Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedSpruce (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 8 June 2007 (→Third Opinion). 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 less to do with McCarthyism specifically 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)

In your pgh 1 you assert that there is a distinction between the cold war climate of hatred toward real and suspected communists and McCarthyism. There isn't. Your pgh 2 doesn't apply in any way I can see. When a scholar's view is a minority view, according to NPOV policy it must be described as such. You haven't demonstrated (or even attempted to demonstrate) that Schrecker's view is a minority view; you've stated that you personally disagree with it (based on the fallacy of pgh 1). Pgh 3 I entirely agree with, except that it applies to you, not me. Please read the WP:NPOV article; perhaps doing so will help you to present your arguments correctly. RedSpruce 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have had enough of your argumentative attitude, Redspruce. Do not take your frustrations out on me when I was trying to help you. You requested the 3O, remember? Now that you have an outside opinion, either accept it or not, but either way, quit complaining and quit criticising where it is not justified. You are violating WP:AGF and making inaccurate comments about me, which must cease right now. Of course there is a distinction between McCarthyism and negative public or personal feeling towards communism. To use an example that illustrates my background in respect of anti-communist feeling, do you think that the general public in Britain thought about McCarthy's ideologies, or just a more general non-communist ideology? I can tell you that it was the latter. Let's put an end to the mistaken idea that I have an opinion about Schecker; I don't know or care if she really has a minority view, but Jtpaladin has made it clear that he believes this to be the case and you have not yet produced evidence to counter it, as far as I know. With regard to his assessment, I have taken him at his word. If you have already provide additional sources, then I wonder whether Jtpaladin should have softened his opinion about Schrecker. As long as there is only one provided source that apparently holds this viewpoint, it should be handled as a minority view in the sense that one needs to apply detachment per my earlier example. You can see that technique used in many articles. Sure, I would have preferred it if Jtpaladin, or another interested and knowledgeable party, could have provide either counter-sources or even sources that supported Schrecker. But they have not done so. So I can only assume that Schrecker's view, regardless of its validity or otherwise, is a minority view. Therefore it should have been presented in the required detached manner. I long ago met you half way by suggesting this modification in order to appease the concerns of the other party, but at no point have you acknowledged that. Adrian M. H. 15:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, I have not failed to assume good faith. I have pointed out your failure to present logical arguments, and when you finally presented arguments, I found fault with them. In particular, I don't accept your interpretation of what McCarthyism means. In the writings of every historian I've ever read on the subject, "McCarthyism" includes a general suspicion and hostility towards real and suspected communists. For the sake of brevity, this aspect of the word may not appear in all dictionary definitions, but it's a part of the way the word is used. By virtue of the cited book, Ellen Schrecker clearly works under that definition. If you know of an author who rejects such a definition, I'd be very interested to hear about it. Further, you still hold that Schrecker's view "should be handled as a minority view," and you "can only assume that Schrecker's view... is a minority view," but you don't justify this. I can only assume that your reason for this is the one that I stated: that you personally disagree with Schrecker's view, based on your limited and incorrect definition of "McCarthyism." Or do you believe that with every point in every article that uses a single source as a reference, that point and that source should be automatically considered a minority view? RedSpruce 18:11, 8 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)

Both of you need to lower the temperature in here. JT, resorting to warnings and threats is not going to encourage consensus with anyone, particularly someone you have been in an edit dispute with. Red, you need to allow your source to be placed in an appropriate context, and allow the definition of "appropriate" to develop by consensus, not through your own sense of "what really happened." -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, but admittedly I was getting a bit disturbed by the claim that Remington was a victim of McCarthyism when in fact he was convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with McCarthy or the time period in which he was convicted. The man who murdered Remington in prison was clearly a mentally disturbed individual who used whatever reason he wanted to use in order to excuse his crime. People get murdered in prison all the time and make up phoney excuses to explain their behavior. Taking the word of this prisoner is hardly the basis of making an argument for Remington being a victim of McCarthyism. If the sentence is to be included, I would think that a better source be given and consensus be established for it. Jtpaladin 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Schrecker's view of Remington's homicide does not belong in the first paragraph. I have placed it in the final paragraph, with a wikilink to the scholar who asserts it, and followed by a Gary May quote that also assesses the meaning of Remington's case. This shows a range of scholarly opinion without choosing sides. There is no question that Schrecker is a qualified expert, but her opinion is not definitive. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I don't agree with you that Schrecker's view doesn't belong in the first paragraph; I think it belongs in the intro because it gives context that explains a major reason why Remington is a notable person. However, I accept the change as a compromise. RedSpruce 20:01, 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. I will post this comment on your User page and the Remington Discussion page as well. Thank you. Jtpaladin 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

JT, this is not a tug-o'-war between you and RedSpruce. Also, kindly address the article in its current form. The article does not identify Remington as a "'victim' of 'McCarthyism'." The word "victim" does not occur at all, and the reference to McCarthyism is in a qualified context. Schrecker is now cited with a link to the article about her, so readers can easily get additional information to evaluate the claim. It is also placed alongside May's summation of the case. You may consider Schrecker "very biased," and you may be right, but she is nevertheless a qualified source. The problem consisted in using her book as the only or definitive source. If you want to exclude it entirely, I cannot support you without better cause. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, I have already agreed to your edit and find the subject closed. I think you did a great job in settling the matter. Thank you for your efforts. However RedSpruce is engaging in personal attacks putting him in violation of WP:NPA, as can be found here ]. He needs to get a grip on reality and understand that consensus building is part of the work in making an article work and that he does not own the Remington article. I would appreciate if you could tell him to stop vandalizing my Talk page with his bizzare comments. Thank you. Jtpaladin 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)