Talk:Philip Loeb

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

Untitled[edit]

This article has the NPOV issue of attempting to paint the public sentiment against Communist infilitrators as somehow wrong or undemocratic. Also, it confuses the HUAC with Sen. McCarthy.--MSTCrow July 2, 2005 21:28 (UTC)

First, Loeb was accused of having Communist sympathies, never tried or convicted. As the article rightly states, he was blacklisted, not jailed. Therefore the contention that he was a communist infiltrator is unsupported and unproven.
Second, the House Committee on Unamerican Activities (HUAC) and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin McCarthy, while separate entities, are forever entwined. It was McCarthy's boisterous (and often erroneous) pursuit of many of his victims that lead to the connection in history.
The article factually states the history that drove Loeb to suicide. With that in mind, I fail to see how it can be viewed as biased. Please explain your position further, with supporting info if you have any available.Posthocergopropterhoc 2 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
Philip Loeb was never a Communist "infiltrator" (Oxford dictionary defines infiltrator as: "Someone who takes up a position surreptitiously for the purpose of espionage.") He was accused of being a communist party member but never proven, which as the article states, he denied. Most important, it was not then, it is not now, nor has it even been, illegal to belong to the American Communist Party. And, the wording of what I said is very clear. There is no confusing things. There are two distinct issues: Loeb was condemned at HUAC hearings and it was in the enusing years that his situation was exacerbated by McCarthyism. Ted Wilkes 2 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
I never said he was a Communist infiltrator per se. Being "blacklisted" simply means that the Amercan viewing public was not thrilled about giving their money to Communists. TO achieve a NPOV, this article has to be written without being pro-Communist and authoritarian. Complaining that others don't want to pay you for you work is hardly cause for shrill calls of moral failure on the public's part. Don't unilaterally remove NPVO disputes. That is against Wikipedia policy.
--MSTCrow July 4, 2005 06:05 (UTC)
As the previous comments and the article itself make clear, Philip Loeb was never, at any time, in any forum, found to be a Communist. However, he was blacklisted. To say that "being blacklisted simply means that the American viewing public was not thrilled about giving their money to Communists" is therefore bordering on wilfully obtuse, especially in relation to this page; seriously, do you understand the nature of a blacklist? I don't mean to offend, I simply wish to know --CaseyBennetto 4 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


I know very well what the so-called "blacklist" is, which is often used as a euphemism to disguise commercial failure and popular rejecton. It is not precisely relevant whether he was or was not a Communist. What is relevant is that the public as a whole, invoking their freedom of assocation, decided not to subsidize Mr. Loeb's work any longer. Mr. Loeb obviously would not have any right to force others to pay to see his work, so the right and honest course of action would be to attempt to persuade the public that he was not a Communist, and that they should continue to see his work. That he died of suicide, bitterly arguing, in effect, that the public should be forced to subsidize someone they believed to be antithetical to their views, casts a grave shadow on Mr. Loeb's commitment to free speech and free assocation. If he was not a Communist, he at the very least inconsistent and suspect in his support of civil liberties.
MSTCrow July 6, 2005 05:29 (UTC)


It seems that you do not actually know what the Hollywood blacklist was. As the embedded link shows, the Hollywood blacklist was in effect a "no hire" list propagated by a tiny {controlling} minority of studio executives who decided who would and who would not work in Hollywood from the late 1940s forward. A blacklist-related work embargo is the polar opposite of lack of demand related unemployment (which is what you are describing).
The public as a whole, as you put it, did not have the opportunity to see this man's work as he was not allowed to work, solely because of his perceived political views (which is, of course, an illegal act in a democratic nation). Put in context of your statements surrounding freedom of association and personal choice, this action by a small group of Hollywood executives is not representative of those qualities. Further, Mr. Loeb did not, as you suggest, die arguing that the public should be forced to subsidize his work. He simply wanted an opportunity to work in the land he believed to be built on opportunity and freedom for all. Mr. Loeb did not receive this opportunity. I cannot understand how in one paragraph someone can say both that "Mr. Loeb did not have a commitment to free speech" and "He was suspect in his support of civil liberties". Exactly what does "suspect in his support of civil liberties" mean? While I don't wish to insult you personally, I have no choice but to point out that these are Stalinist arguments.
Philip Loeb (like Cliff Robertson and many others) was blacklisted right out of Hollywood. If his only crime is that he was "less popular" than Arthur Miller and Elia Kazan (just two examples of his contemporaries who suffered under the HUAC and McCarthyist interrogations), I fail to see why he should be disqualified from historical record such as Wikipedia. The fact that You do not like Mr. Loeb's work is duly noted, however you have still yet to offer any concrete evidence relating to the NPOV dispute you originally registered with this article. Please do so or remove the NPOV dispute asap.
Posthocergopropterhoc 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)


Posted to User talk:MSTCrow

  • Your stated reasoning for a POV warning has been answered by me and another user. As such, I am removing it - again. If you wish to reinsert it, please do, but first clearly and specifically enunciate exactly what is POV about it. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 6 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)


Hmmmm. I just noticed User:MSTCrow said I wrote this article as pro-Communist! Love people who come to Wikipedia with agendas. Interesting that for someone whose family has in its hallowed halls elected "conservatives" for four generations and who himself has voted straight "conservative" for forty years, always, and who with good old "communist" ideals, gave up his senior executive position as an investment banker (with its substantial income, pension and perks), sold his house, shining new Benz SL, and cashed in all his investments then sunk every single penny to fulfill the communist dream and acquire a business. Yes, we bankers/business owners are a terrible lot of lefties. -- Failure to admit wrongs from the past is one of the hallmarks of the likes of Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski – both did nothing wrong, they are just misunderstood! And oh yes, my children have followed in my communist footsteps too: one is a Chartered Accountant, the other a stockbroker. Ted Wilkes 6 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)


Wrong!! HUAC was NEVER interconnected with Mccarthy! Enough Bias here. They were seperate. (Romanyankee 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC))


And, yes it was illegal to be a commie pinko back in the 1950's. The party was shut down and made an illegal entity thanks to hubert humphrey I believe! In 1954 it was banned!

Fair use rationale for Image:Loebphilipactorsequity.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Loebphilipactorsequity.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He Died of the Blacklist[edit]

This supposedly bias-free biography highlights a letter to the New York Times that reads in part, "One woman wrote to the Drama Editor of the New York Times' to say that Loeb "died of a sickness commonly called the blacklist." [6] Why is this included? Is this letter writer a psychiatrist of great renown? Are there other Wikipedia biographies citing opinions of letter writers to the New York Times or any other newspaper?--68.104.193.177 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)