Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adrian M. H. (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 7 June 2007 (→Third Opinion: last reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ruy Lopez: Any changes you make to any of these espionage articles will require proper sourcing, or they will be reverted. nobs 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez addditions

Reverted and placed here pending sourcing

Remington sued Bentley for libel for her claims. Remington won the case - the jury foudn that Bentley had made false accusations and had libeled Remington, and he was awarded several thousand dollars.

The source is West's 88 Federal Supplement 166, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Remington vs. Bentley Ruy Lopez 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(1) Source needs to attributed; (2) need time reference (obviously he didn't sue her after he was murdered in prison). When that is completed, I will take it on good faith that you have not hidden any appeals and subsequent decisions that may have occurred. nobs 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It is attributed. The suit ended on February 28th, 1950. And while looking that up I found more evidence of the flakiness of this flaky Vassar girl, thanks. Ruy Lopez 02:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not propose deleting this sentence; I am stating it somehow has pronouns mixed up as because Bentley is a woman and it seems to refer to her as "he" (or Bentley cannot speak for the knowledge "he" has). Let's try to make sense of this for inclusion. Thank you.

"Bentley falsely claimed that he did not know Bentley other than as a reporter for liberal publications."

nobs 17:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? This was only an attempt to make a few Dollars when in fact, as was found later, he was found guilty and even his own ex-wife stated that Remington was a communist. Some of you people get caught up in the most minor details and yet miss the big picture. This guy was a loyalty and security risk!! Jtpaladin 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

McCarthyism nonsense

Your source is incredibly POV. That statement is so POV that it is completely absurd. How can you use a highly left-wing POV that is making nothing but a ridiculous assertion? McCarthy had nothing to do Remington being convicted of his crimes or even having been murdered as a result of anything McCarthy had said. All of your sources come from one highly biased book. This is not scholarly work. This is like blaming Clinton for the death of Jeffrey Dahmer. This is also like saying that the spy, Jonathan Pollard is a victim of McCarthyism. Totally ridiculous. Not even the article on "McCarthyism" lists Remington as a victim even though Schrecker and her discredited book, "Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America" is used as a source. Drop this nonsense because it does not adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jtpaladin 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your declaration that a source is "discredited" and doesn't qualify as a WP:Reliable source does not make it so. What you consider to be "ridiculous" is irrelevant. Your analogies are irrelevant. If you have a source that presents a contrary opinion, you are welcome to add it. RedSpruce 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Responding to request at 3O: I have read through the article, but I fail to see any tangible and direct connection between McCarthyism and Remington's death that would allow his death to be attributed to McCarthy or his policies. Of course, his circumstances could be attributed to the socio-political climate of the era – with which McCarthy obviously has an association – due to the manner in which he was pursued through hearings and trials until "justice" (in the view of the anti-Communist factions of the authorities) was seen to be done. But that does not properly constitute a direct causal relationship between McCarthy and the ending of Remington's life by two fellow inmates.

The article's revision history shows that the addition in question was poorly phrased in a way that allowed for a POV. Which is always to be avoided, of course, but even more so when the statement itself has weak foundations. It is perfectly possible for books to be biased (just read some of the books about the JFK conspiracy theories, for instance) and it seems to me that the book in question may be biased (or otherwise less than inscrutable) if it includes such obviously tenuous assertions.

Therefore I strongly recommend that you leave this statement out of the article. Adrian M. H. 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and your recommendation. Of course it is possible for books and other sources to be biased. However, WP policy is that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth," so the question is whether this is a valid source. No argument has been presented showing that it isn't. Since your argument doesn't address the issue of the source's validity, it isn't terribly relevant, but nevertheless I would like to point out that part of it is based on an incorrect assumption: that "McCarthyism" refers solely to things related to Joseph McCarthy himself. It doesn't, as a dictionary will tell you, so there is no requirement that there be a "direct causal relationship between McCarthy and the ending of Remington's life"

The article stated that this murder "has been cited as one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." This was a correct and inarguable statement of fact, drawn from a reliable source. If you think this statement should be left out of the article, I'd like to hear a valid reason why. I would also like some clarification of your opinion that the text was "poorly phrased in a way that allowed for a POV." RedSpruce 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not made an assumption that "McCarthyism refers solely to things related to Joseph McCarthy himself". How stupid do you think someone has to be to fail to fully comprehend the meaning of a widely used eponym? Making comments about dictionaries is unwarranted, and I consider that to be misjudged on your part. Since I have not made any such assumption, I suggest that you review your very inaccurate interpretation of my assessment. You do not have to quote a well known extract from a key policy to me, either. Your dispute is not about verifiability: it is about the debatable quality and potential bias of both the source and the statement. You have merely succeeded in verifying that one author made the assertion in question, without attempting to find a more appropriate way of presenting that assertion or reconsidering whether it would be more productive not to include it at all. I can see no evidence of any attempt to rephrase your edit to report the author's assertion in a more detached way, which is the least that you can do if you want to convince Jtpaladin that it should be included. You may have found other editors to be more amenable towards your contribution had you done that earlier, before resorting to 3O. Adrian M. H. 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see any way to interpret your point about the lack of a "direct causal relationship between McCarthy and the ending of Remington's life" except as a misunderstanding of the word McCarthyism. Perhaps it was just a typo and you meant to write McCarthyism rather than McCarthy. This word is misunderstood by many, and I had to (try to) explain it to another editor just a few weeks ago. I don't think such a misunderstanding requires any great stupidity, but perhaps I'm wrong.

"You have merely succeeded in verifying that one author made the assertion in question" -- that's all I have to do, because that's all the article says. So I'm glad to hear I was successful.

"I can see no evidence of any attempt to rephrase your edit to report the author's assertion" That's because I made no such attempt. As far as I know and as far as anyone has pointed out, the statement in the article is completely reasonable and unbiased and has not been argued against by any reliable source.

RedSpruce 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that most educated native English speakers (and probably the majority of non-English speakers) would (or should) have a broad (basic) understanding of McCarthyism and anti-Communist sentiment and activity of that era. The material that you added may not have been contended by any reliable source, but Jtpaladin removed your edit twice as far I can see, so he clearly has an issue with it, and that is what matters most and needs to be resolved either way. It's why you came to 3O, after all. That you made no attempt to revise your addition was precisely what I was highlighting, with the polite proviso that you might have made a revised attempt that I had missed. If you were to try an alternative tack, you might find that it is enough to prevent the edit war between the two of you from beginning again. A compromise, if successful, is generally better than the one-sided outcome that often results from edit wars when one party is the first to walk away, even if they might not have been in the wrong. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When an editor, or even two editors, state an opinion that some content is biased, but present no evidence or logical argument to support their opinion, I don't see that as a call to seek a compromise. RedSpruce 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you were perhaps unwise to seek a third opinion. I'll consider this matter closed from my point of view and let the two of you work this out in a mature way. Adrian M. H. 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And I would say that it was unwise of you to offer a third opinion if you couldn't support that opinion with a logical argument, or even clarify what you said. Third opinions shouldn't be "opinions" in the sense of "I prefer vanilla to chocolate because it tastes better." RedSpruce 14:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) If you are going to be particularly obtuse about it, I will make one more post here and spell it out for you. I have already made it abundantly clear why the link between the political climate and Remington's death at the hands of violent prisoners is only tenuously linked: he was successfully tried for perjury, not communist activity, some charges of which related to his passing of secret material. The prisoners used his alleged political beliefs as a reason to attack him, but that has little to do with McCarthyism and more to do with the wider post-war climate.

I'm sure you are already familiar with the section of WP:NPOV entitled A Simple Formulation; it states that NPOV not only applies to material but also to its sources and states that you must not assert the opinions of said sources, but report them in a fair and factual manner. A fictional example: "John Smith stated in his book that . . . . but his is the only publication to have espoused this viewpoint". You may also add that "it has not been the subject of any significant denouncements from his established literary peers".

Next up, you should read the sections entitled A vital component: good research and Attributing and substantiating biased statements. If, after reading WP:NPOV in full, you still cannot present this author's assertion in the proper manner, then you will likely find the other editor's opinion to be unchanged, and I would have to agree with him. Adrian M. H. 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Red, consensus is against you. Stop putting that part in because it does not meet WP:CON, WP:Revert, and WP:RS. If you restore it without tipping the scales of consensus in your favor, you are in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Also, you are using only one source when in fact there are other sources available as well. Jtpaladin 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. You are advocating an edit that you have not in any way defended. You are deleting a simple and inarguable statement of fact: That Remington's death has been cited as being a result of McCarthyism. At no point have you argued that this fact is incorrect, and yet you want the fact removed from the article. As I've said before, if there other sources that give a contrary argument, by all means add something from them. Alternatively, since you think I'm such a rampaging WP outlaw, please bring in an admin to tell me the error of my ways. RedSpruce 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)