User talk:RedSpruce

Archives
/Archive 1: to March 1, 2007

Joe Mac Pop

Karl, Just to elaborate on my comment in this thread: Talk:Joseph_McCarthy#Popular_culture. I don't lean strongly either toward keeping or deleting the section and am happy to defer to your preference. My sense is simply that, with the section having become an issue, it's in the interest of the article's short- and long-term stability to have a well-reasoned discussion and conclusion on the Talk page. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover

What are you afraid of in terms of eliminating reference to the KGB and Hoover's alleged homosexuality? Not making him look like a buffoon. Perhaps you have no understanding of the KGB and its tactics. For example, the recent admissions from the KGB archives show that it was behind the myth that Pius XII did nothing to help the Jews during the Holocaust, an assertion that is baseless in fact.--146.145.70.250 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the KGB's tactics. Hoover was a man who never married, who was never known to date women, who spent almost all of his free time, as well as much of his time at work, with a male friend. Under those circumstances, any mention of anyone "starting the rumor" that he was a homosexual is simply silly. If the KGB did expend any effort in spreading this rumor, doing so was act of utter irrelevance. RedSpruce 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy

Karl, I like your changes to the lead. You summarize 50-54 much better than I would have been able to do it.

On a separate note, I'm increasingly uncomfortable with Second Red Scare redirecting to "McCarthyism." I think I initially raised this point at Talk there last month, and I know you disagree, but hear me out for a moment. While I realize that there is much common usage of the term McCarthyism to indicate the period that encompasses the 2RS, you have also acknowledged that the 2RS includes some years in the 1940s that predate McCarthy's fame or involvement with anti-Communism, specifically and importantly the Truman State Department loyalty oath/purge thing, as well as HUAC, which as we both know wasn't related to McCarthy the man. None of that is new or controversial in general or between us. Where I'm going with it is that I think making the whole era synonymous with McCarthyism (especially given the modern connotation of the term) amounts to attributing too much prominence to the man himself, sort of an ad hominem emphasis on 15 years of American history. I'm not suggesting McCarthy wasn't "the most famous public face of anti-Communist sentiment" or however we're describing him. I'm not suggesting the term isn't generally used (a google search shows that it is). However, a google search also shows "Second Red Scare" is commonly used and to me it seems like there's a distinction between it and McCarthyism, both in the period of time (ie the parts predating 1950) and in the style and character of it (like Truman's dismissals weren't all unsubstantiated attacks on people's patriotism in the style of McCarthy, they actually involved firing Communist sympathizers/agents, etc.).

What I hope you will consider is making the main subject article "Second Red Scare," and have "McCarthyism" redirect to it, rather than the way we have it now. McCarthyism would still be the major focus of the article and would represent the bulk of it, but the 2RS article could give a bit more of the pre- and post-McCarthy/McCarthyism context without hanging it all on Joe McCarthy. Let me know what you think. Kaisershatner 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely correct that the beginning of the second red scare predates McCarthy. Likewise did the gradual end of the second red scare postdate the time when McCarthy had any notable voice in America. However, the fact is that all of the scholars on the subject that I've read use the terms "second red scare" and "McCarthyism" synonymously. And I've read enough of the prominent works in the field so that I'm confident that if there are any scholars out there who make a distinction between the two, theirs is a minority view. (I'd be very interested in reading the views of any such scholars, if you know of any.) Furthermore, "McCarthyism" is the far more commonly used term. Google book search shows 101 books with "McCarthyism" in the title, 91 with "red scare" in the title (many of which are about the first red scare), and none with "second red scare" in the title. All "histories of McCarthyism" make it very clear that the period of history they're talking about by no means coincides with the career of Joseph McCarthy. It just so happens that his name has been used to name that period of history. And that holds true for the WP article on McCarthyism too; to quote the first sentence of the first section after the introduction: "The historical period known as McCarthyism began well before Joseph McCarthy's own involvement in it." RedSpruce 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this, if you haven't read it; it seems to articulate my point in a much more thorough way than I can.[1] Kaisershatner 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book. About the only point it articulates is that although McCarthy was a horrible person, that's okay because he was against Communists. It's a point that might have some validity if McCarthy had ever caught any Communists. Roughly the same holds true for McCarthyism. It would make sense to have more discussion of the actual Soviet espionage and subversion activities in the U.S. in the McCarthyism article if there was more of a connection between the two stories. That is, if something that's identified as "McCarthyism" had ever resulted in any notable illegal Soviet or Communist activities being exposed. It didn't, so the only grounds for discussing actual Soviet espionage is in mentioning that such activity helped to provide the paranoid background that gave rise to McCarthyism. RedSpruce 14:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. One the one hand, above you are taking the position that "It would make sense to have more discussion of the actual Soviet espionage and subversion activities in the U.S. in the McCarthyism article if...something that's identified as "McCarthyism" had ever resulted in any notable illegal Soviet or Communist activities being exposed," and on the other hand, that "that the beginning of the second red scare predates McCarthy. Likewise did the gradual end of the second red scare postdate the time when McCarthy had any notable voice in America." Since the purge of the State Department by Truman and the exposure of actual Soviet agents within the US should, in your view, fall under the McCarthyism article, shouldn't it make sense to discuss those things there in detail? Kaisershatner 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Truman loyalty-security program is discussed in the McCarthy article. For the most part, the "exposure of actual Soviet agents" that occurred during this era did not occur because of anything that is identified as McCarthyism; it happened because of the revelations of defectors, and later because of Venona. One partial exception to this is the Hiss case, in that Hiss might not have been apprehended and convicted if not for HUAC. Because in this case there is an overlap between the story of McCarthyism and the story of actual Soviet espionage efforts, the Hiss case is discussed in the McCarthyism article. Apart from cases like this there is no real overlap in the two stories.

In short, the reason why cases of Soviet espionage should not be discussed in detail in the McCarthyism article is because it's an article about McCarthyism. I assume there's another article about Soviet espionage in the United States; if it's well written, it doesn't spend much space talking about McCarthyism. RedSpruce 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Truman program is discussed, I am not asserting otherwise. However, I keep inserting, and you keep removing, mention in the introduction about actual Communist espionage during this period. About two months ago you wrote to me that "On the one hand, since McCarthyism is essentially defined as "baseless accusations and character assassination," it makes sense for the article to focus on that topic. On the other hand, I agree that the article should pay more attention the actual communist espionage and and infiltration that was discovered during the period, since those revelations, few though they were, formed part of the driving force behind McCarthyism." Do you feel the article has paid more attention to actual communist espionage since we discussed this in February? And are we using "McCarthyism" to mean "baseless anti-Communist accusations and fear" or "a period from the 1940s-1960s marked both by anti-Communist accusations and fears as well as by attempted Soviet infiltration of the US Government and controlling of the CPUSA?" Are the actual Communist activities relevant enough to the period to warrant mention in the introduction, or was it more simply just 20 years of demagoguery and fearmongering? Or something in the middle? Kaisershatner 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The coverage of actual Soviet espionage has been increased (by one brief paragraph) since the exchange you mention. It is now more than sufficient, for the reasons I have stated. The correct definition of McCarthyism is the first one you mention. The second one you mention is not correct. The word does not refer simply to a period of history, nor to all Communism-related things that happened during a period of history. As the article states, it is a "term describing a period of intense anti-Communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s." If you believe that is incorrect, you merely have to demonstrate that a consensus of scholars holds a contradictory opinion. Simply repeating your opinion at me and asking me to repeat mine doesn't seem very productive to me. RedSpruce 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3RR noticeboard

Few quick points. 1) The template is so it's much easier for the admins to read that they're of the same reverts. 2) If someone's edit warring, page protection, requests for comments, and administrators' intervention against vandalism may apply. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthyism comments

Sometimes my reviews do bring up a lot of points, but if you look at some of those, they are just suggestions on how to improve the visual appearance of the article (1 & 2), and many are just simple mistakes that can be fixed (4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, & 17). I'm glad that you already fixed some of them. I know that I sometimes leave a lot of things to be fixed but I always leave the article on hold for seven days and in extreme cases longer than that. I don't like to fail articles (unless they deserve it), and I really think this article should be passed. Thanks for letting me know and good job fixing some of those suggestions. --Nehrams2020 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

I would like to request mediation. I think you are continually removing sourced and neutral entries that improve this article. You assert that I am adding information that in your opinion is over-emphasized, trivial, and/or irrelevant. Mediation requires the agreement of both parties; thus my question- will you accept mediation? Kaisershatner 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. RedSpruce 00:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl, my apologies for running off in different directions. Before we move to mediation, which from what I am reading may take a very long time to resolve, I am going to invite a wider group of involved editors to comment. If they tell me I am way off base, for example, we might avoid a protracted argument that could be more simply resolved. Kaisershatner 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Louis Budenz

Thank you for your work on Mr Budenz' article. I am a relative of him and it is really interesting to find out what one of my distant uncles was up to.

Big Mac

If you'd consider taking another bite at it, write me at dancharlesgeist@hotmail.com —DCGeist 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks /Tet

Thank you for the kind remarks you left on my talk page, I was pleased to read them. I appreciate your helpful, polite criticism at Tet. I hope it becomes a good article. KAM 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

J Edgar Hoover

Hi: Please explain why you reverted the edits that I made to J. Edgar Hoover. BrianGV (Talk) 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the dif made it look like the only difference was a white space addition, and your later edit appeared to remove an important clarification. I see now that both interpretations were mistaken, but the article gets a lot of garbage edits, so I rv'd the whole batch. In other words, stuff happens.  :-) RedSpruce 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, thought it could be something like that, I'll change back those few others. Thanks for reply.

BrianGV (Talk) 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace offering

Please enter the discussion on Talk:Alger Hiss to resolve the conflict. 65.185.190.240 23:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gunpowder

Hey,

Some meatwagon in gunpowder has accused you of fabricating the quote from Partington. Can you actually provide the page number, and if the text supports it, help provide a more balanced point of view?

Much Thanks, Ocanter 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Cold War History project

I notice that you had expressed interest in the proposal for a project relating to the Cold War at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Cold War history. The proposal has generated sufficient interest to be considered viable, but the original proposer has been inactive for some time, so no one has been following it. I was wondering whether you, as one of the interested parties, would be interested in establishing the project as an independent entity or possibly as a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Please indicate your opinion in the comments section here. Thank you for your interest in the subject, and for your timely response. John Carter 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: William Remington

Red, please put down the rhetorical weapon. If you will take a few deep breaths, then take a dispassionate look at your remarks on the William Remington talk page, I think you'll find that you have been acting as if you assume your judgment is superior to anyone else's. Only assertions you disagree with have to be justified; those you agree with are gospel. Yes, I do mean "gospel." You are reminding me of a neo-Confederate I tangled with over another article. If the comparison is objectionable to you, well, it should be. I assume that you are better than that, and that this behavior is not typical of you. So cut it out. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, I object to your tone here and even more so in this edit. I have raised perfectly valid points that Adrian has not addressed in a valid way. If you take a dispassionate look at the discussion, (after taking as many breaths as you like), I think you'll agree. I was asking of Adrian, and now I ask of you: If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong using a rational argument. People have shown me where I'm wrong many times before on WP, and when they've done so I have accepted it. But simply telling me I'm wrong is childish and I don't accept it. RedSpruce 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Red, I am sympathetic to your position and, from what I've seen, to Schrecker's reading of the McCarthy era and the context of Remington's murder. I am not trying to make you change your mind about anything. It is your behavior toward other editors that I am attempting to call your attention to here. You have been condescending. (If someone else belittled you first, that does not justify it, especially when you keep it up.) You have criticized Adrian M.H.'s logic, implied that he is too ignorant to contribute meaningfully to the article, and have pretended to know what his politics are and that they are guiding his editorial judgment. As for Jtpaladin, you have let his fringe views get to you, and you are personalizing the discussion over this article into a moral struggle. It is not.

I agree that Jtp has said some unpardonable things, and Adrian seemed a mite touchy. You could day each of them has poured a little oil on the flames. But it's not your job to see that they behave well. Nor is it my job to police your behavior. I'm just giving you information and awaiting your response, which I hope will be courteous. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the much improved tone, Rob. I think there are 3 issues here:

1: I have challenged Adrian to be more rigorous in presenting his opinions--to use actual logic and evidence rather than tossing out meaningless "I like vanilla because it tastes better" opinions. I think I've actually had some success on this count, based on the progression of Adrian's recent responses.

2: I have treated people with some degree of the patronizing and insulting tone that they have used with me. This is less than ideal, obviously.

3:I have pursued an issue even after a compromise that I accepted was reached. This was (IMO) a possibly-valid thing to do in terms of item #1--I got Adrian to apply some actual thought to his comments, and a worthless thing to do in terms of item #2--I was enjoying the opportunity to continue to needle some people who had behaved badly.

So yes: bottom line, there's a lot of room for improvement in my behavior, and I'll continue to work on that. I'd say that puts me right on a level with, well, everyone. Including you.

RedSpruce 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept blame for, as you say, less than ideal behavior myself. If the sniping stops, on all sides, then that's all I ask. If either Adrian or Jtp takes another potshot, I would be grateful if you would fight fire with water, not fire. WP:AGF and so on.

As a general rule, I've found that telling people they are not thinking up to my standard is not normally very productive. I admit to having done it, but I am trying to quit. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that rule, so I've just reread the entire discussion to see where I said something that could be interpreted as telling someone "they are not thinking up to my standard." I can't find any such statement. I said at several points that people weren't presenting valid arguments, but I never, for example, called anyone particularly obtuse. RedSpruce 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

J Edgar Hoover

Why shouldn't there be a lain in state in caital rotunda box on J Edgar Hoover's page? He is listed in the succesion box on other pages. If it is true why shouldn't it be there and if it is not true then the other pages should be corrected. Azrich 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:SwordOfDoom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SwordOfDoom.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazed by your revertion

Hi! Sorry for abusing you, but I'm new to wikipedia, and wish to contribute something that I know well. I run several adult projects and that's the stuff I'm familiar with, so after a little analysis of porn-dedicated pages, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography , but it's too far away from my job, so I decided to try to contirbute to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_pornography . After I checked other pages I've found there's no section about e.g. Link Lists, many still can't differ CJ from TGP(that's actually important), and is there any other wikipedia aims except bringing information to internet users? It's quite strange for me, and my wish to help YOUR (it sad but I don't feel this a liitle bit mine) project has become less. I hope you will check your revertion again, and give it one more chance, or, at least answer us what is wrong with article, and tell us what should be changed to be accepted. Thanks in advance!

Hiss

Here is Allen Weinstein in his own words

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/983 I would also like to clarify another, unrelated brief episode described in Perjury. One of those who identified Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent, claiming that he had heard of Hiss's involvement during World War II, was Oleg Gordievsky, a key Soviet intelligence official who defected in Great Britain during the 1980s. In a 1990 book on the KGB—written with the British academic Christopher Andrew—Gordievsky described a lecture to a KGB audience by Akhmerov, who mentioned Hiss among Soviet agents in the United States.

There is nothing apparent about it even in Allen Weinstein view.

Of course Oleg Gordievsky thinks that Hiss was a spy goes without saying.

I ask that you let me remove that word Reargunner 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss 3RR

Thanks for the apology. Would you be OK with me closing the 3RR report, and I'll put the article on my watchlist? ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; thanks again. RedSpruce 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although... thanks to Bdell555's canvassing [2] [3] [4], there is now another editor added to the mix. Sigh. RedSpruce 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I have closed the 3RR, and suggested dispute resolution. If this flares up again, don't hesitate to take it to 3RR (if applicable), or WP:RFPP. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiss/Gordievsky english

I'm not trying to make an ideological point with my edit. The formulation you used is, in fact, a poor use of the english language so I will not be reverting but if you'd explain what you're trying to get across, I'd be willing to work with you to make your point in a way that sounds better. This is separate from the question of whether I actually agree with your point as, frankly, I don't quite get it yet and thus am reserving judgment until I do.

To be clear, this is the text under discussion

---

your original

In 1985, Oleg Gordievsky, a high ranking KGB agent, defected to the West. In his 1990 book Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss, apparently as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents during World War II.

My edit

In 1985, Oleg Gordievsky, a high ranking KGB agent, defected to the West. In his 1990 book Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents during World War II

---

I took out your addition of apparently and someone elses nonsensical comma. At the very least, don't put back the comma. TMLutas 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, it isn't bad English. I don't know all the technical terms for parsing the sentence, but it probably wouldn't help you if I did. Akhmerov identified Hiss. He was apparently identifying him as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents, but that isn't certain. The time period when he might have been an agent was World War II. In other words, Akhmerov identified Hiss, apparently as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents during World War II. Can you think of a better way to word that? Would it be clearer if "during World War II" was left out? RedSpruce 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"In other words" was what I was looking for. This might work better:

In his 1990 book Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents, apparently during World War II

Would that be acceptable to you? TMLutas 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because that's not what it means. :-) "Apparently" applies to whether or not Akhmerov identified Hiss as an agent. (As you can see in the footnote, all that is known from Gordievsky's book is that Akhmerov mentioned Hiss's name in a lecture.) So maybe what I suggested would work: "In his 1990 book Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss, apparently as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents." The "during World War II" is superfluous. RedSpruce 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, why can't Allen Weinstein's phrasing stand, Redspruce? Why should the form of expression employed by a professional scholar be adjusted by an amateur like one of us? Why hasn't another scholar challenged Weinstein's choice of words? You concede that "Akhmerov identified Hiss" and Weinstein also states that Gordievsky claimed he had heard of Hiss' involvement during WW II. You seem to wish to reject BOTH possible interpretations of Weinstein's remark that you've offered elsewhere.Bdell555 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Weinstein doesn't have to be, and doesn't try to be, neutral. He's free to reinterpret the words that Gordievsky wrote in such a way as to support his agenda. Since the article actually quotes Gordievsky words, applying such a loose interpretation of them will only invite further edit disputes. RedSpruce 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you be interested in a list of scholars from across the political spectrum who do not agree with your contention that Weinstein misconstrues or misleads? Where is the list of scholars who say that YOU are "neutral" and have no "agenda"? You continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that Gordievsky claimed he had heard about Hiss' involvement during World War II. He never "apparently" claimed that. How about having ALL of Gordievsky's phrases concerning Hiss appear in the article without elaboration, and that means more than just a "5 word footnote". Why not try your own argument here on for size and show us a Gordievsky (or Akhmerov) quote containing the word "apparently", the word you want in the article?Bdell555 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is in the Hiss Talk page. RedSpruce 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

credit where it's due

re your relatively calm and reasonable tone of late. A refreshing change from the "get bent" days.Bdell555 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You should try it yourself; it's easier than you might think! RedSpruce 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Olen Butler

The deletion I made to Butler re his first marriage was not a deletion but merely a moving of information, which you must not have noticed; his marriage information should be in a separate section for easier readability and information organization. I have placed the information back where it should be, plus the citations.204.126.250.193 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. RedSpruce 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiss Citation needed on UN vote totals for USSR?

I can only hope I'm misinterpreting this. Are you seriously arguing that the USSR might not have had 3 votes and requiring a cite for it? That makes no sense. TMLutas 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Both sides should have citations. I thought the "pro-Hiss" side already did. BTW, I can't figure out what the current version means. RedSpruce 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Olen Butler

Mr Butler is addressing this subject himself. Therefore it is worthy of coverage. If you disagree, then set up a voting procedure on the Talk page rather than continually reverting. Many thanks.Kitchawan 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you might be in near-violation of that as well, if I am reading Wiki information correctly re three-reverts. You are doing precisely the same thing.Kitchawan 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know; I was just letting you know about the 3RR rule so that you wouldn't mistakenly do another revert if and when someone puts the article back into a sane state. RedSpruce 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehrman

You wrote:

Hi -- Please ignore my edit summary comment in this edit. When I looked at the dif, I misunderstood the nature of your edit and where you were putting it. I still don't think the article you added should be included in the list of references for footnote #2, however. The author isn't very notable, and the article is very strongly opinionated, stating some things that are a bit over the top (like saying that Navasky is "now virtually alone in his rejection of the case against Hiss." Also, I think there are enough references in the footnote. Note also that the article you linked is included in the "External links" section. RedSpruce 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see your explanation (that you misunderstood the nature of the edit), but I don't understand why you still think this citation should have been deleted. To take your points one at a time:

1.) "John Ehrman serves in the Directorate of Intelligence." (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no2/index.html) He is "a foreign affairs analyst for the federal government." (http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2005/departments/bookshelf.html) He was a "George Washington University historian." (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701fareviewessay5058/john-b-judis/trotskyism-to-anachronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html) He holds a doctorate in History. (http://www.gwu.edu/~magazine/archive/2005_spr_sum/docs/alumni_newsmakers/dept_alumni_bookshelf.html) His marriage made the society page. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1D71F3CF93BA35752C0A96F948260)

Ehrman seems to me at least as notable as the others listed in this footnote (not to mention the other citations in this and similar articles), most of whom are merely journalists.

2.) Opinion is precisely what the footnote calls for: substantiation of the factual claim that some notable sources hold the opinion that Ehrman here expresses. The article (from "the journal of the American intelligence professional") is no more opinionated than the others cited (Salon?), which make the same point. Readers can always follow the link and decide for themselves whether they find the argument persuasive.

3.) The number of sources cited in support of the claim of consensus is material. Arbitrarily curtailing the number of sources available to readers exerts a bias on their judgment of the claim, violating NPOV. If there are too many sources cited in the footnote, it would make more sense to delete one of the journalist pieces, than a journal article.

4.) If the source can be linked only either as a footnote or external link, it should be deleted from the external links (where its relevance is generic), rather than the footnote, where it is specific.

ThanksMark LaRochelle 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My response is on Talk:Alger Hiss RedSpruce 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

inadvertent blanking

I think you accidentally blanked the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} template in this edit. Let me know if you did so intentionally. We tag articles based on the categories they include. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't inadvertent. There's no mention of Butler ever living, working or studying in Chicago; indeed no mention of Chicago at all. RedSpruce 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Olen Butler redux

Whoops! Sorry about stomping on your footnote improvements in the other sections. I just wasn't paying close enough attention. My bad. On the other subject, I have little hope that Kitchawan is going to let this "Personal life" issue go.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As for Kitchawan, maybe he'll give it up -- shoveling manure into a big pile (as he's doing) has got to be a less-rewarding task in the long run than flushing manure down the drain (as we're doing). :) RedSpruce 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

RedSpruce, Thanks for the head's up. I think we're both at our limit. This is obviously a disagreement solely between you and me, so perhaps we should open the discussion to other Wiki editors to get their opinion of the contentious section and its appropriate length. As you have probably seen, I have been beefing up considerably the other sections to achieve a more balanced text.Kitchawan 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jtpaladin's violation of the 3RR on Aug 20

Hello, RedSpruce. I noticed that you and Jtpaladin are involved in an editing dispute on Joseph McCarthy. I've been following along and wanted to let you know that Jtpaladin may have knowingly violated the Three Revert Rule, and on the last revert, made a misleading edit summary to cover up his violation of the 3RR. The diffs, for reference, are 1 2 3 4 5. Please remember to discuss changes on the talk page- it does appear, however, that there are at least two editors working against you to skew the article's portrayal of McCarthy, or "whitewash" it. If the dispute continues you may consider an official avenue of dispute resolution- the link there has information helpful to reconciling two disagreeing editors. --ForbiddenWord 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, I know you're smarter than other editors because even though we may disagree politically, at least you can articulate your position. FW is wrong in this case as he has been in others. He has been harrassing me on my own Talk page even when I asked him to stop. Yes, I know I could report him for such actions but I'm not petty enough to do so. He's also violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I guess FW didn't bother to read the McCarthy Discussion page where you and I discussed this matter and agreed to making changes which included your suggestions. The article has been re-written in that fashion working in conjunction with you. I actually have more to add to that article but will refrain from further changes unless you and I have an opportunity to discuss additional issues. Please let me know your thoughts if you wish to work on that section any further. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not incorrect- you have violated the 3RR and attempted to make it look like you have not. Additionally, I have not made any personal attacks, or harrassed you on your talk page- asking a user to cease making personal attacks on his or her user talk page is not harassment- I would be happy to see you involve an administrator if you believe I have somehow wronged you in my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. In the above message I was alerting Redspruce to your violation of an important policy in place to prevent edit wars- and an edit war does appear to be what you are intent on undertaking. If RedSpruce has no strong feelings on the subject, he may report it- I will not be, because I do not want to take part in an edit war. Edit warring is extremely harmful to the Wikipedia project, and I cannot stand by and see it happen in the name of any POV. If you have any further comments please reply at your or my talk page and I will address them there rather than cluttering up Redspruce's page further. --ForbiddenWord 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing merge proposal

The fact that you choose to ignore the lengthy rationale for merging the list section from Film noir to List of film noir is not the same as "no rationale given." --Dystopos 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I looked at the wrong dif in the discussion history, and missed the rationale that you gave. It's not exactly "lengthy" -- it consists of a couple of sentences buried in amongst thousands of words of you repeating your "rules is rules" non-argument about removing the list from the Film Noir article, but it's a genuine rationale nonetheless. RedSpruce 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Final warning

Further instances of incivility and failure to recognize Wikipedia policy (i.e., WP:EL) will result in your being blocked. The links are in violation of policy -- they link to a blog (which is not a reliable source) that violates copyright (which is clearly forbidden by WP:EL). Restoring them is incorrect; calling another editor a dick is absolutely unacceptable. -- Merope 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that my use of insulting language was reprehensible. On all your other points you are misinformed. RedSpruce 22:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he's not: reading the provided links might have told you that. --Calton | Talk 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "nope" doesn't cut it as a rational argument. I made a rational argument here. If you can respond to my points in a rational manner, please do so; you'll be the first. Otherwise, just keep saying "nope". RedSpruce 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I outlined repeatedly why the links don't belong. You ignored the points and guidelines on ANI and simply blanked the whole section on your talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "nope" doesn't cut it as a rational argument - Except that wasn't the argument: did you notice the words which followed the colon after the first three words? Let me repeat them: "...reading the provided links might have told you that". When you actually read the links provided instead of complaining about their existence, you might have something resembling a rational argument or even a point. Hint: sticking your fingers in your ears and and saying "I'm not LISTENING" is not a convincing rhetorical technique. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy, I could explain in more detail than I already have what is wrong with what you "repeatedly outlined," but I'm reasonably sure you already know. And anyway, neither you nor the debate are worth the effort.

Calton, repeating "you should read..." isn't an improvement on "nope." If you had read any of this debate, you'd see that it's obvious I have read the policy pages in question, and have quoted them. It's IrishGuy who has demonstrated that, although he may have read WP:RS, he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "source." RedSpruce 10:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, repeating "you should read..." isn't an improvement on "nope." Well, yes, it is, since 1) you originally pretended not to see it and 2) you obviously haven't done it. Free clue #1: gaseous wikilawyering doesn't work. Free clue #2: stamping your feet and saying "Don' wanna!" doesn't work, either.

So, let's recap:

a) Blogs -- with very limited exceptions -- aren't reliable sources, nor are they appropriate for external links.

b) The links you are adding are to a blog.

c) The blog doesn't fall under any of the exceptions, all your spluttering and handwaving notwithstanding.

d) Therefore, the links don't belong, and WILL be removed, period/full stop.

Was that simple enough, or will crayons and butcher paper need to be deployed? --Calton | Talk 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)