Talk:G. David Schine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cohn rumor

Wasn't he Roy Cohn's lover in the 1950s?

Doubtful--the rumor made for good gossip, but in actuality it's very unlikely. Read the G. David Schine and Army-McCarthy Hearings articles for details.

Disputed: weasel words

This article seems somewhat subjective and written by someone with a vested or bias stance. Please see the following items which appear to be subjective:

"Schine and Cohn have long been suspected by historians and gossip mongers as having had an alleged sexual association, although there has never been any conclusive proof and it is 'in direct contradiction to Schine's early reputation as a wealthy playboy, contrary to his actual dating life during the same period, and again would seem contradictory to what Schine did soon after departing from McCarthy and company."

This entire section is in dispute. There are no citations, and appears to be moving the reader in a specific direction.

"Based on all the known facts, it was most probably never more than a friendship, in spite of all the attention brought to the topic." http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp Based on what facts? Where is the citation?

"By today's standards, the whole question seems somewhat inconsequential, even if it were true, and ironically it would be considered politically incorrect, perhaps even unlawful, to have pursued the issue in the same manner."

This whole sentence is completely irrelevant and lack objectivity.

All issues above have been addressed and the article has been edited accordingly. Wikipikiliki 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Wikipikiliki edits

Re. [1]: the fact that "a reference... cannot be found online" is not a valid complaint. Printed references are specifically preferred by WP:Attribution guidelines.
Re. [2]: The content added here represents a view that is not shared by any notable scholar in the field. It comes from an extremist right-wing website, a type of source specifically discouraged by WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources.
Re. [3]: The Army-McCarthy hearings found no wrongdoing on the part of the Army, Adams or Stevens with regard to the issue of Schine. There were complaints about the Army's handling of security issues, but these findings were unrelated to Schine. If these other findings of the hearings are going to be mentioned, the fact that they had nothing to do with Schine has to be made clear.
RedSpruce 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. [4]: the link to http://catalog.loc.gov/ doesn't function as a link to the book itself; the Library of Congress site doesn't allow URLs to link to the entry for a particular book.
Re. [5] "See for example" serves to indicate that the same information is available from many other sources.
Re. [6]: repeating the almost universally discredited word of "McCarthy's researchers" without a counter opinion from a contemporary scholar is POV.
Re. [7]: considering that this is in the context of alleged homosexuality on Cohn and Schine's part, it is not in the least "irrelevant."
Re. [8]: There is nothing in the least "ambiguous" about the footnote removed.
Re. [9] The added information is not irrelevant to Schine, since it stands as the primary reason for his fame; the reason why he has a Wikipedia article.
RedSpruce 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, I am noticing a pattern of apparent bias--you are quickly reversing some edits that are incidental or grammatical corrections, keeping out things that are a simple reporting of relevant facts and undisputed, yet trying to assert things which aren't especially relevant to this article, and essentially blocking a natural progression of this article. Perhaps you should stop editing this article from this point and let others handle it who have a more open mind and can present a better article. This is supposed to be an article about Schine, not strictly a summary of his brief affiliation with McCarthy with details that belong in the existing separate articles for McCarthy, Cohn, and Army-McCarthy. I find this whole article to be badly lopsided and in need of an overhaul; another day, maybe I'll tackle it. Have you contributed one bit of information to this article that didn't involve McCarthy or Cohn? You seem to not know anything about Schine outside of 1954, and then only how it relates to McCarthy or Cohn, and even in that context a fairly narrow scope. It sounds like you have read from primarily old references or maybe read newspapers at the time, because your account reads like a column from the 50s. Things change, new opinions are formed. You seem to be stuck in 1954 and it is showing. Please review all of the above, somewhat arbitrary changes you've undone lately and find some compromises, otherwise you and I will be going back and forth a long, long time. Wikipikiliki 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my reversions of your edits point-by-point above, and as you can see, none of them are "arbitrary." If you object to any of my edits, respond to my points, rather than simply claiming that i"m not "open minded" enough. As for the Cohn/McCarthy connection, I believe that that connection is the primary reason Schine is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. You can prove me wrong on that by showing that there are as many WP:Reliable sources that mention Schine outside of the context of his relationship with Cohn and McCarthy as there are that mention him within that context. RedSpruce 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not explained all of your revisions--the above is just a partial listing of the many edits you've undone lately, with many unrelated edits often being undone by you in the same sweep, with no explanation at all, making them entirely arbitrary. With each edit I've made, I write an edit summary and you can find my notes in the edit history. And regardless of Schine being known the most for the Army-McCarthy hearings, he had a life before it, outside of it during the same period, and afterwards--this article doesn't cover it very well and seems unbalanced. Wikipikiliki 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, is this your full time job? You are posting in every single article associated with McCarthy. Not that I blame you, but man you really keep yourself busy. I wish I had your time. Anyway, please cut out the nonsense about calling James Drummey's article non-citable as a reference when you know that it is citable. It's already being used in the McCarthy article. Your claim that, "The content added here represents a view that is not shared by any notable scholar in the field. It comes from an extremist right-wing website, a type of source specifically discouraged by WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources" is utterly absurd. That website has better fact-checking than a lot of the absurd anti-McCarthy books and articles you cite. Here's one article critical of McCarthy that is listed yet also fits the description you use against Drummey's article:[10]. Didn't see you complain about that nonsense. Oh, and yes, I have every single major McCarthy book ever written now. I'm just reading over all this trash so I can see exactly what you guys are using to attack the late Senator. Fred Cook's book is pure garbage. The fact-checking is trash. He claims that books were burned when that is in fact a LIE. Arthur Herman makes that clear. It took me two minutes to find that lie, give me some time and I'll clean up the mess on the McCarthy page by using your own sources. I don't have time tonight but I'll counter each of your other points in this article as well. In the meantime, what the heck does this have to do with Schine directly:

But the exposure of McCarthy and his methods before a television audience is considered by many as being key to his downfall from his former position of power and influence.

Nothing. It can be used as part of the Army-McCarthy hearings or in the Joseph McCarthy article, but it has no relevance to Schine so, say "bye-bye". Jtpaladin 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, the sentence you quote about McCarthy is entirely relevant to this article, because it points out the primary reason why Schine is famous enough to have an article in Wikipedia. As for your personal opinions about the reliability of various sources, you're welcome to them, but they're not relevant. The consensus view among scholars is what it is, and that's what WP articles are obliged to reflect.

RedSpruce 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, no that line is completely beside the function that Schine played in this article. This article is about Schine and not McCarthy. You are taking this too far out. What happened to McCarthy because of this has no relevance to Schine. In fact, the Army-McCarthy hearings had no bearing on McCarthy in the manner in which you spoke. Ike wanted McCarthy out and put together a bunch of gullible Senators to do the hack job. This had nothing to do with Schine. I did remove the part about Schine being exonerated because I didn't have a quote for it but nevertheless, he was not found complicit in some scheme of which the anti-McCarthy hate-mongers accused him of being. Jtpaladin 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Schine is famous only for the indirect role he unwittingly played in the downfall of McCarthy. If you want to argue against this, simply show that there are a number of reliable sources that mention Schine outside of that context comparable to the number that mention him within that context. Your fantasies about history aren't relevant here; if you could resist the urge to share them with us, you'd save yourself some typing. RedSpruce 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again with the "fantasy" nonsense? Man, you really aren't playing with a full deck. I am focusing on one line that has nothing to do directly with Schine. That's it. And that line states, "But the exposure of McCarthy and his methods before a television audience is considered by many as being key to his downfall from his former position of power and influence." Where in that line does it mention Schine? What relevance does this have to do with Schine? None. This is beside the point that "McCarthy's methods" are merely some point of view because McCarthy was defendant in this kangroo court and the format of the proceeds were dictated by the Committee, not McCarthy. But again, this is completely superfulous to the subject of the article.

I might as well start adding in references to Owen Lattimore and other crap which clearly do not belong there. Can't you get it through your head that this is an article about Schine and that not everything in the 1950's was about McCarthy? That line has nothing at ALL to do with the Army-McCarthy hearings, as you said, Schine was not addressed as the subject of the inquiry (only that improper favoritism was alleged), Schine was not in the findngs of the Committee, Schine had nothing to do with McCarthy's "donwfall" or with the condemnation of McCarthy. You need to prove a tangible association between David Schine's biography and McCarthy's power and influence. You haven't even bothered to find one of your anti-McCarthy sources to make the claim that Schine was somehow responsible for McCarthy getting condemned, which is what you allege is connected to Schine. The fact is that you are over-reaching in an article that has nothing to do with Schine's problems and McCarthy's problems. Jtpaladin 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Without Schine, the Army-McCarthy hearings wouldn't have happened. The Army-McCarthy hearings are widely credited with bringing about the downfall of McCarthy. This is the reason why Schine is famous. RedSpruce 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Schine. Not about McCarthy and the Army-McCarthy hearings. It is not about how the Army-McCarthy hearings impacted McCarthy. It is not relevant how the hearings impacted Schine's mother either. The Army-McCarthy hearings are just another element in wrecking McCarthy's ability to probe the government for security risks. It does not stand alone as being the sole reason for his "downfall". In fact, even though the press harbored an intense hatred for McCarthy, remember that McCarthy was actually vindicated in this hearing, had a solid base of supporters, and if the idea of censure or condemnation had not been pushed by a coalition of Communists, fellow travelers, Eisenhower Republicans, left-wing Democrats, and the left-wing media, it would have been business as usual for McCarthy. Now, all this is beside the point of David Schine. You and I both know that Schine was not the reason for the Army-McCarthy hearing, it was just another attack on McCarthy, this time being orchestrated directly by the White House. If not Schine, then something else would have come up.

That statement you keep trying to include is inappropriate because not only is it not correct but it deals with a subject unrelated to Schine. It is not true that the Army-McCarthy hearings were "key to his downfall from his former position of power and influence". What was "key" was the actual passing of the condemnation resolution which did not have any basis in the Army-McCarthy hearings. Heck, you even removed the findings of the Army-McCarthy committee which actually are relevant in this regard. But you seem to care more about attacking McCarthy than dealing specifically with the Schine article. If you can find a way to attack McCarthy and keep it relevant to the article, feel free, but this isn't it. Jtpaladin 20:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Regardless of what you personally believe about the "real reasons" for the Army-McCarthy hearings, Schine was the focus of the Army's charges against McCarthy and Cohn.
2. Regardless of what you personally believe, all McCarthy biographers, even the ones who support McCarthy as a hero, say that the Army-McCarthy hearings was one of the most important events in his downfall.
3. And no one contests that the hearings and their outcome for McCarthy are the primary reason why Schine is famous.

As you know, what you believe to be "true" has no bearing here. The issue is what WP:reliable sources have to say. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict any of my three points above? RedSpruce 10:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)