Talk:Carl McIntire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I've scrapped a lot of what was added by 3petals because it was almost totally undocumented. The problem is that my replacement sections don't have many citations either. Improved documentation should be a priority for this biography.--John Foxe 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The changes[edit]

I should think that the useful move would be to add documentation to the new material, rather than scrap it--The problem now is that various things that are inaccurate have been restored or introduced, and too much good information is taken out. The inaccuracies in the original were what prompted the attempt to write new and better material in the first place. There is also the question of tone in the original, which here and there lacked the 'neutral' professional style expected of an encyclopedia article, and some of that has been restored as well. So what to do now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3petals (talkcontribs) 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for those additional references. I think if we work on this together, we can improve both the style and documentation. My opinion of McIntire is less favorable than yours but more favorable than most secular commentators so, in that sense, my version has more of a NPOV than yours. Getting the article documented should be a priority.--John Foxe 10:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Documentation, accuracy, and fairness[edit]

Good, let's improve the article. The paragraph you flag is about his role as pastor and preacher--that is basic to his ministry and church. The relevant documentation most easily accessible to the public are the anniversary books published by the church for the 40th and 50th years--these are already in the further reading and can also be moved to the footnote. We are not talking about being favorable or not--the norm is to be accurate and fair, no matter what the writer feels about him personally or whether or not the writer agrees with him. An encyclopedia article needs to capture the whole matrix of the man and ministry, and not simply highlight the cliches that made it to the newspaper. What intensity of footnoting does one expect in Wikipedia--I have read countless Wikipedia articles, and most of them have very little footnoting, as is appropriate for an encyclopedia article--a research article for an academic journal is different. 30 April 9:06 am ~~3petals~~

We need to do more with citations here than would be typical in a print encyclopedia. (As nearly everyone will tell you here on Wikipedia, "this isn't paper.") There should be a relevant footnote for at least every paragraph. Take a look about what I was forced by Mormons to do on the biographer Fawn Brodie. (By the way, you can sign and date stamp your posts with either four tildes or by clicking on the "signature" box above.)--John Foxe 18:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the paragraph about McIntire's pig-headed refusal to work with anyone else who wouldn't subordinate himself to McIntire. It was a salient trait. There's a good reference in the BJ memoirs. McIntire never had any capable subordinates. If they rose above second-rate, they left or got the ax.
I think we're here by ourselves; there's been very little interest in the article since I created it—hardly even any vandalism—so that means we can probably edit in leisurely fashion.--John Foxe 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm leery of citations that run something like, "It's in the Christian Beacon somewhere" or "Check the books at the bottom of the page." So I've ditched a few of those footnotes. Ultimately that doesn't help us much, but at least it doesn't border on deception.--John Foxe 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the changes you've made are fine, but others again reintroduce inaccuracies or remove worthy material, and documentation--Near the end, the domination theme was an accusation made by critics and denied by his supporters and him, hence must be treated with suitable qualification. The either/or about Bible exposition or dabbling in politics misconstrues what was going on--he made it clear that it wasn't an opposition or dichotomy. The article needs to footnote the books in key places, because that is where he says certain major things. I'll go through the text again--what I will put in will try to reflect what I regard as a better way to catch things. I am keeping in mind accuracy, fairness, and balance within the whole picture. 3petals 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for fairness, but what we really need is documentation, otherwise it's just personal opinion. I'll frankly admit that it's easy to be casual about documentation until someone else questions your work. But let's see if we can get this biography to stand on all fours.
As for the balance between McIntire's interest in politics and Bible exposition, we could count the pages in the Christian Beacon dedicated to religio-politics and those dedicated to Bible exposition, and you'd lose. But his early books are a different story.--John Foxe 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: I'm leery of citations that run something like, "It's in the Christian Beacon somewhere" or "Check the books at the bottom of the page." So I've ditched a few of those footnotes. Ultimately that doesn't help us much, but at least it doesn't border on deception.

If you discount the Christian Beacon and his books and pamphlets, you risk turning anti-historical and losing too much documentation--The weekly Christian Beacon is the paper of record for his work--the place he put what he did, what he had to say, his sermons, texts of resolutions, reprints of what his critics said about him, his replies to critics, reprints of newspaper stories, etc, etc. Likewise, in his books he stated his views at length, including the links between his faith and his criticisms re: church and public affairs. That is why I put in the general reference [see cut and paste below] to the CB and books that you took out. Are you looking for page references and dates of issues? At the level of writing of this brief article, many of the wordings about him are consolidating sentences that try to capture things he put countless times and ways in the CB and the other writings.

[**removed from Revision as of 01:57, 30 April 2007-- McIntire's weekly newspaper, Christian Beacon, beginning in 1936, and his books (listed below), from the first in 1938, and his other publications, contain lengthy statements of his views as well as extensive autobiographical information and detailed reports of his activities and the responses to them, and they are the sources of the greater part of the information referred to in this article.]

If you leave this bit out and leave only this [.[1]] you remove the most significant documentary point there is to be made! It makes no sense to leave in the reference to that limited collection of items at, and to remove the reference to the best documentation there is for much of what the article trying to capture. 3petals 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Are you looking for page references and dates of issues?" Absolutely. But we can cheat on things that we both know to be true—unless someone else with some knowledge comes knocking and we have to document it to them (as I had to do repeatedly for Fawn Brodie and Billy Sunday). We will need specific references about those things on which we disagree at present. That may seem a tall order, but we're fortunate in having a subject about whom there is surprisingly little interest at present.
The reason I took the Christian Beacon out of that first footnote is not because I underestimate its importance but because there are probably fewer than a dozen places in North America where one could find a run of the Christian Beacon. So far as I know, it's not even been microfilmed. It's like saying, "The evidence for this biography is thoroughly covered in the Tasmanian National Library. Be warmed and filled."--John Foxe 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I am away for a week, but since you suggest there is more time available, I will be back to it then.

In the meantime, I thought documentation was about the sources of information or views, not first of all about convenience of access or further reading. The Beacon will need to be in there as a key source, as the paper of record.

And I was trying to think of what it would take to document this sentence: 'McIntire had few trustworthy associates to manage the day-to-day activities of his ramshackle empire.' 3petals 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't touch the article for at least another week.
If something is a matter of controversy, we need a specific reference. Saying, "It's in the Christian Beacon" is a cop out.
I like that last sentence (although it's not very encyclopedic sounding) and believe it true; but it's always difficult to prove negatives. I hope someone out there has said something like it in print. But if not, I could probably suggest that all McIntire's assistant pastors were average guys at best (on whom he began unloading more of the hospital visits, etc.); that one of the presidents of Shelton had no degrees; that one of the managers of the Christian Admiral couldn't keep his hands off the women; that both Shelton and Highland collapsed—that sort of thing.--John Foxe 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I am not able to work on this now, and to flag that there are remaining questions of accuracy, balance, and fairness to sort through when I can get back to it. 3petals 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am grad student who had been studying McIntire for the past couple of years. I will help here and there with specific citations when necessary.

bggjr 21 May 2007

Thanks. Your assistance is appreciated. (By the way, you can sign and date stamp your posts with either four tildes or by clicking on the "signature" box above.)--John Foxe 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Seems like no more of a "footnote" than his daft plan to rebuild Noah's Arc, and is backed by not only the source I listed, but this LA Times article, this Advocate article and at least a half-dozen other offline sources in my possession. The information is verifiable and verified so please stop removing it. Thank you. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. You're right, and I'm wrong. But I think the placement and wording need to be tweaked so that readers don't take this comment too seriously—as if McIntire actually had followers ready to move to northern California in trailers.--John Foxe (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that he didn't have followers ready to move in. I did remove the line about both sides bluffing, as I have seen no source that indicates McIntire was bluffing and the various sources regarding the GLF don't indicate that the announcement was a bluff. There isn't really clear consensus amongst the sources as to how serious the GLF was about the plan but publicly it presented the plan as serious. Otto4711 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Right again. But we can say with certainty what actually happened. Nothing.--John Foxe (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Christian Right[edit]

I don't have a problem with a brief (a sentence or two) reference to McIntire's anti-Catholic views; but the material below places undue emphasis on it in the context of McIntire's notable anti-Communism and opposition to new evangelicalism, especially since this material seems intended to make some larger point about the Old Christian Right rather than discuss McIntire per se. I also note that the material below seems excerpted from a few pages of a single book, and sometimes the references are unclear.

McIntire was also strongly opposed to Roman Catholicism.<ref name=oldchright></ref> He once declared that the "greatest enemy of freedom and liberty that the world has to face today is the Roman Catholic system." Arguing that the Catholic Church was even worse than Communism, McIntire stated that if a choice had to made between the two, "one would be better off in a Communist society, than in a Roman Catholic fascist setup." His efforts to unite fundamentalists against the Catholic Church, however, failed after many rallied around Catholic Senator Joseph McCarthy's crusade against Communism. Though McIntire's efforts to efforts to unite fundamentalists against Catholicism made a brief comeback with the election of the wealthy, Harvard-educated Catholic Senator John F. Kennedy as President in 1960 Presidential election,they wold fall apart once again by the 1964 Presidential election where Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, who was poplar among fundamentalists,picked Catholic William E. Miller as his running-mate.

Along with his friend Billy Hargis, McIntire was one of the most influential people in a movement later known as the "Old Christian Right."<ref name=oldchright165></ref> Both opposed the civil rights movement and argued that desegregation violated the Eighth Commandment by allowing the government to steal from one's property. Both Hargis and McIntire, however, would soon lose influence by failing to capitalize on the fact that most Catholics in America were staunchly anti-communist.<ref name=oldchright166 /> With Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 election, the Old Christian Right would begin an irreversible downward spiral.<ref name=oldchright166></ref> However, a New Christian Right which embraced the Catholic Church would eventually form in the late 1970s.<ref name=oldchright166 />

--John Foxe (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Carl McIntire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Many sources for this article may be found at