Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RAN, I've removed some footnote-quotations from cited articles that seemed to me to be either irrelevant to the text they're attached to, or just an unnecessary distraction for the reader. If you disagree with this, please discuss this issue here. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual. [5]" Well what exactly have some historians concluded? Hence the actual quote from the article, placed in the reference, using the quote=parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person buy and reread the entire external article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. Once you buy the article you cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its the same reason why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that an article's references need to do more than point to a source. They don't; just pointing a reader at the place where some likely-to-be-challenged statement is documented is enough. Look at the footnotes in any book; sometimes a quote from the source is included in the footnote, but rarely. When a quote from the author of some outside source is important to the article, then the quote should be put in the body of the article.

The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote serves no purpose at all. And including text that serves no purpose in an article makes the article look amateurish and badly written.

And other quotes you include don't even serve the purpose of (not) proving that the reference is honest. The one I removed here for example. How does it fit in with the article text it's attached to? What does it add to the article? What does it document? RedSpruce (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RAN-style ref serves the purpose of saving the reader the trouble of tracking down the secondary source. A reader could pull up a WP page and then view it offline with this method. It is harmless to add the secondary source text, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it save the reader the trouble of tracking down the secondary source? I already covered this point above. If the user believes and accepts what the footnote says, then there's no reason for them to look it up and check it. If for some reason they don't believe it, then the added quote doesn't give them any reason to believe it. If they just want to read the secondary source for overall information about the subject, then again the quote doesn't serve any purpose.

And you don't address the other issue: quotes that don't document or confirm what the footnote says, but just consist of some random copied and pasted text from the source. All of these edits do harm by reducing the overall quality and professionalism of the article. Admittedly they don't do huge harm, but user RAN obsessively, ritualistically inserts near-random quotes like this into every article he comes across, almost always lowering the quality of the article. When challenged, he repeated refuses to discuss his edits, or engages only in dismissive and meaningless discussion.

I don't know what you mean about pulling up a WP page and then view it offline; could you expand on that? RedSpruce (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your point, you don't see the relationship between the secondary source direct quote included in the ref and the footnoted text in the article. This is a problem. Presumably the direct quotation supports the footnoted text. That is the purpose. Is this your contention?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the quoted text that RAN inserts supported the footnote, then the quoted text would merely be unnecessary, and letting him insert it would be a relatively harmless concession.

Here's some article text:

Among their other anti-communist activities, Schine and Cohn conducted a highly publicized, and widely ridiculed,[2] tour of Europe in 1953, examining libraries of the United States Information Agency for books written by authors they deemed to be Communists or fellow travelers.[3]

And here is footnote #3, with RAN's added quote:

Ward, Geoffrey C.. "Roy Cohn", American Heritage Magazine, 1988. Retrieved on 2008-03-12. "His single stated regret was that he and his young fellow-counsel, G. David Schine, had ever undertaken their celebrated 1953 trip to Europe to purge United States Information Agency libraries of 'more than thirty thousand works by Communists, fellow-travelers and unwitting promoters of the Soviet cause."

"His single stated regret"? What's that doing in there? What does that have to do with the text of the article? What does most of the quote have to do with the article text? For whatever reason, RAN feels a need to find some text somewhere, that in some way, however indirect and confusing, supports something in an article, and he then pastes a quote into a footnote. As here, the result is often rather bizarre. RedSpruce (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having quotations is problematic. If they illustrate which aspect of the source being cited is especially relevant to the main text, it's no problem and I don't think they make the footnotes look overly cluttered. I say keep 'em. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the quote parameter to the references. You can reread what I wrote above, or I can cut and paste it again. The quote parameter is there to use. Your counterargument appears to be that original author may be lying in what they wrote, so we should not use the quote function. You wrote: "The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote serves no purpose at all." I don't buy it as a valid argument, Wikipedia isn't about truth its about verifiability. I suggest you reach consensus here on the talk page before you delete my additions again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to reach a consensus here. If you would respond to my points, as I have responded to yours, that might help us make progress. To reiterate, my overall point is that just shoveling irrelevant and out-of-context words into an article doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. If you can explain how your added quotes are relevant, how they add something useful or interesting to the article, then I'll withdraw my objection. As it is, all you've said is that "the quote parameter is there to use." This isn't a test where you'll be marked down for not filling in a blank; because the parameter is there doesn't mean you have to fill it in. You also said "Wikipedia isn't about truth its about verifiability." I don't understand how this applies--your additions don't make the article any more "verified"--so perhaps you could expand on that. RedSpruce (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is made here on the talk page, then changes are made on the article page. You are making the changes, rationalizing them, then calling it consensus, you have it backward. All I can do is cut and paste what I have already written. We are just going in circles, there is no way to counter your argument that the author may be lying when they write material, except to remind you about the difference between truth and verifiability. The quote may not be the truth but it is verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say I am calling anything a consensus; I have never said anything remotely like that.

You still haven't addressed my point: That the quotes you add are not useful or informative or helpful. Some of them are just out-of-context "noise". Yes, the quotes are verifiable. So are the footnotes without the quotes.

Here is a suggested compromise: If you would agree to the removal of the quoted I removed here, and refrain from adding any more footnotes or quotes to the article without discussing your edits first, then I'll drop my objection to these two quotes: The quote attached to the footnote "Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-Era Figure". and the quote attached to the footnote "The Self-Inflated Target", Time (magazine), March 22, 1954. I still believe that this last one is just useless "noise", but in the interest of compromise I'll drop my objection to it.

If you don't agree to dropping that one quote, then please answer the simple and direct questions I asked above: How does it fit in with the article text it's attached to? What does it add to the article? What does it document? These are simple questions. If you can't answer them, then you can't justify including the quote. RedSpruce (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use the quote: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." You use the combination of a quote with a comment: "On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'" From my point of view, you are just deleting what you don't add. You disparage the quote parameter, and use subjective rationalizations to delete mine. But use it when it pleases you. Its there to please the general reader, not one editor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of view about "ownership" is incorrect, and your persistence in making this accusation is a personal attack. I don't care about that and I'm not complaining--I'm just pointing it out. You can continue to call me any name you like if it makes you feel better.

About the Tom Wicker quote I inserted, it's usefulness and relevance is perfectly obvious. The footnote could have been written without the quote, but the most direct and clear way to convey Wicker's opinion here was to include that two word quote. The quote adds something to the article. If it was removed, it would have to be replaced with something else or the footnote wouldn't make sense. Is that true of the quotes you are adding? RedSpruce (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ownership" isn't a name, names are nouns. I can't be discussing ownership issues and call you a name, I would have to be using a noun. Remember you called me a "moron", thats a noun. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must be in need of extra Wiki stimulation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see again, RAN. Now that you're here, perhaps you could give some reasons for keeping those footnote quotes. Although we've discussed the issue before, you never did manage to give anything resembling a reason. RedSpruce (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, more wasted time and effort deleting and restoring, rather than creative research and writing. Some people get their stimulation by tearing down, others by careful research and detailed writing. Finding new information is hard work, deleting other peoples additions seems to provide the same stimulation with less effort. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder.

Now let's move on from name-calling. Either present a reason for your edit, or acquiesce to its removal. RedSpruce (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my position: When you put text in front of a reader, that reader has a right to expect that the text will serve a purpose--that it will impart useful information, in the case of an encyclopedia article. Repetition does not impart useful information. The way the article is constructed with your quotes, it flows like this:

1. [article makes a statement of fact]
2. [footnote tells reader where the statement can be verified]
3. [footnote quote repeats the statement of fact, with different wording, often with off-topic and/or out-of-context text included]

My contention is that step 3 doesn't make sense, and is detrimental to the reader's experience. It makes the article look like it was edited by someone who doesn't understand the purpose of a footnote, and doesn't know how to communicate in a meaningful manner with the reader.

RedSpruce (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, please reread any of my previous statements over the past month or so, since the time you have been deleting my additions to the article. I understand you enjoy filibustering, rather than adding content, so here it goes again: Quote parameter is here to use, it contains the "exact" wording, not the phrasing I used. Read the previous two or three times I talk about Schine's alleged homosexuality/hetersexuality. What "exactly" did people say, well, look, there it is in the reference.

Do you really think that by retyping your position a dozen times, or deleting what you don't like a dozen time, my position is going change? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]