Talk:Red-baiting/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Red-baiting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cleanup

The article as it stands mixes together several different definitions in a very confusing way. Someone needs to seperate them and organize them historically, I think.

It also entirely lacks references. Kalkin 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Scare periods

"... the two historic Red Scare periods of the 1930s and 1950s." I think this may be a typo. The first Red Scare period I think was late in in the Wilson Administration, 1919-1921, isn't that right? Boris B 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Kalkin 06:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Total POV violation

This article complete and utterly violates both the letter and spirit of NPOV. It is one of the most egregious examples POV I have ever seen in a wikipedia article. And given the general Leftist-slant of wikipedia, that's saying something!

Weasel words such as "one view would hold"--especially when unsourced, but sourced or not--do not change the fact that the editor has a pro-Leninist position and is using this article to spread the same tired lies and propaganda about Joseph McCarty.

If you are interest in the ACTUAL TRUTH about McCarthy you MUST read M. Staunton Evans--America's foremost expert on McCarthy--book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joseph McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies.

There is no evidence or proof that Sen. McCarthy was gay. Not that it means anythiing. I find it fascinating, however, that Leftists such as these editors are so idiotic in their thinking that they hope the mere accusing him of gayness they'll somehow "turn" anti-communists such as myself against him.

Do you people have any idea how ridiculously silly this is? I doubt it.

If you stopped to think "you'd fall off your egos and land on your IQs" --Lt. Col. Oliver North.

The fact is--and Soviet archives prove this, as do the Venona Decrypts, that there was massive infiltration of the US government by Soviet intelligence in the 30s and 40s. Laughlin McCurry--FDR's personal assistant was a Soviet agent! And there were hundreds more. McCarthy's claim of "118" Soviet agents inside the government was a considerable underestimate.

Had Roosevelt died in from (Jan) 1941 - (Jan) 1945, his Vice President Henry Wallace was so soft on the Soviets that his two closest advisers, certainly destined for cabinet positions in a Wallace administration, were Soviet spies!

and, unlike the editor of the article I can source my facts: see The Sword and The Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive, The Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew.

PainMan (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Crypto-communism redirect

While related, there is no mention of what a crypto-communist or crypto-communism is anywhere on this page. Someone specifically looking for this information would only find it on the page about Crypto-politics, so it seems that crypto-communism should redirect there instead. 69.12.129.253 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As the person who created that redirect, I actually came to the conclusion a few days ago and was about to do just that. So thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda is not the same as Red-Baiting

This article doesn't seem to know the difference. Red-baiting is specifically tied to "communism". It is not a generic term for propaganda labeling ie: McCain/Obama and socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.66.48 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Words evolve so I think you are both right and wrong but I've edited the article taking into account what you have said. --Loremaster (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is primarily an opinion piece. The first half of the article is without cited sources.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits because your stated rationales don't make sense. That being said, I disagree that the article is on opinion piece. However, I agree with you that Ronald Reagan and the conservative ascent section of the article needs a source. That being said, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding section about Nixon defeating Voorhis using redbaiting

I see in "Today's featured article" that Nixon used redbaiting effectively in his campaign to defeat "Jerry Voorhis". JohnI (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps we should reimagine the way we categorize content on this article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Party

Added "dubious" tag to Matthew Yglesias's assertion that the United States never had a Socialist Party. A quick check indicates that this is not so. Bdmcmahon (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag because you can't add such a tag in a quote. That being said, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Therefore, regardless of whether or not Yglesias's assertion is correct, the only thing that is important is whether that quote of Yglesias's writings is relevant to this article and that it is based on a relatively reliable source. Furthermore, you can only debate the dubiouness of Yglesias's assertion by paraphrasing or quoting a reliable source that is critical of his assertion. --Loremaster (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

After reading Thomas Frank's article The Triumph of the Conservative Underground: Glenn Beck's Holy War, I'm increasingly wondering if and how we should mention Glenn Beck in this article... --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the article to mention the most notable example of Glenn Beck engaging in red-baiting. --Loremaster (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Socialist

One does not have to self identify to be a socialist. Take FDR's attempt to pack the supreme court with his appointees to further his social agenda. That is a fact not red-bating. I argue that his was a socialist agenda and that socialism is in opposition to capitalism. Therefore those who promote Capitalism over Socialism are not red-bating. Some of the authors of this article have an axe to grind.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

uh, what you said didn't make any sense and reveals that you are a right-wing populist so I'm not sure it would be productive to argue with you so I won't... --Loremaster (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously one of those with an axe to grind. Try responding without the Ad hominem attack if you want to have a rational discussion. This article is clearly biased as to the definition of red-baiting, as if any opinion which is anti-socialist equals red-bating. Unless you can recognize that is see no point in engaging you in debate. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind. I'm only interested in expanding and improving this article from a neutral point of view despite my progressive bias. However, I do apologize for personally attacking since it isn't conducive to convincing you that you are wrong.
Only someone with an extreme right-wing bias would think that FRD was a socialist. His agenda might be legitimately described as minimally social democratic. However, there is an obviously a difference between social democracy and socialism. Hint: Social democracy is capitalism with a social safety net while socialism abolishes capitalism by implenting public or direct worker ownership and administration of all industries. Hmmm... does the latter sound like something FDR did? Of course not. Again, only someone with an extreme right-wing bias can't differentiate between these two ideologies/systems. Therefore, someone who accuses FDR of being a socialist or, worse, a communist is in fact a (misinfomed) red-baiter.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we live in a constitutional republic where our elected representatives hold the other side at bay. I have no doubt that some of our presidents would have abandoned the vision of liberty that the founders fought for and would have imposed equality, the aim of socialism, on us long ago. Social democracy is just another name for fascism under the guise of social justice. This article isn't about any of this though, it's about a political epithet employed to criticize people you disagree with. This article is being USED to criticize individuals.
Your previous comment "I'm increasingly wondering if and how we should mention Glenn Beck in this article..." exposes your axe grinding. Clearly you are active in original research. That's my gripe about the tone of this article. It is all about exposing red-baiters, not about describing the subject of the article, it is full of weasel words. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact the founders approved of the extermination of many native Americans, the enslavement of many African slaves, and the treatment of all women as second-class citizens; it's all a question of perspective since many Americans have no doubt that President Bush abandoned the vision of "liberty" that the founders fought for and would have imposed martial law, the aim of fascism (which is arguably a reactionary form of capitalism), on us not too long ago... That being said, only an extreme right-winger would argue that social democracy is just another name for fascism. Why any rational individual is unable to see the objective differences between a peaceful social democracy like Sweden and a murderous fascist regime like Nazi Germany is beyond my comprehension.
This article is about a political epithet employed by some people to criticize people that are engaging in an activity that can be accurately or inaccurately described as "red-bating". But this article is not being "used" to criticize individuals. However, no one is beyond criticism. If a reliable source criticizes a notable individual by describing him as engaging in red-baiting, it is our responsibility as Wikipedia contributors to mention this in an article about red-baiting regarless of our personal POV.
Putting aside that I updated my previous comment, I don't have an axe to grind. I simply asked on this talk page a reasonable question based on my reading of an article on Glenn Beck in which he is accused of engaging in red-baiting. Original research would be editing the Wikipedia article on red-baiting to accuse Beck of reb-baiting without providing a source. I haven't done that.
That being said, you are probably right that the tone of the article in some sections, specifically the Ronald Reagan section (which I didn't originally create but that I've tried to improve), could be rewritten to be more neutral. I'll definitely work on that. But, ultimately, we have to report that what reliable sources tell us in the tone that they use. In other words, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Loremaster, thank you for recognizing the defects and making the changes you have made so far. But with all due respect do I have to pick apart each section to demonstrate to you that almost everything in the History section is opinion. Very little there is referencing source material specifically on Red-bating. Most of it is he said she said kind of stuff. Wikipedia is not an opinion journal, it is inappropriate to use blogs (YGLESIAS) as reliable, peer reviewed, 3rd party sources. It is also against WIKI policy to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". You should know this stuff. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your (surprisingly) reasonable comments. That being said, you seem confused. There is nothing wrong with opinion and so-called "he said she said kind of stuff". As long as it is relevant to the topic of the article, we must mention facts AND opinions found in reliable sources. Although 3rd-party sources are ideal, Wikipedia guidelines tells us that 1st-party sources can used in some cases. However, you are right that blogs are not considered reliable sources but they can be if the author is notable and has previously published the same content in a book or an article. As for the accusation of "synthesis", it is simply inaccurate in this case. --Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent bias?

I think this article currently suffers from WP:Recentism. 'Red-baiting' is a phrase that, as far as I am aware, was first invented during the 'Red Scare' in the Cold War, and is still generally most associated with that period. However, this article only has a sentence referring to that context, and the rest of it is about events since 2008. In fact, I'm not sure any of the quotes given as recent examples even use the phrase 'red-baiting'. Robofish (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article suffers from recentism but I disagree that the phrase 'red-baiting' wasn't used by pundits and journalists when discussing and reporting these recent events. --Loremaster (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You may disagree all you want, but what is needed are verifiable reliable sources using the term red-baiting.128.170.170.242 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Although sources that explicitly use the term “red-baiting” are needed, not all sources need to use it as long as they are reporting an incident that perfectly fits the commonly-accepted definition of the term. --Loremaster (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has, over time, had many tags for WP:verifiability WP:synthesis and WP:NPOV which were removed without resolution. As recently as April 11, 2009 the article was completely without source citations. Since then citations have been added that form a synthesis of ideas which equate debate and political posturing with McCarthyism. The lead section has been constructed so as to define red-baiting in a way that justifies including political debate under the guise of history. There is no need for a history section unless the history of red-baiting is going to be told.

What is the commonly-accepted definition of Red-baiting? Red-baiting is NOT an epithet in and of itself. Epitheta may be employed as a tactic in the act of red-baiting. The sentence on crypto-communism is without source citation and written in the passive voice starting with the weasel words "It is claimed that" . The sentence on who uses the term red bating is also not sourced, as is the sentence starting with the weasel words "It must therefore be understood". All these violations of Wiki policy illustrate the bias of the contributors. The debate over wether or not Barack Obama's policies are more of less socialist that other presidents or what the Republican National Committee thinks of the Democratic Party detract from the historical significance of red-baiting.

Red-baiting is the act of accusing, denouncing, or attacking a person or a cause as Communist or sympathic toward Communism. Unless there are sources that specifically equate current events with the historical incidences of McCarthyism style red-baiting they do not belong in this article. This is the essence of the recent bias claim and it is justified. This carrying on about the Early to mid-20th century nonsense is distracting from the the historical meaning mentioned by user:Robofish above. All the weasel words and unverifiable claims form a synthesis of ideas not supprted by any cited definition of red-bating. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree with some of your arguments, I'll work on resolving all these problems as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you should step back from this article and request a review by an expert on the subject. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact it has been my experience with other articles that experts rarely show up when we make such requests, I am confident we can improve this article without any help from a so-called expert. That being said, forgive me for laughing at your suggestion in light of the extreme bias you revealed you have in section above. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles linking recent events to red-baiting

Improvements to the article in light of recent criticism

I improved the Lead section by downsizing it to a stub paragraph which uses the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a source. Feel free to expand it. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I resolved the recentism problem by expanding the section on the 20th century dedicated to McCarthyism. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tags that were no longer appropriate in light of my improvements. However, I added a synthesis tag to the section dedicated to the 21st century only because we need to discuss what synthesis is and isn't in order to resolve this dispute once for all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the synthesis tag in light of my recent improvements. --Loremaster (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Plagiarism

The updated 20the century stuff does nothing to answer the Recentism claim. Red-baiting is confined to the red-scare periods as defined in the lead section. Besides that the content of the McCarthyism section is blatant plagiarism of the source material. Therefore I am reverting the edits.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Although you are right about the plagiarism problem, please explain why a lenghty section on 20th century red-baiting does nothing to answer the recentism claim when it obviously adds balance of historical and recents events to the article. By the way, you do realize that for many Americans the word “communist” and “socialist” is synonymous since many communists often call themselves socialists, right? --Loremaster (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have better things to do than spend time on weekends explaining plagiarism, synthesis, recentism and existing articles on McCarthyism. I will attempt to keep this short and to the point.

Plagiarism is more than a "problem" it is a serious violation of wiki policy not to mention dishonest.

McCarthyism is not red-baiting and rehashing it in this article does nothing to enhance the encyclopedic nature of an article about red-baiting. An article on McCarthyism already exists.

The whole history section has no place in this article unless the history of ANTI-COMMUNIST red-baiting is what is covered. Grafting on incidences of contemporary political persecution does not tell the story of red-baiting unless there are reliable, cited source demonstrating that it fits the definition given in the lead section, otherwise it is synthesis. I am not saying that there is no place in this article for current events, I am saying that they are not history, they're controversy. It was synthesis to call them history.

Any student who would have searched Wikipedia for a primer on red-baiting would be severely criticized for presenting an essay that defined it as being primarily about the evils of 21st century Republican Politics. So I have created a brief history of red-baiting. I have also created a section for controversy where the current events and debate belong. I have tried to put things into perspective and welcome anyone, with a more extensive knowledge of the subject and citable sources, to engage me on the revisions I present.

I reverted your edit of my original internal link to Political radicalism in the lead section. I believe it's definition is more in line with the cited source and political radicalism can be either left or right. The more ambigious Radical left link you used is still connected to the words left-wing politics. I am also removing the internal links to Ad hominem attacks and Political repression as they are too limiting as to the definition of the tactics used. Leave it to the reader to decide the meanings of accusing, denouncing, attacking or persecuting.

I see you are claiming credit for the changes made to this article. You are too invested, you act like you own this article. You make numerous small edits to the article which barely change the content and proclaim the disputes resolved then remove tags. Your repeated small edits clutter the history page, it's no wonder you have 40,000 + edits, your work is amaturish. Try proofing your ideas in your sandbox before you edit an article.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that plagiarism is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, I never hid the fact that I was copying content from Free Encyclopedia since I made sure to indicate that its article on red-baiting was the source of said content. To be honest, my goal was that I or someone else would edit this content enough so that the accusation of plagiarism would be quickly neutralized. It was a mistake that I will not repeat.
Although you may personally believe that McCarthyism is not a form of red-baiting, there are plenty of liberal and conservative scholars we can quote that disagree with you. Therefore, a summary of McCarthyism in an article about red-baiting is extremely pertinent. By the way, you seem to think that red-baiting implies the red-baiter is dishonest or mistaken. The common definition of red-baiting doesn't imply that. On contrary, it is only when we accuse someone of McCarthyism that there is suggestion of dishonesty or mistake.
Although you may want to limit red-baiting to anti-communist red-baiting, an encyclopedic article must be comprenhensive enough to cover all forms of red-baiting whether it be anti-anarchist, anti-communist or anti-socialist. Therefore, lead section is not comprehensive enough and must edited to reflect all facts. Furthermore, all notable historical AND recent examples of red-baiting MUST be documented in a comprehensive encyclopedic article. It is simply absurd to argue the opposite and your repeated accusation of synthesis doesn't hold water.
I completely agree with you that this article suffered from recentism. I was simply too busy (with other articles I am focused on editing) to research 20th-century red-baiting in order to expand the relevant section in the article. So it was my hope that some editor (like you) would eventually take the time to do it for me. That being said, I appreciate your recent edits but I have made several changes in order to suppress the subtle or clumlsy conservative bias you are trying to push as well as restructure the article to reflect some Wikipedia guidelines concerning controversies and criticisms.
I have no problem with you reverting my edit of your original internal link to the Political radicalism article in the lead section for the good reasons you have stated nor you removing in the internal links to the Ad hominem and political repression articles.
Putting aside the fact that I removed the tags because some of them were inappropriate to begin with, what you interpret as “amateurishness” on my part is actually bad habits. However, to respond more generally to your past and future personal attacks against me, I will only say this once: I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles painstakingly making sure that my edits are factually accurate and supported by references as much as possible. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my general knowledge and usual respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. And I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. However, I have also had to endure every violation of behavioral guidelines one can imagine including insults, personal attacks, threats, and harassement but I'm still here despite all that abuse. Therefore, you'll have to forgive me for not taking your criticisms of me seriously especially since you have revealed a far-right bias that clouds your judgement. In other words, I'm here to stay. Get used to it. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias

The "owner" of this article continues to make statements not supported in the cited references and drawing conclusions that fit his personal point of view. For example nowhere in any of the cited referenced defining red-baiting is it defined other than anti-communist. The author has synthesized the argument that red baiting involves socialists and anarchists in addition to communist.

Red-baiting (Noun): the act of attacking or persecuting as a Communist or as communistic or Red-bait (Verb): to subject a person or group to red-baiting or to engage in red-baiting. merriam-webster.com
Red·bait (verb): to denounce or deprecate as a political radical, esp. to accuse of being communist.Dictionary.com
Red·bait (verb): to denounce (a person or group) as being communist, esp. with little or no evidence. yourdictionary.com
Redbait: To accuse, denounce, or attack (a person, for example) as a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. thefreedictionary.com

He continues to rewrite my edits to fit his personal prejudices. He also makes hundreds of minor edits to the article effectively preventing comparisons to other authors edits. Nearly every entry on the talk pages is critical of either Tone or POV. He has archived small portions of the talk page to hide criticism of his work.

I call on an administrator to reprimand this user for his demonstrable bias and lack of good faith. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Good luck with that request. ;)

Putting aside the fact that is it laughable that someone who has revealed such a far-right bias on this talk page (by describing FDR as a socalist opposed to capitalism!) would have the audacity to accuse anyone else of pushing a POV, your last version of the article cleary had a conservative bias that I am trying to edit out in order for the article to be neutral. As for your claim that red-baiting only targets communists because of a few online dictionary definitions you have found, you should know that, unlike an encyclopedia, a dictionary isn't and can't be comprehensive.
The fact that you admit that the first wave of red-baiting targeted anarchists invalidates the claim that red-baiting only targets communists. Furthermore, if you had read the left-wing politics article, you would know that “radical left-wing politics” (an expression you added to the Lead section of this article) applies to a number of revolutionary movements, especially socialism, anarchism and communism. Futhermore, the red flag is often used at both socialist and communist rallies, especially on May Day.
You are right that I need to find sources for the content you dispute. I'll work on that right now.
Despite hundreds of minor edits to the article, you can always very easily comparing the current version of the article with the last one you edited. For example: Difference between Revision as of 02:42, 10 February 2010 and Current revision as of 16:20, 22 February 2010
According to one Wikipedia guideline, "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly [...], do not submit it".

--Loremaster (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The senior editor Loremaster is not synthesizing material to support a point of view. There are ample citations of verifiable sources, many of high realiability, that support the senior editor's contention: Red-baiting includes the smear of socialists/social democrats/liberals as being positively associated with communism or anarchism (i.e. of terrorist anarchism that was expelled from the First Internationale rather than the gentle folks living on communes).

After taking a breather, the critics should focus on documenting errors in the article and discussing the merits of revisions. Complaining about the "bias" and "lack of faith" of the senior editor in the abstract doesn't seem to have accomplished your goals, and may have caused your knuckles to be inflamed, so why continue negating the Wikipedia guideline of "assume good faith"?

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy and Truman

Doesn't this article downplay the contribution to red-baiting by Truman and his loyalty oaths, etc.? I don't have the books nearby that would allow me to offer more than this kibbitzing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article use to mention the President Dwight Eisenhower's loyalty programm when it contained content from the Farlex Free Encyclopedia's entry on red-baiting but it was deleted due to copyrights violation... --Loremaster (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama is a centrist Democrat?

Seems this article gives undue weight to the guest column op-ed of some Atlanta Attorney. I don't see anything regarding the many reliable sources that reported Obama being ranked the most liberal senator of 2007,[1] or any of the charges from some his leading opponents. I don't care to state it one way or another - not sure it's particularly relevant or the place for that content. In any case, the two sentences on Mr. Clark's opinion without any balance is bias and out of place. Morphh ^(talk) 20:58, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

This blog is also used as a source for a couple things, which violates our reliable source polices.[2] His opinion also seems like undue weight. Find reliable secondary sources. This should be removed. Morphh ^(talk) 21:06, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how one comes across these types of articles. I wikilinked it from the Glenn Beck BLP. Seems like this article has been heavily geared toward recent events by a particular POV. †TE†Talk 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... Morphh ^(talk) 21:20, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

Red-baiting is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Red-baiting being a contoversial topic has little to do with edits based on wiki policies. Morphh's edits are not "substantial," other than removing the opinion of a Georgia lawyer as undue weight. I would've went a step further and removed the fringe opinion that the use of red-baiting against Obama's policies is thinly veiled racism by white folks in fear that those policies will erode white privilege in the United States. †TE†Talk 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Term clarification

I had asked for a source for the statement that John McCain red-baited Obama. Loremaster removed it without explanation (which I hope is not a trend or agenda as I greatly respect his work in Transhumanism articles - even game him a barnstar at one point I believe...). At the time, I had questioned if this was opinion or fact. This was due to my understanding of similar terms, like race-baiting, which "can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists." The red-baiting definition seems to imply that anyone pejoratively calling someone else a socialist or communist is red-baiting, whether it's accurate or not. If I denounce Hugo Chávez for his socialist policies, am I red-baiting? According to our definition, yes. So if we state as a fact that John McCain red-baited Obama, I have to question if this is an opinion based on someones belief that Obama is not a socialist, or if it's a factual statement just because anyone accusing someone of socialist beliefs is red-baiting. Morphh ^(talk) 4:06, 08 April 2010 (UTC)

Red-baiting is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)