User talk:Jtpaladin

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

===== Please Post Your Comments =====

I'm delighted to be able to contribute to Wikipedia and work with members to help make this an accurate and useful source for the various topics found in any hardbound encyclopedia.

If you are modifying or adding to information I have posted, please contact me here and allow me the opportunity to share sources with you so that we can insure that we are offering the public the most accurate and up-to-date information available on the subject at hand. Also, please only edit your own comments on this page. Thank you

Please scroll down to append your message at the bottom or start a new topic.

Sources

I provided 2 scholarly URLs. I don't see any good reason (but a lot of bad ones) to exclude Jewish scholars, so I'll ignore your request for now. Welcome to WP where we do not discriminate people by their ethnicity/religion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want some one-sided source that is not historically based. That's all I'm saying. I added info from the Jewish Encyclopedia so I'll assume you'll respect those edits and you won't remove them. Thanks for the welcome. --Jtpaladin 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The numbers you insisted on adding belong to Kitos War (115-117). Different time, different place, different rulers - no relation to the Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135). BTW, that article I never touched, except once adding a std. warbox template.
2. The numbers you insisted on removing: another reputable source is Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987) p.141. By now, this is confirmed by 4 scholarly sources and more can be provided.
3. The text you were inserting initially did not come from the JewishEncyclopedia. It can be found word-for-word in collections of quotes (some truly antisemitic, some fake, some out of context) found on the Net. Where did you get yours from?
4. For sig, see WP:SIG and WP:SIGHELP.

Finally, I must say that so far you made a bad impression with your level of expertise, your ability to improve this particular area of WP and your personal attacks. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I consider the accusations you've made as serious, but I'll ignore them because you're a newcomer. I don't mind being friends (whatever that means) but first please make sure to abide by our policies, be polite and professional. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem edit of yours was [1]. It was reverted by someone else for being WP:POV but in fact it's worse: it was copy-pasted from [2]. Please check WP:COPYVIO and make sure to give credit where it is due. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Kitos War is correctly a different conflict even though scholars tend to refer to both events in the same breath, but technically, you are right. I checked the Kitos War page and noticed that the information about the Gentile losses was left out even though the Jewish Encyclopedia was quoted in that article. As I mentioned, it's appropriate to give all relevant info on a subject and clearly someone leftout all the dead Gentiles from that conflict. As for the initial info I posted, I found it all over the place but I did not ultimately feel comfortable with that info because I did not take the time to get Dio's quotes and credit. So, you'll notice I did not re-post it. Sorry you feel I made a bad impression but this is more of not knowing how to use this system rather than purposely trying to do anything that would conflict with the rules of this forum. I prefer to stay professional but when you sarcastically used the term "blood thirsty Jews", I was EXTREMELY offended and felt that you were on the verge of calling me an anti-Semite or worse. That's the only reason I took things up a notch in my tone. Now, that we are both clear, I know we can both move forward as professionals. Thank you.

The links you posted don't help me figure out this "Talk?" problem. I still keep getting a solid "Talk". I'm using your "hy?" as an example, but mine does not work. Can you please help me directly rather than referring me to some other page? I would truly appreciate it. Thank you.

My edit of the "Evidence" section of the Senator McCarthy page was a matter of me posting the wrong Word document I had prepared. I corrected that today. Sorry about that mistake. It won't happen again. --Jtpaladin 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain how I add a "TALK?"

I would like to add a "TALK?" to the end of my signature when adding a comment. I keep following the format but all I get is a non-hyperlink "TALK?". Thank you for the help.

Still trying to figure this out. --Jtpaladin 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences (or the "my preferences" link); under user profile, there's a box for one's default signature. You can edit that to make it whatever you want. Putting embedded images or too-large fonts is frowned upon, but I haven't been given flack for mine. Mine is <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''[[User:Argyriou|Αργυριου]]''' [[User talk:Argyriou|(talk)]]</span>, which produces Αργυριου (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Best Regards. Jtpaladin 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your post to Talk:McCarthyism

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. KarlBunker 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- I've responded to you on my talk page. KarlBunker 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to you by email for reasons of confidentiality. Cutoutman 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

regarding your recent edit to Gulf of Tonkin Incident

You recent made an edit to the article, Gulf of Tonkin Incident [3]. In your edit you state as fact that the incident never happened. Yet you offer no source, nor an edit summary for your addition. Considering the disputed nature of this article, I ask that you please review and adhear to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Thanks. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Malo, thanks for bringing that to my attention. The reason I didn't post a source was because the second attack on U.S. forces has ranged from doubt to conspiracy. There is no longer any scholarly historian that even believes that an actual attack happened. It was all part of Johnson's plot to escalate the war. Even Johnson himself in public in 1965 had to admit that he didn't know whether the attack happened. While in private, this was just another "false "flag" operation much like what he did during the "Six Day War" where he plotted with Israeli authorities to sink the U.S.S. Liberty. He was overheard by two other admirals saying that he wanted the Liberty sunk. He personally recalled fighers from the Six fleet trying to go to the Liberty's help. Only the accidental involvement of a Russian spy ship stopped the attack because now there were witnesses.

Recently released NSA documents about a purposeful intent to distort the facts regarding the incident and even the LBJ Museum records make the argument solid that this was a conspiracy to get us into a war in Vietnam. So, I changed the verbage and cited one source that has links to other sources that make the issue clear enough that there should be no question that the second attack did not happen and that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was obtained by deceitful means. Jtpaladin 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppetry allegation

Probably the best thing to do is leave the issue, unless he/she re-adds the tag, at which point they would be well advised to justify it or go through the proper channels to determine sockpuppetry. Feel free to contact me if the issue recurs. Martinp23 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23, thanks for your response. I appreciate your determination. I left a message days ago on his Talk page asking to justify his malicious action but he has yet to respond. Jtpaladin 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

YAF

How do I contact you? I am the president of a revived YAF chapter and we are trying to restore the organization. My e-mail is centralyaf@yahoo.com.

24.247.173.201 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Talk pages are not for discussion of the subjects of the articles, and certainly not for posting personal essays. I thought that my edit summary explained why I'd removed the (very long) essay; if it didn't, I apologise. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by, "Talk pages are not for discussion of the subjects of the articles,...". My understanding is that Talk Pages are there to suggest improvements for an article and explain the thought process behind making those improvements. I stated that the article is lacking in completeness because, while there is some attempt to explain some of the chapters, other chapters are left out. Also, some of the chapters are miscategorized. And, the practical state of affairs as dictated by the "Protocols" is also worth mentioning. The incredible predictions made by the various chapters is certainly worth pointing out.

Is this more clear? If not, can you please explain where my logic is wrong? I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Jtpaladin 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't keep posting your theory about the reality behind The Protocols on a Wikipedia talk page. We're not here to publish that sort of thing. If you'd like to publish your theory on the web, please find a web-hosting company. Jkelly 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are referring to empirical information as "theory". Again, I'm merely stating factual observations regarding what the "Protocols" called for and what has transpired since that time. This is quite relevant to the article because at the very least it displays a prophetic knowledge of whoever wrote the "Protocols" about things that couldn't be imagined from that period of time in history.

Plus, I'm pointing out that the article incorrectly titles some of the chapters and that there is a need to discuss all of the chapters. The article doesn't do that so I'm trying to improve it by adding that info. If I am writing something that is in violation of WP:TPG, would you please post a reference to the violation so that I can edit my comments to be in conformity? I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you.

P.S. Are you and Mel the same person? I only ask because you posted here within one minute of each other. Jtpaladin 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim of "prophetic knowledge" is loony tunes, and is invariably a consequence of generously and selectively interpreting past writings in hindsight to reflect known events. Fortunately, Wikipedia policies treat editors as just that -- editors, not scholars or researchers -- and so there's no need to debate such interpretations, since they are banned across the board. (What isn't banned are cited reports of other persons offering such interpretations in the public sphere.) -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not mel but I agree with both of them - your theory is not suitable for wikipedia as it is original research - try a blog instead for that sort of stuff. --Fredrick day 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick, I very much appreciate your thoughts but can you be a bit more specific as to what you are agreeing? What aspect of my comments are outside the Talk Page Guidelines? Again, I think that the page can improved by correcting the label mistakes, adding commentary regarding the excluded chapters, and an analysis of the state of affairs vs. the goals of the "Protocols". Do you have an issue with all of that or some or one? If so, please direct me to the Talk Page Guideline that is transgressed. Please let me know. Thank you. Jtpaladin 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note there is discussion of this issue here. MastCell 22:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, thanks for the heads-up. I keep asking these guys what exactly is the problem with my comments and I get no answer, other than some non-descriptive statement that it's a personal essay. All I'm doing is posting factual observations. If these are not factual, then they would have a point. If you notice, no one actually disagrees with what I've said. I'm also stating that some of the titles in the article are incorrect. Is it wrong to point that out? And not all the chapters of the "Protocols" are cited. Isn't it an improvement of the article to cite all the chapters? All I'm doing at this point is posting comments to improve the article. These guys are just trying to censor the comments without actually telling what's wrong and how my comments transgress the Talk Pages Guidelines. Jtpaladin 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your essay makes it plain that you are giving your personal opinion; what you call "facts" are at best disputable interpretations. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, it's easy to merely call them personal opinions but if you can look at each item and tell me which one you disagree with, then you'll find that it is fact rather than opinion. I can supply independent citations to support each one, can you provide citations to the contrary? Jtpaladin 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That you are unable to tell the difference between fact and interpretation/opinion doesn't bode well for your editing, but I just don't have time to continue this. Everyone else who has seen your essay has agreed that it's personal opinion, original research, and inappropriate at the Talk page; why not accept that and move on to more constructive issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Mel, when a statement is made and a scholarly citation is given, then it's considered appropriate for Wikipedia. I've made this point over and over again yet either you're ignoring it or simply can not connect the dots. Either way, I have moved on by not trying to revert the page. In the meantime, I've made the corrections and added info to the article that I previously mentioned. Jtpaladin 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Lagos and scams

I decided to add a section about 419 in the article. WhisperToMe 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Great news. Please post a link to that info. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was at Talk:Lagos :) WhisperToMe 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Re this edit: in capital letters above that section it states there is a consensus for the wording and should not be changed unless a new consensus is reached. Please study this consensus. Tyrenius 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following can be seen at YouTube. I will post it on the discussion page and give some time for comments before adding it back. Please let me know if this is the correct procedure. Thanks.

The audience at the Late Show with David Letterman seemed to think he wasn't serious and sneekered at comments that Richards made, like Afro-American (an outdated word to describe American-Americans), and at one point, Jerry Seinfeld had to tell the audience to stop laughing. Jtpaladin 17:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I consider it to be very incorrect. It seems to me that you have not, despite my note above, read the archived talk that reached this consensus. This is essential if you are to enter into what has been a long and contentious debate, which has finally reached consensus. Kindly read the archived talk thoroughly. Secondly YouTube is not a permissible source, as it is a copyvio. This has been discussed at length elsewhere on wiki, as well as in the archived talk. Therefore anything you post will count as unsourced and be a violation of WP:BLP, which is considered a very serious matter. Tyrenius 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the consensus but the info I was attempting to add only expanded briefly on the Late Night show. The YouTube reference was only a clip of an actual TV show that I watched. It was not meant to be an actual footnote. The show did occur as was mentioned in the article already and therefore it is verfiable and truthful. Nevertheless, I won't bother with the article any further. Jtpaladin 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Jtpaladin, I just wanted to let you know that I support your moves to properly document this event in the Michael Richards article. That said I must caution you that as you are likely becoming aware of editing of the article has been highly contentious and the disputes long lasting. I hope that you will be patient as editing goes forward on it. Cheers. (→Netscott) 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, yes, thank you for your thoughts. I greatly appreciate them and I await further word from the consensus in order to better structure the LFI. Thanks again. Jtpaladin 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits made to the consensus section should be reverted, unless proper discussion achieves a new consensus. Please note the dialogue preceding consensus thoroughly explored all aspects, including Youtube etc. Tyrenius 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tyrenius, I agree with the consensus issue as I stated. However, regarding Letterman, please forget about YouTube for a moment and consider that the event that I mentioned actually did occur and no one is denying it and that it is worth mentioning. As I stated, I await consensus in order to add it. Jtpaladin 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you edited the Kabbalah article

I saw that you edited the aforementioned article; I invite you to join my new wikiproject Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah. Thanks. Lighthead 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks anyway, and if you ever find someone interested please let them know. Thanks. Lighthead 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You made this highly offensive comment at the Palestinian people talk page

"Which brings me to the position that I've held for over most of my life. And that is, every single "Palestinian" should be loaded on a train and shipped to live in either Lebanon and/or Syria. Palestinian's can choose their destination as long as it is out of Israel. That's the only way there's ever going to be peace within Israel."

I ask you Jtpaladin, is it okay to write: "every single Jew should be loaded on a train and shipped to live either in New York and/or Los Angeles. Jews can choose their destination as long as it is out of Palestine. That's the only way there's ever going to be peace within Palestine"?

I don't think so. Please consider the effect of your words on people andc try to keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand - that is, how to improve the article in question. Tiamut 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right that my comments were not the most helpful to the article but I was mostly responding to the points of the editor that posted above me. I'll keep my comments about Palestinians more relevant in the future.

You should keep your comments about Palestinians invisible, since the opinions and positions of editors -- especially those as ignorant and bigoted as yours -- are irrelevant to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.201.42 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue was handled about two years ago and there's no further need to discuss it. It's a shame you can't tell the difference relativism and non-relativism. Now, shut up. Jtpaladin (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Pollard

I agree with your talk page comments there. Thanks, --Tom 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

Thanks for your work in Circumcision. You might find it more productive to make more actual edits and spend LESS time in Talk. They will just wear you down and revert when you're gone. Simply announce your intentions in the edit comment.

I have a honest concensus version we can paste and maintain.TipPt 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and support. There's so much emotion involved with the Circumcision issue that making any small changes takes a lot of time and talk. Let me know how I can help in any future endeavors. Jtpaladin 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say hi guys and to thank you both for your work to fight censorship and to get the truth out there. Keep it up, people.

Edwardsville 12:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you suggested sharing email addresses to Blackworm. I'm happy to share my email address to you if you would like.

Edwardsville 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Articles

• My issue is not with using the bible as a source. It's using the bible as the only source on a topic which will lead to an inevitable bias against a a certain group or groups. Using the bible as the only source in the Moses article would not be (and isn't) a problem because it's not saying "Moses was better than Jesus" or something like that. There's nothing qualitative in that article. However, the entire Persecution of early Christians by the Jews article is qualitative and based on a source which is (purported to be) written by the very people who were (allegedly) being persecuted! If there were some Jewish sources, or some third party sources as well, that would be a whole different story. Do you see what I mean? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The problem is that any number of WP articles use the Bible as the sole reference. Many of the articles on ancient Israel are found exclusively from Biblical sources so it would be a big mess if we were to exclude the Hebrew Bible as a source related to Israeli or Jewish articles. Also, I don't think the article in question is saying anyone is better than anyone else. In fact, the NT affirms that salvation comes from the Jews. As for the sources, they are all Jewish since the NT is written by Jews. There are also some third party sources and I would like to see them included as well. I hope we can work something out with this article. Again, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Jtpaladin 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

William Remington

You have still said nothing to defend this edit. If you can't do so, then revert it. RedSpruce 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, as I mentioned, Remington is not even listed as a "victim" of "McCarthyism" in the article on "McCarthyism". In order to be counted as a victim by this standard, he would have had to either have lost his job because of Senator McCarthy saying something that wasn't true or have been accused of security/loyalty claims that were not true. Remington was a convicted criminal who was not in jail because of either of these issues. So, it would be inappropriate to suggest that Remington was a victim of McCarthyism. Aside from that, you only cite one very biased source that makes that claim. Lastly, out of three people who have chimed in on this issue, 2 of the 3, are against keeping that statement. If you have further reasons for keeping that sentence, please discuss it. Thank you. Jtpaladin 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, I accept Rob's edit as a compromise. Some further points:

"Remington is not even listed as a victim of McCarthyism in the article on McCarthyism" I don't understand why you keep repeating this. It's irrelevant, and in any case, it's WP policy that WP articles aren't to be used as references for other articles. Your description of what it means to be a victim of McCarthyism is limited to a single form of victimization, and therefor doesn't make sense. Is a black person only a "victim of racism" if he's denied a job because of his race, but not if he's murdered because of his race? Furthermore, your reference to McCarthy himself reflects an apparent misunderstanding of what "McCarthyism" means. As I've pointed out repeatedly, Schrecker is a recognized authority in this field, so by the rules of Wikipedia her opinion is relevant and it is valid to state it in the article. Your opinion is not relevant, unless you happen to be a WP:Reliable source.

RedSpruce 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, since the issue has been settled I don't want to further debate on the matter but I thank you for working on a compromise. Jtpaladin 01:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad, because I was hoping to learn whether you're really as ignorant of English and of the WP policies involved here as you appear to be. If you are, perhaps I could at least help you to understand the WP policies. Also, I was curious about your understanding of the word "McCarthyism." It appears that your misunderstanding of the word is the one that User:Adrian M. H. refers to as "stupid" here. You'll see that I defend you as not necessarily stupid here. Perhaps you'll want to continue the discussion of your intelligence or lack of same with User:Adrian M. H.

No need to post responses on my Talk page BTW; I can read them here.

RedSpruce 10:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, as I stated before, the matter is CLOSED. Do you understand the meaning of that? You question my understanding of the English language though you display a deficiency in the subject yourself. Do you also understand the meaning of WP:NPA? Apparently you don't since you feel the need to personally attack me. Stay off my Talk page unless you have a valid reason for being here. I was being polite to you but instead you felt the need to attack my understanding of the English language and WP policies. Frankly, you are way over the line here and your references to User:Adrian M. H. are bizzare. User:Adrian M. H. did not attack me. He didn't even address me directly. He was addressing you and why you were wrong. This is your final warning, stop making personal attacks. Take the fact that you were wrong as a lesson that you can't make unsubstantiated allegations that people are victims of McCarthyism when they are not. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what McCarthyism actually is. How can you discuss "McCarthyism" when you don't even understand the meaning of it? Perhaps you should start with a dictionary definition by looking at this.[[4]] Do some homework so next time you don't get confused and ruin another article. And, yes, I will post this on your Talk page because it's important that other editors who read this discussion have a clear understanding of what transpired in this conversation. Jtpaladin 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept that this matter is closed, and I'll stop trying to interfere with your fantasy that I have shown to be wrong. Enjoy it. RedSpruce 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another personal attack. Not only have I asked you to stay off my Discussion page, and you ignored it, but you are still violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. I also noticed you deleted out our discussion on your Talk page. You really are something special, aren't you? I think you would have been right at home working on the Tyding's Committee. The fact is that you were wrong and that's why that line was removed from the first paragraph. Jtpaladin 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

JT, I've made a change to the article that is intended to resolve the controversy between you and RedSpruce. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, that is far more fair than the original. Thanks for working on this. If you haven't done so already, please let RedSpruce know about this as well. Thanks again. Jtpaladin 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

recruiting support vs. conflict resolution

Please note the WP guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing. The correct way to bring outside opinions into a dispute is through Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Third opinion. I've entered a [RFC] on the issue. RedSpruce 10:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I contacted a few interested parties in the McCarthy article. My message was neutral and therefore does not wiolate WP:Canvassing. Since you seemed to be in such a rush to make the change, I thought this might be the fastest way to get you an answer to your concern. Otherwise, going through the formal process takes longer and is OK with me. Jtpaladin 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of your messages included references to "adding speculation", "speculation from anti-McCarthy biographers" and "a non-concensus POV comment". That is obviously not neutral language, and therefor does violate WP:Canvassing. RedSpruce 15:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say who held what position and who held the other. I tried to frame it as a neutral argument and did not ask for someone to join me or join you. Only that they come and examine the evidence. How else could I have phrased it? That is the basis of the argument, is it not? Jtpaladin 15:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are asking questions to which you know the answer. I submit that that is a waste of your time and mine. RedSpruce 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just asking for comments. I'm trying to get a consensus on how that issue should be handled. You and I spending timing reverting is the bigger waste of time and I would rather work with you on improving the article. Jtpaladin 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the cause of death issue, no consensus is needed; the WP policies are clear, as User:MastCell has recently pointed out. What is needed is for you to stop replacing an edit that follows those policies with one that violates them. I propose this: The text "He died of acute hepatitis brought on by alcoholism." be used in the intro, with the citations previously used. If at some future date you find a WP:Reliable Source that argues a different cause of McCarthy's death, then at that time the issue becomes one of debate, with a minority view and a majority view. At that time the debate can be moved to the body of the article, and some vague and neutral wording for the cause of his death can be used in the intro. RedSpruce 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You show me a biographer with a medical background who has McCarthy's medical records and can make a medical opinion, then that would fulfill WP:RS. Everything else is speculation. It's like saying that someone who has AIDS got it through homosexual activity even if the person is a homosexual. You are making a leap of faith which may or may not be true. You are trying to say he was an alcoholic. That is a medical phrase that can only be factually made by a doctor. None of the biographers, to my knowledge, are doctors and had access to McCarthy's medical records. Consensus is needed when such a devisive matter is brought into question. Jtpaladin 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't up to you to rewrite WP policies as to what constitutes a reliable source. WP policy pages are already quite clear on this. If a source doesn't happen to meet your personal requirements for "reliability" that doesn't matter in the least. RedSpruce 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, if I were writing the rules, this wouldn't be it. I'm merely stating to you what is policy regarding speculation about a medical issue of which the biographers in question have no knowledge. What do the biographers know about hepatitis, alcoholism, and McCathy's medical records? These writers are not able to engage in authoritative discussion of McCarthy's medical issues. It's just speculation and speculation should be treated as such. Please note that I'm not being unreasonable here. I already said I have no problem in discussing McCarthy's heavy drinking in the body of the article. You, it seems, want to make an authoritative statement that the biographers have medical knowledge about McCarthy which you and I know is not the case. Instead of going back and forth on this, why not be a little patient and allow some other opinions on this matter? There's no rush. The article is not going to disappear. Jtpaladin 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't rewriting the rules, then show me where in the current rules it states that the expertise of a reliable source is to be evaluated on a case-by-case, point-by-point basis. It is assumed that when an author writes a book that is accepted in the scholarly community, that author has done his research, and in fact knows a great deal about the exact things that you list; if he hasn't done his research, later critiques of the book will open questions as to its validity. As I've stated before, there is no need for further opinions. You are arguing against clearly stated WP policy. A thousand opinions won't alter that. RedSpruce 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Let me ask you this: Do the biographers have medical degrees? Do they have access to McCarthy's medical records? If the answer is no, then they can not be used as a reliable source as to McCarthy's cause of death. If McCarthy had died of cancer, would it be OK for the biographers to suggest that it was the drinking that killed him as well? A reliable source is someone that can authoritatively speak on the subject at hand. The subject is not McCarthy but McCarthy's cause of death. And in this case, the biographers have no authoritative judgment. But, hey maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're wrong. That's why I'm asking you to be a bit patient and let some other editors speak on the subject and then let's come to a conclusion. Jtpaladin 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My previous response stands. There is nothing in the rules that states that we editors should start evaluating the qualifications of reliable sources on a point-by-point basis. By your standard, an author would have to also be a lawyer specializing in Senate rules to determine whether McCarthy broke Senate rules, a specialist in Wisconsin election law to state whether he broke election rules, and so on forever. And who would be deciding that each expert's expertise was "sufficient"? You? And if no reliable source medical doctor has written an opinion on what killed McCarthy, does that mean that the article is forbidden to mention the subject? As you know, this isn't the way Wikipedia works. RedSpruce 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please let me address each of your concerns:

There is nothing in the rules that states that we editors should start evaluating the qualifications of reliable sources on a point-by-point basis.

Well, again, WP:RS states that when speaking on a particular issue, the source should be an authority. Stating that McCarthy was an alcoholic and died because of alcoholism requires that the biographer have medical documentation stating this to be true. He needs more than speculation and rumors to base his analysis.

By your standard, an author would have to also be a lawyer specializing in Senate rules to determine whether McCarthy broke Senate rules, a specialist in Wisconsin election law to state whether he broke election rules, and so on forever.

Or, the biographer could have documentation upon which to base his opinion. None of the biographers claim to have medical documents regarding McCarthy's cause of death or a degree in medical science. They are merely using rumor and speculation. That is clearly not acceptable as a reliable source.

And who would be deciding that each expert's expertise was "sufficient"? You?

Putting aside reliable sources for a moment, consensus is usually a good tool in making that determination. That's why I keep asking you to be patient and await more opinions.

And if no reliable source medical doctor has written an opinion on what killed McCarthy, does that mean that the article is forbidden to mention the subject?

Like I said, the coroner's report is one source. And, feel free to speculate in the "Final years" section as it already does. I never said that McCarthy's drinking habits can't be discussed. I've only said that no official medical opinion be made as to the cause of death aside from the coroner's report because the biographers do not have the medical documentation to support their conclusions.

As you know, this isn't the way Wikipedia works.

I've explained how Wiki works. I've been very much open to compromise. I said I have no problem with giving the coroner's report in one place and then speculation in the next place. But mixing fact and speculation is in no way a valid argument. It's the equivalent of "guilty by association". And, I leave my opinion open to consensus as well. I don't know what more I can do here to be more accomodating. Jtpaladin 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion appears to be ongoing here and at the article talk page (where it might be more appropriate), I thought I'd chime in. Jtpaladin quotes the section of WP:RS which describes reliable sources as those whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. In this case, the subject at hand is Joseph McCarthy. His biographers are trustworthy and authoritative on that subject, including his congressional career, his family history, his alcoholism, and yes, how he died. There's no need for a separate, dedicated expert for each one of those areas - his biographers are expert on the subject of McCarthy. To insist that only a physician or medical professional can adequately describe his cause of death is contrary to both the spirit and, I believe, the letter of the guideline and sounds sort of like Wikilawyering. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing Wikilawyering about this. This is a simple matter of fact vs. speculation. The problem is that you are depending upon people who are not medical experts and who do not have access to his medical records in order to give a medical evaluation of the cause of death. I don't know how else to phrase this issue. Feel free to speculate but trying to pass it off as an informed medical assessment is pure fraud and completely inappropriate. The use of medical terms to describe a condition is only valid if the source of the assessment is a medical professional with access to the medical records of the patient. That doesn't that you have to be a doctor in order to state a medical fact, but you do have to have a medical fact in order to make the statement. Saying that McCarthy was an alcoholic is not fact because a doctor never made that assessment. Saying that McCarthy died from acute hepatitis is a fact because a medical professional made that assessment. But feel free to state that "most biographers believe McCarthy was a heavy drinker and believe that this may have contributed to his death." That's a lot more factual than saying "McCarthy was in fact an alcoholic and that he definitely died because of heavy drinking." Jtpaladin 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, do you accept the word of this administrator where you haven't been accepting mine? These are the rules of Wikipedia. If you don't like them, either work to change them or edit elsewhere. RedSpruce 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: Does speculation equal fact? No. Do any of the biographers have access to McCarthy's medical records? No. So how can anyone make the statement that McCarthy died from alcoholism when "alcoholism" is a medical condition that can only diagnosed by a doctor? But, you can easily say, "McCarthy drank a lot and we speculate he died because of it." Feel free to state that. But to say emphatically that McCarthy died from alcoholism is in no way based in fact and should under no condition be stated as fact. The only fact in this situation is that McCarthy died from acute hepatitis. Other than that, it's pure speculation. So, why on earth do you want to present speculation as fact? Jtpaladin 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting notion that Wikipedia might hold itself to a higher standard than mainstream book publishers do; that where some publisher is willing to accept that a reputable author did his research, Wikipedia will task itself with verifying every point of reportage, every statement, every piece of analysis. However, Wikipedia has very specifically and very deliberately decided that it isn't going to allow that. That's what they call original research, and it is not allowed. If it's published in a reliable source, then it's good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you think it's "speculation", regardless of whether you think it's an outright lie. For the purposes of Wikipedia, yes, what you call "speculation" does equal fact. Those are the rules. RedSpruce 10:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, I have one further Wiki item that I have addressed elsewhere and I would like you to consider. I know that under "What is a reliable source?" WP:RS, it states, "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." So it appears that if you are not someone with a background in autopsies, medical examinations, medical evaluations, etc. the author's opinion on the cause of death of a person beyond what is stated in the coroner's report, is inadmissable as a qualified source under this rule. In the case in question, "the most reliable sources available to its editors" is the coroner's report since none of the authors have access to the subject's medical records or an opinion from a medical authority who has examined the person in question. Is this a correct line of thinking? I think so. Otherwise, please tell me how you would interpret this Wiki guideline. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A McCarthy biography is a reliable source for all McCarthy-related content. His/her qualifications for stating what McCarthy died of were considered sufficient for a reputable publishing house, therefore they are considered sufficient for Wikipedia. Period. That is the rule. As a WP editor you are not allowed to second-guess a reliable source. What you are allowed to do is to see if there are any other reliable sources that present alternate views. These basic facts have been conveyed to you many times over by many different people. It's time for you to start letting it sink in. RedSpruce 16:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the Wiki rule I just quoted? It talks about context. This issue is about context, not taking an entire book and saying "yeah, it's ok". Just as a "world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology" it also stands to reason that a political author is not a reliable source on medical issues. It doesn't matter if the book were published by reputable publishing house. That does not address the Wiki rule in question. It only solves the question of whether that book can be used as a source. There are many Wiki rules that as a whole make-up the issue of "Verifiability". And with regards to "What is a reliable source?" with regards to a medical matter, the authors you quote simply fail to adhere to that mark. I asked for your interpretation and you simply ignored it. Why do you refuse to address this Wiki guideline? I've just put this question to MastCell and await his response. If he agrees with you then fine, I'm done arguing the point. But until this specific question is resolved, the issue remains open-ended. Jtpaladin 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to distort the simple words of the rule to arrive at something that will serve your needs. What you end up with is a logical absurdity, as I've pointed out before. By your standards, the authors would also fail to "adhere to the mark" of being reliable sources about Senate rules, Wisconsin elections, post-war sugar prices, and every single other fact that they printed in their books. After all, what are they really experts at? Probably nothing except doing research and writing books. You are also pretending that some sort of magic is required to come to an unquestionable conclusion that McCarthy drank himself to death. The fact that he did so is painfully obvious to anyone who has read any account of his last years. Again, you need to start letting the simple facts of Wikipedia rules sink in. RedSpruce 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're leaving out what I said before: sources. If any author has sources or evidence to back up their claims, they can write about the subject. But there are no sources other than the coroner's report regarding McCarthy's cause of death. These authors are speculating. As for his final years, you are mistaken as to his level of drinking. As I pointed out what Herman said, McCarthy drank a lot during his "hey day" but was very moderate in his final 3 years. Anyway, like I said, at this point, I'm leaving it to MastCell to consider the matter. I think we've beaten this thing to death. Jtpaladin 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving out nothing. You are squirming into all sorts of absurd contortions in an attempt to avoid the inevitable. Wikipedia doesn't work the way you would like it to work. End of story. Be a man and deal with it. RedSpruce 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's a reason why people here don't like you. It's because you are condenscending, rude, and obnoxious. Don't come to my Talk page and rudely tell me to "be a man and deal with it" and that my comments are "absurd". I'm arguing from a perspective that I see as being correct. I'm not doing this for ego or any other emotionally based perspective. I told you before that when you speak to me that I expect you to maintain WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have been nothing but polite and respectful of you, your views and opinions. At no time have I insulted you. Sadly, you can not claim the same. At long last, RedSpruce, have you no decency? Now, why don't you be a man and apologize for your hateful and mean-spirited comments? Jtpaladin 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello from TipPt

You wanted me to contact you....

Please see the Honest Version in history (quickly reverted by the Cabal).

Tip

What happened? I think the current version is the one that we spent a great deal of time getting consensus. Please explain what the problem is. Jtpaladin 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Al-Qaeda

Please avoid making comments such as those which you have on the talk page at Talk:Al-Qaeda. Your comments are as bad as those you are replying to and in one case I would say significantly worse. If you wish to improve the article, please do so by discussing content and not accusing other editors of misunderstanding Christianity or their grasp on genocides caused by non-muslims. Your attitude is very likely to get you marginalised, so even if you do post something constructive, you would be overlooked by others due to your prior comments.

Finally, the posts which you have responded to are actually quite accurate in that calling Al-Qaeda an islamic group is like calling the KKK a christian group - neither are religious groups, one is a paramilitary/terrorist organisation and the other is a racist organisation. However, both use religion as their 'front' or their supposed reasoning. I suggest you do some reading about the teachings of Islam and also about the history of Christianity and other religions and you will soon realise that they are all as bad as each other, and there are groups that claim to be part of each one of them whilst going against their teachings.

So, before you get upset at me for saying this, I will explain - I am not an admin, and have no powers on this site other than those which every normal editor has. I am simply providing some friendly advice to you in the hope of calming you down.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? The comments to which I responded were utterly absurd. Are you saying that wasn't obvious? If you would like, I could take each comment and demonstrate how inaccurate, and worse, Christophobic they appear. How you can possibly say that my comments are worse than to those comments to which I am replying only indicates a certain bias on your part. The mentioning of the KKK and al-qaeda is also quite incorrect because the KKK does not rest its' beliefs on Christianity whereas al-qaeda rests its' beliefs on Islam. I have extensive knowledge regarding both Islam and Christianity and if you think that in any possible way that the comments to which I responded are valid, then clearly you are the one who needs a course in basic Christianity and basic Islam.

My interest is in improving the article but it does not help when another "editor" makes outlandish statements that have no basis in fact. Those comments might as well come from the "talking-points" of al-qaeda. The tone of my comments is very much in keeping with the tone of other editors in that Discussion page.

Lastly, your mistaken belief regarding Islam and Christianity, "that they are all as bad as each other" indicates that you are in desperate need of researching these topics yourself. Also, the proper place for your comments is on the al-qaeda page, not here. Jtpaladin 19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the proper place is here - your comments are inappropriate on the al-qaeda page and this is my telling you that (you seem to be getting told that by a few editors across the site). I have a good grasp of religion, what religions believe and my comment about them all being as bad as each other stands. Are you seriously trying to say that Christianity is a better religion that Islam? If so, I would contest that due to the years of bloodshed caused by christianity. That is why I say as bad as each other.

And yes, the KKK is a christian group by their reckoning - their .com website states 'Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan! Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America' and the kkkk.net site states 'The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions'. You may also wish to take a look at Christian Terrorism. However, I think anyone who claims they are christians or have any grounds in christianity is simply idiotic.

Your comments appear, on their initial reading, to simply be rants against either: the editor you are responding to or against islam in general. Neither are appropriate.

So, as I said before, this type of behaviour is likely to get you marginalised as an extreme editor, and maybe even blocked for disruption. If you do have a significant knowledge of Islam and Christianity, great! Please use it to improve those subject areas of the site!-Localzuk^(talk) 17:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, please stop annoying me. I've asked you to stop yet you keep posting on my Talk page. I never have deleted someone's posts before but if you post again, I will delete the whole topic. You've made your silly comments, so let's leave it at that. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with someone that clearly has a closed mind, makes absurd claims, doesn't know their history, and bears little understanding of Wikipedia despite their many edits. Get out into the sunlight more often and spend less time debating other people on the smallest issues, as your history shows. There is more to life than posting here. Trying to paint the KKK as a "Christian" organization is like any idiot who still believes Alger Hiss wasn't a Communist espionage agent despite his claims of innocence to his death. Just because someone says they are a "Christian" does not make it so. I mean, come on, isn't that obvious? Do I really have to point that out? As for your suggestion of me getting blocked because of your claim of "disruption", you are clearly oblivious to the crazy rants of "Wikepedia-obessesed editors" who make outlandish claims and then "Wikistalk" other people around. It seems to be a common trait of the fanatics found here, especially those with left-wing tendencies. Not to say that means you, but it's also good to know when to leave something alone which seems that you don't. If you notice my recent history, I haven't even been editing because there is more to life than Wikipedia. As a kind piece of advice, perhaps a longer holiday might do you some good. Again, please stop posting on my Talk page. Thank you and best of luck with your endeavors. Jtpaladin 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your above personal attack, whether directed toward Localzuk or any other editor: please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Asking others to stop trying to help improve your edits and reduce confrontation by talking to you on your talk page is counterproductive, as is calling other editors idiots, fanatics, etc. or levying accusation of stalking at other editors. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You should direct your comments to Localzuk since it is he who initiated personal attacks. I have not asked anyone to not improve my edits so I don't understand to what you are referring. This entire discussion has no real purpose and is counterproductive. This topic is a perfect example of editors who enjoy spending time arguing back and forth about frivolous matters. I have asked that Localzuk stop posting on my Talk page. I guess I should have also included anyone who wants to act as an "agent" of him as well to not post here as well. So, again, please end this discussion and please do not continue to personally attack me here or any place else as you have noted that it is a violation of WP policy. Also, as I stated, any further comments in this topic would result in deletion of this entire section, as is my right under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Since my request to cease this discussion has been ignored, I will give you a chance to read these comments and then likely delete this section. As I mentioned, I've never had to do something like that and would do so only under the most extreme circumstances under which this section has certainly fallen. Please direct your time in improving articles not threatening or personally insulting other editors or engaging editors in endless discussions that have no relevancy. I'm sure your time can be better spent elsewhere than posting on my Talk page. Thank you and I wish you well in your edits. Jtpaladin 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above was not a personal attack but an attempt to make you aware of a Wikipedia policy and an effort to have you stop aiming personal attacks at other editors. Localzuk did not personally attack you, but rather noted the inappropriateness of some of your comments on the listed talk page. --ForbiddenWord 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Secondly, I have kindly asked you to please stop posting on my Talk page which you disregarded. I don't know how else to be polite to you while getting my point across. Jtpaladin 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that you have asked me to stop posting on this page. Unfortunately, your above comment merited a response on my behalf, as did this. Further, you are free to disagree with my assessment of the situation, but there is no evidence that the editor Localzuk personally attacked you or did anything outside of trying to help you understand policy. --ForbiddenWord 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk said that my comments were worse than of those comments to which I responded and then told me to do my homework, and despite my years editing here that I do not know WP policy. That is clearly insulting. Maybe you don't think so but I do. So, let's do it this way: Your comments are worse than the comments to which you are responding, you need to do your homework, and you need to learn WP policy. Let that sink in. Now, feel good about that? I didn't think so. I don't really think you know the meaning of the word "forbidden". Because I have forbidden you to post here on this topic yet you keep doing it. Seriously, I appreciate your attempts to honestly address this matter but I think we've discussed this matter and it's time to move on. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your "I believe Islam hates everyone equally" comment at talk:Islamofascism

Please do not use talk pages such as talk:Islamofascism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Addhoc 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize you can't see how my points improve the article because you remain closed-minded, but that's OK. My "Islam" comment was meant to be directed at the small group that take the Koran in such a fashion. I beg your pardon for excluding this specification. But I do compliment you on the better request for citation. So, well done in that regard. Jtpaladin 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Flanders

Since this is a non-issue as far as the article is concerned, I'll address it here rather than on the article's discussion page. The motion that Flanders introduced was for McCarthy to be censured. The word "condemned" was not in the original motion. In the motion that was eventually passed, the word "condemned" was used. As you already know and can easily verify again, no reliable source claims that there is any significance to this word-change. Both historians and Senate documents almost always refer to the action as the "censuring" of McCarthy. RedSpruce 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it's always great to chat with you when you're being professional and reasonable, and I don't mean to sound condenscending when I say that. Would you please read Herman's page 293 and then tell me what you think? The final resolution was for condemnation even though they debated censure. The funny thing is that the proceedings themselves were illegally conducted and they could never get away with something like that today. And, only you and I would wallow in something like this. Don't we have better things to do? :p Jtpaladin 12:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the the article states (now) that Flanders introduced the motion to censure, and since in fact that's what happened--he didn't introduce a motion to "condemn"-- the article is currently correct. The only grounds for criticizing the current text would be to argue that the motion wasn't "successful" because it didn't include the word "censure." But of course no reliable source would agree that the motion wasn't "successful". As for Herman, because he's so eager to defend and apologize for McCarthy, he deliberately uses vague language to imply that there might be some significance to the condemn/censure thing. But he carefully avoids saying any such thing outright, because he knows he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. RedSpruce 13:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have been very critical of Herman's book because I think Herman is being too kind to McCarthy's critics. Even so, Herman is merely quoting primary sources in this matter. The fact is that the resolution was debated as censure but voted on as condemned. That's verifiable and factual. If you want to add that fact into it, please do so. But to say that as the resolution stands, that it is censure, is not correct. Why don't you go ahead and phrase it differently and then let me take a look at it and see if we agree? Is that fair? But I don't understand why you keep removing the final conclusions of the committee. Again, that is verifiable information and applicable to the topic. Jtpaladin 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is correct, because McCarthy was censured. That is the term used by all historians and the large majority of Senate documents. Just to give one example, note the title of Chapter 15 in Herman's book.

The fact that you don't see that Herman's book is a blatant apologia for McCarthy is due to the fact that your own views on this issue are so far removed from popular opinion and simple reality. Note, for example, that the fervent anti-communist historian John Haynes refers to the book as an attempt to "rehabilitate" McCarthy in this article. RedSpruce 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a big fan of the facts. If you look through each of McCarthy's cases before he was Chairman of PSI, you will find that Buckley found McCarthy was basically correct. No one mentions the fact that in front of the full Senate, Tydings held up a phonograph record purporting it to be of McCarthy perjurying himself yet that record was a lie. If you also look at the Executive Sessions of his McCarthy's Chairmanship, you will find that he conducted the hearings fairly and nothing in the way that his critics have suggested. The witnesses always had an attorney if they so decided and were able to produce evidence to support themselves, cross-examine witnesses, etc. Why is all that ignored by the very biographers in which you hold such esteem? That's why it's always best to go to the primary source instead of strictly relying on the warped opinion of anti-McCarthy biographers. One thing you should know about me is that I actually started out as someone who was under the impression that McCarthy was everything critics said he was. That was until I started doing my own research including studying Buckley's book, Oshinsky, Rovere, Reeves, etc.. Just looking at the primary sources and excluding rumors and statements that could not be substantiated, it was easy to see that McCarthy's claims were valid. The release of the Executive Session transcripts was simply icing on the cake. I can't help but laugh when I read govt. employees taking the Fifth Amendment when asked if they are Communists or involved in espionage. I mean, come on.

John Haynes knows Venona very well but doesn't know McCarthy very well at all. Aside from the fact that Haynes validated some of McCaryhy's cases, McCarthy was really only getting to the more minor figures in the Communist subversion of the U.S. govt. Those people would not likely show up in Venona so what can Haynes say? Who knows if he has even read Buckley's book. And by no means was Buckley's book a whitewash of McCarthy. Buckley was at times critical of McCarthy but he was fair about it. Most of the anti-McCarthy biographers are not fair. They lie, deceive, and omit important information. Rovere completely leaves out the "Paul Hughes" incident even though he knew all about it. Why? Why would he do that if not for dishonest reasons? Unfortunately, you have succumbed to these distortions and refuse to accept the validity of the facts. Do you realize that until I came along, the McCarthy article never even made reference to Buckley's book?!! Why? Why would anyone leave that out if not to conceal the truth? In fact, the first time I added that book, someone deleted the reference. Nice, huh?

I have gone through the cases mentioned in the McCarthy article and they simply twist the facts by saying things like, "...does not indicate covert activity". Yeah, but the cases do not mention the "overt" Communist activities. Again, dishonest manipulation of the facts. As for Herman's book, sorry, but that is the most current and most fair of any book about McCarthy that has been written. The footnotes are all there. Just look up the primary sources. It's so simple. You seem like too smart of a guy to simply take for granted secondary sources. Have you really not looked at the primary sources? If you had, it would be rather simple to determine fact from fiction. Heck, I don't even take Herman's info at face value. I look at all his primary sources to see where he's getting his info. If you haven't already done it, I urge you to do so. Obviously, I really don't know you. I don't know your motivation for editing every single article related to McCarthy or Communist subversion. I like to think that the word "Red" in the first part of your WP name is pure coincidence but your edits are so biased and so blatantly anti-McCarthy, no matter what the facts are, that I have just never seen anyone with such time and devotion to these articles. I think you and I both realize that with time and the more documents released that Rovere, Oshinsky, etc. will be relegated to pure propaganda status as books with an objective eye are written. In the meantime, I ask you to keep a level-head, don't make impolite accusations and insults, be honest and fair and deal with these matters with an objective eye. There's no reason to be uncivil to each other. This is just an online "encyclopedia" we are dealing with, not a fight to the death.

Lastly, while censure is the section title of Herman's book, he does make it clear, as do Senate documents (including the resolution itself), that the action is "condemned" not "censure". What's wrong with stating that fact? Why not state that although the debate centered around censure that the word "condemned" was the word utimately used in the resolution? Would that be an inaccurate statement? Jtpaladin 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your response is too long and with the second sentence you just launch your usual historical fantasy nonsense, so I didn't read any further. RedSpruce 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, how about you just read the last paragraph? For someone who has so much time to endlessly edit so many articles and argue every little thing to death, I'm sorry you didn't have a couple of minutes to read something that would make sense to anyone with even a little common sense. Thanks for wasting my time. Jtpaladin 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the paragraph. You ask a question that I've already answered, in various ways... oh, let's see... [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] at least FIVE times over, and you complain about me wasting your time? RedSpruce 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you were actually reading anything because facts seem to bounce off of you like bullets off of Superman. And you accuse me of fantasies? Jtpaladin 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:RedSpruce. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dif here. RedSpruce 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing WP:VERIFY info or you will be blocked. You are vandalizing the McCarthy page. Jtpaladin 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No problem, the user in question is infamous for uncontructive edits such as the one reverted. Good luck with your future editing. :) - The Daddy 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Jtpaladin, but User:Daddy Kindsoul has no interest in the McCarthy article. He was simply engaging in Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking of DCGeist. RedSpruce 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was just happy to see someone take any interest in the article besides DC, you, and me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs).

Peer Review of Ralph Flanders Invitation

In the past, you have shown an interest in the article on Ralph Flanders. It has recently been substantially updated. You are invited to leave your peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders.—HopsonRoad 12:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi, Jtpaladin I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up vandalism on your Talk Page

I hope you don't mind that I cleaned up vandalism on your Talk Page. You haven't been posting here for some time so I thought I would help clear your page of vandalism. Please post again soon. I may not agree with you all the time but you do have some excellent insights and it's a loss to Wikipedia not to have you contribute. Thank you. MattFoley Motivational Speaker (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

get da duck off niggerlover