Talk:Hollywood blacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

unacceptable bias[edit]

I wanted to read this article hoping to get general understanding of who di what when, that was called The Hollywood blacklist. I wanted a couple of facts. Instead I am now reading somebodies interpretation of history. Someone is trying to force upon me his way of understanding of what happened. It's not that it affects my perception, as I have mind of my own, but it does affect my mood, as I hate being treated like a child that has to be told what's right and what's wrong. But most of all it annoys me, that I have to read through propaganda to check whether there are any trustworthy and unobjectionable facts somewhere in the text. Here is a short list of most outrageous parts of article, as it now stands:

  • involvement in progressive political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism
since when is progressive a well-defined politological term? additionally I doubt the way this was put is a scholarly consensus among historians.
  • often made betrayal of friendship (not to mention principle) the price for a livelihood
is that a kind of fact one expects from encyclopedia?
  • communism increasingly becoming a focus of American fears and hatred
or this maybe? is it a conclusion of a sociological study, that Americans had some sort of fear and hatred, that had some sort of focus? did anyone check whether Americans hated and feared, or just opposed? Whether actions against communists were motivated rationally or emotionally? Perhaps there wa a study that led someone to believe it was communism, that worried Americans, not the worldwide activity of Stalin's, extraordinary tyrant, supporters?

I think three is enough. Article, in it's current form, is unacceptable. I will do what I can to bring around someone knowledgeable without bias, to practically rewrite it. I expect emotionally involved people to act against that, but this is encyclopedia, not a communist brochure. E7th04sh (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you should certainly be bold and change areas of original research and bias, as I have. But I don't think the article is in nearly as bad a shape as you represent, so I would suggest discussing any massive changes. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 13:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone who knows the facts fix the obvious vandalisms here?:

On July 29, 1946, Charlotte H., publisher and founder of The Hollywood Reporter, published a "TradeView" column entitled "A Vote For Joe Stalin". It named as Communist sympathizers Dalton Trumbo, Maurice Rapf, Lester Cole, Howard Koch, Harold Buchman, John Wexley, Ring Lardner Jr., Harold Salemson, Henry Meyers, Theodore Strauss, and Alex G.. In August and September 1946, Wilkerson published other columns containing names of numerous purported Communists and sympathizers. They became known as "Billy's List" and "Billy's Blacklist."[9][10]"

Lol. Bias? I do see bias, but not in any way or form as a communist brochure. No idea if this is an American thing, but the HuAC is widely known among serious historians to be nothing but a witch hunt. McCarthy and Co didn't have a right to act as they did, the people that were blacklisted were innocent victims of fanatics who in their zeal to hunt communists had no problems with violating the spirit of the Constitution. When I read passages like the following in the section about the "Hollywood Ten," I have to wonder if whoever wrote this part once to justify the injustice these people faced. "The Hollywood Ten took a bold stance and acknowledged the potential punishments they faced, but that did not stop them from acting indignantly during their appearances before HUAC. They yelled at the Chairman and treated the Committee with open indignation, emanating negativity and discouraging outside public favor and help. "Die-yng (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

did Reagan "name names?"[edit]

"Reagan named several members of his union as communist sympathizers." In the transcript of his HUAC appearance, Reagan says a small clique within the SAG used what he thought of as communist-like tactics, but he says that normal democratic processes within the union had them under control. He says he didn't know if they were communists or not, and he does not "name names." Walt Disney, who testified immediately afterwards, did name specific trouble-making individuals he thought were communist.

Maybe there were other meetings, maybe closed session, but there's no source listed, and a google search doesn't find anything.

"Naming names" is a big deal, let's get it right.

transcript of Reagan's HUAC testimony — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Reagan was a long-time FBI informant, and gave many names of people he suspected of being politically "subversive" to the feds over the years. As the head of the union that was supposed to defend actors' rights, he obviously didn't want this being known publicly, which is probably why he didn't name names in his public HUAC testimony. I can find a good source that describes this and include the information, since Reagan's role in the blacklist was very significant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If Reagan was an FBI informant, that fact must be covered in one of the major biographies, don't you think? BMK (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it's been covered in the major biographies, but it was revealed in 1985 by the San Jose Mercury News. Reagan was called "T-10" by the FBI, and gave information on people in Hollywood he suspected of being Communists or sympathizers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, here's the relevant passage from the San Jose Mercury News that says that Reagan "named names" to the FBI:
In the same interview on April 10, 1947, in which he described the HICCASP meeting, the documents show, Reagan also outlined the workings of the Screen Actors Guild. He was elected president of the guild that same year.
According to the report, Reagan and Wyman told the FBI that they had noticed two cliques within the guild that on all questions of policy "follow the Communist Party line."
While noting that the leaders of the two cliques did not appear to be particularly close, Reagan told the FBI, according to the report, that they united on electing individuals to office.
The FBI report then contained a list of actors and actresses named by Reagan and Wyman. Their names were blacked out, but the report shows that the Los Angeles FBI cross-referenced the names to determine which were known Communist Party members.
The San Jose Mercury News based its reporting on actual FBI documents obtained through a FOIA request. In other words, Reagan is known to have given FBI names of people he suspected of Communism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Can we get a citation for the SJMN article? BMK (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for explanation of an edit[edit]

The editor Thewolfchild objects to this edit in which the entry

was changed to

since I didn't understand his objection, I reverted it, with the edit summary: "I don't understand what you are objecting to in this edit, the name or the mention of The Front, which is a movie about blacklisting". I still don't understand since Thewolfchild reverted me back, with a mention of BRD, but no mention of his objection to the edit.

Two points:

  1. What is the objection? Zero Mostel's actual name was Samuel, but that could be fixed with a simple edit. The fact that he was a cast member in The Front is significant, as that movie was about the Hollywood blacklist. Is the objection that there is no cite for Mostel being in the film. That, too, is easily fixed with a ref from AFI. Either of these things could have been done by Thewolfchild if he wished to, instead of simply reverting.
  2. WP:BRD is about the initial editor, and the reverter. It does not apply to third editors weighin in on the situation. If anything, a third editor supporting the initial editor is an indication of a possible consensus. IN point of fact, Thewolfchild broke BRD when he reverted me, since that was tantamount to a second revert of the original editor.

So, what the heck is it that is objectionable about

that Thewolfchild feels he needed to edit war about it? BMK (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am pinging Thewolfchild so that he is aware I have posted this request for an explanation on the article talk page. BMK (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the previous edits, an IP user added "The Front" about a half dozen time to others on the list, (all linked), without refs, and made some other minor punctuation changes that weren't needed. I had reverted those as well. It seems they missed Mostel, and added that after... that was the first revert you saw. So I was reverting back to status quo and you were actually re-reverting. (AGF says you didn't realize that). reverting the minor changes and de-linking are all self-explanatory, but as for adding "The Front" to each person affiliated with the film, I don't see a need for that. The article has a very extensive list of Hollywood people, are we gonna start adding filmography credits and other notations next to all their names? Which ones? How many? What gets added? What doesn't? Once this starts... where does it end? This could lead to the page becoming quite messy and the list unwieldy. Almost all the people have linked articles, there no reason why readers can't just click on their name to see their film credits. The page was fine the way it was. - theWOLFchild 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There really aren't that many films about the blacklist, so I don't see anything particularly wrong with indicating which of the blaclkisted people were involved in The Front - in fact it seems very relevant to the subject; but perhaps it would better to do it by marking the name with "¶" or some other symbol, with an explanation at the bottom. Would you object to that? BMK (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If people agree that it's worthwhile to add info about this film, then I'm fine with it also. But, why not just add it to the prose? (if there is an appropriate point somewhere in the article body). Or if people feel it's relevance is strong enough, note it in the lead even. Or add a new subsection near the bottom and add some actual info about the film, beyond just credits. Or just add a pop culture section. Plenty ways to go about this, I just don't agree with adding individual credits to a handful of people on a list of 300+, where no one else has any credits or notes of any kind with their name. - theWOLFchild 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
A list of names in prose can easily be skipped over, so I don't think that a good idea, but a section about the film (and the few other films about the black list) would be fine with me, but would probably be disapproved of by the people who don;t believe that popular culture belongs on Wikipedia. I'd have to do some research to work up a section like that, which I'm not well disposed to do right now, but I can give it a try when I'm able. BMK (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Huston quote[edit]

I feel that devoting an entire paragraph to this quote (and quoting it at such length) is giving undue weight to Huston's opinions, especially since (in context) it is presenting his opinion as if it's a clear factual summary of events; I removed it, but it was restored with the argument that it is "sourced", which I don't think is really the issue here. The question is whether it's giving one quote WP:UNDUE weight to quote it so extensively; we can say, for instance, that he later changed his mind and can paraphrase his opinion without devoting an entire paragraph to a quote whose importance isn't really that well-sourced (it gets one mention in a single non-mainstream popular history, which to me doesn't really support the idea that the quote is important enough to be quoted here at such length.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Huston, as an intimate observer at the time is a legitimate person to express an opinion. It appears to me that you wish to remove it because you disagree with it. BMK (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith. Many people were involved at the time, and all of them have opinions (and have stated them in various ways at various points in their lives); we have to balance the weight due to each according to their coverage in reliable sources, not based on a standard of "I agree with what it says" or "I disagree with what it says." This quote is (as far as I can tell) only referenced in a single source, which appears to be neither mainstream nor particularly high-quality; devoting an entire paragraph to it is effectively giving that source a weight that isn't reflected in more mainstream coverage. That doesn't mean we can't cover it at all, granted; we just have to be careful not to give it undue weight. Which parts of it do you feel most important or relevant? Ideally, we can trim it down to just those parts and combine it with higher-quality sources that support the general gist of the aspects of it that are important enough to warrant a paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you, let's just see what consensus says. BMK (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else weighs in! But if nobody does in the next week or so, I'll take it back out, since I don't think you've provided a rationale for inclusion that answers my objections. All right? I mean, if you don't want to discuss it with me, that's fine, but you can't keep putting it back in the article without discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you won't, as there will not be a consensus to do so, so the article remains in the status quo. You want to remove it, get a consensus. Your not liking it is not grounds for removal, and the WEIGHT argument is bull. BMK (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with the Huston quote but perhaps it can be summarized just a little. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with either of the sections which were deleted, finding neither of them fall under the category of WP:UNDUE. In fact the removal of the Huston and Billingsly references actually unbalances the article. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

new category[edit]

How about creating a new category to list the hundreds of notable people who've been purged from their jobs by progressives?

This is not a RS and not citable, but it's a good starting point for investigating the issue:

Current SJW-motivated purges are an order of magnitude bigger than the hollywood blacklist ever was, yet wikipedia has no article on the trend. It's just reported as isolated unconnected incidents in hundreds of BLPs. This needs to be fixed.Jwray (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hollywood blacklist. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)