Talk:Tydings Committee

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Untitled

Its innaccurate to say that McCarthy had no names, he furnished the entire list of alleged communists to Tydings. Can we change that or what?--72.191.31.112 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles can be changed and corrected by anyone. In this case however, you will have to provide a citation from one or more reliable sources. RedSpruce (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well my question is, what counts as a reliable source. I would like to see some context on the point at issue from the source that is cited. The text says "McCarthy had no names, he had a case file that had only numbers no names" and this sentence is backed up by a secondary source. What exactly does that secondary source say? Does it say that McCarthy took his list from the old State Department list, or does it actually say that McCarthy had no names. Because I can easily list a secondary source that claims that McCarthy DID in fact have names.

The sentence at issue has a semi colon. Shouldnt it be broken in half and each half cited?--72.191.31.112 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that McCarthy had names for some of the people he accused, so there may be no disagreement between the source you have in mind and the article's current content. I'll do some research and return later with details from various sources about this issue. You are welcome to do the same, of course. The source currently cited in the article isn't the most comprehensive or up-to-date source available on the topic, so some expansion and correction may be called for. RedSpruce (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later: This is an interesting issue. Most sources are frustratingly vague on the question of whether McCarthy knew the names behind the "numbered cases" he presented to the Senate. It's known that most of McCarthy's cases came from the so-called "Lee List", which was compiled by former FBI agent Robert Lee in 1947 for the House Appropriations Committee. This was a list of employees of the State Department whose loyalty hearing files had been reviewed by a committee led by Lee and who, in Lee's opinion, posed "security problems". In the original list Lee presented to the House Appropriations Committee, the names had been redacted. However, in one source (Evans' "Blacklisted by History", probably the one you're using), it's stated that McCarthy sent a letter to Tydings with the names of a total of 102 individuals. Although the political slant of Evans' book clearly represents a fringe view, I don't know of any reason to doubt his fact-finding on this issue.

I've noted at least one other error in the article in my research so far, and of course there's plenty of opportunity for expansion too. I'll do some preliminary fixing-up to the article now, and hope to do more work on it in the near future. RedSpruce (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tydings Committee Report on McCarthy's Charges, 1950

This was a part of it, spoken from Tyding: „We have seen the technique of the ‚Big Lie,' elsewhere employed by the totalitarian dictator with devastating success, utilized here for the first time on a sustained basis in our history…We have seen the character of private citizens and of Government employees virtually destroyed by public condemnation on the basis of gossip, distortion, hearsay, and deliberate untruths…..The spectacle is one we would expect in a totalitarian nation where the rights of the individual are crushed beneath the juggernaut of statism and oppression; it has no place in America where government exists to serve our people, not destroy them.“ --178.197.232.25 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by the State Department's process

At one point, the article mentions that "all of them [a subsection of the Lee list] had been cleared by the State Department's review process."

This strikes me as both irrelevant and inaccurate. Who cares if the State Department gave the State Department a clean bill of health? It was the State Department's scandal to cover up.

But more importantly, it is unsourced.

178.76.165.48 (talk) 178.76.165.48 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]