This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In the section entitled "Case against Moss," several "sources" are presented as supposed historical support for the claim that Moss was a "communist operative." Two of those supposed sources, "Accuracy in Media" and Ann Coulter, are well known for having political agendas and their neutrality is extremely questionable. Their neutrality is not questioned because the author of this criticism has political opinions that are different from the other forementioned authors. It would not matter whether the sources of the purported historical information were politically "conservative" or "liberal" in regard to their respective opinions; the fact is that they are well known for being politically motivated and therefore are not good sources to support claims of objectivity. Historically, very little evidence was ever discovered that actually impeached Moss, and what was presented was based solely on uncorroborated hearsay (not to mention the fact that she was forced to defend a constitutionally protected activity). The authenticity of the supposed list of Communist Party members was very much in question and could never be verified by the accusers. To cite persons like Ann Coulter, a person well known for her very extreme political opinions, as supposed historical support only casts more doubt on the veracity of the claims. If sources are to be alleged, they should adhere as much to the actual historical record as possible without regard to their own personal opinions. Lottamiata 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you notice you have 4 scare quotes in your writing? There is no place in the article that I say she was a "communist operative". I only supply the evidence from the testimony that she was a member of the Communist Party. It was based on her name and address appearing on a list of those attending a meeting where an FBI informant had access to that list. She also received a communist magazine at her house. Its a big leap to go from attending a Communist meeting and reading a communist magazine to being a "communist operative". I saw the movie Good Night and Good Luck and did research on her expecting to find evidence that she wasn't a member. I was suprised by the lack of evidence. If you know of any sourced material write it up and reference it. I even went through the 1930 census and the 1940 telephone directories to see if there were other people named "Annie Moss" in the area. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading Mr. Norton's comments and I thank him for them, but I am still not convinced of the article's neutrality. I am perplexed as to precisely how one proves that someone is "not" a communist. This is the logical problem of "proving a negative." That is why the accuser should have the burden of proof, not the accused. So, instead of "looking for evidence to prove she was not a communist" (which is logically impossible), one should be looking for evidence to prove that Moss actually was a communist. This is why I am so skeptical of the cited "sources."
The "Subversive Activities Control Board" is a bona fide "source." Even if one disagrees with their methods or opinions, they are a proper historical source because they were first-hand percipient witnesses or participants in the underlying historical event. However, the other two "sources," Accuracy in Media and Ann Coulter discredit the objectivity of the historical recounting because they are highly partisan and were not contemporary to the events.
Whether "liberal" or "conservative," the opinions of political commentators should only be injected into historical research where their comments were contemporary to the events and therefore part of the history of the subject. Otherwise, commentators used to support a particular historical analysis should be limited to historical commentators whose opinions are not particularly activist in nature.
For an example on the left-wing end of the political spectrum, I would not use something that Noam Chomsky wrote as a historical citation for a supportive view of the redistributive economic policies of the New Deal (Great Depression Era United States History), even if Mr. Chomsky approved of that policy (and I am not sure he did, I am merely trying to concoct an example to show that this is not about whether one is on the right end or the left end of the political spectrum but is instead purely about credibility in the writing of history). Chomsky is well-known for his activist opinions on the political left, but he was not a contemporary commentator of the New Deal era and therefore is not a proper historical source. Lottamiata 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is biased towards Moss. It has been definitively proven in M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" that Moss was a Soviet agent. Whittakerchambers ( talk)
This section reads like it was an argument between two sides. They style is poor and uncyclopedic. I propose that the for and against Moss be synthesised into one coherent section-- Ernstk 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The two sections are ridiculously lopsided. Somebody's gone in and added parenthetical responses to everything in the "case for Moss" section, while the assertions in the "case against Moss" section are allowed to stand on their own. This, combined with citing people like Ann Coulter rather than peer-reviewed historians, is a perfect example of why Wikipedia gets the bad rap it does on historical articles such as this. -- Spyder130 ( talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I stick this in the wrong place- I'm a total newb. Just curious- does anyone know what happened to Ms Moss after the hearings? Did she lose her job? Was she able to redeem her reputation during her lifetime? i would think this sort of information would make a valuable contribution to the article if anyone knows how to locate it.
I want to thank Lottamiata for his insight with regards as to how one 'proves' or disproves that your not a communist. I entirely agree with his comments that it is up to the accuser to give proof in order to acertain the facts in the case and the witness - in this case Ms. Moss , should have had the ability to cross examine any witnesses the senators brought forth. The problem lies not in the theory but in the practice. The 'control board' seems entirely morally equal with his later example of Noam Chomsky in that - at least according to him. Mr. Chomsky is "well known for his activist opinions". Respect where it is due there is a serious factor in the left/question of what happened to Moss, if one is going to use the example or Chomsky for the supposed left, and thereby brining into doubt the position held by what some call the left. Its equally valid to paint with the sme brush the actions of Mcarthy and all of thier hearing and thier veracity because of Mcarty's activism.
DRCarroll 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Conservative media watchdog organization, Accuracy in Media, wrote: "[The] Subversive Activities Control Board presented solid evidence that Markward's testimony was true and that the Annie Lee Moss who appeared before the McCarthy committee was in fact a member of the Communist Party." [2]"
Solid evidence? Perhaps a change to simply "evidence" or "purported evidence" would be more objective.
I concur that Lottamiata has a valid point. The material offered by AIM and A. Coulter is opinion, not data. Articles such as this should exclude opinions and focus on the facts. RalphS 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the AIM paragraph as repetitive and current opinion. Elemming 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about trying to write about the truth, its a compilation of verifiable information from primary through tertiary sources. Truth is for philosophers, not encyclopediasts. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
RedSpruce just reverted a great deal of work, with his only explanation, "Evans is not a reliable source." Unless he can substantiate that, I recommend that his reversion be reverted. Mark LaRochelle 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where the 1999 WaPo article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/2000/markward070599.htm) cited as the source of the statement that Markward's testimony was the only evidence presented of Moss' CP membership actually supports the statement. Am I missing something? Mark LaRochelle 07:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where Oshinsky p. 403 supports the contention that the CP membership list was "compiled by an FBI informer." Can anyone defend this? Mark LaRochelle 06:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is due for a rewrite. The "case for"/"case against" format may have been okay when the article was much shorter, but I think it no longer works. It should probably be replaced with a chronological account of the various accusations, hearings, revelations of evidence, and notable writings about the Moss case. It looks like the Andrea Friedman article may something of a "last word" on the case, so anyone interested in undertaking this rewrite should pony up the $10.00 for that. Don't look at me, though; I'm willing to offer comments, but at the moment I'm not interested in embarking on such a project myself. RedSpruce 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've completely rewritten the article. It now focusses on the aspect of the Moss case that most books that cover the case focus on: the damage it did to Joseph McCarthy. Although this version doesn't spend as much space on the question of Moss's guilt, it covers the evidence quite thoroughly. According to my research, this version presents the likelihood that Moss was in fact a member of the communist party in terms that reflect the opinion currently held by most scholars who have studied the case. RedSpruce ( talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling New York Times references pointless is not Wikipedia policy for removing them. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, and assuming that you read the coverage in the Washington Post. Despite what you say, I don't think you have read the New York Times coverage since it requires a paid subscription. Your argument appears to be that you don't approve of including the lede of the article in the quote parameter, and your way of resolving it appears to be to remove all my references in the article, and replace them with your references. This Mary Stalcup Markward reference is a perfect example. Its an extensive article on Mary Stalcup Markward from the Washington Post, and has text that you can very easily read to verify that Mary Stalcup Markward testified and what she said in her testimony on Moss. Your references are in a book, whereas this reference is available online and available to all. My solution: have both references side by side, I have never deleted your references. Your solution, is to delete EVERY reference I have added that competes with yours. God bless your references, just don't delete what you see as competition to you owning the article, I am not trying to own the article, or make threats like the one you left on my page. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside view via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts: the moot point here is reference format. I agree with RedSpruce that these verbose references, with article lead sentences, are inappropriate. They'd be fine in a scholarly biographical paper, but they aren't used in comparable general-readership biographical works such as the ODNB (and are in minority usage here on Wikipedia). If the precise text of a quote is crucial, it's important enough to go verbatim in the article; otherwise it's quite sufficient to know where verification can be found. I also agree that lead sentences are especially distracting when they're irrelevant (i.e not verifying the fact referenced). Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I call upon you to abide by Wikipedia rules by discussing your disputed edits. I'll start here with a two simple, related questions: Why are you using this reference, which is an article about Mary Markward, in a part of the Moss article that contains no mention of Mawkward? Why are you using this source as a reference in the introduction to an article about Annie Lee Moss, when the source includes no mention of Annie Lee Moss? RedSpruce ( talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a clear consensus on the above issue now, I'd like to consider one more minor point before asking for the page to be unprotected. In the following excerpt, RAN's edit is in italics:
Washington, D.C., August 5, 1954 ( Associated Press) A report that Annie Lee Moss was given a Communist party membership book for 1943 resulted in her suspension for a second time from her job with the Army Signal Corps.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)References
The caption is incorrect. "McCarthy left the hearing room shortly after Moss's testimony began, leaving his chief counsel Roy Cohn to handle the rest of the questioning." according to a reference website called Wikipedia that I came across. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be fair to caption the photo something like .."with her attorney...", and then give the name of the attorney in the text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"The highly publicized case was damaging to McCarthy's popularity and influence, although some writers now believe that Moss had in fact been a member of the Communist Party." What exactly are the quotes used by the scholars. I cant find the exact wording used by Coulter.
I am just standardizing the format. I have never seen "see another section" used as a reference before. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
<Later> Since you have no response to the points I've raised, may I assume that you agree with me, and you'll start removing all the redundant and unnecessary footnote quotes you've added to all the articles you've edited? I guess that will be a big job; let me know if you'd like some help. RedSpruce ( talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Annie Lee Moss. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In the section entitled "Case against Moss," several "sources" are presented as supposed historical support for the claim that Moss was a "communist operative." Two of those supposed sources, "Accuracy in Media" and Ann Coulter, are well known for having political agendas and their neutrality is extremely questionable. Their neutrality is not questioned because the author of this criticism has political opinions that are different from the other forementioned authors. It would not matter whether the sources of the purported historical information were politically "conservative" or "liberal" in regard to their respective opinions; the fact is that they are well known for being politically motivated and therefore are not good sources to support claims of objectivity. Historically, very little evidence was ever discovered that actually impeached Moss, and what was presented was based solely on uncorroborated hearsay (not to mention the fact that she was forced to defend a constitutionally protected activity). The authenticity of the supposed list of Communist Party members was very much in question and could never be verified by the accusers. To cite persons like Ann Coulter, a person well known for her very extreme political opinions, as supposed historical support only casts more doubt on the veracity of the claims. If sources are to be alleged, they should adhere as much to the actual historical record as possible without regard to their own personal opinions. Lottamiata 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you notice you have 4 scare quotes in your writing? There is no place in the article that I say she was a "communist operative". I only supply the evidence from the testimony that she was a member of the Communist Party. It was based on her name and address appearing on a list of those attending a meeting where an FBI informant had access to that list. She also received a communist magazine at her house. Its a big leap to go from attending a Communist meeting and reading a communist magazine to being a "communist operative". I saw the movie Good Night and Good Luck and did research on her expecting to find evidence that she wasn't a member. I was suprised by the lack of evidence. If you know of any sourced material write it up and reference it. I even went through the 1930 census and the 1940 telephone directories to see if there were other people named "Annie Moss" in the area. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading Mr. Norton's comments and I thank him for them, but I am still not convinced of the article's neutrality. I am perplexed as to precisely how one proves that someone is "not" a communist. This is the logical problem of "proving a negative." That is why the accuser should have the burden of proof, not the accused. So, instead of "looking for evidence to prove she was not a communist" (which is logically impossible), one should be looking for evidence to prove that Moss actually was a communist. This is why I am so skeptical of the cited "sources."
The "Subversive Activities Control Board" is a bona fide "source." Even if one disagrees with their methods or opinions, they are a proper historical source because they were first-hand percipient witnesses or participants in the underlying historical event. However, the other two "sources," Accuracy in Media and Ann Coulter discredit the objectivity of the historical recounting because they are highly partisan and were not contemporary to the events.
Whether "liberal" or "conservative," the opinions of political commentators should only be injected into historical research where their comments were contemporary to the events and therefore part of the history of the subject. Otherwise, commentators used to support a particular historical analysis should be limited to historical commentators whose opinions are not particularly activist in nature.
For an example on the left-wing end of the political spectrum, I would not use something that Noam Chomsky wrote as a historical citation for a supportive view of the redistributive economic policies of the New Deal (Great Depression Era United States History), even if Mr. Chomsky approved of that policy (and I am not sure he did, I am merely trying to concoct an example to show that this is not about whether one is on the right end or the left end of the political spectrum but is instead purely about credibility in the writing of history). Chomsky is well-known for his activist opinions on the political left, but he was not a contemporary commentator of the New Deal era and therefore is not a proper historical source. Lottamiata 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is biased towards Moss. It has been definitively proven in M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" that Moss was a Soviet agent. Whittakerchambers ( talk)
This section reads like it was an argument between two sides. They style is poor and uncyclopedic. I propose that the for and against Moss be synthesised into one coherent section-- Ernstk 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The two sections are ridiculously lopsided. Somebody's gone in and added parenthetical responses to everything in the "case for Moss" section, while the assertions in the "case against Moss" section are allowed to stand on their own. This, combined with citing people like Ann Coulter rather than peer-reviewed historians, is a perfect example of why Wikipedia gets the bad rap it does on historical articles such as this. -- Spyder130 ( talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I stick this in the wrong place- I'm a total newb. Just curious- does anyone know what happened to Ms Moss after the hearings? Did she lose her job? Was she able to redeem her reputation during her lifetime? i would think this sort of information would make a valuable contribution to the article if anyone knows how to locate it.
I want to thank Lottamiata for his insight with regards as to how one 'proves' or disproves that your not a communist. I entirely agree with his comments that it is up to the accuser to give proof in order to acertain the facts in the case and the witness - in this case Ms. Moss , should have had the ability to cross examine any witnesses the senators brought forth. The problem lies not in the theory but in the practice. The 'control board' seems entirely morally equal with his later example of Noam Chomsky in that - at least according to him. Mr. Chomsky is "well known for his activist opinions". Respect where it is due there is a serious factor in the left/question of what happened to Moss, if one is going to use the example or Chomsky for the supposed left, and thereby brining into doubt the position held by what some call the left. Its equally valid to paint with the sme brush the actions of Mcarthy and all of thier hearing and thier veracity because of Mcarty's activism.
DRCarroll 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Conservative media watchdog organization, Accuracy in Media, wrote: "[The] Subversive Activities Control Board presented solid evidence that Markward's testimony was true and that the Annie Lee Moss who appeared before the McCarthy committee was in fact a member of the Communist Party." [2]"
Solid evidence? Perhaps a change to simply "evidence" or "purported evidence" would be more objective.
I concur that Lottamiata has a valid point. The material offered by AIM and A. Coulter is opinion, not data. Articles such as this should exclude opinions and focus on the facts. RalphS 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the AIM paragraph as repetitive and current opinion. Elemming 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about trying to write about the truth, its a compilation of verifiable information from primary through tertiary sources. Truth is for philosophers, not encyclopediasts. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
RedSpruce just reverted a great deal of work, with his only explanation, "Evans is not a reliable source." Unless he can substantiate that, I recommend that his reversion be reverted. Mark LaRochelle 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where the 1999 WaPo article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/2000/markward070599.htm) cited as the source of the statement that Markward's testimony was the only evidence presented of Moss' CP membership actually supports the statement. Am I missing something? Mark LaRochelle 07:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where Oshinsky p. 403 supports the contention that the CP membership list was "compiled by an FBI informer." Can anyone defend this? Mark LaRochelle 06:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is due for a rewrite. The "case for"/"case against" format may have been okay when the article was much shorter, but I think it no longer works. It should probably be replaced with a chronological account of the various accusations, hearings, revelations of evidence, and notable writings about the Moss case. It looks like the Andrea Friedman article may something of a "last word" on the case, so anyone interested in undertaking this rewrite should pony up the $10.00 for that. Don't look at me, though; I'm willing to offer comments, but at the moment I'm not interested in embarking on such a project myself. RedSpruce 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've completely rewritten the article. It now focusses on the aspect of the Moss case that most books that cover the case focus on: the damage it did to Joseph McCarthy. Although this version doesn't spend as much space on the question of Moss's guilt, it covers the evidence quite thoroughly. According to my research, this version presents the likelihood that Moss was in fact a member of the communist party in terms that reflect the opinion currently held by most scholars who have studied the case. RedSpruce ( talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling New York Times references pointless is not Wikipedia policy for removing them. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, and assuming that you read the coverage in the Washington Post. Despite what you say, I don't think you have read the New York Times coverage since it requires a paid subscription. Your argument appears to be that you don't approve of including the lede of the article in the quote parameter, and your way of resolving it appears to be to remove all my references in the article, and replace them with your references. This Mary Stalcup Markward reference is a perfect example. Its an extensive article on Mary Stalcup Markward from the Washington Post, and has text that you can very easily read to verify that Mary Stalcup Markward testified and what she said in her testimony on Moss. Your references are in a book, whereas this reference is available online and available to all. My solution: have both references side by side, I have never deleted your references. Your solution, is to delete EVERY reference I have added that competes with yours. God bless your references, just don't delete what you see as competition to you owning the article, I am not trying to own the article, or make threats like the one you left on my page. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside view via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts: the moot point here is reference format. I agree with RedSpruce that these verbose references, with article lead sentences, are inappropriate. They'd be fine in a scholarly biographical paper, but they aren't used in comparable general-readership biographical works such as the ODNB (and are in minority usage here on Wikipedia). If the precise text of a quote is crucial, it's important enough to go verbatim in the article; otherwise it's quite sufficient to know where verification can be found. I also agree that lead sentences are especially distracting when they're irrelevant (i.e not verifying the fact referenced). Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I call upon you to abide by Wikipedia rules by discussing your disputed edits. I'll start here with a two simple, related questions: Why are you using this reference, which is an article about Mary Markward, in a part of the Moss article that contains no mention of Mawkward? Why are you using this source as a reference in the introduction to an article about Annie Lee Moss, when the source includes no mention of Annie Lee Moss? RedSpruce ( talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a clear consensus on the above issue now, I'd like to consider one more minor point before asking for the page to be unprotected. In the following excerpt, RAN's edit is in italics:
Washington, D.C., August 5, 1954 ( Associated Press) A report that Annie Lee Moss was given a Communist party membership book for 1943 resulted in her suspension for a second time from her job with the Army Signal Corps.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)References
The caption is incorrect. "McCarthy left the hearing room shortly after Moss's testimony began, leaving his chief counsel Roy Cohn to handle the rest of the questioning." according to a reference website called Wikipedia that I came across. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be fair to caption the photo something like .."with her attorney...", and then give the name of the attorney in the text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"The highly publicized case was damaging to McCarthy's popularity and influence, although some writers now believe that Moss had in fact been a member of the Communist Party." What exactly are the quotes used by the scholars. I cant find the exact wording used by Coulter.
I am just standardizing the format. I have never seen "see another section" used as a reference before. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
<Later> Since you have no response to the points I've raised, may I assume that you agree with me, and you'll start removing all the redundant and unnecessary footnote quotes you've added to all the articles you've edited? I guess that will be a big job; let me know if you'd like some help. RedSpruce ( talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Annie Lee Moss. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)