Talk:Joseph McCarthy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every one of your assertions are asinine and incorrect. The ramblings of a left wing idiot. 64.179.175.53 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You must have failed to read, or otherwise to understand, much of what I wrote, considering how much of it has to do with questioning claims found in certain cited works of McCarthy lying, fabricating things, using false or undesirable apparatuses for political gain, and so on. Zusty001 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

And that footnote:

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

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

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

Tye on the actual ruling:

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

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

Here's a new source discussing Joseph McCarthy's involvement in defending the perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-podcast/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/season-2-episode-4-spectacle-rcna160639 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs.
• There are a couple of very long block quotes in the article: I suggest that these are summarised and put as prose instead.
• With over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the information be spun out. I think this is a sign that the article has too much detail and the text should be reduced.
• The "Post-censure reaction" has lots of small paragraphs that should be organised by theme and merged together.

Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are a couple of very long block quotes in the article: I suggest that these are summarised and put as prose instead. With over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the information be spun out. I think this is a sign that the article has too much detail and the text should be reduced. The "Post-censure reaction" has lots of small paragraphs that should be organised by theme and merged together. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply