about his or her beliefs and his or her personal and professional life.

And I'm not "arguing over numbers." There is no question that McCarthy gave three different numbers within a few days, and no argument about that. It's not "moot to this point" because it was that variation in McCarthy's claims that caused many observers to be skeptical about them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Page protection==
I have protected this page because of evidence of trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am losing track of the changes. I do think that the article should describe some criticism of McCarthy's methods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Me too. But this above is a bit lengthy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The above was already posted. You could easily have left it in place and removed the single source you objected to earlier.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox: I have unlocked the page for editing. For the time being, I propose leaving out all the specualtion regarding "was it 57 or 87?", etc. I hope you will review this information regarding the Lee List [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html], and between the two sources we can craft langauge. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But what I included was not "speculation." It is a FACT that McCarthy gave three very different numbers on three different occasions. I don't speculate on WHY he did this, but I simply point it out. Why should that fact not be included? And I've already seen that piece on the Lee list. How would it change anything I posted? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm suggesting these are two separate issues. (1) Attacks on McCarthy's credibilty & character regarding the Tydings Committee, etc., and (2) McCarthy's abuse of the Committee's function toward witnesses. Why don't you go ahead and put in some stuff about his mistreatment of witnessess, etc., and I'll work on combining some information regarding the Lee List.

:::In actual fact, what we know now is that while McCarthy was conducting "witchhunts", KGB Agents were personally and simultaneously argueing cases before the United States Supreme Court. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that these are "two separate issues" justify omitting the facts surrounding the very statements that catapulted McCarthy into national attention? And you still haven't explained what I posted about the Lee list that is untrue. I'd really like to know.

What KGB agents were these, and how would that render people like Annie Moss, Fred Fisher, Julius Hlavaty, and Carl Greenblum less innocent?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I can see we maybe speaking two different languages. Let me ask again, have you read the Appendix's to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report? [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/index.html] Specifically, these:

:Chairman's Foreword
:Loyalty
:The Encounter with Communism
:The Experience of the Second World War
:The Experience of The Bomb
:The Cold War [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm speaking English. I use the OED and Websters. Are you speaking a different language? What dictionaries are you using?

I've read all this. Please point out exactly where it renders something I've posted untrue, and what it renders untrue. You still haven't offered a single specific that shows anything I've posted as being counter to the facts.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so now we need to summarize information. The above is a bit lengthy, can it be condenced? I offered one solution, please wait on all the "he said/she said" stuff and go ahead and insert some damage McCarthy did to truelly, innocent people.

:The Lee List stuff only has been reviewed up to 1952, and that by only a few scholars. And we also must bare in mind somethings still remain classified, or other evidence is missing. This is what I'm refering to as two different issues. Now, if you think this article is gonna be just another cut & pasted hit piece that says McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler, that's unlikely. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I will certainly reinsert what I already posted about McCarthy's behavior during the VOA, Army Signal Corps, and Army-McCarthy hearings, but before I do that I want to know "he said she said stuff" you're talking about.

What I posted about the Lee List, i.e., the text of the Lee List and the exchange between McCarthy and Lucas on the Senate floor, in which McCarthy fudged what was actually said in the Lee Listk is not classified, is not a matter of dispute, and therefore requires no review by scholars.

I don't post "cut and paste" pieces. My writing is my own. I DO consider it important to back up what I say with cites and that is, I was given to understand, in fact one of the "commandments" for posting here.

Please point out where I stated or implied that "McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy edits ==

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll try to edit down some of the army-mccarthy hearing material.

Actually the numbers are 205, 57, and 81, and it's not a matter of "he said/she said." It's strictly HE said, he being McCarthy. The different numbers McCarthy cited were certainly considered important at the time, so important that they became a part of popular culture. The original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE film starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury even includes a reference to it.

Exactly what telegram are you talking about?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes & no. It's largely depracated and moot, and in the scheme of history, will be forgotten. Ignorant armies clashed by night. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[United States Army Signal Corps]]==

:''Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [11] ''

What is the relevence of this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does "yes and no" answer my question about what telegram you're referring to? And yes, I know that there are many aspects of McCarthy's career that some would like to be "forgotten." They must not be forgotten, and I intend to do my best to ensure that they are not.

The Coleman case was one of the major bones of contention in the Signal Corps hearings. The passage I cited is yet another indication of McCarthy's tendency to inflate his claims.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ''ex post facto'' of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing that cite about the telegram. And the media were quite well informed about McCarthy's behavior given that much of it took place before TV cameras. Nobody was "in the dark" about McCarthy's tendency to exaggerate, and I've posted cites illustrating that tendency, as in the differences between what the Lee List actually said and what he claimed it said, the difference between why a witness had broken down and why McCarthy claimed he'd broken down, etc. And yes, the importance of the documents does mean much more than "diddly squat" when you are conducting an investigation and publicly claiming that the breach of security is on par with a case that ultimatley resulted in two executions. You seem to consider an awful lot of undisputed facts "moot." Sorry, but they're not.

Now, I have reviewed the conservapedia commandments, and I cannot find any that would be broken by my posting the account of McCarthy's inconsistent claims about the number of names on the list. It is true and verifiable. It is not copied from Wikipedia or some other non-public domain source. I have cites on the ready. I do not post things that aren't "family-friendly" or contain "gossip or foul language." And it is not a matter of my personal opinion that McCarthy first gave the number on the list as 205, then as 57, then as 81. It's a matter of public record. If reposting that information violates a rule here, please cite that rule. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Haven't retrieved the photcopy of the Feb. 11 1950 telegram McCarthy to Truman (originated in Reno Nevada) yet. The cite about Coleman IMO may do a disservice to the anti-McCarthy view because it is somewhat labored to make a point that may not even exist (taking the material above at your word); IOW, it discredits the more salient points of the argument. I hope to avoid parsing each jot & tittle, which is a characteristic noticable among McCarthy critics for half a century. We need to summarize some of this information to make the article of encyclopedic quality.

:No one's disputing your integrity or motives here, indeed we welcome your valuable close to first-hand knowledge of these events--and it is extremely necessary that this retelling of events be fully, and properly understood and preserved. In McCarthy's case, again IMO, the ''overkill'' may even generate sympathy for McCarthy, because often it's nakedly prejudiced. I hope you consider this criticism.

:One does not have to work hard to expose McCarthy's flaws as a human being; but one also has to remember that's what he was, a human being, not a monster or animal. And all these tales we read too often directly conflict with the accounts of family and friends, even political opponents who worked closely with him, that personally he was quite different than the way his detractors depict him.

:Let's return to my earlier proposal: divide these two issues (1) the Lee List (and other lists); (2) abuse of witnesses. I invite you to write the whole section about "Criticism of methods", keeping in mind some economy of scale for an encyclopedic entry. Then we can collaborate on the Lee List, and this reference doesn't actually have to be more than a few sentences.

:What sometimes happens when there is more than one view on a subject, the article turns into an arms race, each side piling up more and more source for thier side or to trash the other; let's set some limits on how far we will go in this direction. As I said before, your close knowledge of this matter is ''extremely valuable'' and needs to be articled in a good quality encyclopedic entry. Thank you very much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's it is, [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind words.

Everyone who is the subject of an article here is a human being instead of monster or animal, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Salvador Allende. Their family and friends, like Joseph McCarthy's, also have accounts that conflict with what their detractors say. And yes, I've heard that in person, even some of his opponents found Joseph McCarthy quite likeable. I've heard the same about Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro, and Patrick Buchanan. Whether these human beings are gracious hosts or can tell a good joke and what their children or siblings or spouses have to say about them is, for the most part, beside the point when describing their public careers, and belongs in a section devoted to their personal life.

Yes there is more than one view on a subject. There is not, however, more than one set of facts, and the inclusion of those facts, whether or not they make the subject of an article look good, is not "moot." Setting aside a separate section of "Criticism" comes across here as an attempt to weed out those facts that are unflattering to Joseph McCarthy and separate them from the whole, as if they were a sort of footnote. I don't notice similar "Criticism" sections in Conservapedia articles on Salvador Allende, John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and while Hillary Clinton's article has one, Whitewater and other criticisms of her policies mentioned in the article as a whole are not restricted to the Criticism section. For that reason, I am not inclined to put the issue surrounding McCarthy's conflicting statements about numbers or the discripancies in his reading of the Lee List under "Criticism." It belongs in a discussion of how he became a household name, and therefore early in the main body of the piece. It's up to the reader to decide how these facts reflect on Senator McCarthy. I appreciate your concern about a sort of "arms race" building up in the article, but the facts surrounding McCarthy's rise as a public figure are important.

I will comment on the telegram later tonight. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:How's this; let's place the Coleman material & whatever else is relevent in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Here's another good first hand account [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt], via Senate.gov --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy to Truman 11 Feb 1950==

Well, the telegram you've cited starts out with a flat-out untruth. McCarthy did not say in Wheeling that he had a list of 57 Communists. The figure he gave was 205. This business of only 80 out of 300 state department employees certified for discharge being dismissed -- and that after consultation with Alger Hiss -- is simply nonsense. So far I've seen no evidence that Hiss was "consulted" on this issue and the letter from which McCarthy got those figures was written in 1946. Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records, how does he know that no more dismissals followed in the years following that letter? I have been unable to find the phrase "known to you" in that telegram, so I can hardly answer your question about why McCarthy put those words (which I'm unable to find) into writing. Care to give it a shot?

I have no problem placing the Coleman material in a section WITHIN THE MCCARTHY PIECE devoted to the US States Army Signal Corps investigation. I notice, however, that you have locked this article for editing. Why?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. The 205 is a leak from the FBI [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22] and refers to persons active in Soviet intelligence operations.
:I misspoke. The context reads,
::"I KNOW [ABSOLUTELY] THAT OF ONE GROUP APPROXIMATELY 300 CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY FOR DISCHARGE, HE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED ONLY APPROXIMALTEY 80....THE DAY ...HISS [was exposed]...YOU SIGNED AN ORDER FORBIDDING THE STATE DPEARTMENTS GIVING TO THE CONGRESS ANY INFORMATION...DESPITE THIS STATE DEPARTMENT BLACKOUT, '''WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57''' COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.THIS LIST IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN GET A MUCH LONGERT LIST BY ORDERING THE ....LIST OF THOSE WHOM YOUR OWN BOARD LISTED AS BEING DISLOYAL....
:'''Analysis of the above'''.
:What McCarthy was referencing as "known to you" is the previous list of 300, of which McCarthy distilled 57 "avalable to you" which supposedly Truman already knew.

:In the mainspace article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_McCarthy&action=edit&section=2] we have a reference to the June 1947 Senate Appropriations Committee communication to George Marshall which I beleive comes from the Moynihan Commission Report. This link [http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm] uses the same language and gives us more context:
::''The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
:The Hiss reference I could probably dig up a cite if I had to, but its on hold for the time being.
:You say, ''Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records''; untrue. McCarthy didn't have complete records and had gained much in oral briefings from Hoover. McCarthy made the reference to 205 10 February 1950; the source document states,
::''A total of 206 persons have been identified as having been active in Soviet intelligence operations for the MGB in the United states and a chart breaking this figure down is set forth in this memorandum. This memorandum was initially prepared for the Director on 10-26-50 ...'' [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]
:so one more had been added to the FBI's investigation of persons active in Soviet espionage between 10 February 1950 and 26 October 1950, when this memorandum was initially prepared for J. Edgar Hoover, the Director.
:I didn't lock another Admin did; there's persistent vandalism when unlocked. That's why we're using Talk page. ![[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The document you reference is "“concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940S...These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD." (emphasis added) so as an attempt to bolster claims McCarthy that there were 57 "card carrying Communists" in the State Department in 1950 it's pretty useless. In fact, the number "57" had referred to State Department statistics from 1948 which showed that 57 of the 108 on Lee's list (who were not identified as Communists, by the way) were still employed at the State Department, more than half of whom had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, 22 of whom were still being looked into.

The quote you cite about John Peurifoy comes from a plainly partisan source. I rather doubt that the Moynihan report contains language like “Guess what Armas was doing just before he became President of Guatemala?” and if it does that doesn't say much for it as an unbiased cite. And I'm sorry, but until you offer a convincing cite for that Hiss reference, there is no reason for anyone to believe it just because Joe McCarthy said it in a telegram to the president that opens with a falsehood about what he'd said at Wheeling.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:(A) the number 205 came from briefings with Hoover ''prior'' to A.H. Belmont, author of the memo, putting it down on paper in October 1950;
:(B) the 57 number, as the McCarthy to Truman telegram plainly states, "WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT", i.e. McCarthy and staff extrapolated these 57 from the Lee List (Lee List was the State Departments internal investigation after the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concerns to Sec. Marshall in June 1947;
:(C) in context, "57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT" is actually understated, becuase the 205 number refers to '''''persons involved in espionage activities''''', not simply just party members. This is where the confusion lies, and on several levels. Hoover told McCarthy orally something to the effect that the FBI was investigating 205 persons in the communist conspiracy. Whether Hoover told McCarthy (i) there was evidence of espionage activity, or (ii) the 205 were security risks, or (iii) the 205 were CPUSA members, we just don't know. But the evidence now, based upon declassified Venona evidence is the 205 number was very real, and '''''was not''''' talking about simply party membership or security risks. The 205 were very active espionage investigations. And further, this 205 refers to '''identified''' persons, i.e. were a true name identification had been made from a codename.
:(D) Undersecretary Puerifoy, a Democrat appointed by Truman and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, is defending his reputation in that statement from the Arlington National Cemetary from the alleged "McCarthyite" charge that ''he'' was involved in covering up the State Department's failure to disharge known security risks. Hardly partisan when you are defending yourself from McCarthyite smears. Is this the contortions you now are willing to bend into to keep stale points & arguements alive?

:Summary analysis: The evidence now shows the controversy around these numbers was not a matter of McCarthy's imagination, and in fact is related to (1) the FBI, and (2) contemporaneous journalists failure to clarify precisely the varying degrees of complicity based upon the difference between (a) espionage activity, (b) CPUSA membership, (c) a generic security risk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy himself said in an interview with US News and World Report that the 205 number had come from the Byrnes letter. And even if it’s true that it actually came from Hoover, the memo you’ve cited makes it very clear that it’s referring to THE 1940S – something you seem very intent on ignoring.

As for that cite you posted on Puerifoy, it is NOT from the official Arlington National Cemetery website (which is http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org.) As is plainly indicated by the following note near the bottom of the page: ”This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. AS SUCH IT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE UNITED STATES ARMY.” (emphasis added)

I’m not sure what “contortions” you’re talking about other than the “contortions’ of noting dates (like the fact that memo you cite refers to the 1940s – not 1950), quoting accurately, examining cites and using the commonly understood meanings of commonly understood words like “investigate.”
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:''it’s referring to THE 1940S ''
:Not true. Those were active espionage investigation at that point; some of the 205 (or 206) had left government service, some were never employed in government service, and some remained in government service. And most importanly--that number of 205 '''''only refers to persons identified'''''--there remains to this day something on the order of 178 '''''unidentified''''' code names, unidentifed after a 38 year investigation.

:Further, the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent between 1942 and 1945.

:Let me have a cite on the Brynes letter; what is obvious is in Feb 1950 Hoover was talking about information he was getting from the FBI liaison to Venona, but it wasn't summarized on paper until Oct 1950--probably due to the fact the confusion some of these numbers were making in the press.

:And the most obvious aspect of all this is, McCarthy was being used by Hoover & the FBI without knowing it. McCarthy probably never realized the FBI was feeding him information on people who the FBI knew it wasnt worth pursueing, but they perhaps could be embarassed or coerced to turn on family members or associates they knew to be involved in the [[CPUSA#Secret apparatus]].

:The Puerifoy cite, < http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm > I would assume was put up by his family, and probably may have been written by Peurifoy himself before his death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The memo you’ve cited to support the allegations in McCarthy’s Wheeling speech most certainly DOES refer to the 1940s, and repeatedly refers to that fact. The header reads: “Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45” The text twice refers to it as covering that time frame: “This source has been able to furnish us information regarding MGB operations IN THE 1940’s,” “In the Spring of 1954, [Venona project began furnishing data concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940’”s and “These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD.” (Emphasis Added). And the fact “the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent BETWEEN 1942 AND 1945” does not change that. I can’t figure out how you come to the conclusion that it does. The fact remains that if McCarthy was using that memo and not the Byrnes letter as he claimed, it was out of date information.

The reference to the Byrnes letter comes from McCarthy himself, who cited it in a September 7, 1951 interview in US News and World Report. He said:

“Up in West Virginia we read to the audience a letter written by Jimmy Byrnes, the then Secretary of State, to Congressman Sabath, in which he said that out of 3,000 employees screened – employees who were being transferred from other departments into the State Department – they found 284 unfit for government service. He said of the 284 we discharged 79, leaving a total of 205. That night I called upon Acheson and the President to tell us where those 205 were, why they kept them in if the President’s own board says they were unfit.”

As I already observed, and as McCarthy tacitly admits above, the Byrne letter had no reference to Communist Party membership, which renders flatly untrue McCarthy’s claim in the Wheeling speech that “I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party…”

Why would you assume that the Puerifoy cite from that privately operated NONofficial Arlington Cemetery Website was written by either him or members of his family? What evidence do you have for this?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism of McCarthy's methods==
The Criticism section is too long and unbalanced, with a lot of false and misleading innuendo. I'd like to pare it down to something with actual facts and criticism. Here is the gist of what's there:

:McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive investigations. McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department, the administration of President Truman, Voice of America, and a United States Army research laboratory. The VOA hearings involved the content of broadcasts and transmitter difficulties, and found serious problems. Critics say that McCarthy did not proved deliberate sabotage. Critics also say that McCarthy only uncovered a few Communists in the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. McCarthy also had an argument with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings.

If the exchange with Welch is to be described, then it should also include McCarthy's point of view. If it is to include trivia from witnesses, then it should also explain just what the criticism is, and also give McCarthy's side. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And exactly what is currently posted in the article that is not an "actual fact?" It sounds like you actually want to remove facts -- not add to them.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:PF Fox, it's not an issue of facts, it's an issue of scale. There's just too much material that makes a redundant point. I suggest a paragraph or two could be moved to [[United States Army Signal Corps#PSI investigations]]; other material also may fit elsewhere. Perhaps you may wish to start [[Joseph Welch]] and place the famous exchange in there. But this article needs some proportion to it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The section is filled with trivia like McCarthy asking the VOA Director of Religious Programming about his religious beliefs. What is the criticism? Do some people think that this was an unfair question? Who? Why?
: It describes Kaplan's suicide, but fails to say how this is a criticism of McCarthy. It is not clear how this is a criticism of McCarthy, except to suggest that McCarthy is responsible for Kaplan's death. Who says that? Why? It is irresponsible to put such a suggestion in, without at least giving McCarthy's side of the story.
: The Welch incident is completely one-sided and misleading. Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone, and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known.
: The section includes unsupported opinions like, "McCarthy's support and popularity began to fade due to his lack of actual evidence and defendant convictions." Whoever wrote this seems to think that McCarthy was a prosecuting attorney. He was not. McCarthy was a US Senator, and it was not his job to convict defendants.
: This whole section perpetuates a lot of false myths, and should be slashed and fixed. If I do it, then I would remove most of it, as it is unbalanced, misleading, and I don't even see the point to most of the so-called criticisms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think the overkill nature of it backfires and generates sympathy for McCarthy. But McCarthy's critics just can't seem to grasp that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Grilling someone about their personal religious beliefs in an investigation that is supposed to be about sabotage is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And only someone who has not read the actual transcript of the exchange between McCarthy and Welch would claim that "Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known." In fact, McCarthy had already agreed to NOT mention Fisher in the course of the hearings. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

: The VOA investigation was not just about sabotage. I have watched the video of the Welch-McCarthy incident, and the description that was in the article was extremely biased and misleading. I think that it is fine to put the Welch-McCarthy incident in the article, but only if it includes McCarthy's justification for doing what he did. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I made some changes to the Criticism section. I think that it is important to summarize the significant criticisms, as McCarthy was criticized a lot. What I don't want is just unsupported statements that McCarthy ruined innocent lives when no one can give an example. The Senate did censure McCarthy, and we have the text of that resolution, so we know what that criticism is. That criticism is described. If there are other specific and significant and documented criticisms that I missed, let's include those also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You know perfectly well that I have supported and documented my statements.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The description of the Welch-McCarthy exchange comes from transcripts. What in it was untrue? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cropped section placed here for discussion==
:The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

:Thomas C. Reeves 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy went through the Lee list. The Lee list read:

:“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

:McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

:Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has ben no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

:McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 240."</ref>

:In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, [[Jean Paul Sartre]], and Theodore H. White.

:The VOA hearings often involved closely questioning witnesses about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. <ref>Time Magazine, March 16, 1953</ref>

:Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days about a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending passage was the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. <ref>”McCarthy Hearings, 1953-54 Vol 1. February 23, 1953</ref>

:Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. <ref>“Time Magazine, March 23, 1953"</ref>

:One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened to testify that he committed suicide. In a lengthy suicide note which specifically referenced the placement of VOA transmitters he wrote, "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes"...."You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," and “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 485</ref>

:No evidence of sabotage of VOA tranmitters were found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

:During Senate debate on the Communist Control Act of 1954, [[Senator Hubert Humphrey]] proposed making membership in the CPUSA a [[felony]]. <ref>McAuliff, Mary Sperling (1978). ''Crisis on the Left: Cold War Politics and American Liberals, 1947-1954''. University of Massachusetts Press, 142. ISBN 0-87023-241-X.</ref><ref>Art Preis, [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/preis/1954/xx/liberals.htm ''A Case of “Midsummer Madness”? Police-State Liberals''], From Fourth International, Vol.15 No.4, Fall 1954, pp.111-114. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).</ref> If implemented this proposal would have resulted in the United States openly prosecuting individuals strictly for their political views.

:What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s public career were the famous [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] of 1954. The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

:The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Boston attorney Joseph Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn McCarthy, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch that he would not bring up the subject if Welch did not bring up Cohn's military history, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher:

:<blockquote>
“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”
</blockquote>

:“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. "Little did I dream you would be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you..." Welch added the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” <ref>”http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html."</ref>
----
Some of this material may good for [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] or other articles. Some was placed in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Let's see if we can find a home for it.

I have reprotected the page from editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Moving it seems like a good solution for now, but I really don't think that any page should have innuendo that McCarthy caused Kaplan's suicide when McCarthy was conducting a legitimate investigation of VOA problems. I do think that the McCarthy page should have a criticism section that explains that a lot of people hated McCarthy for exposing the problem of Communists in the govt, and there should be some representative sampling of the dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox, valid complaint about the Hillary article which bares scrutiny. As to the suicide, this is not the only alleged case. Recently it has been postulated Sen. Robert Lafollette committed suicide [http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=141607] in fear of being subpoenaed before the PSI. I would dispute the claim that Lafollette feared McCarthy personally. Lafollette feared having to testify publicly, under oath, to the fact that (A) he '''''did''''' in fact have no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938, and (B) he '''''knew''''' he had no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938. As a Wisconsin native, I find this extremely interesting, and view the entire Communist controversy, or second Red Scare, as claiming the lives of no less than two United States Senators, '''''both''''' from Wisconsin. Further, while there is strong evidence McCarthy knew of these relationships on Lafollette’s staff, there is no evidence McCarthy intended to sadistically abuse his predecessor, an opponent he had already beaten, in a public hearing. And I will go so far as to state McCarthy's knowledge of Lafollette knowing and tolerating KGB operatives on Lafollette’s staff for nearly a dozen years explains much about own motivations as an elected representative of the people of Wisconsin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

So what if the Kaplan suicide is not the only "alleged" case? It is certainly the most well documented given that the note he wrote left little room for doubt about his motives. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Analysis of obsolete sources==

'''Specific objections to above material''': I am going to invoke '''WP:ATTFAQ/What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F]
, which states
*'''An obsolete source''' is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources. Let's examine these passages:
::*''"...I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party "''
Venona now makes it known (a) the 205 number came Hoover; (b) Hoover did on earlier occasions similarly manipulate the source of his information (Venona) by adding '''other''' names [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html] which were not implicated in Venona, to wit,
::"on May 29, 1946, [Hoover] sent George E. Allen, a confidant of the President and head of the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]], a four-page letter... The Director reported that [Venona] had revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names listed, [[Alger Hiss]] was there, as was [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]]. But these names were well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson.” The third name was “Former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy.” Further on was “Bureau of the Budget—Paul H. Appleby.” ...Further, that it automatically discredited the other accusations..." (Chairman's Forward, Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html] ([http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html Hoover to Allen Letter, May 29, 1946], pages 1 and 2); [https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm Benson and Warner] continue:

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.19

(c) Venona makes it known McCarthy understated the reference regarding "members of the Communist Party" because the 205 figure from Hoover referred specifically to active espionage investigations, not simple party membership.

::*''McCarthy had changed the number to 57''
Objection: redundant and no mystery because the [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], specifically states :”we have been able to compile a list of 57” which came from the earlier 1947 Congressional investigation of Security risks in the States Department and internal Lee List. This was not information from the Hoover and the FBI, yet comparing both lists there is overlap. Here the qualification of (i) an active espionage investigation (ii) CPUSA membership, which ‘’’was’’’ illegal among federal employees, and (iii) a Security risk, is necessary.

And further examination is necessary to understand what precisely was the US Governments goals at this time. The “Tensions of the Times” subhead lays out the background, how the United States was at war with a former ally; how the former ally obtained nuclear weapons know-how from American citizens and federal government employees in the service of a foreign government during wartime. And most specifically, it was determined by the decision makers in the United States Government that prosecution of individuals involved in the conspiracy was virtually impossible; so the FBI & McCarthy’s primary concern was to remove Security Risks from sensitive US Government positions which had (a) subverted the foreign policy to Roosevelt, and (b) transmitted nuclear weapons technology know-how to the Soviet Union. IOW, meeting the standards of proof of evidence before a jury of one’s peers was not the standard employed [http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm#IV.D]
to remove security risks from these sensitive positions.

::*''McCarthy...named...[[Mary Jane Keeney]]''
McCarthy was dead on with this, and only missed naming her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] as well (another example of a family unit in the CPUSA secret apparatus).

::*''The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments.

This information is obsolete based upon recent Venona scholarship.

::*''Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy..."''
Same as above; obsolete and deprecated material. 1982 is pre-Venona. Any material as a source that pre-dates 1995 is suspect, and to characterized it as "painstakingly well-documented" only applies to the state of knowledge at that time, i.e. 1982. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Please cite that specific "deprecation." How was Reeves' biography "deprecated," and by whom? And how does Venona render invalid and inaccurate actual TRANSCRIPTS from the McCarthy hearings? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Overall evaluation ==

My take is that McCarthy has been demonized. His name has been made synonymous with overzealous rooting out of evil - or mean-spirited and partisan intimidation of innocent dissent.

All of this is a smokescreen. Communists murdered tens of millions of people. Support of communism is support of murder.

The way they slam Joe McCarthy makes him (in Liberal eyes) as bad as Hitler. Yet it is the Communists who are as bad as Hitler, or worse. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, [[Mao Tse-Tung]], etc. If anyone needs demonization, these men do. Not McCarthy.

And guess who else used to round people up and intimidate them into ratting out their friends and coworkers? The Communists themselves. And these betrayals cost people their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: here here! McCarthy was a great man. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 14:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Was Augusto Pinochet a Communist? Rios Montt? D'Aubisson?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::IMHO, McCarthy & McCartyism is viewed as a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess. This is not true. McCarthy was a pioneer in modern mindless partisan warfare,and his tactics & techniques have become the mainstay of Washington media and other rabidly partisan types.

::'McCarthy's objective was basically threefold. (1) to remove Security Risks from an opposition Executive Branch at a point in time when the US was at war with enemies who had gained nuclear weapons & know-how from American citizens inside the US Government. (2) Demonize opposition POVs as untrustworthy and anti-American. (3) Payback or a vendetta for twenty years in the wilderness as the minority party.

::McCarthy largely accomplished the first two, but created lasting vendettas with the third. But numerous illustrations are available today to show how McCarthyite tactics are employed regularly in Washington. Ten years ago, for instance, Gingrich appointed a new Historian to the House of Representatives. Unproven McCarthyite smears were used to tar her as an anti-Semite. She was forced to withdraw, and months later recieved a clean bill of health from the Anti-Defamation League. But the damage was done, and the purpose of the wreckless smear was to grandstand, create headlines, demonize Gingrich as allegedly supporting fascists, force an innocent person disprove a negative, etc. So the perpetrators of this vile smear accomplished what they intended--that's all that mattered. Ten years after the fact, the vile smear was still being repeated in Wikipedia, and only after it was brought to the attention of an Arbitrator, the Epopt, did Wikipedia then see fit to rectify the slander.

::In this regard, McCarthy is the teacher and mentor of all contemporary partisan political operatives. Learning the lesson about the [[blowback]] engendered by such methods should be equally important as any short-term advantages that can be gained. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy and McCarthyism is only viewed as "a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess" by those who have not troubled to research the subject. Since I have never made such a claim, what is your point in bringing it up here? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::McCarthy was a drunk, scaremongering reprobate who got exactly what he deserved from the judgement of history. And it says a lot about the fallen state of the Republican Party that a man like this is the latest saint of the Right.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't refering to PF Fox specifically; those who allege the Iraq War is about profits for Halliburton, name names and demonize people, etc. are practicing McCarthyism. IOW, these methods serve short term goals, muddy the waters of intelligent discussion surrounding real issues, create resentment and hostility, grandstand and grab headlines, and who really cares if Iraq democracy is destroyed in the process, or if the Iraqi people fall under another 30 years of fascism. Demonizing and destroying domestic partisan enemies is all that matters. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether McCarthy was a saint or a devil, but I do think that this article on him should recite specifics on why was liked and disliked. In this case, there is a fairly complete record on what McCarthy said and did, and what he was censured for. I'd like to omit any demonization unless it is grounded in actual fact. I just added a reference to the dropped censure charges. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. Truelly he made lasting enemies. But on the fundemental premise he was correct. And what needs to be understood is removing Security Risks as that time of emergency was more of a priority than getting a conviction in a Court of Law. This really seems to be the only issue that keep recurring. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Complaints about Halliburton profiteering, etc. would be a form of McCarthyism only if they made without any evidence offered beyond the fact that the accuser disliked Halliburton's politics and if they resulted in Halliburton employees being hauled before committees, interrogated about their personal beliefs, and very publicly fired and blacklisted based solely on the fact that they had said at some point to someone that they liked working for Halliburton. Here you're attempting to broaden the definition of "McCarthyism" so that it includes ANY criticism or accusation or even just political disagreement. Sorry, but that's not what McCarthyism is.

As for the question about "whether McCarthy was a saint or a devil," I've never said he was either.

What fascinates me is that this seems to be part of a consistent pattern here at Conservapedia in which the mistreatment of people deemed "liberals" or leftists is treated as forgiveable, even laudable. You can cite the Venona papers all you want, but the transcripts of McCarthy hearings -- and the Venona papers themselves -- reveal Joseph McCarthy as an irresponsible confabulator who damaged and destroyed the careers of people who were not involved in espionage and did not deserve such treatment. Citing the Rosenbergs or Hiss or the Keeneys does not make Fred Fisher, or Annie Lee Moss, or Julius Hlavaty guilty. And the "fundamental premise" McCarthy apologists keep bringing up, the reality of Soviet espionage, was not what was contested in McCarthy's day. It was his methods, and nothing revealed in the Venona papers changes that.

Do you understand that the effects of "McCarthyism" can go beyond just wrecking someone's professional life, even beyond "merely" driving someone to suicide, as in the case of Raymond Kaplan or Philip Loeb? Ever heard of the Peekskill riot? Robert Now? The Goldmark family?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Complaints about Halliburton ...only if they made without any evidence ...and if they resulted...being hauled before committees, interrogated about their personal beliefs....''
::See now you are narrowing the definition to "being hauled before committeees", etc. whereas we've already proven Harry Dexter White's corpse was allegedly hauled from the grave to McCarthy's committee, Los Alamos nuke engineers wound up on the Hollywood Blacklist '''which had nothing to do with HUAC and/or McCarthy, etc.

:McCarthyism, then and now, is character assassination in the media for short term political advantage, and knows no political ideology.

:''reveal Joseph McCarthy as an irresponsible confabulator''

::Well, despite the evidence, you are demonizing McCarthy when the real villian appears to be Hoover, who manipulated and betrayed the trust even McCarthy put in him. And again, you refuse to acknowledge the frightening and very real emergency that existed at that time.

:''Do you understand that the effects of "McCarthyism" can go beyond just wrecking someone's professional life, even beyond "merely" driving someone to suicide..''

::I am of the opinion McCarthy himself was a victim, and basically drank himself to death ("alchoholic suicide", as this hilarious parody site [http://www.senatormccarthy.com/] calls it, which has more than an element of truth to it). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Once again, you're playing around with the commonly understood meaning of commonly used words. No, I was not confining the definition of McCarthyism to "being hauled before committees without evidence." I was citing that as an example of how McCarthyism manifests itself. "McCarthyism" is defined in Websters as ""tactics involving personal attacks on individuals b means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations esp. on the basis of unsubstatiated charges." Merely stating a strong disagreement with someone's politics or presenting evidence of wrongdoing does not qualify.

I am still waiting for you to cite convincing evidence that Fred Fisher or Annie Lee Moss or Julius Hlavaty deserved their treatment by McCarthy. Citing the rationalization that was offered at the time, that Commie spies were under every bed and oh mercy sakes we were all so A-SCARED, does not qualify as "convincing evidence," especially since Venona shows that most of those people McCarthy targetted were NOT commie spies. And while I am no fan of Hoover, I've seen no evidence that he was standing behind McCarthy with a sharp stick and forcing him to make up stuff while reading through the Lee list before Congress.

The fact that McCarthy died of alcoholism -- as pitiable as that is, for both him and his family -- does not render him so much a "victim" that he deserves to be regarded with as much sympathy as the people whose lives he damaged. As for that website you've offered, I don't see much evidence that it's intended as a "hilarious parody." The person seems to be citing the standard current revisionist mythology about McCarthy, which is that the objections raised to McCarthy were based on the assumption that there were NO American communists and NO Soviet espionage. Anyone old enough to remember the McCarthy era -- or even the two decades afterwards when McCarthy was so widely discussed and rememebered -- knows that's not true. I mean, for pete's sake, citing LILLIAN HELLMAN and ARTHUR MILLER as Communists McCarthy "exposed" as if the political views of these writers were some sort of secret? That comes across not as parody, but as standard revisionist ignorance posted by a youngster.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Let's look at this document, [http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence], John F. Fox, Jr., FBI Historian, Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005, particularly footnote 21, cited as,

::J. Edgar Hoover, Testimony before House Appropriations Committee, 2/7/1950

:'''THREE DAYS''' before McCarthy’s Wheeling speech. Extracted,

::"Wisely, the Bureau did not look to prosecution as the only, or most important, factor in a [Foreign Counter Intelligence] investigation. Director Hoover told a House Committee in February 1950 that counter-espionage requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases." It is more important is to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective."

:Thus, this testimony, along with much other evidence given right here on this Talk page, demonstrates Hoover was behind a counterintelligence investigation which did not have as its objective criminal prosecution, or simply removing security risks. It included ascertaining "contacts....objectives...sources of information and...methods of communication".

:When McCarthy made his Wheeling speech three days later, it was "public disclosure ...as a matter of last resort", of names on the Lee List.

:In studying this entire sad episode of American history, it is time now to move past analysis based upon the personalities of individuals involved, and whether we like them or not, or who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, etc. All that misses the point about the valuable lessons we can learn from this period in time. While the personalities shaped events, and had a huge impact, they are not determinative of what we need to learn from this experience. And I will never, never, never understand how an individual losing his job because he refused to co-operate with US Government investigators during a wartime emergency that involved the frightening prospect of nuclear holocaust somehow is more important than the widespread fear of nuclear Armageddon engendered by [[CPUSA]] operatives, actively serving the interests of a foreign government in wartime, who handed them nuclear technology know-how.

:You don't see the humor in this,
::''Dead for fifty years, McCarthy's body has now been tarred, feathered, crucified, cremated, and his ashes shot into space by a leftist media who cannot handle the truth of their own miserable existence. '' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, the cites you're offering do nothing to explain why McCarthy fudged the reading of the Lee List on the floor of congress, padding and exaggerating, describing someone as a "known Communist" when the Lee list merely said that his records were sketchy. Second only one of the people named by McCarthy in his Wheeling List, Mary Keeney, is named in Venona as an agent. Neither Gustavo Duran, nor Harlow Shapely, nor Robert Service are so identified in Venona. And third, the only person named McCarthy in that Wheeling speech who was still "working and shaping policy in the State Department" was Robert Service. That's the problem, you see, with using information that's out of date, like an FBI memo covering information from at least two years before.
:This is becoming redundant; the FBI & Hoover had 300+ codenames; by 1980 only 172 had been identified. There was an immediate emergency to remove security risks known to be in the government, but unidentified. So Hoover & Mcarthy harassed them out through intimidation tactics. As to the ethicy of McCArthy using his Committee in a quasi-executive and quasi-judicial way, true--perhaps any other Senator would have refused. So this is one of those quircks of history. And lastly, very importantly, while it appears evident McCArthy & Hoover worked very closely on this, there is no disecernible evidence McCarthy ever suspected Hoover was feeding him bad information.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

This entire "sad episode of human history" is based on the "personality" of Joe McCarthy inasmuch as the personality of this powerful man included a tendency to exaggerate, demonize, and confabulate that resulted in books being banned and the lives damaged of people “guilty” of little more than having politics McCarthy disliked.

You talk about freedom of speech and association here as though they are not rights, but luxuries, indulgences granted to dissenters in times of relative "peace" but rescinded at any whiff of insecurity. If, indeed the "frightening prospect of a nuclear holocaust" is so daunting that speech must now be curtailed, we might as well just cut out the First Amendment of our constitution now and forever, because the very existence of nuclear weapons makes the prospect of nuclear war an inescapable reality from here on. Is that something you would support?

Perhaps what you don't understand is exactly what being blacklisted or identified as a Communist meant during the Red Scare. “Cooperating with the Committee” involved “naming names,” that is, offering up friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, etc. so THEY could be hauled before the Committee, THEY could be blacklisted, THEY could no longer write, teach, perform, etc., THEIR homes might be vandalized, THEIR children harassed, and THEY would be asked to continue that ugly cycle by naming names. It may sound strange to you, but many people had a moral objection to doing this. Some even preferred going to prison.

:I've heard a thousand times how the advocacy of violent overthrow of existing governments by American Communists was benign; we just have to differ on this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you really imagine that McCarthyism actually eliminates all that troublesome dissent that disturbs you so deeply? Do you imagine that in such an atmosphere, people become silent because they’ve changed their minds? They don’t. If you stop hearing certain political or religious opinions in such an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust, it’s not because that kind of disagreement has vanished. It’s because people are afraid of being fired, blacklisted or even jailed for speaking their minds. It’s because the price of being honest about your beliefs has become too high for the average person to bear.

Do you consider that desirable?

:Frankly, I haven't a clue what your talking about now. You refer to "dissent"; if a "dissenter" can make a case about what he is "dissenting" about, I have great respect for that. More often than not today we see mindless partisans who haven't a clue as to what they beleive in, other than [[nihilism]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I can certainly see an attempt at humor in that quote you've offered, but for me to find it funny, I'd have to consider it to contain at least a grain of truth. It doesn't. And it certainly does not qualify the website as a "hilarious parody." Do you understand what the word "parody" means?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:09, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I've heard a thousand times how the advocacy of violent overthrow of existing governments by American Communists was benign; we just have to differ on this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I’m sorry, Rob, but I don’t see much connection between what you’ve posted here and what you are presumably responding to. Are you saying, in all seriousness, you don’t understand why someone who had been fired and/or blacklisted and/or hauled before a committee and grilled about his personal beliefs, would object to subjecting his friends and relatives and neighbors, etc. to the same treatment?

::I think we addressed all this above when discussing dead end files and family connections. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Frankly, I haven't a clue what your talking about now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It’s quite a simple question. Do you consider it desirable for liberals and leftists to refrain from speaking their minds, not because they’ve been convinced they are wrong, but because they fear the consequences of speaking out? \

:Seriously, what you refer to as "liberal" and "leftist", in my observation many, many, many may self describe themselves as that, but DO NOT have a clue what it means and cannot define it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

And I’m still curious -- Do you understand what the word "parody" means?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:yah, and that site is a parody. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we addressed all this above when discussing dead end files and family connections. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm sorry Rob, I don't see the answer there. Are you claiming that EVERYONE who got called before McCarthy's Committee and/or the HUAC were involved in familial espionage rings?

:Seriously, what you refer to as "liberal" and "leftist", in my observation many, many, many may self describe themselves as that, but DO NOT have a clue what it means and cannot define it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I consider a liberal to be someone who believes in progress, the essential goodness of man, the autonomy of the individual, and the protection of political and civil liberties. These days what that means is that a liberal is someone who supports racial equality, Affirmative action, limited gun control, gay rights, the free exchange of ideas, Habeas Corpus, the checks and balances that limit the power of the executive branch, and a capatalist society with some limited government control over the marketplace. A leftist is generally someone who rejects capitalism and embraces either socialism or Communism.

I've answered your question. Please return the courtesy and answer mine. Again:

Do you consider it desirable for liberals and leftists to refrain from speaking their minds, not because they’ve been convinced they are wrong, but because they fear the consequences of speaking out?

:yah, and that site is a parody. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A parody is defined as "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect and ridicule." What at the site has led you to believe the writer is doing this?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthyism ==
I think that the article needs a definition of McCarthyism. I have a proposal here for comment.
: McCarthy is remembered today with the terms McCarthyism, McCarthyist, and McCarthyite. McCarthyism refers to Sen. McCarthy's campaign to investigate problems associated with Communists working in sensitive US government jobs. His campaign infuriated the American Left, and they often use the term to mean aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty. It is a derogatory term. It is often used to refer to HUAC or the Hollywood Blacklist, even though those weren't really part of McCarthy's campaign. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Your definition is inaccurate. The term "McCarthyism" does not refer to simply "investigating problems associated with Communists working in sensitive US government jobs," and it is imprecise to say it means "aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty." McCarthyism is defined in Websters as "a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly as opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated charges." And yes, as such the term does apply not only to campaigns McCarthy waged, but the HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist, just as the term "boycott" applies to something other than Irish renter strikes, and the term "Maverick" applies to something other than unbranded cattle owned by a Texas rancher named Maverick.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: Do you want to suggest a definition, other than reciting the dictionary? This is an article on McCarthy, so the naive reader will think that McCarthyism means doing what McCarthy did. But as you say, the term has taken on a broader meaning among the American Left. My suggestion is to define the root meaning -- McCarthy's famous anti-Communist campaign, and then to the define the broader meaning. The dictionary definition is inadequate because it blurs what McCarthy did, and perceptions of what HUAC and others did, and how the word had adopted a meaning of its own. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I see no problem with referring to dictionaries for definitions. I will grant you that the "naive reader" will not get an accurate view of McCarthyism from reading this article, since accounts of what McCarthy did to coin the term -- his irresponsible and inconsistent accusations, his inaccurate claims, his purging of libraries of such "subversives" as Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman, the innocent people whose lives he damaged, like Julius Hlavaty or Annie Lee Moss -- were carefully excised by the editors. I don't think it's right to compound these omissions by offering to very young and unknowledgable an inaccurate definition of McCarthyism.

The dictionary definition is more than adequate. It is much more precise than the biased definition you've offered and reflects common usage of the term, which covers not just what McCarthy did, but what the HUAC and others did. Don't you advise your students to consult dictionaries when faced with a word they don't understand? Or are you seeking to alter common usage by teaching the young readers here your own version of English?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know what you are talking about. I put a summary of your criticisms in the article myself. You say McCarthy was "irresponsible" to conduct his investigations, but that is just your opinion. Any criticism of McCarthy should be grounded in actual facts, and not just have an unsupported statement that he was irresponsible.
: Yes, dictionaries are useful. I was trying to give a more precise definition by connecting the word McCarthyism to McCarthy. There is room for more than one sentence. I put in the paragraph as above.
: As for Julius Hlavaty and Annie Lee Moss, do you really think that they were good examples of bad behavior on McCarthy's part? If so, please spell it out for me, so I don't get you wrong. Why do you say they were innocent? Were they falsely accused of something? Of what? Were they Communists? And just exactly what did McCarthy do to them that was so horrible? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The definition you offered is not "more precise" than the one offered in most dictionaries. It is of a piece with the article, which has carefully omitted the details about why McCarthy gave his name to "McCarthyism," and why the term is a perjorative.

Yes, I think that hauling Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher with over two decades of service in the public school system before a committee because of a VOA broadcast he'd made a year or two before, questioning him not about that broadcast but about his religious beliefs, and then effectively ending his career with the New York Public School system by asking him "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist" so that he invoked the fifth, which resulted in his automatic dismissal, is an example of "bad behavior." I say Hlavaty innocent because there's not a shred of evidence that he was guilty of any crime. Do you have something on Dr. Hlavaty we don't know about? What do you imagine he was "guilty" of? And yes, I do think it is horrible to unneccessarily end someone's tenure in the public school system in that manner.

Yes, I think that hauling Annie Lee Moss, a communications relay machine operator, before the committee, accusing her of being a Communist and announcing that she had worked in the code room (she had not worked in the Code Room. She was a very low-paid clerk typist and there is little evidence that she was a Communist beyond the word of an informant) was an example of bad behavior on McCarthy's part. Yes, I think she was probably innocent of espionage, and if she was indeed the same Annie Moss who had been listed on Communist party rolls (there was more than one Annie Moss living in NYC at the time) her name had been dropped from the rolls as far back as 1945. As far as I know she is not listed in Venona as an agent, and the Army was confident enough about her to reinstate her some time afterwards.

And yes, I think it's also horrible that McCarthy had state department libraries purged of books by "subversive" writers like Dashiell Hammett and Howard Fast and Theodore White. I think it's horrible that the McCarthyism of the HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist resulted in Philip Loeb's suicide and the blacklisting of gifted people like Zero Mostel, Walter Bernstein, Ring Lardner Jr., and Dalton Trumbo. I think the violent fruits of McCarthyism -- the murder of Robert Now in 1948, the Peekskill riot in 1949, the murder of Thomas Parkinson in 1961, the murders of the Goldmark family in 1985, are also horrible and show just how dire can be the consequences of such irresponsible and indiscriminate accusations.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is another definition of McCarthyism that is unrelated to anything discussed so far. And that is the abuse of Congressional Committee processes. Certain reforms have taken place, nonetheless these abuses ''still'' can occur.

:In 1948, two years before McCarthy's Wheeling speech, [[Elizabeth Bentley]] appeared before a Senate panel after her [[HUAC]] testimony. She had no control over what was to asked, and was prepared to continue along the lines of her House testimony. However, the case of [[William Remington]] just happened to be the latest scuttlebutt making the rounds of the D.C. media & Congress. Bentley was asked about it and the whole questioning focued on it. The following Sunday on ''Meet the Press'' questioning continued, and she ended up being sued for libel. This is what McCarthyism is--in it's truest distillation--abusing or neglecting the rights and protections a witness has in a non-criminal, Congressional Investigation, and usually for the purpose of the investigator to grandstand and grab headlines.

:We saw this again during the Congressional Enron investigations. Everyone knew Ken Lay was going to plead the Fifth; so Chairman Ernest Hollings alloted ten minutes each to eight Democratic Senators who pummelled Lay in an open Congressional Hearing ''prior'' to him even being sworn in. After the 90 minute round-robin of abuse ended, Chairman Hollings then asked "Kenny boy" to stand and be sworn in, after which Lay finally could excercise his rights. This is classic McCarthyism, by '''''all''''' Senators involved, and the Master would have been proud of these proteges. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I suggest putting the following 3 paragraphs in the Criticism section.
::A teacher named Julius Hlavaty testified at the VOA hearings, and refused to answer whether he had been a Communist or had tried to recruit students to the Communist Party. <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,806622,00.html</ref> He lost his job as a public school teacher. Critics say that McCarthy should have ignored commies making anti-American broadcasts on VOA because exposing them might have personally embarrassed them.
:: McCarthy questioned the security clearance for a Communist named Annie Lee Moss who worked in the US Army Signal Corps. Critics say that she was just a low-level clerk, and she may not have actually been a Communist spy.
:: Critics blame McCarthy for objecting to the state department stocking subversive novels that have nothing to do with its mission. They also blame McCarthy for exposing the commie propagandist [[Dalton Trumbo]], even though McCarthy had nothing to do with it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Those would be fair, but in the case of Moss if she indeed was a Party member while in government employ which should cite that it was illegal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: See WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Lee_Moss] for evidence that Moss was a commie. It is pretty damning. She had a job requiring a very high security clearance. It seems clear to me that no one like that should have gotten a security clearance. But that's just my opinion. PF Fox objects to her even being questioned. Frankly, I can't make sense of his argument. But regardless, a lot of people hate McCarthy and it seems reasonable to document their stated grounds for hating him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Joined the party in '43, this would certainly be a [[Smith Act]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act] violation. I have access to the Reports of the Subversive Activities Control Board, if necessary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, they would not be fair. Nothing in that piece indicates that Hlavaty was a "commie" who had delivered an "anti-American broadcast." There does not, in fact, appear to have been anything controversial about Hlavaty's radio message and saying otherwise is nothing moer than an attempt to continue the smear of this man. (Who by the way, was much more than a public school teacher. He was chairman of the mathmatics department at the Bronx School of Science, a prestigious target school.) Declaring as fact that Annie Lee Moss was a Communist is also grossly inaccurate. Whether or not she was a member of the party is very much open to question.

The State Department libaries involved were overseas VOA libraries which included, as policy "any book whatsoever of United States origin which may be of use to the program." This would certainly include books popular at the time, like the words of Hammett or Fast, the plays of Lillian Hellman, as well the works of historian Theodore White, author of THUNDER OUT OF CHINA, and the writings of Walter Wright, head of the NAACP, all of which were part of McCarthy's purge. I'd be interested to know how THE MALTESE FALCON qualifies as "subversive." Maybe we should have all videotapes of that famous Bogart film yanked from public libraries? What do you think? Or the Bette Davis film based on Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES? What subversiveness do you think lurks within that play? How about Kubrick's film, SPARTACUS, which is based on Fast's novel and includes a screenplay by (horrors!) "commie propagandist" Dalton Trumbo? Should that go too?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interesting you should bring up Howard Fast; the link from the mainpage to [[Office of War Information]] gives the connection in the FBI's counterintelligence investigation. Note the last five names, Philip Keeney, Irving Lerner, Peter Rhodes, Christina Krotkova and Flora Wovschin, all American citizens involved in espionage on behalf of the KGB. Flora Wovschin is particulalry interesting, to escape prosecution she fled to North Korea and died serving as a nurse during Korean War. These people certainly were dedicated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

So should all copies of both the book SPARTACUS and the film be "purged" from libraries? And how about THE MALTESE FALCON? THE LITTLE FOXES? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: Then please explain your objections. Do you think that it was okay for commies to be broadcasting on VOA? And not okay for McCarthy to ask about it?
: Yes Hlavaty was more than a public school teacher. But he doesn't seem to have suffered too much either. I read that he got a job with Columbia University afterwards.
: Even if you are not convinced that Moss was a commie, don't you think that there was enough evidence to at least ask her some questions? Do you think that someone in a sensitive job at the Signal Corp should be able to subscribe to commie newspapers without raising eyebrows?
: Did state dept workers have to read Hammett and Hellman to do their jobs? Why is this any worse than an employer blocking access to YouTube.com or Sex.com? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no VOA rule against communists broadcasting, and yes, I think it was okay. No, it's not okay to accuse someone of epionage -- as McCarthy did -- based soley on the fact that you dislike their politics.

If Dr. Hlavaty had wanted to work at Columbia University and not in the New York public school system to which he'd devoted so much of his professional life, he'd have gone to work at Columbia before losing his job. Surely you realize that it's no small thing to interrupt someone's career in that manner?

There was nothing wrong with simply asking Annie Moss questions about whether or not she'd ever been a communist. There was a lot wrong with doing it in front of TV cameras, treating that communist party membership as a given and accusing her lawyer of being a communist into the bargain.

And yes, if a radio broadcast is going to be on the subject of modern novels, films or plays, Hammett and Hellman are two writers you would have needed to read at that time. Removing books from research library shelves is in no way comparable to "an employer blocking access to YouTube or Sex.com" to keep employees from wasting company time on such sites. (Are you, in all seriousness, comparing the works of Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammet, Theodore White, etc., to online porn?) The very purpose of a library is to make such works available. Purging library shelves in that manner -- something both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich did -- defeats that purpose and is not the act of a free and open society.

Rschlafly, please note that I've made the effort to answer your questions. Kindly return the courtesy --

Do you have some evidence that Julius Hlavaty was a communist who had taken part in an "anti-American broadcast?"

Are you equating the works of Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman and Theodore White with online porn?

Do you think all copies of both the book SPARTACUS (written by Howard Fast) and the film (written by Dalton Trumbo) be "purged" from libraries? And how about Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON? Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

*''No, it's not okay to accuse someone of epionage''
::Let's assume you simply misspoke with this above posting. We are making a serious, untiring effort to sort through one half century of misinformation. We have established on this Talk page the varying degrees culpability, ranging from (a) security risks, to (b) CPUSA membership, and the most serious of offenses (c) espionage activity. We have demonstated how in McCarthy's Wheeling Speech he actually understated the seriousness of the charges, by refering to "card carrying Communists", i.e. CPUSA membership, when in fact the source of his information were active espionage investigations. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

No, let's acknowlege that you carefully omitted most of that statement, which read in its entirety, " It's not okay to accuse someone of epionage --AS MCCARTHY DID -- BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT YOU DISLIKE THEIR POLITICS." (emphasis added) It doesn't say much for your "serious, untiring effort to sort through one half century of misinformation" when you engage in this kind of creative editing.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Now, what you have done with this posting, is engage in McCarthyism. You have blanketly accused McCarthy of accusing every subject he investigated as being involved in espionage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where did I do this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is degenerating into some sort of ideological debate; personally I don't give a rip. It's obvious nothing is every going to convince you that Joseph McCarthy was perhaps just a flawed human being who drank too much and abused his office; or that in 1950 there really was an international crisis that was engendered by Comintern activities and CPUSA operatives; or that the threat of nuclear annihilation pales in comparison to some poor shmuck who lost his job. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I "give a rip" about the truth. If that renders this an "ideological debate," so be it. Sure, McCarthy was a flawed human being who drank too much and abused his office. I've never denied that. Nor, in spite of your attempts to ascribe these arguments to me, have I ever said there was no cold war, or that there was no "international crisis" in the 50s, or that the Soviets played no part in that crisis. The problem is, this "flawed human being" you describe, Joseph McCarthy, was given the power to run roughshod over human beings who were "guilty" of nothing more than having political beliefs that McCarthy disliked and you dislike.

What's revealing here, Rob, is not just your willingness to misrepresent what I've said by quoting me incompletely, not just your eagerness to ascribe to me arguments I've never made, and not even just your obvious fear of answering direct questions. It's the fact that you consider the rights of dissidents disposable, something to be tossed aside because you're frightened. It's the contempt you reveal for the rights of the individual by referring to "some poor schmuck who lost as job" as if that were no big deal. Plainly you also consider it "no big deal" for us to become a society in which people are afraid of expressing even moderate disagreement with a conservative administration or policy because they simply can't afford the damage it can do to their ability to support themselves and their families. And your unwillingness to directly address questions I've asked about this strongly implies that not only do you consider intimidating liberals and leftists into silence no big deal, you consider it downright desirable.

It is not desirable. It is not in keeping with what this country is about, or with what the writers of our constitution had in mind when they included the First Amendment.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:It still appears you haven't bothered to read the Appendix's & Chairman's forward to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report yet. Examine these at a minimum, please. They are not that lengthy to read. Thank you. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html][http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa6.html][http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa7.html]

:Then we can move onto the Venona Monographs. This quote from Benson & Warner, if you stop and think about it for a moment, is one of the most powerful paragraphs penned by anyone, anywhere, over the past 60 years:

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.[https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm#ft61]

I've already read this. It does not in any way justify McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this.

Nor does it justify the McCarthyISM of that era, the blacklisting of writers like Dalton Trumbo and Arthur Miller (Is DEATH OF A SALESMAN another one of those "subversive" works you'd like to see purged? How about THE CRUCIBLE?) and performers like Zero Mostel (Should recorderings of the Broadway production of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF be tracked down and destroyed?) and Philip Loeb. The latter by the way was one of those "poor schmucks" who lost his job and career -- and committed suicide as a direct result.

Is it your claim that the world has become so dangerous, so uncertain, that the right to dissent should be tossed out?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
*'' Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain''
::What does this sentence mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It means that the public did not have all the information about Soviet espionage at that time. So what?

What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?

I'm not afraid to answer your questions. What scares you about mine?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:So are you inferring McCarthy himself had all the facts? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

Again. What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:What information can he "exaggerate" when he didn't have the correct, and/or full information then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I've already described at length his exaggerations about the Lee list before the senate. Now, I've made a patient and good faith effort to answer your questions, Rob. I'll not answer any more until you make a similar effort and answer mine.

Again. What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''I'll not answer any more until you make a similar effort and answer mine''

::Succinctly, I am a research historian. My only concern is to discern facts. You appear to be on an ideological crusade, and new information does not deter you from an obsessive hatred of Joseph McCarthy. I do not understand this, and I'm not certain understanding it would matter anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet you seem oddly unwilling to share those facts.

Most of the research historians I've known have had no trouble answering simple questions. In fact, they welcome such questions and tend to be quite direct and lucid in their responses. I do wonder where you got your degree in history, whether it is a graduate or undergraduate degree, and where, aside from here, you have been published as a research historian.

Again, I've made a point of answering your questions. You seem afraid of answering mine. Your unwillingness to answer leaves me with no choice but to draw the most logical -- and sadly, unflattering -- conclusions about how you view dissent in this country, how deeply you fear it, and how eager you are to throw away the rights that Thomas Jefferson considered so important.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is just more nonsense; how members of the majority coalition for 20 years are considered "dissenters" I haven't a clue. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/s121500.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was talking specifically about the people McCarthy targeted, not about the Democratic party as a whole. But I suspect you knew that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, you keep asking me questions like my opinion on what novels should be provided to state dept employees for reading on their spare time. I am not avoiding your questions, but I really don't have any opinion on many of these questions. I am just trying to document criticisms of McCarthy with actual facts. I just inserted several sentences summarizing some of your criticisms.
: I don't think that it is correct to say that McCarthy got Hlavaty fired. It seems likely that McCarthy wanted Hlavaty to answer those questions. A loyal and law-abiding teacher would have answered the questions. I can't be sure of the motives of McCarthy and Hlavaty. So just tried to stick to the facts: Hlavaty gave a VOA broadcast; McCarthy asked questions; Hlavaty refused; Hlavaty lost his job. Let the reader decide for himself. If I made any errors, please let me know. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are misrepesenting me. I did not ask your opinion on novels to be provided to state department employees for reading in their spare time, and anyone reading this discussion knows it. You referred to the writings of Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman as "subversive." I asked you if you thought that these important American writers should be removed from library shelves. For some reason, you are unwilling to answer either yes or no to that very simple question.

Have you even READ Hammett? Hellman?

Many loyal and law-abidig people objected to being asked to name names -- which is what could very well have happened if Hlavaty has not pleaded the fifth. You may not understand the moral objections many people have to the idea of putting friends, relatives, and co-workers in that kind of bind, but I do.

And in the future, if you want to post something to an article that's been closed "as per PF Fox," then please post something I've written -- not your travesty of it.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: You are asking me if certain commie novels belong in libraries. The context was not ordinary libraries, but a library for state dept employees. I don't really have any opinion about it. It seems trivial to me. My only interest was in collecting notable criticisms of McCarthy, so that the article will be balanced. You blame McCarthy for objecting to these novels, so I put that in the article.
: As for Hlavaty, I don't doubt that he had reasons for doing what he did. That is not my concern. I was merely documenting your criticisms of McCarthy.
: I don't post what you wrote, because you ramble into irrelevancies and speculations. I just wanted the fact-based criticisms of McCarthy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can find somewhere to work in this material, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E1D81F31F934A25752C0A962958260 ''Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas against the West]'' by Stephen Koch (New York: Free Press, 1994); for example,

:::"[Willi] Munzenberg created an extensive network of agents, both witting and unwitting, that extended from London to Paris, from Berlin to Barcelona and from Washington to Hollywood. Through these "agents of influence," he was able to shape the West's perception of events like the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which became an emblem of American injustice; the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used (with Stalin's perverse cooperation) as a stepping stone to power, and the creation of the [[Popular Front]] against Fascism. Mr. Koch says the left-liberal alliance served mainly to divert the world's attention from the reign of terror that [[Stalin]] visited upon his followers. ...Munzenberg's reach extended to the recruiting of [[Whitaker Chambers]] by the Russians and to the founding and editing of the "Stalinoid New York daily paper P.M." every word of which in the paper's first months the author reasons, was "approved in advance" by [[Dashiell Hammett]] and [[Lillian Hellman]], "either in New York or at Hellman's farm in Westchester County." Munzenberg's network even affected the behavior of Ernest Hemingway, John Dos Passos and [[Josephine Herbst]]* in a treacherous incident during the Spanish Civil War.

:::*ed note: Joesphine Herbst husband, [[John Herrmann]] was another CPUSA operative in the [[Agricultural Adjustment Administration]] circa 1934 and a member of the [[Ware group]] along with Hiss, Perlo, Abt, and all the other bright shining stars from the early days of the [[New Deal]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: You are asking me if certain commie novels belong in libraries. The context was not ordinary libraries, but a library for state dept employees. I don't really have any opinion about it. It seems trivial to me. My only interest was in collecting notable criticisms of McCarthy, so that the article will be balanced. You blame McCarthy for objecting to these novels, so I put that in the article.[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Book banning is never "trivial." And do explain exactly how THE MALTESE FALCON qualifies as a "commie novel." Or how the works of Theodore White qualify as "commie novels."
::Let's assume this applies to Wikipedia's efforts to ban Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: As for Hlavaty, I don't doubt that he had reasons for doing what he did. That is not my concern. I was merely documenting your criticisms of McCarthy. I don't post what you wrote, because you ramble into irrelevancies and speculations. I just wanted the fact-based criticisms of McCarthy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where did I "ramble" and what did I post that was an "irrelevancy?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Let's assume this applies to Wikipedia's efforts to ban Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

When did Wikipedia try to get Venona materials banned from libraries? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia has extensivley censored Venona materials; let me include for the record that I have forced reevaluation of several given premises of an historical nature within Wikipedia, despite not having edited for one and half years. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Ongoing_debate] for example. I quit Wikipedia when I couldn't get an assurance that the concerted harrassment from [[Political Reserach Associates]], which ArbCom is on record as sanctioning, would stop. See this for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan&diff=next&oldid=18017571]; when I used [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]] as source, he was accused of "complicity in mass murder". And this is what they do to '''dead sources''', so I couldn't risk the reputations and libel against living sources. Wikipedia from the top down engages in this type of McCarthyism.

:You think it's a joke, huh? Let's take Fred Fisher, former NLG member for example. What do you know about the NLG, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and WIkipedia's political content gatgekeeper? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia has extensivley censored Venona materials; let me include for the record that I have forced reevaluation of several given premises of an historical nature within Wikipedia, despite not having edited for one and half years. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Ongoing_debate] for example. I quit Wikipedia when I couldn't get an assurance that the concerted harrassment from [[Political Reserach Associates]], which ArbCom is on record as sanctioning, would stop. See this for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan&diff=next&oldid=18017571]; when I used [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]] as source, he was accused of "complicity in mass murder". And this is what they do to '''dead sources''', so I couldn't risk the reputations and libel against living sources. Wikipedia from the top down engages in this type of McCarthyism. [User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

In other words, no, you have no examples of Wikipedia attempting to ban Venona materials from libraries. I thought as much. And for the record, I really don't care what Wikipedia has done. I have absolutely no stake in Wikipedia, don't generally use it as a source, and have never contributed to it, so telling me all about the wicked things Wikipedia has done doesn't really qualify as much of an argument.

::''you have no examples of Wikipedia attempting to ban Venona materials from libraries''
:::It's all having access to internet & webservers today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Actually there are lots of libaries around that many people still use. They have all these square papery things in them called books and magazines that contain information not available online. Pretty neat, eh?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:You think it's a joke, huh? Let's take Fred Fisher, former NLG member for example. What do you know about the NLG, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and WIkipedia's political content gatgekeeper? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what these three things have in common. Please tell us about it and how it's germane to McCarthy implying on television that Fred Fisher is a Communist after he'd previously agreed not to do this. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, to answer your questions, The Maltese Falcon is a commie novel in the sense that it was written by a Communist. You ramble into irrelevancies when you ask me my opinion of these commie novels, or declare that book banning is never trivial. No books were banned. Anyone was free to buy any of those commie novels, and read them on their own time. I just want facts about what McCarthy did. If anything in the article is inaccurate, please let me know. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::You've never even read Hammett, have you? In fact, I'll bet you've never read Lillian Hellman (a playwright) or Theodore White (an historian -- not a fiction writer.) You haven't the foggiest idea what these books and plays contain that would or would not make them "commie" and any quick search you do online isn't going to help you much in that regard. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::PF, Fred Fisher brings us back to the [[National Lawyers Guild]]. Let me make a longstory brief: A fomer NLG Vice President who once worked with [[Philip Agee]] on ''CounterSpy'' magazine, and is now Wikipedia's prominent gatekeeeper of political content had no problem exposing the identities of living CIA Agents when he worked with Agee in the 1970s. [[Richard Welch]], CIA station chief in Athens, was murdered after being identified by Agee's ''CounterSpy'' magazine. [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29%2C+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch] When I began identifying dead [[KGB]] Agents, the same former [[NLG]] Vice President targeted, harassed, censored, and slandered me. Now if you can explain, in this post-[[Cold War]] era, why an American citizen is proud of the work he has done to undermine the CIA, and fights tooth and nail to hide the identiies of dead KGB operatives, I'd be interested in hearing. Other than that, you've really not brought forward anything new that hasn't been debated to death already for over 50 years now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

And this means Fred Fisher was a spy?

How?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:This means McCarthy violated an agreement and Senate rule not to bring the matter up publicly; how is this bit of despicable, loathsome conduct any more uncommon from when [[Sen. Paul Simon]] of Illinios leaked Clarance Thomas's FBI file to Nina Totenberg of NPR which contained all the Anita Hill garbage in it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::I hold no brief for Paul Simon, but are you seriously comparing him leaking Clarence Thomas' file to NPR to McCarthy attacking a private citizen on national tv? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeed I am comparing the false, defamatory and permanent damage done to Clarance Thomas to Fred Fisher. And Fisher is just a footnote in history compared to a Supreme Court Justice who has served two and half decades now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Fred Fisher was a private citizen, Rob. That makes a big difference. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Clarance Thomas likewise was a private citizen. So a totally illegal, unethical, false, defamation and violation of Senate rules is ok and tolerable so long as it's against an upiddy Black who's off the plantation. Yes, now you are making perfect sense. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, Clarence Thomas was a public figure. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, both Clarance Thomas and Fred Fisher were obscure lower level govt employees, or Fisher was actually a subcontractor of a firm doing business with the govt which is the same thing.

::Seems you need to learn about Sec 230 vs British law. You speak like it's ok to spew any garbage simply because you're an American citizen, whereas what you post on the internet here in the US is a Constitutionally protected right, in Canada or Great Britain, where it can be read, it may actually be a crime. Just cause a person is a public figure does not mean you have the right to spew hatred and defame them in most countries outside the US, and it is a prosecutable offense. Last week for example, Britney Spears began action in London for defamatory crap written about her while in rehab here in the US. So no, you're not free to spew garbage and defamation just because a person is a public figure. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

As an American I can criticize a public figure freely. That is how the constitution has been interpreted for years. Private citizens, however, are treated differently.

Clarence Thomas was a nominee for the Supreme Court. Fred Fisher was a young attorney working for a Boston Law firm. It's a pity you can't recognize the difference. Most people can. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::You specifically have answered your own question: you appear to be justifying a flagrant violation of Senate rules with the specific intent to slander & defame a person. In the case of Fisher, as Roger pointed out McCarthy was responding to a question in the first place (took the bait, so to speak), and the Army-McCarthy hearing was not concocted with the specific intent to defame Fisher.

::I think many of us have conceeded McCarthy was heavy-handed and excessive, yet you are in a curious place right now--on the one hand you decry "McCarthyism" and "McCarthyite tactics"; on the other hand you have plainly stated you have no problem with McCarthyite tactics when in the service of what is probably your pet causes. There is nothing preventing you from holding a dicotomy of positions like this, but it does absolutley ZERO to gain credibility for your complaints of unfairness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said the Army-McCarthy hearing was "concocted with the specific intent to defame Fisher." Are you truly unable to argue a point without ascribing things to people they never said?

You seem absolutely intent on ignoring how "McCarthyism" is defined. Exactly how did that leak qualify as "personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminte accusations esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated chrages?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The Anita Hill hearings certainly were concocted with the specific intent to defame Clarance Thomas, and you seem to have no outrage for the blatant McCarthyism surounding that event. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, no one cares whether I have read Hammett. He could be the best commie novelist in the world, or the worst. It makes no difference for the purpose of this article. Also, the article does not say that Fisher was a spy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Whether you actually read Hammett determines how seriously anyone is going to take you when they hear you describe his books as "commie novels." And if Hammett having communist sympathies makes his detective novels "commie novels," then that quintessential American icon, the hardboiled private eye immortalized by Humphrey Bogart is also "commie" because Hammett pretty much invented it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, your opinion is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Misinformation in McCarthy article ==

Rschlafly, what you have posted as a definition of McCarthy is flatly untrue and not the way the term is defined in common usage.

Doesn't that bother you at all?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that it is false. But show me some common usage, and maybe you can prove me wrong. I just found this, from a leftist cartoonist a week ago. "During the 1950s, a defining characteristic of McCarthyism was to deprive actors of work in Hollywood to punish them for political views expressed elsewhere." [http://baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=0813BC739F2044E5A03DCF2DE3FDF7C9&tier=4&id=BF3D56CABB7A4156B42FD5B00F538F56] If this is really common usage, then I'd like a definition to cover it, but it is a little confusing to explain. McCarthy didn't deprive any actors of work. How would you explain it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::Here's another one, "November 15, '''1946''' Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogates astronomer Harlow Shapley" [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Joseph+McCarthy+HUAC+interrogates+astronomer+Harlow+Shapley&btnG=Search] I don't understand how the people who perpetrate this kinda fruad expect to gain anything using such naked lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Try not to become enraged or embittered. There is a lot of misinformation out there. It has only been a couple of centuries that [[freedom of speech]] has been in existence. And the Internet's fair-haired child (the [[Worldwide Web]]) only became popular around 15 years ago. Things take time. See [[Paradigm shift]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to Wikipedia, gay bashing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_bashing&diff=next&oldid=21625399] is a form of McCarthyism. Truth is, passing gas in a crowded elevator is McCarthyism, too. It's an attack term that can be remolded to denigrate whatever we don't like at any moment in time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes. Some people use the term as just a meaningless leftist smear term. Most usage doesn't seem to have much to do with McCarthy. The article should explain this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Terms like ''[[McCarthyism]]'' and ''[[pollyanna]]'' and ''[[homophobic]]'' are used unthinkingly - or as deliberate propaganda. A good encyclopedia would use plain English instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: All I am saying is that the article should describe how the term McCarthyism is popularly used today, and how the term relates to McCarthy. If it is primarily used as an unthinking propaganda term that bears little relation to McCarthy, then the article should say so. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Not to sidetack this discussion, but McCarthy must've known of Ray Cohn homosexuality, as Hitler knew of Enrst Rohm's homosexuality. In both instances, McCarthy & Hitler were extremely tolerant toward close associates who were gay. Today however, "homophobia" becomes a form of "McCarthyism" or "fascistic tendencies". This is junk I object to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, “McCarthyism” is used to the describe the Hollywood blacklist and the HUAC hearings even though McCarthy was not personally involved in these matters in the same manner that “Maverick” is used to describe independent individuals, even though they are NOT in fact, unbranded cattle belonging to a 19th century Texas rancher named “Maverick” and “boycott” is used to describe “a concerted effort to have dealings with a business or individual” even though the business and individual in question are NOT the 19th century Irish land agent whose name coined the term. What do you find confusing about this?

::Here's another one, "November 15, '''1946''' Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogates astronomer Harlow Shapley" [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Joseph+McCarthy+HUAC+interrogates+astronomer+Harlow+Shapley&btnG=Search] I don't understand how the people who perpetrate this kinda fruad expect to gain anything using such naked lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

How is the fact that some website got a piece of history wrong relevant here?

::According to Wikipedia, gay bashing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_bashing&diff=next&oldid=21625399] is a form of McCarthyism. Truth is, passing gas in a crowded elevator is McCarthyism, too. It's an attack term that can be remolded to denigrate whatever we don't like at any moment in time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some people misuse the term McCarthyism does not render it invalid as a term, and does not mean that it’s always used “unthinkingly.” “Communism” is also a term that’s frequently applied carelessly and without thought. I've seen it thrown at people for advocating the integration of public schools and laws against child labor. That doesn’t make Communism any less real or the word “Communism” any less valid when applied to a political belief that advocates the abolition of private property.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:''The fact that some people misuse the term McCarthyism does not render it invalid''
::Thank you. Recently someone asked that at [[Talk:Liberal#inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning]]; now we have good illustration. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

You're not making sense here. Does the fact that the term "Communism" is sometimes misused by people who apply it to anyone who supports unions, racial integration, and child labor laws render the term "Communism" itself invalid?

And I'd really appreciate answers to the numerous other questions I've asked and that you've ignored. I try to make a point of answering your questions. Why not return the courtesy and answer mine?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. Specifically here--the term "McCarthyism" means whatever you'd like it to mean. For example, when Hillary Clinton voted for the War, her anti-war critics were McCarthyites. Now that she's backtracking and joining the anti-war movement, her critics outside the anti-war movement likewise are McCarthyites. It's all so very simple to see and understand. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll take this a "no." You have no intention of answering my questions. Why not? What are you afraid of?

No, "McCarthyism" does not "mean whatever" I or anyone else would like it to mean, any more than "Communism" means what I or anyone else would like it to mean. "McCarthyism" does not mean merely expressing disagreement with someone. Do I really need to post the dictionary definition of McCarthyism AGAIN?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Basis of objections to McCarthy's investigations ==

:''McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive use of legislative investigatory powers to probe the Communist sympathies of various government officials.''

This sentence is, at best, unclear. What was being criticized?
#How aggressive he was?
#His probing of "Communist sympathies"?

Or that he was using the probe for self-aggrandizement?

Or because the critics themselves (1) sympathized with Communism and (2) objected to anyone stopping Communist sympathizers from aiding the Soviet government? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==WP McCarthy entry==
Let's examine these from the WP McCarthy entry:
*[[Solomon Adler]] Apparently never accused of anything by McCarthy; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-85]
*[[Cedric Belfrage]] Questioned by McCarthy in a closed subcommittee session but apparently never accused of anything; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-86]
*[[T.A. Bisson]] apparently only mentioned in passing by McCarthy; evidence from Venona indicates Soviet espionage activity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-87]
*[[Lauchlan Currie]] briefly mentioned by McCarthy in 1951; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-88]
*[[Leonard Mins]] Questioned by Roy Cohn at the Army Signal Corp hearings but apparently never accused of anything; evidence from Venona indicates Soviet espionage activity.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-94]

All of this adds weight to what has been outlined here: (1) that McCarthy was feed bogus inforamtion and dead-end files from the FBI & Hoover; (2) McCarthy was unaware he was being used by FBI & Hoover as such. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could someone add this article to [[:Category:US Judges]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::U.S. Judges may be ambiguous; it sound like it refers to US Federal judges, whereas McCarthy was a State circuit judge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
----
We're at the magic 57 number right now [[:Category:KGB Agents and Sources]]; I have about 250 more to go. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==
In case no one noticed, this article is still rife with bias. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have examples? I added a criticism section that includes some of the major criticisms. What do you want to see? Where is the bias? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Decency quote==

No mention of the quote that brought an end to McCarthy's committee? "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:45, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Joseph McCarthy

2007-05-22T21:45:09Z

JohnSmith: /* Bias */

{{protect|RobS}}This article is horrendously written. Truly. Would someone with some good sources tear it apart?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'd take a look at it now, but I'm going to work soon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It seems a shame to mention only the horrid propoganda about this true American hero. Maybe we can work out a compromise. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 12:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The latest version, although stripped down, is more respectful to this great man. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 14:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Although the wikipedia article continues to smear and blacken the name of this great American, I was able to use some of it as a base to flesh out this article to provide some more detail about the great Senator. I hope you like it.
{|
| style="background:orange" | [[Image:ccbyncsa.png|right]] This comment was left by [[User:frijole|frijole]]. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US] license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ license page] for more information.
|} 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Long live the Communist Party of the United States! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==General discussion==

VENONA Files section should be a separate article in my view.

Well... I hate to go against the grain but the only reason why he's notable is because of the bad things that he did do. And this is the new century, do we really need to keep acting like communism is still the big bad enemy? Last time I checked most communist countries fell out of power, sans China, and democracy still reigns over most of the world. And are the flowery words really needed? Of course it's heroic, what kind of a liberal fool are you to have to be told as such? --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Go ahead and list the specific bad things that he did. Just don't put meaningless generalities, such as saying that he was "discredited". I put in the actual censure finding against him. Someone else put in how he exaggerated his war record. Do you have anything else to add? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Basically what happened, IMO, as one who has studied this period at length, the FBI & NSA kept Venona evidence a closely guarded secret for several reasons, so they needed evidence ''from other'' sources to go into a court of law. Now, if the FBI led McCarthy to a prime suspect, that would tip the KGB that the US had evidence to suspect such a one. And the Communist conspiracy, which in fact was found to exist based upon several US Government Reports from the 1960s on, was extremely large scale indeed. No fewer than 400 involved, most likely at least 800, and possibly as high as 1200. There were two CPUSA organizations, the "open party", and the "underground apparatus". In my view, the FBI gave McCarthy basically dead-end files.

:::Here an understanding of the relationship between Hoover & McCarthy is necessary. McCarthy was an ex-judge, and Hoover a cop. So the relationship was not unlike any routine law enforcement official going before a judge asking for a search warrant based upon the evidence in hand. But this was not a Court, and McCarthy was willing to use his Legislative Committee to more or less perform an Executive and quasi-Judicial function. The FBI didn't want to tip its hand regarding its real suspects, and the Communist Party membership was quite often an intimate family affair. So the FBI in many instances would hand McCarthy a file of, say, a brother-in-law to the real suspect. Now the person called before Committee may have been a member of the open party, and may have even known his family relative was involved in some questionable things, and the persons' FBI file may have had some dirt or embarrassing thing in it, so they were essentially being blackmailed -- rat out somebody you know, or all this junk in your file becomes public.

:::That's moreless my picture of how it worked. The question remains did McCarthy know he was getting bogus info from the FBI, and I would likewise say he did not. This infact explains the Army-McCarthy hearings, cause Army Signals Intelligence is who handled Venona, and I think at some point McCarthy realized the files from the FBI were dead end, and that info originated somewhere in the Army, so it appeared the Army was hiding something, which indeed they were, the Venona project. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Let me give 3 illustrations how this theory works. Communist Party cells worked as ''cadres'' often using family members.

::::(1) Ruth Greenglass's testimony sent her brother and sister-in-law, Julius & Ethel (nee Greenglass) to the electric chair.

::::(2) Oppenheimer was a member of cadre that consisted of his wife, Kitty Harrison, and his brother Frank Oppenheimer.

::::(3) Alger Hiss, according to Venona, lead a group "largely consisting of his relatives", i.e. his wife Priscilla Hiss and brother Donald Hiss.

::::(4) Here's a forth; Flora Wolschin, and her parents, Maria Wicher and Enos Wicher were all Venona spies.

::::(5) Here's another; John Abt married Harold Wares widow. Abt was a KGB operative identified in Venona and Ware once headed the group Hiss, Chambers and Harry Dexter White all belonged to.

::::So it very often was a family affair. The FBI decided it would not use VENONA materials to prosecute cause that would reveal to the USSR that the US had broken its codes. The US was faced with two problems: (1) remove security risks, both known & unknown from sensitive jobs; (2) prosecute, if possible, using evidence ''other than'' Venona those known to be in the service of the KGB ''without disclosing in an open courtroom the nature of the proof''. But as a matter of priority, given the serious dangers at that time of the Soviet Union gaining nuclear know-how from American citizens, removing them from sensitive jobs ''was more of a priority'' than prosecuting for espionage. And there remained the problem that many code names had yet to be identified, i.e. the FBI knew they were there but didn't know who they were.

::::So this is were my theory of Hoover's relationship to McCarthy comes in. Hoover most probably held back the files on the prominent suspects involved in espionage activity, but often had files on relatives or close friends who in many instances also had been party members at one time though not necessarily invovled in espionage.

::::The closed door transcripts were released about four years ago. Some are quite interesting, others have remarkably shocking drivel, like it being revealed someone had once been arrested in a public mens room with another man. This sort of stuff, in a closed door hearing, smacks of strongarm intimidation tactics. Though I do not beleive McCarthy knew he was being used by Hoover this way. McCarthy probably got the idea from Hoover that whoever they were investigating was either the big fish or was gonna lead them to the big fish, probably not knowing the FBI had little more evidence other than a certain family member had once been a member of the open, or above ground party, and guilty of some embarassing stuff at one time. Needless to say on the other hand, these sort of intimidation tactics to get somebody to rat-out a family member who perhaps was facing the electric chair, by exposing in a public forum all sorts of things someone may not wish to have known, has generated the intense hatred for McCarthy that still fuses some people with anger at the mention of his name. But the story doesn't end there. There is moral responsibility on the part of cowards who knew the "conspiracy" was real, and let innocent people be abused while pretending to be victims themselves.

::::One final comment, the perception of the threat of nuclear war was very real, as was the perception the US government under both Truman & Ike (Dem & GOP) was covering something up. And yes, now we know they were covering up the fact the US was reading Soviet codes. But the real threat was to remove all known & suspected security risks.

::::As Moynihan said, "Ignorant armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Addendum: McCarthy being ridiculed for not have caught a single spy really should be regarded as a credit to keeping secret the VENONA program of reading Soviet codes. Pity such secrecy failed in keeping secret [[Atomic bomb]] secrets which led to the insane nuclear arms race of the [[Cold War]]. And the cost in domestic partisan warfare. [[Richard Nixon]] rose from an obscure backbencher to the Presidency by putting in jail the first General Secretary of the Hope of Mankind, i.e. [[United Nations]]. The vendetta to get Nixon for that is what [[Watergate]] is all about.

:: So how many innocent lives were ruined by McCarthy's false accusations? There are lots of articles that say that McCarthy did harm, but hardly any that specify the harm. If you can specify the harm, then go ahead. Just saying that he ruined people is worthless. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "ruined?" As far as I know, there is no point by point, alphabetical list of the names of people whose lives were badly affected by McCarthy's irresponsible accusations, but it's certain that careers were needlessly damaged, some of them ended. The people McCarthy injured include Reed Harris ( lost his job), Dr. Julius Hlavaty (long career in the NY public schools ended), and Raymond Kaplan (suicide). I don't know how many people were in Mr. Kaplan's family, but I'm pretty certain he had a wife and children, so their lives were undoubtedly pretty badly affected. And if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated, the list of damaged lives expands dramatically.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am looking for actual facts, not conclusory propaganda. Reed Harris resigned his government job. He was asked about writing an essay that favored Communists teaching in the schools. Raymond Kaplan was not accused of anything, and had not been called to testify. He was an engineer with knowledge of VOA transmitters not functioning properly, and he might have been called if he had lived. But how is McCarthy to blame? Are you saying that the Senate should not have been investigating the VOA transmitter failure? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::''"if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated"''
::Yes, we had these debates ''in extensio'' in Wikipedia. For example, Harry Dexter White who died three days after a HUAC hearing in August of 1948, nevertheless was a "victim of McCarthyism", nevermind the '''fact''' that he was (1) dead and burried when McCarthy waved his list of 57 Communists in February of 1950; (2) was dead and burried when McCarthy held hearings; (3) never testified before any Senate hearing chaired by Joseph McCarthy; (4) Joseph McCarthy never served in the House of Representatives. Now, per Wikipedia's own policy of WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AWT, no one ever produced any evidence Harry Dexter White "denied charges before a McCarty era hearing". I burried Mr. White umteen times only to have him resurrected to deny charges before a "McCarthy era hearing". In this instance, I would suggest Conservapedia implement Wikipedia's own policies which they steadfastly refused to do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that Harry Dexter White died shortly before McCarthy waved his famous "list" does not make him any less a victim of "McCarthyism" though I would not call him a victim of McCarthy himself. We still use the word "Boycott" to refer to what happened in Montgomery in the 1960s even though Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott had been dead for decades. I've also heard the word "Maverick" used to describe nonconformists who lived and died well before Samuel A. Maverick had his ranch in Texas and nonconformists who lived long after Mr. Maverick himself had died. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, those are good points. So the discussion has gone from writing an accurate historical narrative to "framing issues" for propaganda purposes. I think we need to establish facts (which I have an extensive contribution list in Wikipedia) and deal with propagating interpretive views of facts some other time. Richard Gid Powers 1995 book separates "irresponsible anti-communism" from "responsible anti-communism". The deliberate use of invidious pejoritives after users have been "politically profiled" in Wikipedia is something I do not think is practiced here. Here, by precedent, I hope we can write straight forward historical narritives and leave out conclusionary premises. It simply a matter of employing the historical method, not beginning with a conclusion we intend to end up with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Censure==
AmesG has repeatedly removed the actual grounds for censuring McCarthy, leaving the reader the false impression that McCarthy was censured for his anti-communist investigations. In fact he was exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges. McCarthy was censured for failing to cooperate with the subcommittee that was investigating him, and for insults to the committee that was trying to censure him. If there is some error in my description, then please address it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the actual Senate resolution that passed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

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

:Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with "deliberate deception" and "fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a "lynch-party"; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.

::Basically, McCarthy was "condemned" for name calling. My we've come along way, I routinely hear Seantors engage in invidious name calling of other Senators or the President on televsion. And many of McCarthy's detractors today have little more than name calling to impugn McCarthy with.

::As to discussing "McCarthyism" and its "victims", Venona evidence shows many "McCarthy vicitms" were not victims at all. ''In fact'', now we must judge the moral responsibilty of guilty parties who kept silent and allowed others to be victimized by their silence. This is as important an aspect of the investigation as anything else. If McCarthy was a demon witchhunter, those guilty parties who feign innocence and allowed others to be smeared, basically to save thier own tails, so to speak, are EQUALLY guilty of creating an atmosphere of "hysteria", or however you wish to characterize it. So this whole discussion really begins with examining Comintern activities which started about 1919, and about 1921 in the United States. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

What did the Venona Papers say about Annie Moss? Julius Hlavaty? Raymond Kaplan? Reed Harris?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rschlafly-- Facts ==

What happened to Reed Harris, Dr. Julius Hlavaty, and Raymond Kaplan is not "conclusory propaganda, but fact. Reed Harris was not just questioned, but repeatedly attacked by McCarthy for opinions he'd expressed as a student twenty one years before in a book about the commecialization of college sports, KING FOOTBALL. The book had included a defense of the right of Communists to teach. Do you seriously consider the statement "Communists have the right to teach" so outrageous that it calls for someone to be forced to resign from their job? As for Raymond Kaplan, his rather lengthy and detailed suicide note makes it plain that it was being called to testify before McCarthy's committee that terrified him. ""You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," he wrote. "I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can't take the pressure upon my shoulders any more." Given that Harris had been forced to resign for something he'd written more than two decades before, Kaplan's fear was not unfounded. And the VOA hearings were not just some sort of technical inquiry into why a transmitter malfunctioned. McCarthy's contention was that it was part of a dastardly Communist plot within the VOA, and his investigation included questioning witnesses about their church attendance and religious beliefs and purging VOA overseas libraries of such dangerously "subversive" authors as Dashiell Hammett and Theodore H. White. --PF Fox 13:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I do believe that it is fair game to ask a govt official about a pro-communist opinion that he expressed in a book. But my opinion is irrelevant. If it is somehow notable that McCarthy asked these questions, then go ahead and insert that into the article. However it is just false left-wing propaganda to say that McCarthy ruined any innocent lives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How is it "pro-communist" to say that communists have a right to teach? Are you pro-liberal? Do you think liberals have a right to teach? Does the fact that I think libertarians have a right to teach make me "pro-libertarian," even though I generally disagree vehemently with libertarians?

And yes, in the context of a discussion about McCarthy and what made him so unpopular, the fact that McCarthy got people fired, drove at least one man to suicide, needlessly ended the career of at least one popular and valuable teacher in the New York public school system, purged books by noted and important authors from VOA libraries and grilled people about their religious beliefs in hearings is "notable." Under what circumstances would it NOT be "false left-wing propaganda" to say that a politician had "ruined innocent lives" if not to say it about a politician who repeatedly impugned people's loyalty and ended their careers for simply having political beliefs he disliked? What would McCarthy have had to do to qualify in your mind as "ruining innocent lives?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: As I said, my opinion about whether public colleges should be promoting communism is irrelevant. I just want facts. McCarthy had no dislike for Kaplan's political beliefs, and did not drive him to suicide. Kaplan's suicide was all the more reason for McCarthy to investigate what VOA did. Whether McCarthy acted "needlessly" is a matter of opinion. Some people think that McCarthy did not do enough to uncover communists.
:I am looking for facts here, not just conclusory leftist opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you consider it a "fact" that believing communists have a right to teach makes you "pro-communist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to debate my personal definition of "pro-communist". The facts are that Harris published some communism-related opinions in a book, and McCarthy asked about those opinions. If asking that question was McCarthy's greatest sin, according to his leftist enemies, then go ahead and put it in the article. Just don't put in your leftist propaganda. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing unreasonable about asking you to define your terms. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: To answer your question, I was using the term "pro-communist opinion" in the sense of expressing an opinion in support of communists. Harris did that in his book. It doesn't necessarily mean that Harris belonged to the Communist Party or anything like that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does saying "Communists have the right to teach" qualify as an "opinion in support of communists" unless you equate supporting the rights of a group with supporting that group's aims?

: Expressing an opinion that Communists have a right to teach in the public schools is obviously expression an opinion in support of those Communists who want to teach in the public schools. McCarthy gave Harris an opportunity to explain his opinion. If you want to know more about Harris's opinion, read the transcripts instead of asking here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Joe Stalin, who CPUSA members served under, also "ruined innocent lives". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. What's your point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Comparing a mass murderer of 40 million people with someone who allegedly inspired somebody to commit suicide is a bit disportionate, don't you think? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Where and when did I compare McCarthy with Stalin?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:The same language "ruined innocent lives" can be applied to Joseph Stalin and to Joseph McCarthy. Let's not talk past each other. As to the question, "can a Communist teach in a public school?", what ''is'' the question? Can a government employee also be a member of the Communist party?, or can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold Communist ideology? Please be specific. No need to parse this junk anymore. Most of these people are dead, and we do have a record of facts now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafley's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

I think the question being posed when someone asks "can a Communist teach in a public school?" is pretty clearly "can a Communist teach in a public school." The answer, as far as I know, is "yes," since I am aware of no law that bars people from government service based on their politics. If there are some Red Scare era laws still on the books that bar Communists in this manner, I suspect they would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, any more than some past laws barring atheists from testifying or adopting children or making atheism a criminal offense, or defining Communist parents as legally unfit would stand up. The answer to your other question, "can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold communist ideology" is also a "yes." It also prompts the question of what you consider "communist ideology." I've seen advocacy of limited gun control, membership in the ACLU, and support for Howard Dean's run for the presidency described in that manner.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. So that gets to some of the specifics. I don't believe the question here is whether a person can teach today holding those views, and I agree with you on that. Holding those views and communicating them today in a classroom as doctrinal is different discussion for a different time and place. The question for this bio page is, Was it illegal for an employee of a local school district to hold CPUSA membership, as I understand the question to be. Merits of the law is an entirely different matter.

:Then I can assume we also may agree using the same language to describe McCarthy that has been used to describe a few recent despicable mass murderers in history is clearly over the top and out of bounds. Was McCarthy a monoster? I don't know, perhaps. Was he human? Yes. McCarthy is the godfather of two of Robert F. Kennedy's living children. Clearly, clearly, the depictions of McCarthy elsewhere as a subhuman, if not inhuman, or non-human really say more about McCarthy's detractors than the do McCarthy.

:An editor here in Conservapedia, who identifies himself as being 16 yrs old, told me Arthur Miller testified before McCarthy's Committee. Where did her learn that junk? These are the living lies I hope we can finally put an end to.

:Simply put, McCarthy was half right, and half wrong. Likewise many of McCarthy's critics were then, and remain, half right and half wrong. Let's not whitewash ''the facts that we do know now'', any further. "Ignorant Armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the question is, does getting someone fired and/or ending their teaching career qualify as "ruining" someone's life. I believe it certainly can. At the least it is a detriment. And I don't know why you assume "we may also agree" that saying "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" qualifies as a comparison to Joseph Stalin. I can only assume you missed my response, so I'll repeat it here and italicize it so you'll be sure to see it.:

''I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafly's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

''
There was an Arthur Miller mentioned during the McCarthy hearings, though I don't know of Miller himself actually being called before McCarthy. Given that he also called in Howard Fast for grilling, it wouldn't be surprising if he were. Miller did quite definitely get called before HUAC, however, and was convicted of contempt for refusing to name names. His play about the Salem Witch Trials, THE CRUCIBLE is a parable for McCarthyism, drawing some pretty biting parallels between the mentality behind Salem and the mentality behind much of the Red Scare.

The claim "McCarthy was right" presumes, by the way, that at issue was the premise that espionage was taking place. It should be noted that nobody during the Cold War, liberal or conservative, denied the existence of Soviet espionage. At issue was McCarthy's methods which, as I believe I've illustrated, were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody denied Soviet expionage?! There were plenty of leftists who denied that Alger Hiss or anyone else was a spy. I also don't agree that you have illustrated what you say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly the same as denying that espionage itself took place. And how have I not illustrated that McCarthy as reckless, irresponsible, and dishonest? I've described instances where he lied, accused, and misrepresented. The declassification of the Venona papers don't change that behavior. In fact, Venona shows that the majority of those he named as "disloyal" did not deserve the treatment he gave them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Support from Ann Coulter ==

What the hell is this? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? Ha Ha Ha you guys are insane. -- --[[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Technical problem==
I created the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] which links from the mainspace but still shows up as a red link. Can anybody help? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==205 or 206==
[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Belmont to Boardman, November 26, 1957]

:''Based on the investigations from [Venona project] information we have identified 206 persons involved in Soviet espionage activities who have at one time been active in the United States or which activity has had some United States ramifications. Of this number we already had received information from other sources including espionage involvement on the part of 87 of these persons. However, 119 persons were not previously known to us as being involved in espionage and have been identified through investigation in this case.

''A chart explaining these figures in more detail is set out.

<center>''SOVIET ESPIONAGE AGENTS IN [VENONA] CASE</center>

{| border=1
! ''Total Number Involved in Soviet Espionage''
! ''206''
|-
! ''Number Previously Known to Us from Other Information''
! ''87''
|-
! ''Number Not Previously Known to Us
! 119 ''206''
|-
! ''Soviet Officials Not Now in the United States''
! ''61''
|-
! ''Other Persons Not Now in the United States
! ''40''
|-
! ''Persons Deceased''
! ''11''
! ''(Burd, Duggan, Golos,a. Ivancic, Kournakoff, Lauterbach, Malisoff, Sabatini, Staple, White,b. Briggs)''
|-
! ''Persons Now Cooperative with Us''
! ''14''
! ''(Bentley ,c. D. Greenglass,d. R. Greenglass, Black, Elitcher, Gold,e. Menaker, Miller, Moczulski, Morros,f. Jack Soble, Myra Soble, York, [redacted])''
|-
! ''Persons Who Have Been Prosecuted''
! ''15''
! ''(Brothman, Coplon, Fuchs,g, Gold, Greenglass, Gubitchev,h. Moskowitz, J. Rosenberg, E. Rosenberg, Slack, Sobell, Jack Soble, Myra Soble, Perl, Hiss)''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Silvermaster Network''
! ''29''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Mocase''
! ''5''
|-
! ''Other Persons Now in United States''
! 43 218
|-
! ''Less Those Counted Twice, Described Below''
! 12 ''206''
|}
==Pointers==
*''Restoring talk page comments removed by'' [[User:PF Fox]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304]
'''Let me make three pointers to concerned editors & Admins about the army of sockpuppets who will attack this article''':

(1) they will try to define [[McCarthyism]] and the "McCarthy era" as dating from 1948 onwards;

(2) they will try to define "the Second Red Scare" as dating from 1948 onwards & make it synonymous with McCarthyism.

(3) they will impugn and slander the sources of information in absence of any valid rebuttal.

This blatant propagandizing which they view as a high priority should be resisted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Where am I guilty of #1?

Where am I guilty of #2

Where am I guilty of #3?

And what did I post that was untrue? I'd really like to know.

As I said earlier, if I removed comments it was inadvertant.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There was a section between where you edited and what you deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304] The comment removed specifically refered to an army of sockpuppets who will attack this page. One such sockpuppet attack [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=44074&oldid=44069] just occurred as you were adding a volume of content, some of which has been deprecated by its own authors. Pardon me, but this Wiki ''deja vu'' all over again.

:While the page is protected you can place your proposed inclusions here on Talk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't remember even seeing a comment about sockpuppets, so if I removed such a comment it was accidental. And I'm not sure what you mean by "sockpuppet" here. My understanding is that it's an online term referring to a post under an alias by someone already taking part in a discussion. I don't do that and I hope you aren't implying that I do.

You still haven't explained what I posted that was untrue, or why you removed, not only that small reference to Schrecker, but references to actual transcripts of the hearings and an audio. I'd really like an answer. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is an obvious effort by sockpuppets to disrupt editing. You are welcome to propose language for inclusion here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest you add:

_____

It was McCarthy's charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence. During his famous February 9th, 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia at the Colonnade Room of the McClure Hotel he stated:

And ladies and gentlemen, while I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”[6]
The State Department denied McCarthy’s claims. In a radio interview in Utah the following day, McCarthy had changed the number to 57, and on February 11, in Reno at the Mapes Hotel, McCarthy again invoked the number 57 instead of 205, and named Robert Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Keeney and Harlow Shapley as being on the list. Several days later, when McCarthy was speaking to the Senate in Washington DC, the number had changed to 81.

The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy offered evidence for his claims by going through the Lee list. There were marked differences between what the Lee report actually said, and what Senator McCarthy claimed on the Senate floor. For instance, the Lee list read:

“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has been no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." [8]

___

I have removed the single reference to Schrecker Material. If there is anything here you consider untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department and the administration of President Truman and a United States army research laboratory. In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged from the libraries at the urging of McCarthy’s staff were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jean Paul Sartre, and Theodore H. White.

The VOA hearings that resulted often involved closely questioning witnesses, not about the transmitters, but about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he had studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. [9]

Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days of testimony about statements he’d made in a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending statement had been the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. [10]

Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about his personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. [11]

One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened at being called before McCarthy's committee that he committed suicide after writing a lengthy suicide note, which specifically referenced the issue he was being called to testify about, that being the placement of transmitters. "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes made," he wrote. “....You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect,” he wrote. “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” [12]

After the VOA investigation, many of its problems were corrected. No evidence of sabotage was found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

___

This used no Schrecker material. If any of this is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

___

McCarthy’s 1953 investigation into the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was prompted by a defecting East German Scientist’s claim of having seen microfilmed documents from that center..” [13] An investigation had led officials to the conclusion that he was unreliable, but Senator McCarthy’s subcommittee still began holding hearings on the case, suspending, among others, researcher Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [14]

The Army averred that no documents were missing and its own investigation had found no evidence of a spy ring, maintaining that what the defecting scientist had seen had probably been Signal Corp data that had been shared with the Russians during the War under Lend Lease. Still, the investigation went on. When electrical engineer Carl Greenblum broke down and wept during Roy Cohn’s cross-examination and had to be led, visibly upset, from the closed door session, McCarthy announced to the press that “I have just received word that the witness admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” Greenblum’s name was leaked to the press and he and his family were harassed, a hammer and sickle was painted on the door of their house. Greenblum explained that he'd been upset about the death of his mother two days before, and that after he’d broken down he’d “sent word that I wanted to go back and tell my story from the beginning. That may have been interpreted to mean I was lying but that certainly was not the case.” Greenblum was fired from his job, but reinstated in 1958. [15]

The fifteen hearings resulted in no indictments of any individuals, and established only that a few Communists had worked at Fort Monmouth from 1941 to 1947 – something that was already known by the Army -- and that there had been a small communist cell at one of their subcontractors in Nutley New Jersey. There was no substantive evidence to connect these groups or individuals to espionage.

___

None of this contained any Schrecker material. If there is anything here that is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s career were the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. McCarthy had already alienated the Army with his treatment of General Ralph Zwicker, the Commander of Camp Kilmer who had angered McCarthy by refusing to defy an executive order that forbade him to release names to McCarthy during McCarthy’s investigation into the promotion of an army dentist named Irving Peress who had invoked the Fifth Amendment while filling out the military loyalty questionnaire. McCarthy had implied Zwicker was lying and strongly implied that this World War II veteran, who had served at Normandy and the Ardennes and had been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters and Arrowhead, the British Distinguished Service Order, and the French Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre with Palm, and that he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” [16]

The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

From the day he addressed the Senate in 1950, paraphrasing excerpts from the Lee List, Joseph McCarthy had based much of his momentum on showmanship. In the Army McCarthy hearings he met his match in the army’s counsel, a 62-year-old Republican attorney from Boston named Joseph Welch who succeeded in baiting McCarthy into displays of open sarcasm and malice. As a result, the press coverage that had, before, been McCarthy’s best friend now became his worst enemy.

The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn, McCarthy excused himself, left, then returned and, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher. Cohn was horrified by this breach, and sent McCarthy a note reading, “This is the subject which I have committed to Welch we would not go into. Please respect our agreement as an agreement because this is not going to do any good.” (The agreement had been that if Welch would not bring up Cohn’s military history, McCarthy would not bring up Fred Fisher.) McCarthy acknowledged this only with the comment, “I know Mr. Cohn would rather it have me go into this," then went on to say:

“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”

This was, as Roy Cohn knew, a miscalculation, likely only to genuinely infuriate an opponent who was not going to become flummoxed or lose control as past opponents had. It was a bit of showmanship – McCarthy knew full well about the agreement and knew Welch was aware of Fisher’s past – being unwisely used against a superior showman.

“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. He concluded with the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” [17]

___

None of this contains any Schrecker material. If anything here is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy’s most enduring legacy may be in giving a name to the conflation of dissent with disloyalty, a tendency to cite criticism of an administration as if it were evidence of treason, or even treason itself – “McCarthyism.” Perhaps an inevitable result of the Cold War era, “McCarthyism” was the acceleration of something that had existed before McCarthy became famous, and waxed and waned long after he had dropped from public sight.

If any of this is untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

The overwhelming majority of those who McCarthy named and whose lives he affected, however, are not mentioned in Venona. Reed Harris is not identified as an agent. Nor is Aaron Coleman, or Gustavo Duran, or Harlow Shapely, or Fred Fisher. Nor are most of the many, many teachers, writers, performers, filmmakers, and workers who lost their job and even careers as the result of McCarthyism.

If any of the above is untrue, please point it out. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. I will review it in detail (may take sometime). It is a bit lengthy, and there are several other things that need to be discussed; for example, what does "McCarthy named" mean? There are numerous examples of "being named" a CPUSA member, yet not involved in espionage. Or what does it mean to "be investigated"? Giving testimony is not necessarily "being investigated". And another point, McCarthy primarily was investigating institutions, not persons. So we have about 50 years of much bad information to unravel. So let's try and find some common ground to begin with. Thank you again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

By "McCarthy named," I mean he either stated outright or announced his suspicions in public, as he did with with Durand and Service, or summoned individuals as witnesses and cited them as possibly disloyal. Yes, indeed, there are numerous cases of people "being named" as communists but not involved in espionage. The resulting damage to an individuals career could still be pretty bad.

As for the word "investigated," giving testimony certainly qualifies as being investigated if that testimony consists of you being interrogated about your beliefs and your personal and professional life, AND having other witnesses being questioned about your beliefs and your personal and professional life. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:(a) "being named" is not specific enough; should read "being named as holding CPUSA membership", or "being named a spy". Those are two ''entirely different'' things. (b) giving testimony is not the same as being investigated; the person giving testimony may have been subpoenaed to answer question about the activities within an institution, organization, or of other persons. Further, the fact the person giving testimony may have held CPUSA membership, but was not themself being actively investigated, hardly qualifies them as being a victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:(c) Argueing over numbers, i.e. was it 205, 87, 57 etc. is moot at this point. Would you agree?

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "investigate" means "to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry." That most certainly applies to testimony in which the witness is repeatedly questioned about his or her beliefs and his or her personal and professional life.

And I'm not "arguing over numbers." There is no question that McCarthy gave three different numbers within a few days, and no argument about that. It's not "moot to this point" because it was that variation in McCarthy's claims that caused many observers to be skeptical about them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Page protection==
I have protected this page because of evidence of trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am losing track of the changes. I do think that the article should describe some criticism of McCarthy's methods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Me too. But this above is a bit lengthy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The above was already posted. You could easily have left it in place and removed the single source you objected to earlier.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox: I have unlocked the page for editing. For the time being, I propose leaving out all the specualtion regarding "was it 57 or 87?", etc. I hope you will review this information regarding the Lee List [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html], and between the two sources we can craft langauge. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But what I included was not "speculation." It is a FACT that McCarthy gave three very different numbers on three different occasions. I don't speculate on WHY he did this, but I simply point it out. Why should that fact not be included? And I've already seen that piece on the Lee list. How would it change anything I posted? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm suggesting these are two separate issues. (1) Attacks on McCarthy's credibilty & character regarding the Tydings Committee, etc., and (2) McCarthy's abuse of the Committee's function toward witnesses. Why don't you go ahead and put in some stuff about his mistreatment of witnessess, etc., and I'll work on combining some information regarding the Lee List.

:::In actual fact, what we know now is that while McCarthy was conducting "witchhunts", KGB Agents were personally and simultaneously argueing cases before the United States Supreme Court. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that these are "two separate issues" justify omitting the facts surrounding the very statements that catapulted McCarthy into national attention? And you still haven't explained what I posted about the Lee list that is untrue. I'd really like to know.

What KGB agents were these, and how would that render people like Annie Moss, Fred Fisher, Julius Hlavaty, and Carl Greenblum less innocent?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I can see we maybe speaking two different languages. Let me ask again, have you read the Appendix's to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report? [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/index.html] Specifically, these:

:Chairman's Foreword
:Loyalty
:The Encounter with Communism
:The Experience of the Second World War
:The Experience of The Bomb
:The Cold War [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm speaking English. I use the OED and Websters. Are you speaking a different language? What dictionaries are you using?

I've read all this. Please point out exactly where it renders something I've posted untrue, and what it renders untrue. You still haven't offered a single specific that shows anything I've posted as being counter to the facts.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so now we need to summarize information. The above is a bit lengthy, can it be condenced? I offered one solution, please wait on all the "he said/she said" stuff and go ahead and insert some damage McCarthy did to truelly, innocent people.

:The Lee List stuff only has been reviewed up to 1952, and that by only a few scholars. And we also must bare in mind somethings still remain classified, or other evidence is missing. This is what I'm refering to as two different issues. Now, if you think this article is gonna be just another cut & pasted hit piece that says McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler, that's unlikely. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I will certainly reinsert what I already posted about McCarthy's behavior during the VOA, Army Signal Corps, and Army-McCarthy hearings, but before I do that I want to know "he said she said stuff" you're talking about.

What I posted about the Lee List, i.e., the text of the Lee List and the exchange between McCarthy and Lucas on the Senate floor, in which McCarthy fudged what was actually said in the Lee Listk is not classified, is not a matter of dispute, and therefore requires no review by scholars.

I don't post "cut and paste" pieces. My writing is my own. I DO consider it important to back up what I say with cites and that is, I was given to understand, in fact one of the "commandments" for posting here.

Please point out where I stated or implied that "McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy edits ==

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll try to edit down some of the army-mccarthy hearing material.

Actually the numbers are 205, 57, and 81, and it's not a matter of "he said/she said." It's strictly HE said, he being McCarthy. The different numbers McCarthy cited were certainly considered important at the time, so important that they became a part of popular culture. The original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE film starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury even includes a reference to it.

Exactly what telegram are you talking about?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes & no. It's largely depracated and moot, and in the scheme of history, will be forgotten. Ignorant armies clashed by night. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[United States Army Signal Corps]]==

:''Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [11] ''

What is the relevence of this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does "yes and no" answer my question about what telegram you're referring to? And yes, I know that there are many aspects of McCarthy's career that some would like to be "forgotten." They must not be forgotten, and I intend to do my best to ensure that they are not.

The Coleman case was one of the major bones of contention in the Signal Corps hearings. The passage I cited is yet another indication of McCarthy's tendency to inflate his claims.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ''ex post facto'' of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing that cite about the telegram. And the media were quite well informed about McCarthy's behavior given that much of it took place before TV cameras. Nobody was "in the dark" about McCarthy's tendency to exaggerate, and I've posted cites illustrating that tendency, as in the differences between what the Lee List actually said and what he claimed it said, the difference between why a witness had broken down and why McCarthy claimed he'd broken down, etc. And yes, the importance of the documents does mean much more than "diddly squat" when you are conducting an investigation and publicly claiming that the breach of security is on par with a case that ultimatley resulted in two executions. You seem to consider an awful lot of undisputed facts "moot." Sorry, but they're not.

Now, I have reviewed the conservapedia commandments, and I cannot find any that would be broken by my posting the account of McCarthy's inconsistent claims about the number of names on the list. It is true and verifiable. It is not copied from Wikipedia or some other non-public domain source. I have cites on the ready. I do not post things that aren't "family-friendly" or contain "gossip or foul language." And it is not a matter of my personal opinion that McCarthy first gave the number on the list as 205, then as 57, then as 81. It's a matter of public record. If reposting that information violates a rule here, please cite that rule. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Haven't retrieved the photcopy of the Feb. 11 1950 telegram McCarthy to Truman (originated in Reno Nevada) yet. The cite about Coleman IMO may do a disservice to the anti-McCarthy view because it is somewhat labored to make a point that may not even exist (taking the material above at your word); IOW, it discredits the more salient points of the argument. I hope to avoid parsing each jot & tittle, which is a characteristic noticable among McCarthy critics for half a century. We need to summarize some of this information to make the article of encyclopedic quality.

:No one's disputing your integrity or motives here, indeed we welcome your valuable close to first-hand knowledge of these events--and it is extremely necessary that this retelling of events be fully, and properly understood and preserved. In McCarthy's case, again IMO, the ''overkill'' may even generate sympathy for McCarthy, because often it's nakedly prejudiced. I hope you consider this criticism.

:One does not have to work hard to expose McCarthy's flaws as a human being; but one also has to remember that's what he was, a human being, not a monster or animal. And all these tales we read too often directly conflict with the accounts of family and friends, even political opponents who worked closely with him, that personally he was quite different than the way his detractors depict him.

:Let's return to my earlier proposal: divide these two issues (1) the Lee List (and other lists); (2) abuse of witnesses. I invite you to write the whole section about "Criticism of methods", keeping in mind some economy of scale for an encyclopedic entry. Then we can collaborate on the Lee List, and this reference doesn't actually have to be more than a few sentences.

:What sometimes happens when there is more than one view on a subject, the article turns into an arms race, each side piling up more and more source for thier side or to trash the other; let's set some limits on how far we will go in this direction. As I said before, your close knowledge of this matter is ''extremely valuable'' and needs to be articled in a good quality encyclopedic entry. Thank you very much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's it is, [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind words.

Everyone who is the subject of an article here is a human being instead of monster or animal, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Salvador Allende. Their family and friends, like Joseph McCarthy's, also have accounts that conflict with what their detractors say. And yes, I've heard that in person, even some of his opponents found Joseph McCarthy quite likeable. I've heard the same about Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro, and Patrick Buchanan. Whether these human beings are gracious hosts or can tell a good joke and what their children or siblings or spouses have to say about them is, for the most part, beside the point when describing their public careers, and belongs in a section devoted to their personal life.

Yes there is more than one view on a subject. There is not, however, more than one set of facts, and the inclusion of those facts, whether or not they make the subject of an article look good, is not "moot." Setting aside a separate section of "Criticism" comes across here as an attempt to weed out those facts that are unflattering to Joseph McCarthy and separate them from the whole, as if they were a sort of footnote. I don't notice similar "Criticism" sections in Conservapedia articles on Salvador Allende, John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and while Hillary Clinton's article has one, Whitewater and other criticisms of her policies mentioned in the article as a whole are not restricted to the Criticism section. For that reason, I am not inclined to put the issue surrounding McCarthy's conflicting statements about numbers or the discripancies in his reading of the Lee List under "Criticism." It belongs in a discussion of how he became a household name, and therefore early in the main body of the piece. It's up to the reader to decide how these facts reflect on Senator McCarthy. I appreciate your concern about a sort of "arms race" building up in the article, but the facts surrounding McCarthy's rise as a public figure are important.

I will comment on the telegram later tonight. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:How's this; let's place the Coleman material & whatever else is relevent in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Here's another good first hand account [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt], via Senate.gov --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy to Truman 11 Feb 1950==

Well, the telegram you've cited starts out with a flat-out untruth. McCarthy did not say in Wheeling that he had a list of 57 Communists. The figure he gave was 205. This business of only 80 out of 300 state department employees certified for discharge being dismissed -- and that after consultation with Alger Hiss -- is simply nonsense. So far I've seen no evidence that Hiss was "consulted" on this issue and the letter from which McCarthy got those figures was written in 1946. Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records, how does he know that no more dismissals followed in the years following that letter? I have been unable to find the phrase "known to you" in that telegram, so I can hardly answer your question about why McCarthy put those words (which I'm unable to find) into writing. Care to give it a shot?

I have no problem placing the Coleman material in a section WITHIN THE MCCARTHY PIECE devoted to the US States Army Signal Corps investigation. I notice, however, that you have locked this article for editing. Why?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. The 205 is a leak from the FBI [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22] and refers to persons active in Soviet intelligence operations.
:I misspoke. The context reads,
::"I KNOW [ABSOLUTELY] THAT OF ONE GROUP APPROXIMATELY 300 CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY FOR DISCHARGE, HE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED ONLY APPROXIMALTEY 80....THE DAY ...HISS [was exposed]...YOU SIGNED AN ORDER FORBIDDING THE STATE DPEARTMENTS GIVING TO THE CONGRESS ANY INFORMATION...DESPITE THIS STATE DEPARTMENT BLACKOUT, '''WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57''' COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.THIS LIST IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN GET A MUCH LONGERT LIST BY ORDERING THE ....LIST OF THOSE WHOM YOUR OWN BOARD LISTED AS BEING DISLOYAL....
:'''Analysis of the above'''.
:What McCarthy was referencing as "known to you" is the previous list of 300, of which McCarthy distilled 57 "avalable to you" which supposedly Truman already knew.

:In the mainspace article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_McCarthy&action=edit&section=2] we have a reference to the June 1947 Senate Appropriations Committee communication to George Marshall which I beleive comes from the Moynihan Commission Report. This link [http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm] uses the same language and gives us more context:
::''The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
:The Hiss reference I could probably dig up a cite if I had to, but its on hold for the time being.
:You say, ''Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records''; untrue. McCarthy didn't have complete records and had gained much in oral briefings from Hoover. McCarthy made the reference to 205 10 February 1950; the source document states,
::''A total of 206 persons have been identified as having been active in Soviet intelligence operations for the MGB in the United states and a chart breaking this figure down is set forth in this memorandum. This memorandum was initially prepared for the Director on 10-26-50 ...'' [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]
:so one more had been added to the FBI's investigation of persons active in Soviet espionage between 10 February 1950 and 26 October 1950, when this memorandum was initially prepared for J. Edgar Hoover, the Director.
:I didn't lock another Admin did; there's persistent vandalism when unlocked. That's why we're using Talk page. ![[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The document you reference is "“concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940S...These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD." (emphasis added) so as an attempt to bolster claims McCarthy that there were 57 "card carrying Communists" in the State Department in 1950 it's pretty useless. In fact, the number "57" had referred to State Department statistics from 1948 which showed that 57 of the 108 on Lee's list (who were not identified as Communists, by the way) were still employed at the State Department, more than half of whom had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, 22 of whom were still being looked into.

The quote you cite about John Peurifoy comes from a plainly partisan source. I rather doubt that the Moynihan report contains language like “Guess what Armas was doing just before he became President of Guatemala?” and if it does that doesn't say much for it as an unbiased cite. And I'm sorry, but until you offer a convincing cite for that Hiss reference, there is no reason for anyone to believe it just because Joe McCarthy said it in a telegram to the president that opens with a falsehood about what he'd said at Wheeling.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:(A) the number 205 came from briefings with Hoover ''prior'' to A.H. Belmont, author of the memo, putting it down on paper in October 1950;
:(B) the 57 number, as the McCarthy to Truman telegram plainly states, "WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT", i.e. McCarthy and staff extrapolated these 57 from the Lee List (Lee List was the State Departments internal investigation after the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concerns to Sec. Marshall in June 1947;
:(C) in context, "57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT" is actually understated, becuase the 205 number refers to '''''persons involved in espionage activities''''', not simply just party members. This is where the confusion lies, and on several levels. Hoover told McCarthy orally something to the effect that the FBI was investigating 205 persons in the communist conspiracy. Whether Hoover told McCarthy (i) there was evidence of espionage activity, or (ii) the 205 were security risks, or (iii) the 205 were CPUSA members, we just don't know. But the evidence now, based upon declassified Venona evidence is the 205 number was very real, and '''''was not''''' talking about simply party membership or security risks. The 205 were very active espionage investigations. And further, this 205 refers to '''identified''' persons, i.e. were a true name identification had been made from a codename.
:(D) Undersecretary Puerifoy, a Democrat appointed by Truman and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, is defending his reputation in that statement from the Arlington National Cemetary from the alleged "McCarthyite" charge that ''he'' was involved in covering up the State Department's failure to disharge known security risks. Hardly partisan when you are defending yourself from McCarthyite smears. Is this the contortions you now are willing to bend into to keep stale points & arguements alive?

:Summary analysis: The evidence now shows the controversy around these numbers was not a matter of McCarthy's imagination, and in fact is related to (1) the FBI, and (2) contemporaneous journalists failure to clarify precisely the varying degrees of complicity based upon the difference between (a) espionage activity, (b) CPUSA membership, (c) a generic security risk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy himself said in an interview with US News and World Report that the 205 number had come from the Byrnes letter. And even if it’s true that it actually came from Hoover, the memo you’ve cited makes it very clear that it’s referring to THE 1940S – something you seem very intent on ignoring.

As for that cite you posted on Puerifoy, it is NOT from the official Arlington National Cemetery website (which is http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org.) As is plainly indicated by the following note near the bottom of the page: ”This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. AS SUCH IT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE UNITED STATES ARMY.” (emphasis added)

I’m not sure what “contortions” you’re talking about other than the “contortions’ of noting dates (like the fact that memo you cite refers to the 1940s – not 1950), quoting accurately, examining cites and using the commonly understood meanings of commonly understood words like “investigate.”
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:''it’s referring to THE 1940S ''
:Not true. Those were active espionage investigation at that point; some of the 205 (or 206) had left government service, some were never employed in government service, and some remained in government service. And most importanly--that number of 205 '''''only refers to persons identified'''''--there remains to this day something on the order of 178 '''''unidentified''''' code names, unidentifed after a 38 year investigation.

:Further, the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent between 1942 and 1945.

:Let me have a cite on the Brynes letter; what is obvious is in Feb 1950 Hoover was talking about information he was getting from the FBI liaison to Venona, but it wasn't summarized on paper until Oct 1950--probably due to the fact the confusion some of these numbers were making in the press.

:And the most obvious aspect of all this is, McCarthy was being used by Hoover & the FBI without knowing it. McCarthy probably never realized the FBI was feeding him information on people who the FBI knew it wasnt worth pursueing, but they perhaps could be embarassed or coerced to turn on family members or associates they knew to be involved in the [[CPUSA#Secret apparatus]].

:The Puerifoy cite, < http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm > I would assume was put up by his family, and probably may have been written by Peurifoy himself before his death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The memo you’ve cited to support the allegations in McCarthy’s Wheeling speech most certainly DOES refer to the 1940s, and repeatedly refers to that fact. The header reads: “Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45” The text twice refers to it as covering that time frame: “This source has been able to furnish us information regarding MGB operations IN THE 1940’s,” “In the Spring of 1954, [Venona project began furnishing data concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940’”s and “These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD.” (Emphasis Added). And the fact “the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent BETWEEN 1942 AND 1945” does not change that. I can’t figure out how you come to the conclusion that it does. The fact remains that if McCarthy was using that memo and not the Byrnes letter as he claimed, it was out of date information.

The reference to the Byrnes letter comes from McCarthy himself, who cited it in a September 7, 1951 interview in US News and World Report. He said:

“Up in West Virginia we read to the audience a letter written by Jimmy Byrnes, the then Secretary of State, to Congressman Sabath, in which he said that out of 3,000 employees screened – employees who were being transferred from other departments into the State Department – they found 284 unfit for government service. He said of the 284 we discharged 79, leaving a total of 205. That night I called upon Acheson and the President to tell us where those 205 were, why they kept them in if the President’s own board says they were unfit.”

As I already observed, and as McCarthy tacitly admits above, the Byrne letter had no reference to Communist Party membership, which renders flatly untrue McCarthy’s claim in the Wheeling speech that “I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party…”

Why would you assume that the Puerifoy cite from that privately operated NONofficial Arlington Cemetery Website was written by either him or members of his family? What evidence do you have for this?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism of McCarthy's methods==
The Criticism section is too long and unbalanced, with a lot of false and misleading innuendo. I'd like to pare it down to something with actual facts and criticism. Here is the gist of what's there:

:McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive investigations. McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department, the administration of President Truman, Voice of America, and a United States Army research laboratory. The VOA hearings involved the content of broadcasts and transmitter difficulties, and found serious problems. Critics say that McCarthy did not proved deliberate sabotage. Critics also say that McCarthy only uncovered a few Communists in the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. McCarthy also had an argument with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings.

If the exchange with Welch is to be described, then it should also include McCarthy's point of view. If it is to include trivia from witnesses, then it should also explain just what the criticism is, and also give McCarthy's side. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And exactly what is currently posted in the article that is not an "actual fact?" It sounds like you actually want to remove facts -- not add to them.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:PF Fox, it's not an issue of facts, it's an issue of scale. There's just too much material that makes a redundant point. I suggest a paragraph or two could be moved to [[United States Army Signal Corps#PSI investigations]]; other material also may fit elsewhere. Perhaps you may wish to start [[Joseph Welch]] and place the famous exchange in there. But this article needs some proportion to it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The section is filled with trivia like McCarthy asking the VOA Director of Religious Programming about his religious beliefs. What is the criticism? Do some people think that this was an unfair question? Who? Why?
: It describes Kaplan's suicide, but fails to say how this is a criticism of McCarthy. It is not clear how this is a criticism of McCarthy, except to suggest that McCarthy is responsible for Kaplan's death. Who says that? Why? It is irresponsible to put such a suggestion in, without at least giving McCarthy's side of the story.
: The Welch incident is completely one-sided and misleading. Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone, and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known.
: The section includes unsupported opinions like, "McCarthy's support and popularity began to fade due to his lack of actual evidence and defendant convictions." Whoever wrote this seems to think that McCarthy was a prosecuting attorney. He was not. McCarthy was a US Senator, and it was not his job to convict defendants.
: This whole section perpetuates a lot of false myths, and should be slashed and fixed. If I do it, then I would remove most of it, as it is unbalanced, misleading, and I don't even see the point to most of the so-called criticisms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think the overkill nature of it backfires and generates sympathy for McCarthy. But McCarthy's critics just can't seem to grasp that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Grilling someone about their personal religious beliefs in an investigation that is supposed to be about sabotage is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And only someone who has not read the actual transcript of the exchange between McCarthy and Welch would claim that "Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known." In fact, McCarthy had already agreed to NOT mention Fisher in the course of the hearings. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

: The VOA investigation was not just about sabotage. I have watched the video of the Welch-McCarthy incident, and the description that was in the article was extremely biased and misleading. I think that it is fine to put the Welch-McCarthy incident in the article, but only if it includes McCarthy's justification for doing what he did. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I made some changes to the Criticism section. I think that it is important to summarize the significant criticisms, as McCarthy was criticized a lot. What I don't want is just unsupported statements that McCarthy ruined innocent lives when no one can give an example. The Senate did censure McCarthy, and we have the text of that resolution, so we know what that criticism is. That criticism is described. If there are other specific and significant and documented criticisms that I missed, let's include those also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You know perfectly well that I have supported and documented my statements.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The description of the Welch-McCarthy exchange comes from transcripts. What in it was untrue? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cropped section placed here for discussion==
:The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

:Thomas C. Reeves 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy went through the Lee list. The Lee list read:

:“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

:McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

:Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has ben no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

:McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 240."</ref>

:In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, [[Jean Paul Sartre]], and Theodore H. White.

:The VOA hearings often involved closely questioning witnesses about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. <ref>Time Magazine, March 16, 1953</ref>

:Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days about a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending passage was the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. <ref>”McCarthy Hearings, 1953-54 Vol 1. February 23, 1953</ref>

:Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. <ref>“Time Magazine, March 23, 1953"</ref>

:One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened to testify that he committed suicide. In a lengthy suicide note which specifically referenced the placement of VOA transmitters he wrote, "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes"...."You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," and “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 485</ref>

:No evidence of sabotage of VOA tranmitters were found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

:During Senate debate on the Communist Control Act of 1954, [[Senator Hubert Humphrey]] proposed making membership in the CPUSA a [[felony]]. <ref>McAuliff, Mary Sperling (1978). ''Crisis on the Left: Cold War Politics and American Liberals, 1947-1954''. University of Massachusetts Press, 142. ISBN 0-87023-241-X.</ref><ref>Art Preis, [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/preis/1954/xx/liberals.htm ''A Case of “Midsummer Madness”? Police-State Liberals''], From Fourth International, Vol.15 No.4, Fall 1954, pp.111-114. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).</ref> If implemented this proposal would have resulted in the United States openly prosecuting individuals strictly for their political views.

:What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s public career were the famous [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] of 1954. The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

:The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Boston attorney Joseph Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn McCarthy, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch that he would not bring up the subject if Welch did not bring up Cohn's military history, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher:

:<blockquote>
“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”
</blockquote>

:“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. "Little did I dream you would be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you..." Welch added the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” <ref>”http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html."</ref>
----
Some of this material may good for [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] or other articles. Some was placed in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Let's see if we can find a home for it.

I have reprotected the page from editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Moving it seems like a good solution for now, but I really don't think that any page should have innuendo that McCarthy caused Kaplan's suicide when McCarthy was conducting a legitimate investigation of VOA problems. I do think that the McCarthy page should have a criticism section that explains that a lot of people hated McCarthy for exposing the problem of Communists in the govt, and there should be some representative sampling of the dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox, valid complaint about the Hillary article which bares scrutiny. As to the suicide, this is not the only alleged case. Recently it has been postulated Sen. Robert Lafollette committed suicide [http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=141607] in fear of being subpoenaed before the PSI. I would dispute the claim that Lafollette feared McCarthy personally. Lafollette feared having to testify publicly, under oath, to the fact that (A) he '''''did''''' in fact have no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938, and (B) he '''''knew''''' he had no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938. As a Wisconsin native, I find this extremely interesting, and view the entire Communist controversy, or second Red Scare, as claiming the lives of no less than two United States Senators, '''''both''''' from Wisconsin. Further, while there is strong evidence McCarthy knew of these relationships on Lafollette’s staff, there is no evidence McCarthy intended to sadistically abuse his predecessor, an opponent he had already beaten, in a public hearing. And I will go so far as to state McCarthy's knowledge of Lafollette knowing and tolerating KGB operatives on Lafollette’s staff for nearly a dozen years explains much about own motivations as an elected representative of the people of Wisconsin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

So what if the Kaplan suicide is not the only "alleged" case? It is certainly the most well documented given that the note he wrote left little room for doubt about his motives. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Analysis of obsolete sources==

'''Specific objections to above material''': I am going to invoke '''WP:ATTFAQ/What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F]
, which states
*'''An obsolete source''' is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources. Let's examine these passages:
::*''"...I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party "''
Venona now makes it known (a) the 205 number came Hoover; (b) Hoover did on earlier occasions similarly manipulate the source of his information (Venona) by adding '''other''' names [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html] which were not implicated in Venona, to wit,
::"on May 29, 1946, [Hoover] sent George E. Allen, a confidant of the President and head of the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]], a four-page letter... The Director reported that [Venona] had revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names listed, [[Alger Hiss]] was there, as was [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]]. But these names were well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson.” The third name was “Former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy.” Further on was “Bureau of the Budget—Paul H. Appleby.” ...Further, that it automatically discredited the other accusations..." (Chairman's Forward, Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html] ([http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html Hoover to Allen Letter, May 29, 1946], pages 1 and 2); [https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm Benson and Warner] continue:

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.19

(c) Venona makes it known McCarthy understated the reference regarding "members of the Communist Party" because the 205 figure from Hoover referred specifically to active espionage investigations, not simple party membership.

::*''McCarthy had changed the number to 57''
Objection: redundant and no mystery because the [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], specifically states :”we have been able to compile a list of 57” which came from the earlier 1947 Congressional investigation of Security risks in the States Department and internal Lee List. This was not information from the Hoover and the FBI, yet comparing both lists there is overlap. Here the qualification of (i) an active espionage investigation (ii) CPUSA membership, which ‘’’was’’’ illegal among federal employees, and (iii) a Security risk, is necessary.

And further examination is necessary to understand what precisely was the US Governments goals at this time. The “Tensions of the Times” subhead lays out the background, how the United States was at war with a former ally; how the former ally obtained nuclear weapons know-how from American citizens and federal government employees in the service of a foreign government during wartime. And most specifically, it was determined by the decision makers in the United States Government that prosecution of individuals involved in the conspiracy was virtually impossible; so the FBI & McCarthy’s primary concern was to remove Security Risks from sensitive US Government positions which had (a) subverted the foreign policy to Roosevelt, and (b) transmitted nuclear weapons technology know-how to the Soviet Union. IOW, meeting the standards of proof of evidence before a jury of one’s peers was not the standard employed [http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm#IV.D]
to remove security risks from these sensitive positions.

::*''McCarthy...named...[[Mary Jane Keeney]]''
McCarthy was dead on with this, and only missed naming her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] as well (another example of a family unit in the CPUSA secret apparatus).

::*''The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments.

This information is obsolete based upon recent Venona scholarship.

::*''Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy..."''
Same as above; obsolete and deprecated material. 1982 is pre-Venona. Any material as a source that pre-dates 1995 is suspect, and to characterized it as "painstakingly well-documented" only applies to the state of knowledge at that time, i.e. 1982. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Please cite that specific "deprecation." How was Reeves' biography "deprecated," and by whom? And how does Venona render invalid and inaccurate actual TRANSCRIPTS from the McCarthy hearings? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Overall evaluation ==

My take is that McCarthy has been demonized. His name has been made synonymous with overzealous rooting out of evil - or mean-spirited and partisan intimidation of innocent dissent.

All of this is a smokescreen. Communists murdered tens of millions of people. Support of communism is support of murder.

The way they slam Joe McCarthy makes him (in Liberal eyes) as bad as Hitler. Yet it is the Communists who are as bad as Hitler, or worse. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, [[Mao Tse-Tung]], etc. If anyone needs demonization, these men do. Not McCarthy.

And guess who else used to round people up and intimidate them into ratting out their friends and coworkers? The Communists themselves. And these betrayals cost people their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: here here! McCarthy was a great man. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 14:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Was Augusto Pinochet a Communist? Rios Montt? D'Aubisson?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::IMHO, McCarthy & McCartyism is viewed as a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess. This is not true. McCarthy was a pioneer in modern mindless partisan warfare,and his tactics & techniques have become the mainstay of Washington media and other rabidly partisan types.

::'McCarthy's objective was basically threefold. (1) to remove Security Risks from an opposition Executive Branch at a point in time when the US was at war with enemies who had gained nuclear weapons & know-how from American citizens inside the US Government. (2) Demonize opposition POVs as untrustworthy and anti-American. (3) Payback or a vendetta for twenty years in the wilderness as the minority party.

::McCarthy largely accomplished the first two, but created lasting vendettas with the third. But numerous illustrations are available today to show how McCarthyite tactics are employed regularly in Washington. Ten years ago, for instance, Gingrich appointed a new Historian to the House of Representatives. Unproven McCarthyite smears were used to tar her as an anti-Semite. She was forced to withdraw, and months later recieved a clean bill of health from the Anti-Defamation League. But the damage was done, and the purpose of the wreckless smear was to grandstand, create headlines, demonize Gingrich as allegedly supporting fascists, force an innocent person disprove a negative, etc. So the perpetrators of this vile smear accomplished what they intended--that's all that mattered. Ten years after the fact, the vile smear was still being repeated in Wikipedia, and only after it was brought to the attention of an Arbitrator, the Epopt, did Wikipedia then see fit to rectify the slander.

::In this regard, McCarthy is the teacher and mentor of all contemporary partisan political operatives. Learning the lesson about the [[blowback]] engendered by such methods should be equally important as any short-term advantages that can be gained. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy and McCarthyism is only viewed as "a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess" by those who have not troubled to research the subject. Since I have never made such a claim, what is your point in bringing it up here? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::McCarthy was a drunk, scaremongering reprobate who got exactly what he deserved from the judgement of history. And it says a lot about the fallen state of the Republican Party that a man like this is the latest saint of the Right.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't refering to PF Fox specifically; those who allege the Iraq War is about profits for Halliburton, name names and demonize people, etc. are practicing McCarthyism. IOW, these methods serve short term goals, muddy the waters of intelligent discussion surrounding real issues, create resentment and hostility, grandstand and grab headlines, and who really cares if Iraq democracy is destroyed in the process, or if the Iraqi people fall under another 30 years of fascism. Demonizing and destroying domestic partisan enemies is all that matters. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether McCarthy was a saint or a devil, but I do think that this article on him should recite specifics on why was liked and disliked. In this case, there is a fairly complete record on what McCarthy said and did, and what he was censured for. I'd like to omit any demonization unless it is grounded in actual fact. I just added a reference to the dropped censure charges. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. Truelly he made lasting enemies. But on the fundemental premise he was correct. And what needs to be understood is removing Security Risks as that time of emergency was more of a priority than getting a conviction in a Court of Law. This really seems to be the only issue that keep recurring. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Complaints about Halliburton profiteering, etc. would be a form of McCarthyism only if they made without any evidence offered beyond the fact that the accuser disliked Halliburton's politics and if they resulted in Halliburton employees being hauled before committees, interrogated about their personal beliefs, and very publicly fired and blacklisted based solely on the fact that they had said at some point to someone that they liked working for Halliburton. Here you're attempting to broaden the definition of "McCarthyism" so that it includes ANY criticism or accusation or even just political disagreement. Sorry, but that's not what McCarthyism is.

As for the question about "whether McCarthy was a saint or a devil," I've never said he was either.

What fascinates me is that this seems to be part of a consistent pattern here at Conservapedia in which the mistreatment of people deemed "liberals" or leftists is treated as forgiveable, even laudable. You can cite the Venona papers all you want, but the transcripts of McCarthy hearings -- and the Venona papers themselves -- reveal Joseph McCarthy as an irresponsible confabulator who damaged and destroyed the careers of people who were not involved in espionage and did not deserve such treatment. Citing the Rosenbergs or Hiss or the Keeneys does not make Fred Fisher, or Annie Lee Moss, or Julius Hlavaty guilty. And the "fundamental premise" McCarthy apologists keep bringing up, the reality of Soviet espionage, was not what was contested in McCarthy's day. It was his methods, and nothing revealed in the Venona papers changes that.

Do you understand that the effects of "McCarthyism" can go beyond just wrecking someone's professional life, even beyond "merely" driving someone to suicide, as in the case of Raymond Kaplan or Philip Loeb? Ever heard of the Peekskill riot? Robert Now? The Goldmark family?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Complaints about Halliburton ...only if they made without any evidence ...and if they resulted...being hauled before committees, interrogated about their personal beliefs....''
::See now you are narrowing the definition to "being hauled before committeees", etc. whereas we've already proven Harry Dexter White's corpse was allegedly hauled from the grave to McCarthy's committee, Los Alamos nuke engineers wound up on the Hollywood Blacklist '''which had nothing to do with HUAC and/or McCarthy, etc.

:McCarthyism, then and now, is character assassination in the media for short term political advantage, and knows no political ideology.

:''reveal Joseph McCarthy as an irresponsible confabulator''

::Well, despite the evidence, you are demonizing McCarthy when the real villian appears to be Hoover, who manipulated and betrayed the trust even McCarthy put in him. And again, you refuse to acknowledge the frightening and very real emergency that existed at that time.

:''Do you understand that the effects of "McCarthyism" can go beyond just wrecking someone's professional life, even beyond "merely" driving someone to suicide..''

::I am of the opinion McCarthy himself was a victim, and basically drank himself to death ("alchoholic suicide", as this hilarious parody site [http://www.senatormccarthy.com/] calls it, which has more than an element of truth to it). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Once again, you're playing around with the commonly understood meaning of commonly used words. No, I was not confining the definition of McCarthyism to "being hauled before committees without evidence." I was citing that as an example of how McCarthyism manifests itself. "McCarthyism" is defined in Websters as ""tactics involving personal attacks on individuals b means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations esp. on the basis of unsubstatiated charges." Merely stating a strong disagreement with someone's politics or presenting evidence of wrongdoing does not qualify.

I am still waiting for you to cite convincing evidence that Fred Fisher or Annie Lee Moss or Julius Hlavaty deserved their treatment by McCarthy. Citing the rationalization that was offered at the time, that Commie spies were under every bed and oh mercy sakes we were all so A-SCARED, does not qualify as "convincing evidence," especially since Venona shows that most of those people McCarthy targetted were NOT commie spies. And while I am no fan of Hoover, I've seen no evidence that he was standing behind McCarthy with a sharp stick and forcing him to make up stuff while reading through the Lee list before Congress.

The fact that McCarthy died of alcoholism -- as pitiable as that is, for both him and his family -- does not render him so much a "victim" that he deserves to be regarded with as much sympathy as the people whose lives he damaged. As for that website you've offered, I don't see much evidence that it's intended as a "hilarious parody." The person seems to be citing the standard current revisionist mythology about McCarthy, which is that the objections raised to McCarthy were based on the assumption that there were NO American communists and NO Soviet espionage. Anyone old enough to remember the McCarthy era -- or even the two decades afterwards when McCarthy was so widely discussed and rememebered -- knows that's not true. I mean, for pete's sake, citing LILLIAN HELLMAN and ARTHUR MILLER as Communists McCarthy "exposed" as if the political views of these writers were some sort of secret? That comes across not as parody, but as standard revisionist ignorance posted by a youngster.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Let's look at this document, [http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence], John F. Fox, Jr., FBI Historian, Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005, particularly footnote 21, cited as,

::J. Edgar Hoover, Testimony before House Appropriations Committee, 2/7/1950

:'''THREE DAYS''' before McCarthy’s Wheeling speech. Extracted,

::"Wisely, the Bureau did not look to prosecution as the only, or most important, factor in a [Foreign Counter Intelligence] investigation. Director Hoover told a House Committee in February 1950 that counter-espionage requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases." It is more important is to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective."

:Thus, this testimony, along with much other evidence given right here on this Talk page, demonstrates Hoover was behind a counterintelligence investigation which did not have as its objective criminal prosecution, or simply removing security risks. It included ascertaining "contacts....objectives...sources of information and...methods of communication".

:When McCarthy made his Wheeling speech three days later, it was "public disclosure ...as a matter of last resort", of names on the Lee List.

:In studying this entire sad episode of American history, it is time now to move past analysis based upon the personalities of individuals involved, and whether we like them or not, or who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, etc. All that misses the point about the valuable lessons we can learn from this period in time. While the personalities shaped events, and had a huge impact, they are not determinative of what we need to learn from this experience. And I will never, never, never understand how an individual losing his job because he refused to co-operate with US Government investigators during a wartime emergency that involved the frightening prospect of nuclear holocaust somehow is more important than the widespread fear of nuclear Armageddon engendered by [[CPUSA]] operatives, actively serving the interests of a foreign government in wartime, who handed them nuclear technology know-how.

:You don't see the humor in this,
::''Dead for fifty years, McCarthy's body has now been tarred, feathered, crucified, cremated, and his ashes shot into space by a leftist media who cannot handle the truth of their own miserable existence. '' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, the cites you're offering do nothing to explain why McCarthy fudged the reading of the Lee List on the floor of congress, padding and exaggerating, describing someone as a "known Communist" when the Lee list merely said that his records were sketchy. Second only one of the people named by McCarthy in his Wheeling List, Mary Keeney, is named in Venona as an agent. Neither Gustavo Duran, nor Harlow Shapely, nor Robert Service are so identified in Venona. And third, the only person named McCarthy in that Wheeling speech who was still "working and shaping policy in the State Department" was Robert Service. That's the problem, you see, with using information that's out of date, like an FBI memo covering information from at least two years before.
:This is becoming redundant; the FBI & Hoover had 300+ codenames; by 1980 only 172 had been identified. There was an immediate emergency to remove security risks known to be in the government, but unidentified. So Hoover & Mcarthy harassed them out through intimidation tactics. As to the ethicy of McCArthy using his Committee in a quasi-executive and quasi-judicial way, true--perhaps any other Senator would have refused. So this is one of those quircks of history. And lastly, very importantly, while it appears evident McCArthy & Hoover worked very closely on this, there is no disecernible evidence McCarthy ever suspected Hoover was feeding him bad information.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

This entire "sad episode of human history" is based on the "personality" of Joe McCarthy inasmuch as the personality of this powerful man included a tendency to exaggerate, demonize, and confabulate that resulted in books being banned and the lives damaged of people “guilty” of little more than having politics McCarthy disliked.

You talk about freedom of speech and association here as though they are not rights, but luxuries, indulgences granted to dissenters in times of relative "peace" but rescinded at any whiff of insecurity. If, indeed the "frightening prospect of a nuclear holocaust" is so daunting that speech must now be curtailed, we might as well just cut out the First Amendment of our constitution now and forever, because the very existence of nuclear weapons makes the prospect of nuclear war an inescapable reality from here on. Is that something you would support?

Perhaps what you don't understand is exactly what being blacklisted or identified as a Communist meant during the Red Scare. “Cooperating with the Committee” involved “naming names,” that is, offering up friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, etc. so THEY could be hauled before the Committee, THEY could be blacklisted, THEY could no longer write, teach, perform, etc., THEIR homes might be vandalized, THEIR children harassed, and THEY would be asked to continue that ugly cycle by naming names. It may sound strange to you, but many people had a moral objection to doing this. Some even preferred going to prison.

:I've heard a thousand times how the advocacy of violent overthrow of existing governments by American Communists was benign; we just have to differ on this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you really imagine that McCarthyism actually eliminates all that troublesome dissent that disturbs you so deeply? Do you imagine that in such an atmosphere, people become silent because they’ve changed their minds? They don’t. If you stop hearing certain political or religious opinions in such an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust, it’s not because that kind of disagreement has vanished. It’s because people are afraid of being fired, blacklisted or even jailed for speaking their minds. It’s because the price of being honest about your beliefs has become too high for the average person to bear.

Do you consider that desirable?

:Frankly, I haven't a clue what your talking about now. You refer to "dissent"; if a "dissenter" can make a case about what he is "dissenting" about, I have great respect for that. More often than not today we see mindless partisans who haven't a clue as to what they beleive in, other than [[nihilism]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I can certainly see an attempt at humor in that quote you've offered, but for me to find it funny, I'd have to consider it to contain at least a grain of truth. It doesn't. And it certainly does not qualify the website as a "hilarious parody." Do you understand what the word "parody" means?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:09, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I've heard a thousand times how the advocacy of violent overthrow of existing governments by American Communists was benign; we just have to differ on this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I’m sorry, Rob, but I don’t see much connection between what you’ve posted here and what you are presumably responding to. Are you saying, in all seriousness, you don’t understand why someone who had been fired and/or blacklisted and/or hauled before a committee and grilled about his personal beliefs, would object to subjecting his friends and relatives and neighbors, etc. to the same treatment?

::I think we addressed all this above when discussing dead end files and family connections. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Frankly, I haven't a clue what your talking about now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It’s quite a simple question. Do you consider it desirable for liberals and leftists to refrain from speaking their minds, not because they’ve been convinced they are wrong, but because they fear the consequences of speaking out? \

:Seriously, what you refer to as "liberal" and "leftist", in my observation many, many, many may self describe themselves as that, but DO NOT have a clue what it means and cannot define it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

And I’m still curious -- Do you understand what the word "parody" means?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:yah, and that site is a parody. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we addressed all this above when discussing dead end files and family connections. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm sorry Rob, I don't see the answer there. Are you claiming that EVERYONE who got called before McCarthy's Committee and/or the HUAC were involved in familial espionage rings?

:Seriously, what you refer to as "liberal" and "leftist", in my observation many, many, many may self describe themselves as that, but DO NOT have a clue what it means and cannot define it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I consider a liberal to be someone who believes in progress, the essential goodness of man, the autonomy of the individual, and the protection of political and civil liberties. These days what that means is that a liberal is someone who supports racial equality, Affirmative action, limited gun control, gay rights, the free exchange of ideas, Habeas Corpus, the checks and balances that limit the power of the executive branch, and a capatalist society with some limited government control over the marketplace. A leftist is generally someone who rejects capitalism and embraces either socialism or Communism.

I've answered your question. Please return the courtesy and answer mine. Again:

Do you consider it desirable for liberals and leftists to refrain from speaking their minds, not because they’ve been convinced they are wrong, but because they fear the consequences of speaking out?

:yah, and that site is a parody. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A parody is defined as "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect and ridicule." What at the site has led you to believe the writer is doing this?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthyism ==
I think that the article needs a definition of McCarthyism. I have a proposal here for comment.
: McCarthy is remembered today with the terms McCarthyism, McCarthyist, and McCarthyite. McCarthyism refers to Sen. McCarthy's campaign to investigate problems associated with Communists working in sensitive US government jobs. His campaign infuriated the American Left, and they often use the term to mean aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty. It is a derogatory term. It is often used to refer to HUAC or the Hollywood Blacklist, even though those weren't really part of McCarthy's campaign. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Your definition is inaccurate. The term "McCarthyism" does not refer to simply "investigating problems associated with Communists working in sensitive US government jobs," and it is imprecise to say it means "aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty." McCarthyism is defined in Websters as "a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly as opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated charges." And yes, as such the term does apply not only to campaigns McCarthy waged, but the HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist, just as the term "boycott" applies to something other than Irish renter strikes, and the term "Maverick" applies to something other than unbranded cattle owned by a Texas rancher named Maverick.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: Do you want to suggest a definition, other than reciting the dictionary? This is an article on McCarthy, so the naive reader will think that McCarthyism means doing what McCarthy did. But as you say, the term has taken on a broader meaning among the American Left. My suggestion is to define the root meaning -- McCarthy's famous anti-Communist campaign, and then to the define the broader meaning. The dictionary definition is inadequate because it blurs what McCarthy did, and perceptions of what HUAC and others did, and how the word had adopted a meaning of its own. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I see no problem with referring to dictionaries for definitions. I will grant you that the "naive reader" will not get an accurate view of McCarthyism from reading this article, since accounts of what McCarthy did to coin the term -- his irresponsible and inconsistent accusations, his inaccurate claims, his purging of libraries of such "subversives" as Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman, the innocent people whose lives he damaged, like Julius Hlavaty or Annie Lee Moss -- were carefully excised by the editors. I don't think it's right to compound these omissions by offering to very young and unknowledgable an inaccurate definition of McCarthyism.

The dictionary definition is more than adequate. It is much more precise than the biased definition you've offered and reflects common usage of the term, which covers not just what McCarthy did, but what the HUAC and others did. Don't you advise your students to consult dictionaries when faced with a word they don't understand? Or are you seeking to alter common usage by teaching the young readers here your own version of English?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know what you are talking about. I put a summary of your criticisms in the article myself. You say McCarthy was "irresponsible" to conduct his investigations, but that is just your opinion. Any criticism of McCarthy should be grounded in actual facts, and not just have an unsupported statement that he was irresponsible.
: Yes, dictionaries are useful. I was trying to give a more precise definition by connecting the word McCarthyism to McCarthy. There is room for more than one sentence. I put in the paragraph as above.
: As for Julius Hlavaty and Annie Lee Moss, do you really think that they were good examples of bad behavior on McCarthy's part? If so, please spell it out for me, so I don't get you wrong. Why do you say they were innocent? Were they falsely accused of something? Of what? Were they Communists? And just exactly what did McCarthy do to them that was so horrible? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The definition you offered is not "more precise" than the one offered in most dictionaries. It is of a piece with the article, which has carefully omitted the details about why McCarthy gave his name to "McCarthyism," and why the term is a perjorative.

Yes, I think that hauling Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher with over two decades of service in the public school system before a committee because of a VOA broadcast he'd made a year or two before, questioning him not about that broadcast but about his religious beliefs, and then effectively ending his career with the New York Public School system by asking him "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist" so that he invoked the fifth, which resulted in his automatic dismissal, is an example of "bad behavior." I say Hlavaty innocent because there's not a shred of evidence that he was guilty of any crime. Do you have something on Dr. Hlavaty we don't know about? What do you imagine he was "guilty" of? And yes, I do think it is horrible to unneccessarily end someone's tenure in the public school system in that manner.

Yes, I think that hauling Annie Lee Moss, a communications relay machine operator, before the committee, accusing her of being a Communist and announcing that she had worked in the code room (she had not worked in the Code Room. She was a very low-paid clerk typist and there is little evidence that she was a Communist beyond the word of an informant) was an example of bad behavior on McCarthy's part. Yes, I think she was probably innocent of espionage, and if she was indeed the same Annie Moss who had been listed on Communist party rolls (there was more than one Annie Moss living in NYC at the time) her name had been dropped from the rolls as far back as 1945. As far as I know she is not listed in Venona as an agent, and the Army was confident enough about her to reinstate her some time afterwards.

And yes, I think it's also horrible that McCarthy had state department libraries purged of books by "subversive" writers like Dashiell Hammett and Howard Fast and Theodore White. I think it's horrible that the McCarthyism of the HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist resulted in Philip Loeb's suicide and the blacklisting of gifted people like Zero Mostel, Walter Bernstein, Ring Lardner Jr., and Dalton Trumbo. I think the violent fruits of McCarthyism -- the murder of Robert Now in 1948, the Peekskill riot in 1949, the murder of Thomas Parkinson in 1961, the murders of the Goldmark family in 1985, are also horrible and show just how dire can be the consequences of such irresponsible and indiscriminate accusations.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is another definition of McCarthyism that is unrelated to anything discussed so far. And that is the abuse of Congressional Committee processes. Certain reforms have taken place, nonetheless these abuses ''still'' can occur.

:In 1948, two years before McCarthy's Wheeling speech, [[Elizabeth Bentley]] appeared before a Senate panel after her [[HUAC]] testimony. She had no control over what was to asked, and was prepared to continue along the lines of her House testimony. However, the case of [[William Remington]] just happened to be the latest scuttlebutt making the rounds of the D.C. media & Congress. Bentley was asked about it and the whole questioning focued on it. The following Sunday on ''Meet the Press'' questioning continued, and she ended up being sued for libel. This is what McCarthyism is--in it's truest distillation--abusing or neglecting the rights and protections a witness has in a non-criminal, Congressional Investigation, and usually for the purpose of the investigator to grandstand and grab headlines.

:We saw this again during the Congressional Enron investigations. Everyone knew Ken Lay was going to plead the Fifth; so Chairman Ernest Hollings alloted ten minutes each to eight Democratic Senators who pummelled Lay in an open Congressional Hearing ''prior'' to him even being sworn in. After the 90 minute round-robin of abuse ended, Chairman Hollings then asked "Kenny boy" to stand and be sworn in, after which Lay finally could excercise his rights. This is classic McCarthyism, by '''''all''''' Senators involved, and the Master would have been proud of these proteges. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I suggest putting the following 3 paragraphs in the Criticism section.
::A teacher named Julius Hlavaty testified at the VOA hearings, and refused to answer whether he had been a Communist or had tried to recruit students to the Communist Party. <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,806622,00.html</ref> He lost his job as a public school teacher. Critics say that McCarthy should have ignored commies making anti-American broadcasts on VOA because exposing them might have personally embarrassed them.
:: McCarthy questioned the security clearance for a Communist named Annie Lee Moss who worked in the US Army Signal Corps. Critics say that she was just a low-level clerk, and she may not have actually been a Communist spy.
:: Critics blame McCarthy for objecting to the state department stocking subversive novels that have nothing to do with its mission. They also blame McCarthy for exposing the commie propagandist [[Dalton Trumbo]], even though McCarthy had nothing to do with it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Those would be fair, but in the case of Moss if she indeed was a Party member while in government employ which should cite that it was illegal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: See WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Lee_Moss] for evidence that Moss was a commie. It is pretty damning. She had a job requiring a very high security clearance. It seems clear to me that no one like that should have gotten a security clearance. But that's just my opinion. PF Fox objects to her even being questioned. Frankly, I can't make sense of his argument. But regardless, a lot of people hate McCarthy and it seems reasonable to document their stated grounds for hating him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Joined the party in '43, this would certainly be a [[Smith Act]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act] violation. I have access to the Reports of the Subversive Activities Control Board, if necessary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, they would not be fair. Nothing in that piece indicates that Hlavaty was a "commie" who had delivered an "anti-American broadcast." There does not, in fact, appear to have been anything controversial about Hlavaty's radio message and saying otherwise is nothing moer than an attempt to continue the smear of this man. (Who by the way, was much more than a public school teacher. He was chairman of the mathmatics department at the Bronx School of Science, a prestigious target school.) Declaring as fact that Annie Lee Moss was a Communist is also grossly inaccurate. Whether or not she was a member of the party is very much open to question.

The State Department libaries involved were overseas VOA libraries which included, as policy "any book whatsoever of United States origin which may be of use to the program." This would certainly include books popular at the time, like the words of Hammett or Fast, the plays of Lillian Hellman, as well the works of historian Theodore White, author of THUNDER OUT OF CHINA, and the writings of Walter Wright, head of the NAACP, all of which were part of McCarthy's purge. I'd be interested to know how THE MALTESE FALCON qualifies as "subversive." Maybe we should have all videotapes of that famous Bogart film yanked from public libraries? What do you think? Or the Bette Davis film based on Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES? What subversiveness do you think lurks within that play? How about Kubrick's film, SPARTACUS, which is based on Fast's novel and includes a screenplay by (horrors!) "commie propagandist" Dalton Trumbo? Should that go too?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interesting you should bring up Howard Fast; the link from the mainpage to [[Office of War Information]] gives the connection in the FBI's counterintelligence investigation. Note the last five names, Philip Keeney, Irving Lerner, Peter Rhodes, Christina Krotkova and Flora Wovschin, all American citizens involved in espionage on behalf of the KGB. Flora Wovschin is particulalry interesting, to escape prosecution she fled to North Korea and died serving as a nurse during Korean War. These people certainly were dedicated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

So should all copies of both the book SPARTACUS and the film be "purged" from libraries? And how about THE MALTESE FALCON? THE LITTLE FOXES? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: Then please explain your objections. Do you think that it was okay for commies to be broadcasting on VOA? And not okay for McCarthy to ask about it?
: Yes Hlavaty was more than a public school teacher. But he doesn't seem to have suffered too much either. I read that he got a job with Columbia University afterwards.
: Even if you are not convinced that Moss was a commie, don't you think that there was enough evidence to at least ask her some questions? Do you think that someone in a sensitive job at the Signal Corp should be able to subscribe to commie newspapers without raising eyebrows?
: Did state dept workers have to read Hammett and Hellman to do their jobs? Why is this any worse than an employer blocking access to YouTube.com or Sex.com? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no VOA rule against communists broadcasting, and yes, I think it was okay. No, it's not okay to accuse someone of epionage -- as McCarthy did -- based soley on the fact that you dislike their politics.

If Dr. Hlavaty had wanted to work at Columbia University and not in the New York public school system to which he'd devoted so much of his professional life, he'd have gone to work at Columbia before losing his job. Surely you realize that it's no small thing to interrupt someone's career in that manner?

There was nothing wrong with simply asking Annie Moss questions about whether or not she'd ever been a communist. There was a lot wrong with doing it in front of TV cameras, treating that communist party membership as a given and accusing her lawyer of being a communist into the bargain.

And yes, if a radio broadcast is going to be on the subject of modern novels, films or plays, Hammett and Hellman are two writers you would have needed to read at that time. Removing books from research library shelves is in no way comparable to "an employer blocking access to YouTube or Sex.com" to keep employees from wasting company time on such sites. (Are you, in all seriousness, comparing the works of Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammet, Theodore White, etc., to online porn?) The very purpose of a library is to make such works available. Purging library shelves in that manner -- something both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich did -- defeats that purpose and is not the act of a free and open society.

Rschlafly, please note that I've made the effort to answer your questions. Kindly return the courtesy --

Do you have some evidence that Julius Hlavaty was a communist who had taken part in an "anti-American broadcast?"

Are you equating the works of Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman and Theodore White with online porn?

Do you think all copies of both the book SPARTACUS (written by Howard Fast) and the film (written by Dalton Trumbo) be "purged" from libraries? And how about Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON? Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

*''No, it's not okay to accuse someone of epionage''
::Let's assume you simply misspoke with this above posting. We are making a serious, untiring effort to sort through one half century of misinformation. We have established on this Talk page the varying degrees culpability, ranging from (a) security risks, to (b) CPUSA membership, and the most serious of offenses (c) espionage activity. We have demonstated how in McCarthy's Wheeling Speech he actually understated the seriousness of the charges, by refering to "card carrying Communists", i.e. CPUSA membership, when in fact the source of his information were active espionage investigations. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

No, let's acknowlege that you carefully omitted most of that statement, which read in its entirety, " It's not okay to accuse someone of epionage --AS MCCARTHY DID -- BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT YOU DISLIKE THEIR POLITICS." (emphasis added) It doesn't say much for your "serious, untiring effort to sort through one half century of misinformation" when you engage in this kind of creative editing.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Now, what you have done with this posting, is engage in McCarthyism. You have blanketly accused McCarthy of accusing every subject he investigated as being involved in espionage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where did I do this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is degenerating into some sort of ideological debate; personally I don't give a rip. It's obvious nothing is every going to convince you that Joseph McCarthy was perhaps just a flawed human being who drank too much and abused his office; or that in 1950 there really was an international crisis that was engendered by Comintern activities and CPUSA operatives; or that the threat of nuclear annihilation pales in comparison to some poor shmuck who lost his job. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I "give a rip" about the truth. If that renders this an "ideological debate," so be it. Sure, McCarthy was a flawed human being who drank too much and abused his office. I've never denied that. Nor, in spite of your attempts to ascribe these arguments to me, have I ever said there was no cold war, or that there was no "international crisis" in the 50s, or that the Soviets played no part in that crisis. The problem is, this "flawed human being" you describe, Joseph McCarthy, was given the power to run roughshod over human beings who were "guilty" of nothing more than having political beliefs that McCarthy disliked and you dislike.

What's revealing here, Rob, is not just your willingness to misrepresent what I've said by quoting me incompletely, not just your eagerness to ascribe to me arguments I've never made, and not even just your obvious fear of answering direct questions. It's the fact that you consider the rights of dissidents disposable, something to be tossed aside because you're frightened. It's the contempt you reveal for the rights of the individual by referring to "some poor schmuck who lost as job" as if that were no big deal. Plainly you also consider it "no big deal" for us to become a society in which people are afraid of expressing even moderate disagreement with a conservative administration or policy because they simply can't afford the damage it can do to their ability to support themselves and their families. And your unwillingness to directly address questions I've asked about this strongly implies that not only do you consider intimidating liberals and leftists into silence no big deal, you consider it downright desirable.

It is not desirable. It is not in keeping with what this country is about, or with what the writers of our constitution had in mind when they included the First Amendment.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:It still appears you haven't bothered to read the Appendix's & Chairman's forward to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report yet. Examine these at a minimum, please. They are not that lengthy to read. Thank you. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html][http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa6.html][http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa7.html]

:Then we can move onto the Venona Monographs. This quote from Benson & Warner, if you stop and think about it for a moment, is one of the most powerful paragraphs penned by anyone, anywhere, over the past 60 years:

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.[https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm#ft61]

I've already read this. It does not in any way justify McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this.

Nor does it justify the McCarthyISM of that era, the blacklisting of writers like Dalton Trumbo and Arthur Miller (Is DEATH OF A SALESMAN another one of those "subversive" works you'd like to see purged? How about THE CRUCIBLE?) and performers like Zero Mostel (Should recorderings of the Broadway production of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF be tracked down and destroyed?) and Philip Loeb. The latter by the way was one of those "poor schmucks" who lost his job and career -- and committed suicide as a direct result.

Is it your claim that the world has become so dangerous, so uncertain, that the right to dissent should be tossed out?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
*'' Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain''
::What does this sentence mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It means that the public did not have all the information about Soviet espionage at that time. So what?

What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?

I'm not afraid to answer your questions. What scares you about mine?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:So are you inferring McCarthy himself had all the facts? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

Again. What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:What information can he "exaggerate" when he didn't have the correct, and/or full information then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I've already described at length his exaggerations about the Lee list before the senate. Now, I've made a patient and good faith effort to answer your questions, Rob. I'll not answer any more until you make a similar effort and answer mine.

Again. What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''I'll not answer any more until you make a similar effort and answer mine''

::Succinctly, I am a research historian. My only concern is to discern facts. You appear to be on an ideological crusade, and new information does not deter you from an obsessive hatred of Joseph McCarthy. I do not understand this, and I'm not certain understanding it would matter anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet you seem oddly unwilling to share those facts.

Most of the research historians I've known have had no trouble answering simple questions. In fact, they welcome such questions and tend to be quite direct and lucid in their responses. I do wonder where you got your degree in history, whether it is a graduate or undergraduate degree, and where, aside from here, you have been published as a research historian.

Again, I've made a point of answering your questions. You seem afraid of answering mine. Your unwillingness to answer leaves me with no choice but to draw the most logical -- and sadly, unflattering -- conclusions about how you view dissent in this country, how deeply you fear it, and how eager you are to throw away the rights that Thomas Jefferson considered so important.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is just more nonsense; how members of the majority coalition for 20 years are considered "dissenters" I haven't a clue. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/s121500.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was talking specifically about the people McCarthy targeted, not about the Democratic party as a whole. But I suspect you knew that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, you keep asking me questions like my opinion on what novels should be provided to state dept employees for reading on their spare time. I am not avoiding your questions, but I really don't have any opinion on many of these questions. I am just trying to document criticisms of McCarthy with actual facts. I just inserted several sentences summarizing some of your criticisms.
: I don't think that it is correct to say that McCarthy got Hlavaty fired. It seems likely that McCarthy wanted Hlavaty to answer those questions. A loyal and law-abiding teacher would have answered the questions. I can't be sure of the motives of McCarthy and Hlavaty. So just tried to stick to the facts: Hlavaty gave a VOA broadcast; McCarthy asked questions; Hlavaty refused; Hlavaty lost his job. Let the reader decide for himself. If I made any errors, please let me know. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are misrepesenting me. I did not ask your opinion on novels to be provided to state department employees for reading in their spare time, and anyone reading this discussion knows it. You referred to the writings of Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman as "subversive." I asked you if you thought that these important American writers should be removed from library shelves. For some reason, you are unwilling to answer either yes or no to that very simple question.

Have you even READ Hammett? Hellman?

Many loyal and law-abidig people objected to being asked to name names -- which is what could very well have happened if Hlavaty has not pleaded the fifth. You may not understand the moral objections many people have to the idea of putting friends, relatives, and co-workers in that kind of bind, but I do.

And in the future, if you want to post something to an article that's been closed "as per PF Fox," then please post something I've written -- not your travesty of it.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: You are asking me if certain commie novels belong in libraries. The context was not ordinary libraries, but a library for state dept employees. I don't really have any opinion about it. It seems trivial to me. My only interest was in collecting notable criticisms of McCarthy, so that the article will be balanced. You blame McCarthy for objecting to these novels, so I put that in the article.
: As for Hlavaty, I don't doubt that he had reasons for doing what he did. That is not my concern. I was merely documenting your criticisms of McCarthy.
: I don't post what you wrote, because you ramble into irrelevancies and speculations. I just wanted the fact-based criticisms of McCarthy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can find somewhere to work in this material, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E1D81F31F934A25752C0A962958260 ''Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas against the West]'' by Stephen Koch (New York: Free Press, 1994); for example,

:::"[Willi] Munzenberg created an extensive network of agents, both witting and unwitting, that extended from London to Paris, from Berlin to Barcelona and from Washington to Hollywood. Through these "agents of influence," he was able to shape the West's perception of events like the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which became an emblem of American injustice; the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used (with Stalin's perverse cooperation) as a stepping stone to power, and the creation of the [[Popular Front]] against Fascism. Mr. Koch says the left-liberal alliance served mainly to divert the world's attention from the reign of terror that [[Stalin]] visited upon his followers. ...Munzenberg's reach extended to the recruiting of [[Whitaker Chambers]] by the Russians and to the founding and editing of the "Stalinoid New York daily paper P.M." every word of which in the paper's first months the author reasons, was "approved in advance" by [[Dashiell Hammett]] and [[Lillian Hellman]], "either in New York or at Hellman's farm in Westchester County." Munzenberg's network even affected the behavior of Ernest Hemingway, John Dos Passos and [[Josephine Herbst]]* in a treacherous incident during the Spanish Civil War.

:::*ed note: Joesphine Herbst husband, [[John Herrmann]] was another CPUSA operative in the [[Agricultural Adjustment Administration]] circa 1934 and a member of the [[Ware group]] along with Hiss, Perlo, Abt, and all the other bright shining stars from the early days of the [[New Deal]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: You are asking me if certain commie novels belong in libraries. The context was not ordinary libraries, but a library for state dept employees. I don't really have any opinion about it. It seems trivial to me. My only interest was in collecting notable criticisms of McCarthy, so that the article will be balanced. You blame McCarthy for objecting to these novels, so I put that in the article.[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Book banning is never "trivial." And do explain exactly how THE MALTESE FALCON qualifies as a "commie novel." Or how the works of Theodore White qualify as "commie novels."
::Let's assume this applies to Wikipedia's efforts to ban Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: As for Hlavaty, I don't doubt that he had reasons for doing what he did. That is not my concern. I was merely documenting your criticisms of McCarthy. I don't post what you wrote, because you ramble into irrelevancies and speculations. I just wanted the fact-based criticisms of McCarthy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where did I "ramble" and what did I post that was an "irrelevancy?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Let's assume this applies to Wikipedia's efforts to ban Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

When did Wikipedia try to get Venona materials banned from libraries? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia has extensivley censored Venona materials; let me include for the record that I have forced reevaluation of several given premises of an historical nature within Wikipedia, despite not having edited for one and half years. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Ongoing_debate] for example. I quit Wikipedia when I couldn't get an assurance that the concerted harrassment from [[Political Reserach Associates]], which ArbCom is on record as sanctioning, would stop. See this for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan&diff=next&oldid=18017571]; when I used [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]] as source, he was accused of "complicity in mass murder". And this is what they do to '''dead sources''', so I couldn't risk the reputations and libel against living sources. Wikipedia from the top down engages in this type of McCarthyism.

:You think it's a joke, huh? Let's take Fred Fisher, former NLG member for example. What do you know about the NLG, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and WIkipedia's political content gatgekeeper? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia has extensivley censored Venona materials; let me include for the record that I have forced reevaluation of several given premises of an historical nature within Wikipedia, despite not having edited for one and half years. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Ongoing_debate] for example. I quit Wikipedia when I couldn't get an assurance that the concerted harrassment from [[Political Reserach Associates]], which ArbCom is on record as sanctioning, would stop. See this for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan&diff=next&oldid=18017571]; when I used [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]] as source, he was accused of "complicity in mass murder". And this is what they do to '''dead sources''', so I couldn't risk the reputations and libel against living sources. Wikipedia from the top down engages in this type of McCarthyism. [User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

In other words, no, you have no examples of Wikipedia attempting to ban Venona materials from libraries. I thought as much. And for the record, I really don't care what Wikipedia has done. I have absolutely no stake in Wikipedia, don't generally use it as a source, and have never contributed to it, so telling me all about the wicked things Wikipedia has done doesn't really qualify as much of an argument.

::''you have no examples of Wikipedia attempting to ban Venona materials from libraries''
:::It's all having access to internet & webservers today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Actually there are lots of libaries around that many people still use. They have all these square papery things in them called books and magazines that contain information not available online. Pretty neat, eh?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:You think it's a joke, huh? Let's take Fred Fisher, former NLG member for example. What do you know about the NLG, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and WIkipedia's political content gatgekeeper? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what these three things have in common. Please tell us about it and how it's germane to McCarthy implying on television that Fred Fisher is a Communist after he'd previously agreed not to do this. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, to answer your questions, The Maltese Falcon is a commie novel in the sense that it was written by a Communist. You ramble into irrelevancies when you ask me my opinion of these commie novels, or declare that book banning is never trivial. No books were banned. Anyone was free to buy any of those commie novels, and read them on their own time. I just want facts about what McCarthy did. If anything in the article is inaccurate, please let me know. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::You've never even read Hammett, have you? In fact, I'll bet you've never read Lillian Hellman (a playwright) or Theodore White (an historian -- not a fiction writer.) You haven't the foggiest idea what these books and plays contain that would or would not make them "commie" and any quick search you do online isn't going to help you much in that regard. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::PF, Fred Fisher brings us back to the [[National Lawyers Guild]]. Let me make a longstory brief: A fomer NLG Vice President who once worked with [[Philip Agee]] on ''CounterSpy'' magazine, and is now Wikipedia's prominent gatekeeeper of political content had no problem exposing the identities of living CIA Agents when he worked with Agee in the 1970s. [[Richard Welch]], CIA station chief in Athens, was murdered after being identified by Agee's ''CounterSpy'' magazine. [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29%2C+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch] When I began identifying dead [[KGB]] Agents, the same former [[NLG]] Vice President targeted, harassed, censored, and slandered me. Now if you can explain, in this post-[[Cold War]] era, why an American citizen is proud of the work he has done to undermine the CIA, and fights tooth and nail to hide the identiies of dead KGB operatives, I'd be interested in hearing. Other than that, you've really not brought forward anything new that hasn't been debated to death already for over 50 years now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

And this means Fred Fisher was a spy?

How?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:This means McCarthy violated an agreement and Senate rule not to bring the matter up publicly; how is this bit of despicable, loathsome conduct any more uncommon from when [[Sen. Paul Simon]] of Illinios leaked Clarance Thomas's FBI file to Nina Totenberg of NPR which contained all the Anita Hill garbage in it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::I hold no brief for Paul Simon, but are you seriously comparing him leaking Clarence Thomas' file to NPR to McCarthy attacking a private citizen on national tv? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeed I am comparing the false, defamatory and permanent damage done to Clarance Thomas to Fred Fisher. And Fisher is just a footnote in history compared to a Supreme Court Justice who has served two and half decades now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Fred Fisher was a private citizen, Rob. That makes a big difference. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Clarance Thomas likewise was a private citizen. So a totally illegal, unethical, false, defamation and violation of Senate rules is ok and tolerable so long as it's against an upiddy Black who's off the plantation. Yes, now you are making perfect sense. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, Clarence Thomas was a public figure. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, both Clarance Thomas and Fred Fisher were obscure lower level govt employees, or Fisher was actually a subcontractor of a firm doing business with the govt which is the same thing.

::Seems you need to learn about Sec 230 vs British law. You speak like it's ok to spew any garbage simply because you're an American citizen, whereas what you post on the internet here in the US is a Constitutionally protected right, in Canada or Great Britain, where it can be read, it may actually be a crime. Just cause a person is a public figure does not mean you have the right to spew hatred and defame them in most countries outside the US, and it is a prosecutable offense. Last week for example, Britney Spears began action in London for defamatory crap written about her while in rehab here in the US. So no, you're not free to spew garbage and defamation just because a person is a public figure. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

As an American I can criticize a public figure freely. That is how the constitution has been interpreted for years. Private citizens, however, are treated differently.

Clarence Thomas was a nominee for the Supreme Court. Fred Fisher was a young attorney working for a Boston Law firm. It's a pity you can't recognize the difference. Most people can. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::You specifically have answered your own question: you appear to be justifying a flagrant violation of Senate rules with the specific intent to slander & defame a person. In the case of Fisher, as Roger pointed out McCarthy was responding to a question in the first place (took the bait, so to speak), and the Army-McCarthy hearing was not concocted with the specific intent to defame Fisher.

::I think many of us have conceeded McCarthy was heavy-handed and excessive, yet you are in a curious place right now--on the one hand you decry "McCarthyism" and "McCarthyite tactics"; on the other hand you have plainly stated you have no problem with McCarthyite tactics when in the service of what is probably your pet causes. There is nothing preventing you from holding a dicotomy of positions like this, but it does absolutley ZERO to gain credibility for your complaints of unfairness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said the Army-McCarthy hearing was "concocted with the specific intent to defame Fisher." Are you truly unable to argue a point without ascribing things to people they never said?

You seem absolutely intent on ignoring how "McCarthyism" is defined. Exactly how did that leak qualify as "personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminte accusations esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated chrages?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The Anita Hill hearings certainly were concocted with the specific intent to defame Clarance Thomas, and you seem to have no outrage for the blatant McCarthyism surounding that event. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, no one cares whether I have read Hammett. He could be the best commie novelist in the world, or the worst. It makes no difference for the purpose of this article. Also, the article does not say that Fisher was a spy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Whether you actually read Hammett determines how seriously anyone is going to take you when they hear you describe his books as "commie novels." And if Hammett having communist sympathies makes his detective novels "commie novels," then that quintessential American icon, the hardboiled private eye immortalized by Humphrey Bogart is also "commie" because Hammett pretty much invented it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, your opinion is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Misinformation in McCarthy article ==

Rschlafly, what you have posted as a definition of McCarthy is flatly untrue and not the way the term is defined in common usage.

Doesn't that bother you at all?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that it is false. But show me some common usage, and maybe you can prove me wrong. I just found this, from a leftist cartoonist a week ago. "During the 1950s, a defining characteristic of McCarthyism was to deprive actors of work in Hollywood to punish them for political views expressed elsewhere." [http://baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=0813BC739F2044E5A03DCF2DE3FDF7C9&tier=4&id=BF3D56CABB7A4156B42FD5B00F538F56] If this is really common usage, then I'd like a definition to cover it, but it is a little confusing to explain. McCarthy didn't deprive any actors of work. How would you explain it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::Here's another one, "November 15, '''1946''' Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogates astronomer Harlow Shapley" [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Joseph+McCarthy+HUAC+interrogates+astronomer+Harlow+Shapley&btnG=Search] I don't understand how the people who perpetrate this kinda fruad expect to gain anything using such naked lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Try not to become enraged or embittered. There is a lot of misinformation out there. It has only been a couple of centuries that [[freedom of speech]] has been in existence. And the Internet's fair-haired child (the [[Worldwide Web]]) only became popular around 15 years ago. Things take time. See [[Paradigm shift]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to Wikipedia, gay bashing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_bashing&diff=next&oldid=21625399] is a form of McCarthyism. Truth is, passing gas in a crowded elevator is McCarthyism, too. It's an attack term that can be remolded to denigrate whatever we don't like at any moment in time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes. Some people use the term as just a meaningless leftist smear term. Most usage doesn't seem to have much to do with McCarthy. The article should explain this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Terms like ''[[McCarthyism]]'' and ''[[pollyanna]]'' and ''[[homophobic]]'' are used unthinkingly - or as deliberate propaganda. A good encyclopedia would use plain English instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: All I am saying is that the article should describe how the term McCarthyism is popularly used today, and how the term relates to McCarthy. If it is primarily used as an unthinking propaganda term that bears little relation to McCarthy, then the article should say so. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Not to sidetack this discussion, but McCarthy must've known of Ray Cohn homosexuality, as Hitler knew of Enrst Rohm's homosexuality. In both instances, McCarthy & Hitler were extremely tolerant toward close associates who were gay. Today however, "homophobia" becomes a form of "McCarthyism" or "fascistic tendencies". This is junk I object to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, “McCarthyism” is used to the describe the Hollywood blacklist and the HUAC hearings even though McCarthy was not personally involved in these matters in the same manner that “Maverick” is used to describe independent individuals, even though they are NOT in fact, unbranded cattle belonging to a 19th century Texas rancher named “Maverick” and “boycott” is used to describe “a concerted effort to have dealings with a business or individual” even though the business and individual in question are NOT the 19th century Irish land agent whose name coined the term. What do you find confusing about this?

::Here's another one, "November 15, '''1946''' Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogates astronomer Harlow Shapley" [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Joseph+McCarthy+HUAC+interrogates+astronomer+Harlow+Shapley&btnG=Search] I don't understand how the people who perpetrate this kinda fruad expect to gain anything using such naked lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

How is the fact that some website got a piece of history wrong relevant here?

::According to Wikipedia, gay bashing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_bashing&diff=next&oldid=21625399] is a form of McCarthyism. Truth is, passing gas in a crowded elevator is McCarthyism, too. It's an attack term that can be remolded to denigrate whatever we don't like at any moment in time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some people misuse the term McCarthyism does not render it invalid as a term, and does not mean that it’s always used “unthinkingly.” “Communism” is also a term that’s frequently applied carelessly and without thought. I've seen it thrown at people for advocating the integration of public schools and laws against child labor. That doesn’t make Communism any less real or the word “Communism” any less valid when applied to a political belief that advocates the abolition of private property.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:''The fact that some people misuse the term McCarthyism does not render it invalid''
::Thank you. Recently someone asked that at [[Talk:Liberal#inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning]]; now we have good illustration. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

You're not making sense here. Does the fact that the term "Communism" is sometimes misused by people who apply it to anyone who supports unions, racial integration, and child labor laws render the term "Communism" itself invalid?

And I'd really appreciate answers to the numerous other questions I've asked and that you've ignored. I try to make a point of answering your questions. Why not return the courtesy and answer mine?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. Specifically here--the term "McCarthyism" means whatever you'd like it to mean. For example, when Hillary Clinton voted for the War, her anti-war critics were McCarthyites. Now that she's backtracking and joining the anti-war movement, her critics outside the anti-war movement likewise are McCarthyites. It's all so very simple to see and understand. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll take this a "no." You have no intention of answering my questions. Why not? What are you afraid of?

No, "McCarthyism" does not "mean whatever" I or anyone else would like it to mean, any more than "Communism" means what I or anyone else would like it to mean. "McCarthyism" does not mean merely expressing disagreement with someone. Do I really need to post the dictionary definition of McCarthyism AGAIN?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Basis of objections to McCarthy's investigations ==

:''McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive use of legislative investigatory powers to probe the Communist sympathies of various government officials.''

This sentence is, at best, unclear. What was being criticized?
#How aggressive he was?
#His probing of "Communist sympathies"?

Or that he was using the probe for self-aggrandizement?

Or because the critics themselves (1) sympathized with Communism and (2) objected to anyone stopping Communist sympathizers from aiding the Soviet government? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==WP McCarthy entry==
Let's examine these from the WP McCarthy entry:
*[[Solomon Adler]] Apparently never accused of anything by McCarthy; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-85]
*[[Cedric Belfrage]] Questioned by McCarthy in a closed subcommittee session but apparently never accused of anything; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-86]
*[[T.A. Bisson]] apparently only mentioned in passing by McCarthy; evidence from Venona indicates Soviet espionage activity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-87]
*[[Lauchlan Currie]] briefly mentioned by McCarthy in 1951; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-88]
*[[Leonard Mins]] Questioned by Roy Cohn at the Army Signal Corp hearings but apparently never accused of anything; evidence from Venona indicates Soviet espionage activity.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#_note-94]

All of this adds weight to what has been outlined here: (1) that McCarthy was feed bogus inforamtion and dead-end files from the FBI & Hoover; (2) McCarthy was unaware he was being used by FBI & Hoover as such. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could someone add this article to [[:Category:US Judges]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::U.S. Judges may be ambiguous; it sound like it refers to US Federal judges, whereas McCarthy was a State circuit judge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
----
We're at the magic 57 number right now [[:Category:KGB Agents and Sources]]; I have about 250 more to go. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==
In case no one noticed, this article is still rife with bias. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have examples? I added a criticism section that includes some of the major criticisms. What do you want to see? Where is the bias? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Decency quote==

No mention of the quote that brought an end to HUAC? "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:45, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

United States of America

2007-05-22T20:40:50Z

JohnSmith: /* The Role of Religion in Government */ - Removed final sentence. It's not encyclopedic to be self referential.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Kljghlkjkh.png|250px]]
Flag of the United States
|-
|Capital
|[[Washington, D.C.]]
|-
|Government
|Federal constitutional republic, Representative democracy
|-
|Official Language
|[[English]]
|-
|President
|[[George W. Bush]] ([[Republican|R]])
|-
|Vice President
|[[Dick Cheney]] ([[Republican|R]])
|-
|Senate majority leader
|[[Harry Reid]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|Speaker of the House
|[[Nancy Pelosi]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|House majority leader
|[[Steny Hoyer]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|Area
|3,718,695 sq mi
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|301,554,000
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$13.049 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$44,333
|-
|}

The '''United States of America''' (commonly referred to as '''the United States''', '''the USA''', '''the US''', or simply as '''America''') is a North American nation that consists of a federal union of fifty individual states and the federal [[District of Columbia]]. Its origins lie in the [[British Empire]]: it was founded on July 4, [[1776]] with the signing of the [[Declaration of Independence]], and its independence from Britain was formally recognized in 1783, following the [[American Revolutionary War|War of Independence]]. The US is currently the world's sole [[superpower]]; it has the world's largest economy, and is recognized as having the world's most powerful military.

==Overview==

The United States has land borders with [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]], as well as several territorial water boundaries with Canada, [[Russia]] and The Bahamas. It is otherwise bounded by the [[Pacific Ocean]], the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Two of the fifty states, [[Alaska]], an exclave, and [[Hawaii]], an archipelago, are not contiguous with any of the other states. Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The United States also has a collection of overseas territories and possessions around the world. Each of the 50 states has a high level of local autonomy under the federal system.

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²), the U.S. (including its non-contiguous and overseas states and territories) is the third largest country by total area. It is the world's third most populous nation, with over 300 million people.

The United States' military, economic, cultural, and political influence increased through the 19th and 20th centuries. Since the mid-20th century, the United States has become a dominant global influence in contemporary economic, political, military, scientific, technological and cultural matters. With the collapse of the [[Soviet Union]] at the end of the [[Cold War]], the nation emerged as the world's sole remaining superpower, greatly influencing world affairs, as it continues to do today.

==The Constitution and Politics in the United States==

[[Image:76485685i79.jpg|left|thumb|300px|The drafting committee presenting the [[Declaration of Independence]] to the [[Continental Congress]], painted by John Trumbull 1817–1819.]]

[[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and the other [[Founding Fathers]] risked a sentence of death for treason against the English Crown by signing the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776.

Between the [[Declaration of Independence]] in 1776 and the ratification of the [[Constitution]] in 1788, the United States was governed according to the [[Articles of Confederation]].

[[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and the other [[Founding Fathers]] formally established the current structure of the United States by ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788.

Since 1788, the United States has had only one official governing document: the [[U.S. Constitution]].

Although officially a [[Republic]], since the Presidency of [[John Quincy Adams]], the United States has been governed by two or more [[political parties]] under the rules of a "Representative [[Democracy]]." Presently, the two major political parties are the [[Democratic Party]], and the Republican Party. The younger of the two parties, the [[Republican Party]], was created in 1854.

== The Role of Religion in Government ==

A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics. Others that self identify as Democrat or Libertarian argue that the Constitution is a secular document which prohibits the entanglement of religion and politics in any way. Though these divisions are on general level and a particular stance on this issue is not a prerequisite to being a member of either party.

The [[Declaration of Independence]] acknowledges the existence of a God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." That statement was inserted at the request of [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs were [[Deism|Deistic]].

Many early Americans emigrated because of religious persecution in their home countries. The American [[Founding Fathers]] adhered to various sects of Christianity ranging from Catholicism, Protestantism. and Deism, and recognized that Christian tradition in addition to other legal traditions should inform the Constitution.

Based upon these beliefs, the [[Founding Fathers]] specifically placed into the [[First Amendment]] to the [[U.S. Constitution]] which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first clause is referred to as the Establishment Clause, and the second the Free Exercise Clause.

This "Free Exercise Clause" of the [[First Amendment]] to the [[U.S. Constitution]] began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the judiciary in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious minorities in the United States.

The [[Declaration of Independence]], [[U.S. Constitution]], the [[Federalist Papers]], and the many personal papers of the [[Founding Fathers]] have been used to examine the issue. Different and sometimes contradicting statements have been noted regarding the influence of religion on government, and it can be difficult sometimes to interpret the importance and precedence of personal beliefs, legal intent, and actual verbiage in the documents.

In recent decades, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has used the [[Lemon Test]] as a means for determining whether or not a particular controversy causes excessive entanglement between government and religion, though in some cases has allowed religious icons (such as the Ten Commandments display in Texas <ref> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500 </ref>). The first amendment is often paraphrased as "separation of Church and State"; a phrase originating in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association which assured them that their rights (nor anyone's rights) to free exercise of their religion would not be curtailed.

In America today, an individual's party affiliation is at times determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government. Many other social issues, such as Abortion, Euthanasia, Freedom of Speech, and Cloning are based on an individual's religious beliefs.

==History and geography==

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]]

In [[1783]], when the [[Peace of Paris]] concluded hostilities against [[Great Britain]], the former [[colonial power]], the United States' population totaled some three million [[citizens]] and [[slaves]] living on slightly less than one million square miles of land. An unknown number of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the western part of the United States, which was then bordered on the west by the [[Mississippi River]], on the north by [[Lake Superior]], [[Lake Huron]], [[Lake Erie]] and [[Lake Ontario]], on the east by the [[Atlantic Ocean]], and on the south by [[Florida]], then controlled by [[Spain]]. The land border with Canada was not clarified until the [[Rush-Bagot Agreement]] of 1816.

The majority of the taxable population lived in the thirteen original [[states]]. In alphabetical order they are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital from 1800 on. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]]. Two additional states were added during the first fifty years by [[secession]] from existing states: [[Vermont]] from New York, and [[Maine]] from Massachusetts. After that, the legality of [[secession]] became an issue.

In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper. President Jefferson commissioned [[Lewis and Clark]] to explore the new territory, which they did from 1802 to 1804.

[[Florida]] and [[Texas]] joined the United States as a result of [[revolutions]] by settlers from the United States against their central governments. Florida's was fought in 1810, while the much better remembered [[Texas Revolution]] was fought in 1836. While Spain was willing to cut its losses in Florida and relinquished any claims on the state in the [[Adams-Oniz Agreement]] of 1819, one of the successors to its empire in the Americas, Mexico, was considerably more attached to Texas and fought the [[Mexican War]] between 1846 and 1848 to reverse its annexation by the United States. Losing badly, Mexico was forced to cede the sparsely populated northern portion of itself under the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]]. This territory eventually became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. At approximately the same time, [[President]] [[James K. Polk]] had agreed with the British that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and Canada from [[Lake of the Woods]] (partially in Minnesota) to the [[Pacific Ocean]]. This territory was later organized as the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, [[Secretary of State]] [[William Seward]] purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. Critics referred to this as "Seward's Folly." Alaska is the westernmost extremity of [[North America]] bounded on the east by Canada, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, on the west by the [[Bering Strait]] and on the north by the [[Arctic Ocean]]. At $7,000,000, Alaska cost the United States considerably less per acre than the [[Mexican Cession]] and slightly less than the Louisiana Territory. Of course, [[inflation]] was less of a factor at this time due to the world [[economy]] still being principally [[agrarian]]. Although at the time it was considered a foolish bargain, Alaska would later become a large source of economic prosperity due to large gold, oil, and other natural resources. Alaska would not be admitted as a state until 1959.

The 50th and so far final state, [[Hawaii]], was also admitted in 1959, 67 years after the DOLE corporation, sugar producers, and the US Marine Corps deposed the last native [[queen]] of the archipelago and 62 years after annexation had become politically feasible as a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], in which the United States also annexed [[Puerto Rico]], [[Guam]] and [[Wake Island]]. The last three islands are not states, although [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held non-binding [[referenda]] to express its desired status within the United States.

The United States has occasionally relinquished territory. The most significant example of this was certainly the granting of independence in 1946 to the [[Philippines]] as part of the general [[decolonization]] of [[Asia]] and [[Africa]] following [[World War II]]. Under both [[autocratic]] and [[democratic]] governments, the Philippines have subsequently remained a strong United Statesian ally, and today contribute more troops to the U. S. [[military]] than some states. Other Pacific territories such as the [[Federated States of Micronesia]] and [[Palau]] have also become independent in the postwar era with little objection from opinion leaders on the mainland. More controversial was the 1977 agreement between President [[Jimmy Carter]] and [[General]] [[Omar Torrijos]] to return the [[Panama Canal Zone]], which had been part of the United States since 1914, to [[Panama]] in the year 2000. Ultimately the United States lived up to this agreement despite the worst fears of both [[liberals]] (who decried [[Operation Just Cause]], the 1989 invasion of Panama) and [[conservatives]] (who feared the management of the [[Panama Canal]] by [[Chinese]] interests).

The USA's has been criticized for holding back its [[United Nations]] dues (currently, even after the Helms-Biden amendment, the United States has withheld 41%, or $1.246 billion dollars, <ref>http://www.un.org/ga/president/55/speech/una_usa.htm</ref>) as the US has sought reforms within the international organization.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:United States]]

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-22T20:27:33Z

JohnSmith: /* Lead */

{{protect}}

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Iran Hostage Crisis

2007-05-22T19:32:20Z

JohnSmith: Deleted irrelevancy

[[Image:US_Iran.gif|right|Iranian radicals burn the American flag atop the embassy.]]The '''Iran Hostage Crisis''' was a 444-day standoff at the [[United States|U.S.]] embassy in [[Tehran]], [[Iran]]. On November 4, 1979, members of the [[Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line]] (a radical [[Islam|Muslim]] [[terrorist]] group) seized the American embassy, taking 66 hostages. By January 20, 1981, all hostages were released just moments after [[Ronald Reagan]] was sworn in as [[President of the United States of America|President]].<ref>http://www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html</ref>

==Background==
===World War II===
During [[World War II]], [[Reza Shah]], the Shah of Iran, had entertained the idea of joining the [[Axis Powers]] of [[Nazi Germany]], [[Fascist]] [[Italy]], and [[Empire|Imperial]] [[Japan]]. The Iranians, like the Nazis, were extremely anti-[[Judaism|Semetic]] and supported the [[Holocaust]]. In 1941, in a necessary pre-emptive strike to prevent the acquisition of vital oil supply lines by the Nazis, the [[Allies]] invaded Iran to depose the monarch. He abdicated, letting his son, [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]], assume power. America established good relations with the new monarch, whose country proved to be a worthy ally during the [[Cold War]] after the Soviets withdrew under U. S. pressure in 1946. Britain subsequently redeployed its forces to other points throughout its empire. The U.S. gave economic and military aid to Iran, while Iran provided the U.S. military with oil. Iran's strategic location, combined with American military aid, prevented the [[Soviet Union]] from gaining control of the [[Persian Gulf]].

===Operation Ajax===
In 1953, the [[communism|communist]]-leaning Prime Minister of Iran, [[Mohammed Mossadegh]], nationalized American- and British-owned oil companies, including the [[Anglo-American Oil Company]]. The [[CIA]], with aid from British [[MI6]], removed Mossadegh and his Islamo-Communist allies from power in [[Operation Ajax]]<ref>http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/cia-iran.pdf</ref>. Reza Pahlavi was restored to power. Despite all the [[Western World|Western]] aid and intervention in preventing a Soviet takeover, the removal of the popular Mossadegh created anti-American sentiment in some of the Iranian people. The U.S.'s support for [[Israel]] also enraged many [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semetic]] Iranians.

===Iranian Revolution===
The hatred of American support finally came to a boiling point in 1979. The [[Iranian Revolution]] transformed Iran from the [[monarchy]] under the pro-American [[Shah]] [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]], to an [[theocracy|Islamic republic]] under the [[Ayatollah]] [[Ruhollah Khomeini]] that allied with the [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[Tudeh Party]]. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had gained power after the British and Soviet-led invasion during World War II, was forced to flee to the United States to seek surgery for [[cancer]] in October. The Ayatollah referred to the U.S. as "the Great Satan" and maintained that the American government was protecting Pahlavi and supporting the royalist troops who were continuing to engage the rebels in [[guerilla warfare]]. The Iranian public believed the Ayatollah's propaganda, and assumed that the U.S. would soon invade to depose Khomeini and re-instal Pahlavi. The Ayatollah called for his student followers to storm the U.S. embassay and take all Americans captive.

==The Attack==
===Planning===
The idea of attacking the embassy was first proposed in September of 1979, by Ebrahim Asgharzadeh to four fellow university students. Asgharzadeh later said his aim was "to object against the American government by going to their embassy and occupying it for several hours. Announcing our objections from within the occupied compound would carry our message to the world in a much more firm and effective way."<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/bowden</ref> Upon learning they had followed through with their plans, Khomeini called it "The second revolution: the take-over of the American spy den in Tehran."
===Action===
On November 4, 1979, the 300 radical [[Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line]] stormed the embassy. The gate was broken open by a pair of metal cutters that one student hid under her [[hijab]]. Some poured in through the open gates, while others scaled the walls. Iranian police were cooperative, and took no action. Sixty-six American hostages were taken prisoner inside the percieved safety of their embassy.

Three weeks after the initial attack, the Iranians released thirteen female and black prisoners, claiming they were sympathetic to the "oppressed minorities". Another hostage would later be diagnosed with [[multiple sclerosis]] and would be released in July of 1980 to seek medical treatment. The remaining 52 hostages, however, were frequently blindfolded or hooded and paraded before news cameras at the orders of Khomeini.

===American Reaction===
The American public united in outrage at this rash action against the United States. Many Iranians living in the U.S. were deported when they were discovered to be supporters of the [[Iranian Revolution|revolution]]. Americans called upon President [[Jimmy Carter]] to act. However, Carter only ceased oil imports from Iran. Seeing Carter's failure to defend the Americans, Khomeini commented that the "action has many benefits. ... This has united our people. Our opponents [Carter] do not dare act against us." Khomeini added supported from the People's Mujahedin of Iran (a [[terrorist]] group) to his support from the Islamists, when he adopted the slogan "America can't do a damned thing." Together, the Muslim radicals and their Communist allies purged the country of all opposition, citing pro-Americanism as an offense in many executions. The American public continued to urge the President to take justified military action to protect his people. Carter answered by simply arranging for a [[Canada|Canadian]] ambassador to be sent to interview the hostages, showing himself to be an ineffective leader.

His ill-considered attempt at a rescue mission sealed his fate as the most hated U.S. president in the history of the U.S. armed forces (see [[Operation Eagle Claw]]).

==Consequences==
[[Image:Hostage.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Future Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (left), and another fellow radical, escort an American hostage.]]
Ultimately, it would be [[Iraq]] who would unwittingly cause the release of the prisoners. In September 1980, Iraqi President [[Saddam Hussein]] invaded Iran, forcing the Iranian government to turn to the [[United States]] for support. Carter eventually authorized an $8 billion ransom for the release of the prisoners. The damage, however, had been done. The American people had lost faith in Carter due to his poor leadership in times of crisis. Ironically, the [[1980 Presidential Election]] was held on the one-year anniversary of the attack. Largely due to the hostage crisis, [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] was overwhelmingly elected. Reagan’s campaign platform included restoring American power and influence abroad. Immediately after Reagan took the [[Presidential Oath of Office]] on January 20, the hostages were flown out of Iran after 444 days of captivity.

==Mahmoud Ahmadinejad==
The current President of Iran, [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], according to many of the former hostages, is one of their captors. The Iranian government has denied that Ahmadinejad was one of the [[Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Iran]]

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-22T18:12:32Z

JohnSmith: /* Lead */

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-22T15:39:09Z

JohnSmith: /* Lead */

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-21T17:11:32Z

JohnSmith: /* Lead */

Quote mining

2007-05-20T17:48:40Z

JohnSmith: Remove self promotion

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' aka contextomy<ref>http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/511</ref>, refers to several practices including taking a portion of a quotation [[out of context]], presenting out-of-date material as current, removing an intervening passage from a quotation without an ellipsis, improper citation, or otherwise manipulating the text. The effect of quote mining is to make it appear that the speaker is making a point contrary to his actual intent when the speaker may be employing rhetoric or explaining his opponents' arguments.

Quote Mining, especially where a list of quotes (a "mine") is produced, reflects a deliberate and systematic misrepresentation of the original view(s) of the author(s). The modern term quote mining was coined in response to intentionally out of context quotes being used to 'prove' [[evolution]] was not supported by prominent scientists, when in fact it is. Its use however has expanded beyond discussions of evolution (examples: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/owen_mcshane_goes_quote_mining.php], [http://reddit.com/info/137ak/comments/c137dj], [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151147], [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009300.php]).

==Controversy==
"Quote mining" is a term not recognized by the dictionary, and which is used primarily by defenders of the theory of evolution to oppose the creationist practice of arguing by quotation.<ref>The term "quote mining" shows up on only 34,500 Google pages as of May 14, 2007.</ref>

Aside from the fact that quote mining in and of itself is a disingenuous practice, it also commits the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Even if the mined quote were factual, the opinion of a single individual, or group of individuals would not affect the actual validity of a scientific theory. Theories are decided on their merit and correspondence to the evidence, not the opinions of "authorities."

==Examples==

An out of context mined quotation <ref>http://www.saintsalive.com/general/wonderfully.htm</ref> (bold), from the full quote <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228</ref> (in italics):

<blockquote>"'''''To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.''' Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.''" -- [[Charles Darwin]], from ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 1859.</blockquote>

An abridged mined quotation <ref>http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030522.html</ref> (bold), from the full quote <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030505-4.html</ref> (in italics):

<blockquote>"'''''Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated.''' Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, '''they're not a problem anymore.''' And we'll stay on the hunt. To make sure America is a secure country, the al Qaeda terrorists have got to understand it doesn't matter how long it's going to take, they will be brought to justice.''" -- [[George W. Bush]], May 5, 2003. </blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Out of context]]

Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?

2007-05-20T16:47:04Z

JohnSmith:

[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm BIRTH THE BIBLE WAY]

Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?

Can anyone read German and are they interested in relaying the info in the citation below:

"The German journal Der Spiegel had a report on the mother’s best position for giving birth.(1986, Number 43, 278-288)"[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm]

:...the much more interesting problem would be to obtain a copy of an article from an issue that's just a few years younger than I am. Oh, wait, checking with the online archive makes me guess it's this one: [http://service.spiegel.de/digas/find?DID=13521283 Costs 50 cents to buy.] Judging by the title, it's a discussion/debate between a gynecologist and an... ethno-doctor? Not sure how that term translates. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"Ethno-doctor," as you so aptly put it - think "ethnographer" or "anthropologist." [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 21:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Possible - I have absolutely no idea about the terminology in that field. *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no bible way to give birth[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Even if you consider a seated position the "Biblical" way to give birth, then you have to trace this practice back even further. There are inscriptions in Egyptian temples that show women giving birth in a seated position. Since the Egyptian practice predates the Bible by thousands of years, this means the Egyptians must be correct. Hail Ra! [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 12:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Islam

2007-05-20T16:23:58Z

JohnSmith: /* Islam and Paganism */

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a 7th century [[Arab]] [[politics|political]] and religious figure. The word "Islam" means "submission." The followers of Islam are called Muslims, or Moslems. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be [[God]]'s last and greatest [[prophet]]. The faith teaches that the Angel Gabriel appeared to him.

Muslims believe that God (Allah, in [[Arabic]]) revealed the [[Qur'an]] to Muhammad. The [[Qur'an]] is considered to be the pure and [[holy]] word of Allah. Like [[Christianity]], and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]]. Islam claims to trace its roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Based upon this belief, the Bible, Old and New Testament, is believed to have become corrupted as well.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], the Islamic holy city.]]

===Five Pillars of Islam===

*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except the Allah, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of Allah''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Christianity==

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him to be one of God's most important prophets. However, the Qur'an warns against worshiping Jesus, for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified:

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
"Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."

Qur'an 5:73-75

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.

==Islam and Paganism==

Although Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty [[Allah|God]], some Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like some of the [[church]] and indeed early Judaism, can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents{{fact}}. Some, for example, have attempted to link Allah to a moon deity, though this is unsupported by an etymological study of the word "Allah" and the fact that Allah is cited by the Quran <ref>The Quran, Sura 37 [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Quran-Allamah-Nooruddin/dp/0963206702]</ref> as the God of Abraham (the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). <ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork (also practiced in Judaism) originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal. <ref>Ibid.</ref> . As well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism (eg: Story of Abraham being ordered to sacrafice his son by God. The story can be found in both the Bible and Qur'an). However such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>

==Sharia==

[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of Allah by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two
[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Islamophobia

2007-05-20T15:55:41Z

JohnSmith:

We need an article about the [[Moslem agenda]]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Want an article about the fudamentalist Muslim agenda?

Here's how:

Just copy and merge the articles on Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter, then change their pics to some of Bin Laden, then change every mention of the word Iraq into America
then change every mention of the word liberal into infidel,
then change every mention of the word Muslim into Christian,
then change every mention of the word terrorist into Westerner,
then change every mention of the word Israel into Palestine.
then change every mention of the word patriot into martyr.

Leave all of the stuff on homosexuals, women, war, traitors, etc... the way it was.

And you're article is done!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

==Removal of quotations==

I realize that Coulter is the darling child of Conservapedia, and Ashcroft, being a Bush appointee, is nigh unto a saint, but the quotations from them are considered seminal examples of Islamophobia. Removing them because you're uncomfortable with how they portray Coulter and Ashcroft isn't responsible. Also, Islamophobia has nothing to Islamic aggression, it's about demonization of Muslims. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:55, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Islamophobia

2007-05-20T15:47:17Z

JohnSmith: Islamophobia has nothing to do with Islamic aggression.

'''Islamophobia''' is, literally, "fear of Islam" though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, and is sometimes used to criticize people opposed to Islam.

Islamophobia is a neologism which defines xenophobia against Muslims and Islam as an irrational fear.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of the term Islamophobia was in 1976, though it has become more frequently used since the 1997 publication of ''Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All'' by the Runnymede Trust, and even moreso to describe the backlash against Muslims following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/national/main563594.shtml</ref><ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4102389.stm</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_42_37/ai_79339769</ref><ref>http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=127fe2880e48951b564ac2f3e171242e</ref>

The Runnymede Trust defines Islamophobia as having the following characteristics:

:1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
:2) Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
:3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
:4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations.
:5) Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
:6) Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
:7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
:8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

==Examples of Islamophobia==

In a May 2001 interview, British politician Nick Giffen stated "Muslims are the biggest problem at present, for several reasons, because they have the highest birth rate, which means their communities need living space - that's what the ethnic cleansing is about. They have political corruption in their own countries, and when they have a chance to get council places they are there for graft. Most important of all is that Islam is an aggressive religion." <ref>‘Far right aims to gain foothold in Oldham’, Jeevan Vasagar, May 30, 2001 The Guardian"</ref>

On September 15, 2001 a [[Sikh]] man (known for wearing distinctive beards and turbans) was murdered at a gas station in Mesa, Arizona. His murderer, Frank Silva Roque, was convicted and initially sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole by the Arizona Supreme Court. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm</ref>

In November 2006, Jerry Klein, a Washington DC area radio talk show host suggested, in parody of Islamophobic views, that "identifying markers. ... I'm thinking either it should be an arm band, a crescent moon arm band, or it should be a crescent moon tattoo. ...If it means that we have to round them up and do a tattoo in a place where everybody knows where to find it, then that's what we'll have to do." <ref>http://cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2415&theType=NR</ref> Although some callers believed that Klein was "off his rocker" for suggesting such a thing, other callers believed Klein had not gone far enough, and suggested that Muslims should be placed in concentration camps, or deported en-masse. Klein exposed the parody at the close of his show, and chastised those who has called in to support extreme views.

==Criticism of the concept of Islamophobia==

Kenan Malik, a British writer, has criticized the concept of Islamophobia, calling it a myth. He argues that the charge of Islamophobia is leveled against those who criticize [[Islam]] or Muslims in any way (even when those criticisms may be legitimate) to serve as a "chilling effect."

Rowan Atkinson, a British comic-actor has likewise stated that although criticizing another person based on their race is ridiculous and irrational, criticizing another's religion, which is a voluntary belief, is a right. He further stated that laws should not be created which protect certain types of ideas from criticism and not others.

Stephen Schwartz, an American writer and critic of Wahabbism, has stated that although the charge of Islamophobia is sometimes leveled too quickly against an opponent, that it is still a real phenomenon<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17874</ref>, which he defines as:

:1) Attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world;
:2) Condemning all of Islam and its history as extremist;
:3) Denying the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate Muslim majority;
:4) Insisting that Muslims accede to the demands of non-Muslims (based on ignorance and arrogance) for various theological changes, in their religion;
:5) Treating all conflicts involving Muslims (including, for example, that in Bosnia-Hercegovina a decade ago), as the fault of Muslims themselves;
:6) Inciting war against Islam as a whole.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Hominid

2007-05-17T23:02:46Z

JohnSmith:

== Incorrect definition ==
I object to saying that the 2nd definition (human ancestors) is incorrect. If it is incorrect, then so is most usage. Are you saying that all these are incorrect? The Merriam-Webster dictionary [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hominid] American Heritage
[http://www.bartleby.com/61/51/H0255100.html] and these scientific pages.
[http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm] [http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/] [http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/6/79.06.02.x.html] [http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/collections/museum/hominid/hominid_index.shtml] [http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Paleoanthropology.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
: It's a scientific term. It should be used as such. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:: Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree, but common =/= actual. As [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:::: No, it is not acceptable. On what basis do you say the latter usage is "incorrect"? Someone has proposed a new definition of "hominid" a few years ago. Maybe it will catch on, and maybe it won't. In the meantime, people need to know how to interpret the word "hominid" when they read it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've edited to explain the difference between the taxonomic term and the colloquial term, as well as including the correct term for those species that are transitional between hominidae and homo sapiens sapiens. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 15:45, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Thanks. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

== Cave man ==
What wrong with "cave man"? It is a colloquial definition. Yes, it is not terribly precise, but neither is the term hominid as it is usually used. I say to put "cave man" back. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Cave man may be colloquial, but it is not used in any kind of serious discussion among academics concerned with studying pre-historic humans. Cave man is a very loose term that is often used for inaccurate descriptions. I just don't consider it very professional or encyclopedic.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, if someone is going to the trouble to use the term "Hominid" then they have more than a passing understanding of evolution, and they're using the term for a specific purpose. I also think that in the first definition that we should strike the section that says that it's colloquially used to refer to modern humans. Although modern humans are hominids, typically people use hominid to refer to the evolutionary ancestors of man, also called the "hominina" tribe. This is one of the reasons I still prefer the original edit I made to this article: '''The taxonomic term hominid is used by modern biologists to refer to humans, as well as the "great apes," including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and their ancestors up to several millions of years ago. It is also colloquially used to refer to species ancestral to modern humans, including Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, and Homo though the correct term for this group is hominina.''' I think this was more accurate and succinct. The fact is that there aren't truly two definitions of the term. There is the formal definition, and the way that definition is used informally. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:13, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I do not think that your version is correct. First, the "taxonomic" definition is just a proposal of the last few years, and not even all modern biologists have adopted that usage. Second, saying that "hominina" is the "correct term" is also just a proposal. Third, readers using CP are much more likely to encounter the colloquial definition, even in a modern science book. Just a few years ago, it was the only definition. Fourth, your colloquial definition requires that the hominid be "ancestral", and that (probably) rules out Neanderthals, even tho everyone considers Neanderthals to be hominids. Fifth, it unnecessarily claims that Australopithecus is ancestral to humans, even tho it is hotly debated among evolutionists (and rejected by creationists).
:: There is another point here which seems to have been lost in all the edits. The modern evolutionists have redefined the word "hominid" to suit their taxonomic views. The new definition groups humans and apes more tightly, and downplays human distinctiveness. Maybe you agree and maybe you don't. It is just a definition, so the change cannot be correct or incorrect. It is just a preference on the part of modern biologists. This is CP, and a left-wing shift in definitions should be noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:32, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure on what basis you claim that the word hominid has only been used in the last few years, or that it has been redefined to more closely group humans with other apes. The fact is that Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century (long before Darwin) used the term Hominoidae to describe the observed morphological similarities between humans and other apes, and then set humans and their ancestral species under Hominidae while other apes were Hominoidae Ponginae. After molecular biological findings began confirming the morphology studies, it became clear that the Hominidae/Ponginae split wasn't supported by the genetics, and the two subfamilies were merged. The term "homininae" was first used in 74 to try and separate out humans and their ancestral species from other apes, and although I think this is an unneccesary division, this is what is actually meant when we colloquially use "hominid" to describe what you're calling cave men.
:::Secondly, with regards to Neanderthal and Australopithecus, I realize that they are likely not direct ancestors to Homo Sapiens. I don't believe any mainstream biologists suggest that they are, but you are confusing the terms "ancestral" and "ancestors." An ancestor is one from whom you have a direct familial descent (such as a great grandparent). Someone who is ancestral to you is not necessarily directly related, but is a predecessor. So, your great great grandfather's uncle's children would be ancestral, but not ancestors. Likewise, Neanderthal and Australopithecus are not direct genetic ancestors, but they are related to our direct genetic ancestors, and so they are indeed ancestral.
:::Finally, with regards to "left wing" edits, I'm sorry you feel reality is so left wing, but we're talking about definitions, not political opinions. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 19:02, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Eugenics

2007-05-17T18:25:21Z

JohnSmith: /* Connection with The Theory of Evolution */ - Placed the quotation in context.

[[Image:Gtr766.png|right|thumb|300px|Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.]]
'''Eugenics''' was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "[[selective breeding]]". What this meant, in actual practice, was [[forced sterilization]] of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California). [http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html]

== Connection with The Theory of Evolution ==

[[The Theory of Evolution]] suggests that humans evolved to their present state like all living organisms. This implies that, should selective pressures change, humans as a species may also change. In the early 20th century, the term ''Social Darwinism'' was in fashion. This idea stated that the fittest people did the best in life, and, tautologically, those who did the best were the fittest. This was often used as a justification for racism and other oppression. Since evolutionary theory does not really apply to individuals, but to populations, this was never a valid application of the theory. However, this idea has continued to be a popular topic.

Charles Darwin declared in Descent of Man:<ref>Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1901), pp. 241-42 (footnote * is a reference to Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html</ref>

:The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Although Darwin was referring to biological races (what we now refer to as species) as opposed to cultural races, he still referred to the prospect of one group driving another to extinction. He was the first to suggest that some races of man "will almost certainly exterminate, and replace" other races of man.{{fact}} Although Darwin never advocated this action, and instead decried it, those that took the idea to its extreme developed a new intellectual field called "eugenics" for this mythical biological struggle. Darwin decried the use of eugenics in chapter 5 of the same book, where he wrote:

:The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.<ref>Darwin, the Descent of Man, Ch. 5</ref>

The importance of this quote ''vis a vis'' the other, cited above, is often minimized, but the two cannot be read apart from each other.

The term "Eugenics" was coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.{{fact}}

== Etymology and History ==

The word "eugenics" is based on Greek roots meaning "well born." The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides 1883 as the date of origin for the term, which was coined by Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Later Darwin's son, Leonard, served as the president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 in London.

Richard Dawkins has stated in one letter that it no longer be banned from polite discussion, but did not actually advocate it; in fact he stated in the same letter his distaste for the idea.<ref>http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php</ref>

In the early 1900s, many influential officials advocated Darwinism and eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes became a strong proponent. So did many others in prominent government and academic positions. Members of the British Eugenics Society, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are listed [http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/eug_ij.htm].

== Eugenics in America ==

Between 1907 and 1937, 32 American states passed eugenics laws requiring sterilization of citizens deemed to be misfits, such as the mentally infirm. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all but one conservative Democratic Justice upheld such laws in a Supreme Court decision that included Holmes' offensive statement that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).<ref>http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html</ref> In fact, the third generation "imbecile" was very bright, but was declared by a eugenics "expert" as "supposed to be a mental defective," apparently without an examination. The cases were later forcibly overturned under [[substantive due process]] cases holding sterilization to be an abridgment of a fundamental right.<ref>Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535)</ref> This era of case law, overturning eugenics, actually culminated in enlargements of "fundamental rights" into other spheres as well.

Eugenics was taught as part of the evolution curriculum of many science classes in America in the early 1900s. For example, it was featured in the textbook used in the famous Scopes trial in 1925.{{fact}}

"By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics."<ref>''See'' "Science misapplied: the eugenics age revisited," Technology Review, August-Sep 1996 (Vol. 99, No. 6), at p. 22(10), by Garland E. Allen.</ref>

Holmes once wrote favorably in a letter to a future Supreme Court Justice about "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination."<ref>9/3/21 Letter to Felix Frankfurther. For a detailed criticism of Justice Holmes' support of eugenics, see Professor Albert W. Alschuler's Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes (Univ. of Chicago Press 2000).</ref> As noted above, though, United States law has abandoned this perspective long ago.

== Eugenics in Europe ==

German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel promoted evolution by drawing fraudulent pictures of humans embryos, to pretend that their developmental stages imitate an historical evolution of humans from other species.<ref>''See'' [[Haeckel Fraud]]. These fraudulent drawings remain a part of American textbooks and were only exposed a century later as false by the New York Times.</ref>

In 1904, Haeckel reiterated the view of Darwin quoted above: "These lower races … are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." <ref>Ernst Haeckel, The Wonders of Life (New York: Harper 1904), 56-57 (emphasis added).</ref>

It wasn't long before intellectuals viewed war as an essential evolutionary process. Vom Heutigen Kriege, a popular book by Geberal Bernhardi, "expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians."<ref>A history of Germany 1815-1990, 4th ed., at 205, by W. Carr.</ref> In America, Justice Holmes similarly wrote that "I always say that society is founded on the death of men - if you don't kill the weakest one way you kill them another."<ref>2/26/22 Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock.</ref>

World War I entailed a brutality unknown in the history of mankind. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, observed that "prior to the Scopes trial [in 1925, William Jennings] Bryan had been on a revival tour of Germany and had been horrified by the signs of incipient Nazism. Before this point, Bryan had been a moderate in the evolution debate; for instance, he had lobbied the Florida legislature not to ban the teaching of Darwin, only to specify that evolution must be taught as a theory rather than a fact. But after hearing the National Socialists talk about the elimination of genetic inferiority, [historian Gary] Wills wrote, Bryan came to feel that evolutionary ideas had become dangerous; he began both to oppose and to lampoon them."

The march of evolution/eugenics continued unabated in Germany. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolution concepts of heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Next was the Nazi sterilization law entitled "Eugenics in the service of public welfare." It required compulsory sterilization for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects in cases including congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and hereditary epilepsy.

The German schools indoctrinated their students. In 1935, a German high-school math textbook included the following problem: "… how much does it cost the state if:

a. 868 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 10 years?
b. 260 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 20 years?
c. 112 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 2 years?"

See Science misapplied, supra.

One German student was Josef Mengele, who studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort. He became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics.

The liberal Journal of the American Medical Society provided this summary: "The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 led to the rise of the eugenics movement in Europe. Eugenics supporters believed that races could be improved by selective breeding. The Nazi Party adopted this belief and began a campaign against the Jews. Many physicians joined the Nazi Party because they needed jobs." "Medicine against society: lessons from the Third Reich," The Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 27, 1996 (Vol. 276, No. 20), at p. 1657(5), by Jeremiah A. Barondess.
Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, was more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm

== References ==

<references/>

== External References ==

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

[[Category:philosophy]]

==See also==

*[[Genetic engineering]]

Talk:Hominid

2007-05-17T18:13:02Z

JohnSmith: /* Cave man */

Talk:Hominid

2007-05-17T18:11:44Z

JohnSmith: /* Cave man */

Talk:Hominid

2007-05-17T18:08:58Z

JohnSmith: /* Cave man */

Ann Coulter

2007-05-15T16:12:45Z

JohnSmith: /* Quotes */

[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent who has written five
bestselling [[United States of America|American]] books
that present [[conservative]] views.

Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives for
her patriotic stances against [[liberal]]ism, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt the [[United States of America|United States]], and her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
In ''Godless'', Coulter argues that liberals make a religion out of their beliefs which they follow with the same sort of intolerant zeal which they condemn in [[fundamentalist]]s. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

As a Christian, Coulter attributes to the Judeo-Christian tradition the view that human beings are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism|Godless: The Church of Liberalism]],''
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]],''
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]],''
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]],'' and
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]].''

==Quotes==
* "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the New York Times Building." She later added "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to Darfur, a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, Holocaust-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear Harry Reid and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in World War II. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." <ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001 </ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." <ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Islamic extremists: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." <ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001</ref> This quotation, along with others, has led some to accuse Coulter of fomenting [[Islamophobia]].

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " <ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins. </ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Women]]

Hominid

2007-05-15T16:10:22Z

JohnSmith:

The term '''hominid''' has two common definitions.
# It can, colloquially <ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hominid</ref>, refer to the ancestors of modern humans. It is also commonly used by scientists to refer to human ancestors and closely related species like [[Neanderthal]]s.<ref>This useum exhibit on hominids does not include gorillas. [http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/collections/museum/hominid/hominid_index.shtml]</ref>
# In [[taxonomy]], it can refer to humans, as well as the great apes, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and their evolutionary ancestors. This technical definition is preferred by biologists, as per the [[Linnaean System of Classification]] which groups organisms together by their ancestry.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Hominid]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-15T16:06:30Z

JohnSmith:

[[Image:Bgnfy6n.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''' is the current president of the [[Iran|Islamic Republic of Iran]], and the former mayor of [[Tehran]]. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of Islamic fundamentalism, strong anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into [[Nuclear program of Iran|producing nuclear technology]], possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor.[[Image:Hostage.jpg|thumb|240px|right|The AP photo.]]

The inset photo taken 26 years prior shows a man looking very much like a younger version of today's Ahmadinejad at the time of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis as someone involved with the hostage taking. Five former American hostages have stated that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. A former US intelligence officer, said "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body." <ref>*[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4115 Ahmadinejad - Hostage Taker?], Daniel Pipes ''Kommersant'' (Moscow daily), November 13, 2006.</ref> However, some former hostages dispute this claim. <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref> Additionally, a number of individuals who were actually involved in the hostage taking have denied Ahmedinejad's involvement. <ref>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16</ref> <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html</ref> A CIA report was commissioned to determine whether or not Ahmedinejad was involved in the hostage taking, and that report determined that the evidence was at best inconclusive. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2</ref> <ref>http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html</ref>

Ahmadinajed's foreign policies have been criticized by many within his country and government, who think he is too extreme and will cause their country to be attacked by the [[United States]].

Former Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] has often compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to [[Adolf Hitler]].{{fact}}

==Rerefences==
<references/>

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]

Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T22:49:11Z

JohnSmith: /* Use of different definitions */

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change. But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

The broadest definition, '''change in the history of the universe''', includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>Quoted by Stephen E. Jones at [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html]</ref>

=== Development of life ===

Kerkut defined the [[General Theory of Evolution]] as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"<ref>''Implications of Evolution'', p. 157, by Kerkut, G.A., quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1627 Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?] by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
As stated, this includes the origin of life ([[abiogenesis]]), but evolutionists today generally reject that evolution includes [[abiogenesis]], as [[Natural selection]] can only operate once life has started.

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

=== Gene frequency ===

In modern scientific use, it is often defined as a '''change in gene frequency'''.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref> This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between [[microevolution]] and [[macroevolution]] - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists.

=== Increasing genetic information ===
Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic [[information]].<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599 Beetle Bloopers], ''Creation'' 19(3):30</ref> In order to go from the hypothesised first living cell to the variety of creatures that exist today, evolution needs to add massive quantities of genetic information, such as for hair, eyes, blood, and wings. Creationists argue that the following do not constitute evolution, because no new genetic information is generated:
* Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection.
* Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another.
* Duplication of existing genetic information.
These processes have all been observed, but creationists argue that what has not been observed is the generation of new genetic information.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268 Chapter 5, Refuting Evolution 2]</ref>

== Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion ==

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God,{{fact}} but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned. Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.
They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref> Some evolutionists have also admitted this. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Use of different definitions ==

When ''evolution'' is defined as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then Americans are split 50-50 over whether it has really occurred.

About 45% of Americans are [[Young Earth Creationists]].

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact."<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/</ref>

This apparently refers to the fossil evidence for evolution (see [[radiometric dating|carbon dating]]). But creationists also reject the idea that new species can evolve from older ones, such as humans evolving from ancient hominids. About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and stochastically random forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.{{fact}}

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations. Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation. However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Talk:Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T22:26:55Z

JohnSmith: /* Hominids vs apes */

Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,

:''Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for adding the bit about [[unguided evolution]]. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== that Earth is insignificant? ==

Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the "anthropic principle".[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am under the impression that it is primarily leftists and atheists who argue that life on Earth is insignificant because of life on other planets, billions of stars, Darwinian processes, etc. I don't have any references handy. I am throwing it out here for discussion. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Alas, such nonsense. The page contains not-so-much a valid definition as a whining screed again evolution written by folks who know nothing of evolution. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== eh what? ==

''A leftist-atheist philosophy. This says that man is no better than an animal; that Earth is insignificant; that progress does not exist; that the history of life is unguided, unplanned, and random;[3] and that materialist explanations have replaced all spiritual ones. Various other ideas may also be included, depending on the evolutionist.''

eh? where did this get dragged up from? what's the connection between people on the left and being an atheist? I'm (british) right and an atheist. As for the rest of it, the mind bogggles! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 08:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roger, that is a comment beneath you. It is insulting, uncited, and unChristian. As I said most scientists, and atheists, and leftists, consider the Earth pretty darn significant, as we live here. That does not change the cosmologic fact that we are one of billions of solar systems, so cosmologically not particularly significant. But, from a human perspective, Earth could hardly be more significant. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That bit about a leftist-atheist philosophy is out of place, I believe. It is how some people see evolution our place in the universe and how they see the lack of purpose in evolution, but it's not a definition of evolution per se. I think it likely belongs in the article (perhaps modified somewhat), but not ''as a definition''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me clarify, as one of the scientists here, humans ''are'' animals, that is indisputable. Per those of us who are scientists, we are unique animals in many ways, and that is significant. Earth is significant for the above reasons. Science, however, does not comment on the ''moral'' significance of humans or Earth. That is religion's job.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's not indisputable at all. Whether or not humans are animals really depends on the definitions of your classification system. Personally, I'd define plants as living things with a body, animals as living things with a body and mind, and humans as living things with a body, mind, and soul. Ergo, humans are not animals ''according to that classification system''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::They have sequenced human and chimp DNA and estimate that there is about a 2% difference between the two. If chimps are animals, then human DNA codes 98% animal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That is only relevant if you are using that as part of your classification system. They've also found that humans have about 50% of their DNA in common with bananas, so does that make us 50% plants? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::No, but it indicates that humans and plants forked from each other a lot earlier than humans and chimps did. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Whether or not they forked at all is a separate issue. But if sharing 50% of our DNA does not make us 50% plants, why does sharing 98% of our DNA with animals (well, one type only) make us 98% animal? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The same way sharing 99.9% of my DNA with Asians makes me 99.9% Asian which overrides the 99.3% of my DNA I share with Caucasians, which, in the absence of my predominantly Asian DNA, would make me Caucasian. Quod erat demonstrandum. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::99.9%? Good try, but you would not normally be classified as "99.9% Asian", but simply "Asian", and this would have been the case well before DNA was heard of let alone measurable. Therefore, humans would not be described as "98% ape" or "98% animal", but (by that logic), simply "ape" (which of course they are not) or "animal" (which they usually are, but not for that reason). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, {{remove personal remark|that question reveals a level of ignorance so profound that}} I'm not sure where to start. The kingdoms of Animalia an Plantae branched off very far in the past, far enough that, while we share enough DNA to show that we both originated from common ancestors on Earth, evolution as separated us enough that we not only are separate species, but actually in separated kingdoms.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::You confuse disagreement for ignorance. You are not telling me something that I've never heard, but something that I disagree with; I don't agree that we split at all (i.e. I reject evolution). However, that is not the point. I was not talking about where we came from, but how we are classified, and pointing out that there can be more than way to classify things. Do we classify according to percentage similarities of DNA, according to the existence or otherwise of a soul, or according to any number of other possible ways of classifying? And even that question is a bit pointless because you are not limited to classifying things according to only one classification system. That is, you could classify according to similarity of DNA '''and'' according to the existence of a soul. So you could then say that we are animals according to classification system A but not according to classification system B. It's a bit like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet. Whether or not it's a planet depends on which classification system you are using, and astronomers recently decided to change which classification system they used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== That particular definition ==

As per '''grand''' consensus on this discussion page and the discussion page of [[Theory of Evolution]], I am removing the fourth definition. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 09:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since the soul is immaterial, it is not a part of a scientific classification system. You cant measure it, you can perhaps say humans have one, but then what? Measure a chimps soul?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:Do all possible classification systems have to be scientific ones? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:Before I make my following remarks, I want to make absolutely clear that as a Christian, I reject astrology.
:I would think that a better word than "effective" would be "useful". Classifications need to be ''useful''. But that depends on what they are ''used'' for, and they can have different uses.
:An astrologer might decide to classify stars according to their (purported) effect on people's destinies. That sort of classification system would not be ''useful'' to an astronomer, but it would be ''useful'' to the astrologer. But it would not be "scientific".
:An alternative examples is railway gauges. Gauges are classified into ''narrow'', ''standard'', and ''broad''. I would not consider these to be ''scientific'' classifications (they are somewhat arbitrary), but it is a ''useful'' classification system nevertheless.
:So I reject that ''all'' classification systems ''have to be'' scientific.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that ''is'' the way it is. We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning. {{remove personal remark|To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to [[Satan|deceive]].}}[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:When I get the chance, I'd like to do a bit of a cleanup on this article myself (if others don't beat me to it). I'd probably reinstate the deleted bit, but not ''as a definition'', because I don't believe that it is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article does not say that it is just about scientific aspects of evolution. People often discuss nonscientific aspects, and it is misleading to avoid them. The deleted text should go back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is not off-topic at all. There is considerable debate over whether "science" is allowed to tread into the areas of [[philosophy]], [[metaphysics]] or [[religion]]. And [[methodologicial naturalism]] makes a statement about the scope of science, i.e., whether it can cope with the [[supernatural]] - this leads to the recent unpleasantness about [[Intelligent Design]]. (We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gradual appearance of new forms of life ==

''the gradual appearance of new forms of life''. I think not, gradual changes to existing species, so that, for example when populations groups become isolated from each other, after a very, very, very long time the accumulation of gradual changes will be such that the resulting population groups can be considered separate species. Well something like that. This article seems to be written by people who don't really grasp what they are writing about.

[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks [[User:Sid_3050|Sid 3050]] for moving that here. It wasn't my intention to place under the article. An oversight on my part.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase you object to is in quotes as though it was the question asked in a survey. If so, it should stand, but admittedly there is no reference supporting it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flawed questions in surveys and flawed sources lead to bad articles. How about getting a scientist who specializes in evolution to write a definition?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It will immediately be reverted for having a liberal bias. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

{{remove personal remark|Don't be so pessimistic.}} I won't let anyone revert an article on a false basis. Anyway, this article is specifically about the different definitions.

Please add the Liberal definition. And add the Scientific definition, Conservative definition, Old Earth, Young Earth, Intelligent Design, Roman Catholic and any other definition you can find. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]==

I blotted out a few remarks which seemed to be more about personalities than about the topic at hand. I hope no one minds. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I reverted mine, because it was not insulting and it was appropriate. If you want to spend time doing this, Ed, I could point you to plenty of others, such as on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Is_the_Bible_Inerrant%3f Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?] page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't regard your remark as insulting, and I made it as easy as possible to unhide it. That's why I used a template: so it shows up when you are in edit mode. (Actually, your remark was the mildest of them all - as well as being entirely on point. I guess I just wanted to try out my new template. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== My cleanup is finished ==
I've extensively rewritten much of the article, and that's about all I can do for now. The '''Use of different definitions''' section could still do with a cleanup, and some other parts could do with more in them. Two specific suggestions are:
* The '''Development of life''' section could mention that this is the popular view, and supporting citations might be polls where the questions about evolution were consistent with this definition.
* The '''Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion''' section could do with some more work. I've reincorporated most of the section that RSchlafly wanted back in, but not quite all of it. Perhaps some quotes from evolutionists on what evolution means to them could go in here, along with some references claiming that evolution is nothing more than a dispassionate scientific theory.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Increasing genetic information ==

Isn't that the creationist definition of '''macro'''evolution? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:See the second-last dot-point on [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/ this page], although read the start of the page to put it in context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hominids vs apes==

My recent edit, a single word change, was reverted, and I'm not clear as to why. The article currently reads that humans evolved from ancient apes. This is a misleading statement. My phrasing was that humans evolved from ancient hominids. Of course, humans, hominids, as well as gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans are all "apes", but no biologist suggests that modern humans evolved directly from other extant groups of apes, but that we descend from the now extinct hominid branch. RSchlafly, can you give a compelling reason why the edit was reverted? [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I reverted simply because because the reference was to a CNN article that used the term "ancient apes", not hominids. I realize that some people say that it is confusing to say that humans evolved from apes, because someone might interpret that as modern apes. But the article says "ancient apes", so I don't think that there is any confusion.
: Meanwhile, the term [[hominid]] is confusing, and I started a page to define. Perhaps you could help there, as it currently says that the dictionary definition is incorrect. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::If that were the intent of the quote, then I would agree with you, but the part that mentions "ancient apes" is from the writer of the article, not the person who says "we have fossil evidence for evolution, it's a fact." Yet, the article says that the former is presented in context of the latter, which isn't the case. It's not necessary to quote the writer of the article here because it's not a first-person piece of evidence, and moreover the writer is using the term incorrectly. Also, I'm wondering why we have this reference at all, since it's referring the the 1999 Kansas school board removing evolution from the standards. Since 1999 that policy has been reversed, and a new controversial policy was put in place and reversed. The reference is basically defunct from the question of current events, and if you want to lend some scientific credibility to the article, then a journal paper or textbook would be far more appropriate. I'm removing the quotation marks and changing ape back to hominid since it is the correct term. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: You took a statement that is correct, clear, unambiguous, and grounded in a neutral source, and replaced it with one that is inaccurate and confusing. Creationists deny that humans descended from ancient apes, but not that they descended from ancient hominids. The ancient apes belonged to a different species from modern humans; the same is not necessarily true about hominids. It appears that you subscribe to the idea that the word hominid is just another word for an ape, but if that is true, then why make the change? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Of course creationists deny we descend from ancient hominids. "Lucy is a chimp" and "Neanderthal is just a regular human with rickets" have been creationist canards for quite a while. Creationists believe that humanity was created in its present form, and did not evolve from a predecessor species. Ancient hominids are not the same species as modern humans. Naturally, ape and hominid don't mean the same thing. Hominids are a subset of apes. But the point is that no biologist believes that we evolved from Gorillas, Chimpanzees, or Orangutans, but from other hominids (Australopithencines, etc).[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T22:20:49Z

JohnSmith:

Mahmoud "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" is his true name. This article should be edited to remove the common misconception of "Ahmadinejad".

Thankyou and goodnight.

== rule? ==

Shouldn't it be clarified that in Iran, the president isn't actually the leader? Policy is actually set by the Supreme Leader, who is the true ruler of the country. That's just a content comment; clearly, the style of this entry was unprofessional and not appropriate for a encyclopedia.
:He's technically the leader, though only in name. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hostage photo==

Ahmedinejad wasn't among the hostage takers in the Iran hostage crisis, regardless of what Daniel Pipes says. 4 of the leaders of the student revolution, along with the actual lead hostage taker have said he wasn't involved. Interestingly, these individuals are opposed to Ahmedinejad's policies, so if he was involved, they would have no reason to protect him. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:He wasn't a leader, but he was definitely involved. He's been identified by several of the hostages and other students. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::The assertion needs to be cited to Pipes. Pipes is credible, particularly over four anonymous terrrorists and criminals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't necessarily agree that Pipes is credible. His biases are well-known. Additionally, discounting the views of those that were actually involved in the revolution because they are "terrorists and criminals" is pure ad-hominem. A statement stands or falls on the validity of the statement, not who says it. Their credibility on this particular statement is far greater than that of Pipes, because they were actually present. So, what's more likely; that multiple people involved in the revolution and hostage taking who currently disagree with Ahmedinejad are being truthful when they deny his involvement and that those who believe he was present may be dealing with mistaken identity, or that Pipes has uncovered some grand conspiracy to hide Ahmedinejad's involvement where no possible motive to hide his involvement is reasonable? At best, I think we should list that it's possible that he was involved but that there is no definitive evidence either way.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Actually Pipes does not personally make the assertion, he cites 5 eyewitnesses. And I am not certain we should even countentance giving any credibility whatsoever to using terrorists to refute them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::He may cite 5 eyewitnesses, but he discounts reports from at least 5 other eyewitnesses who disagree with his POV. He's assuming his conclusion. Even the jihadwatch article I've cited (which is hardly objective) says that the evidence is inconclusive. If Conservapedia's goal is accuracy and not truthiness, then we should be honest and say that the evidence is inconclusive.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Show some cites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Sure: "But Abdi, a former revolutionary student turned radical reformer who was jailed in 2002 for selling intelligence to foreigners including the US-based polling company Gallup, said the former American hostages had poor memories. The Times said Ahmadinejad was a 23-year-old university student at the time of the takeover in November 1979 and was a founding member of the radical student group that organised the storming of the US Embassy compound. Mohsen Mirdamadi, another ringleader of the hostage-taking drama in Tehran, rejected the Times report. “I deny such reports. Ahmadinejad was not a member of the radical students’ group who seized the embassy,” said Mirdamadi, a former lawmaker. Like many of the former hostage-takers, Mirdamadi is now an outspoken proponent of the need to reform Iran’s Islamic political system." [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16]. "But Ahmadinejad's office denied these allegations and other hostage-takers, some of them now political opponents of Ahmadinejad – including Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hamid Reza, Abbas Abdi, Mohammad-Reza Khatami, and Saeed Hajjarian Jalaiepour – confirmed his account. One former American hostage denied Ahmadinejad had been a captor. Amir Taheri, editor-in-chief of a Tehran newspaper in the shah's time, concluded that "it is almost certain Ahmadinejad was not directly involved in the US embassy episode."" [http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php]. "But other former American hostages contacted by CNN say they aren't so sure. Much of the controversy surrounds these photographs from 1979. The one on the left confirmed to be then 23-year-old Ahmedinejad. The one on the right of a hostage-taker. A known ultra-conservative and follower of Iran's supreme leader, Ahmadinejad has detailed much of his past on his own Web site, even listing his membership in a radical student group back in the '70s, some of whose members seized the American embassy. But one of the former student leaders of the hostage-taking told CNN Ahmadinejad was not involved, and close associates of the president-elect, as well as the Iranian government, have also reportedly denied the allegations." [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html]. "A CIA spokeswoman yesterday said she would not comment on the matter because the report is classified. Another administration official, however, said the agency determined that they lacked the evidence to "conclude definitively" on Mr. Ahmadinejad's role. "It was similar to the Scottish court's not proven judgment," the source said." [http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2]. "There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages."[http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html]

::::::::How many more references would you like? [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T22:19:16Z

JohnSmith: /* Hostage photo */

Mahmoud "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" is his true name. This article should be edited to remove the common misconception of "Ahmadinejad".

Thankyou and goodnight.

== rule? ==

Shouldn't it be clarified that in Iran, the president isn't actually the leader? Policy is actually set by the Supreme Leader, who is the true ruler of the country. That's just a content comment; clearly, the style of this entry was unprofessional and not appropriate for a encyclopedia.
:He's technically the leader, though only in name. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hostage photo==

Ahmedinejad wasn't among the hostage takers in the Iran hostage crisis, regardless of what Daniel Pipes says. 4 of the leaders of the student revolution, along with the actual lead hostage taker have said he wasn't involved. Interestingly, these individuals are opposed to Ahmedinejad's policies, so if he was involved, they would have no reason to protect him. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:He wasn't a leader, but he was definitely involved. He's been identified by several of the hostages and other students. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::The assertion needs to be cited to Pipes. Pipes is credible, particularly over four anonymous terrrorists and criminals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't necessarily agree that Pipes is credible. His biases are well-known. Additionally, discounting the views of those that were actually involved in the revolution because they are "terrorists and criminals" is pure ad-hominem. A statement stands or falls on the validity of the statement, not who says it. Their credibility on this particular statement is far greater than that of Pipes, because they were actually present. So, what's more likely; that multiple people involved in the revolution and hostage taking who currently disagree with Ahmedinejad are being truthful when they deny his involvement and that those who believe he was present may be dealing with mistaken identity, or that Pipes has uncovered some grand conspiracy to hide Ahmedinejad's involvement where no possible motive to hide his involvement is reasonable? At best, I think we should list that it's possible that he was involved but that there is no definitive evidence either way.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Actually Pipes does not personally make the assertion, he cites 5 eyewitnesses. And I am not certain we should even countentance giving any credibility whatsoever to using terrorists to refute them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::He may cite 5 eyewitnesses, but he discounts reports from at least 5 other eyewitnesses who disagree with his POV. He's assuming his conclusion. Even the jihadwatch article I've cited (which is hardly objective) says that the evidence is inconclusive. If Conservapedia's goal is accuracy and not truthiness, then we should be honest and say that the evidence is inconclusive.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Show some cites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Sure: "But Abdi, a former revolutionary student turned radical reformer who was jailed in 2002 for selling intelligence to foreigners including the US-based polling company Gallup, said the former American hostages had poor memories. The Times said Ahmadinejad was a 23-year-old university student at the time of the takeover in November 1979 and was a founding member of the radical student group that organised the storming of the US Embassy compound. Mohsen Mirdamadi, another ringleader of the hostage-taking drama in Tehran, rejected the Times report. “I deny such reports. Ahmadinejad was not a member of the radical students’ group who seized the embassy,” said Mirdamadi, a former lawmaker. Like many of the former hostage-takers, Mirdamadi is now an outspoken proponent of the need to reform Iran’s Islamic political system." <ref>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16</ref>. "But Ahmadinejad's office denied these allegations and other hostage-takers, some of them now political opponents of Ahmadinejad – including Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hamid Reza, Abbas Abdi, Mohammad-Reza Khatami, and Saeed Hajjarian Jalaiepour – confirmed his account. One former American hostage denied Ahmadinejad had been a captor. Amir Taheri, editor-in-chief of a Tehran newspaper in the shah's time, concluded that "it is almost certain Ahmadinejad was not directly involved in the US embassy episode."" <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref>. "But other former American hostages contacted by CNN say they aren't so sure. Much of the controversy surrounds these photographs from 1979. The one on the left confirmed to be then 23-year-old Ahmedinejad. The one on the right of a hostage-taker. A known ultra-conservative and follower of Iran's supreme leader, Ahmadinejad has detailed much of his past on his own Web site, even listing his membership in a radical student group back in the '70s, some of whose members seized the American embassy. But one of the former student leaders of the hostage-taking told CNN Ahmadinejad was not involved, and close associates of the president-elect, as well as the Iranian government, have also reportedly denied the allegations." <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html</ref>. "A CIA spokeswoman yesterday said she would not comment on the matter because the report is classified. Another administration official, however, said the agency determined that they lacked the evidence to "conclude definitively" on Mr. Ahmadinejad's role. "It was similar to the Scottish court's not proven judgment," the source said." <ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2</ref>. "There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages."<ref>http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html</ref>

::::::::How many more references would you like? [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T22:03:05Z

JohnSmith:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T21:56:20Z

JohnSmith:

[[Image:Bgnfy6n.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''' is the current president of the [[Iran|Islamic Republic of Iran]], and the former mayor of [[Tehran]]. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of Islamic fundamentalism, strong anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into [[Nuclear program of Iran|producing nuclear technology]], possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor.

[[Image:Hostage.jpg|thumb|200px|right|]]

The inset photo purports to show Ahmedinejad at the time of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis as someone involved with the hostage taking. Five former American hostages have stated that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. A former US intelligence officer, said "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body." However, his involvement has been denied by multiple individuals who were involved in the hostage taking, as well as at least one hostage.<ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref> At best, the evidence is inconclusive.

Ahmadinajed's foreign policies have been criticized by many within his country and government, who think he is too extreme and will cause their country to be attacked by the [[United States]].

Former Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] has often compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to [[Adolf Hitler]].

==External link==
*[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4115 Ahmadinejad - Hostage Taker?], Daniel Pipes ''Kommersant'' (Moscow daily), November 13, 2006.

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T21:50:47Z

JohnSmith: /* Hostage photo */

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T21:50:34Z

JohnSmith: /* Hostage photo */

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T20:27:50Z

JohnSmith:

Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-12T20:25:42Z

JohnSmith:

Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T20:07:11Z

JohnSmith: /* Use of different definitions */

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change. But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

The broadest definition, '''change in the history of the universe''', includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>Quoted by Stephen E. Jones at [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html]</ref>

=== Development of life ===

Kerkut defined the [[General Theory of Evolution]] as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"<ref>''Implications of Evolution'', p. 157, by Kerkut, G.A., quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1627 Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?] by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
As stated, this includes the origin of life ([[abiogenesis]]), but evolutionists today generally reject that evolution includes [[abiogenesis]], as [[Natural selection]] can only operate once life has started.

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

=== Gene frequency ===

In modern scientific use, it is often defined as a '''change in gene frequency'''.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref> This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between [[microevolution]] and [[macroevolution]] - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists.

=== Increasing genetic information ===
Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic [[information]].<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599 Beetle Bloopers], ''Creation'' 19(3):30</ref> In order to go from the hypothesised first living cell to the variety of creatures that exist today, evolution needs to add massive quantities of genetic information, such as for hair, eyes, blood, and wings. Creationists argue that the following do not constitute evolution, because no new genetic information is generated:
* Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection.
* Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another.
* Duplication of existing genetic information.
These processes have all been observed, but creationists argue that what has not been observed is the generation of new genetic information.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268 Chapter 5, Refuting Evolution 2]</ref>

== Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion ==

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God,{{fact}} but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned. Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.
They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref> Some evolutionists have also admitted this. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Use of different definitions ==

When ''evolution'' is defined as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then Americans are split 50-50 over whether it has really occurred.

About 45% of Americans are [[Young Earth Creationists]].

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact."<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/</ref>

This apparently refers to the fossil evidence for evolution (see [[radiometric dating|carbon dating]]). But creationists also reject the idea that new species can evolve from older ones, such as humans evolving from ancient hominids. But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes."

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and stochastically random forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.{{fact}}

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations. Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation. However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T20:05:50Z

JohnSmith: /* Use of different definitions */

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change. But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

The broadest definition, '''change in the history of the universe''', includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>Quoted by Stephen E. Jones at [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html]</ref>

=== Development of life ===

Kerkut defined the [[General Theory of Evolution]] as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"<ref>''Implications of Evolution'', p. 157, by Kerkut, G.A., quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1627 Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?] by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
As stated, this includes the origin of life ([[abiogenesis]]), but evolutionists today generally reject that evolution includes [[abiogenesis]], as [[Natural selection]] can only operate once life has started.

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

=== Gene frequency ===

In modern scientific use, it is often defined as a '''change in gene frequency'''.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref> This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between [[microevolution]] and [[macroevolution]] - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists.

=== Increasing genetic information ===
Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic [[information]].<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599 Beetle Bloopers], ''Creation'' 19(3):30</ref> In order to go from the hypothesised first living cell to the variety of creatures that exist today, evolution needs to add massive quantities of genetic information, such as for hair, eyes, blood, and wings. Creationists argue that the following do not constitute evolution, because no new genetic information is generated:
* Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection.
* Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another.
* Duplication of existing genetic information.
These processes have all been observed, but creationists argue that what has not been observed is the generation of new genetic information.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268 Chapter 5, Refuting Evolution 2]</ref>

== Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion ==

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God,{{fact}} but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned. Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.
They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref> Some evolutionists have also admitted this. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Use of different definitions ==

When ''evolution'' is defined as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then Americans are split 50-50 over whether it has really occurred.

About 45% of Americans are [[Young Earth Creationists]].

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact."<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/</ref>

This apparently refers to the fossil evidence for evolution (see [[radiometric dating|carbon dating]]). But creationists also reject the idea that new species can evolve from older ones, such as humans evolving from ancient hominids. But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes."

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and stochastically random forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.{{cite}}

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations. Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation. However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T20:04:34Z

JohnSmith: /* Use of different definitions */

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change. But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

The broadest definition, '''change in the history of the universe''', includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>Quoted by Stephen E. Jones at [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html]</ref>

=== Development of life ===

Kerkut defined the [[General Theory of Evolution]] as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"<ref>''Implications of Evolution'', p. 157, by Kerkut, G.A., quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1627 Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?] by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
As stated, this includes the origin of life ([[abiogenesis]]), but evolutionists today generally reject that evolution includes [[abiogenesis]], as [[Natural selection]] can only operate once life has started.

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

=== Gene frequency ===

In modern scientific use, it is often defined as a '''change in gene frequency'''.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref> This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between [[microevolution]] and [[macroevolution]] - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists.

=== Increasing genetic information ===
Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic [[information]].<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599 Beetle Bloopers], ''Creation'' 19(3):30</ref> In order to go from the hypothesised first living cell to the variety of creatures that exist today, evolution needs to add massive quantities of genetic information, such as for hair, eyes, blood, and wings. Creationists argue that the following do not constitute evolution, because no new genetic information is generated:
* Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection.
* Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another.
* Duplication of existing genetic information.
These processes have all been observed, but creationists argue that what has not been observed is the generation of new genetic information.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268 Chapter 5, Refuting Evolution 2]</ref>

== Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion ==

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God,{{fact}} but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned. Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.
They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref> Some evolutionists have also admitted this. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Use of different definitions ==

When ''evolution'' is defined as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then Americans are split 50-50 over whether it has really occurred.

About 45% of Americans are [[Young Earth Creationists]].

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact."
<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/</ref>

This apparently refers to the fossil evidence for evolution (see [[radiometric dating|carbon dating]]). But creationists also reject the idea that new species can evolve from older ones, such as humans evolving from ancient hominids. But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes."

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and stochastically random forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.{{cite}}

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations. Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation. However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Talk:Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T20:01:11Z

JohnSmith: /* Hominids vs apes */

Talk:Hominid

2007-05-12T19:45:04Z

JohnSmith:

Hominid

2007-05-12T19:43:43Z

JohnSmith:

The taxonomic term '''hominid''' is used by modern biologists to refer to humans, as well as the "great apes," including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and their ancestors up to several millions of years ago.

It is also colloquially used to refer to species ancestral to modern humans, including Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, and Homo though the correct term for this group is '''hominina'''.

[[Category:Hominid]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Definition of evolution

2007-05-12T18:19:56Z

JohnSmith: