Talk:Hollywood blacklist/Archive 1

Comments
When and where were they jailed? They sound like US citizens to me, say so. Why were they jailed? --drj (delete me when resolved).

Later: Thanks, good work all. - If I remember correctly--and I'm not certain I do; that's why I haven't added this already--they were jailed for refusing to testify about alleged Communist tendencies in coworkers in Hollywood. --KQ

"On December 5th a Grand Jury convenes in Washington, D.C, and issues indictments against all members of the 'Hollywood 10' for contempt of Congress." (http://www.hollywood10.com/history3.html) --Yooden - Right, I understand that, but one has to do something to be put in contempt of Congress, and I thought that that was what they had done. I'm looking.

From the same source: "He had decided to give in to the committees' demands and appeared before it again in 1951 and acknowledged that he had briefly belonged to the party between 1944 and 1945. ... His testimony required him to name others who had also been involved with the Communist Party, and gave the committee the name of six directors."

OK, I thought you were looking for the actual charge.

From what I read in the text, they refused to verify or deny their relations to the Communist Party. --Yooden

Yes, drj is looking for the actual charges on each and when jailed. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/blacklist.html This page gives some info about what each one does and when sentenced.

'Contempt of Congress' is not the charge? --Yooden

It seems so. I'm having trouble finding the dates.

The article says, "Group of film makers jailed for contempt of congress and blacklisted by the House Unamerican Activities Committee". I think this is not quite correct.

They were cited by the full House of Representatives for contempt of Congress (as recommended by the committee), indicted by a federal grand jury, tried and convicted in a federal district court, and their convictions were upheld by the federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, which declined to review the case.

They were "blacklisted" by the Hollywood studio heads, who declared that they would be suspended or fired and not rehired until they were acquitted or purged of contempt and had sworn they were not Communists.

Their appearance before the committee was in October 1947, the blacklisting in November. The trials were in the spring of 1948, and they went to jail in 1950.

Tthe contempt charges arose from their efforts to disrupt the committee's proceedings while refusing to answer questions put to them by the committee concerning their Communist affiliations and activities. The committee was investigating Communist influence in the Hollywood labor unions. Among the questions they refused to answer was, "Are you a member of the Screen Writers Guild?" - HWR -

Good research, so go put it on the Hollywood ten page

This whole subject is rather interesting, with all the different personalities involved--not just the principals, but the others, too: Groucho Marx, Humphrey Bogart, Rita Hayworth...and that ill-mannered senator :-D ....

Hollywood blacklist
The Hollywood blacklist page redirects to this one. I think the topic deserves its own page. The Blacklist page discusses the Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and 50s, but also other senses of the term. Shouldn't Hollywood blacklist be its own page, to which both Hollywood ten and Blacklist both link? - dcljr 21:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Proposed Sections
--202.67.5.18 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC) - request the experts to put a section regarding the reaction of public and of communist party. In particular, why communist party did not openly support or disown or sue etc. appropriate institutions and individuals. ---

OK, in addition to some other restructurings I'll be doing, I'm going to propose adding some other sections, including:

- Contemporary artistic responses to the blacklist; this would include items considered both pro and con, such as the making of "Salt of the Earth", "High Noon", "On The Waterfront", "The Crucible", and other artistic works made at the time that were (and are) thought to have been a comment on various aspects of the blacklist and McCarthy era.

- A general blacklist timeline; would begin with the Waldorf Statement, and include "watershed moments" up until maybe the 70's, when the late of the blacklisted writers got direct credit (like Ring Lardner for "M*A*S*H), and movies around that time that directly addressed the blacklist era ("The Way We Were", "The Front").

- Contemporary entertainment figures involved in the blacklist who weren't blacklisted themselves; this would be people like Walt Disney, Ayn Rand, etc.

- Present day controversies from the blacklist era, specifically mentioning the controversy and response surrounding Elia Kazan's honorary Oscar presented in 1999.

Any comments or suggestions for this, please speak up. --Dh100 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Overview Sourcing and Veracity Issues
OK, I just noticed that the Overview section contains allegations that "the Hollywood Ten were acting under orders by the Communist Party" and that their counsel was also paid for by the Party. I am totally unaware of any evidence for this. If somebody can provide sourcing, it can be reverted. However, I'm removing it for now.

--Dh100 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions as to Sourcing and Veracity in the Opening Paragraph
Hate to bring this up, but I have some objections/questions when it comes to the opening paragraph.

"The Hollywood blacklist was a group of film actors, directors, and screenwriters in the late 1940s and early 1950s, including at least ten who were members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), who were investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee for communist activities based on information gleaned by the US and UK governments via the VENONA project (cryptanalysis of messages sent by several Soviet intelligence agencies to cells in the West)."

My comments on this are as follows:

- This opening gives the impression that the Hollywood Ten were active members of CPUSA at the time they were called before HUAC. As I recall, this is inaccurate. Many, if not all, were CPUSA members at previous moments in their past, but I'm not sure if I can recall any who were members at the time they were called before HUAC, or even at any time in their recent pasts.

- The reference to the Venona decrypts is very misleading, and quite frankly, inaccurate. There is ZERO evidence I'm aware of that the Hollywood Ten were targeted due to information given to HUAC from Venona. The big case I'm aware of where Venona was involved at the time was the Alger Hiss affair. Like McCarthy's infamous "list of names" (yes, I'm aware he was NOT on HUAC), Venona often gets glommed onto all sorts of stuff, onto contemporary events where it has no place. For example, while McCarthy's proponents tend to claim that Venona "vindicated" him, there is not a whit of evidence he was ever given so much as a scintilla of Venona intel, and his scattershot approach identified a few persons also tracked in Venona, but there's no evidence at all this is due to anything except accident. In a more salient vein to this article, I'd like to see a cite that ANY of the Hollywood Ten are so much as mentioned in the Venona decrypts at all.

--Dh100 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: a quick Google confirms what I suspected as to the involvement of Venona decrypts in the cases of the Hollywood Ten; it is essentially ZERO. The only cite I've been able to find for involvement of Venona in the cases of blacklisted Hollywood and entertainment figures as a whole involves Walter Bernstein, who was NOT a member of the Hollywood Ten. Even in his case, a rather arch-conservative source says that "the recently decoded “Venona” documents suggest that Walter Bernstein, one of those blacklisted, had offered information to the NKVD more than once." In other words, Venona doesn't contain any information of blacklisted entertainment figures being active Soviet intel assets, let alone specifically the Hollywood Ten.

Unless anybody has any objections, I'm going to make my first Wikipedia edit be a reworking of the opening paragraph to better fit reality.

--Dh100 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've performed my first edit on this. Let's keep Venona the heck OUT of this, as all it does is muddy the waters considerably, and in fact is a wholly specious and fact free assertion, one that frankly borders on accusation. Let's stick to what we do know, that being the facts in the case are that the Hollywood Ten were called before HUAC, cited for contempt, and jailed for it. Others were blacklisted due to non-cooperation with HUAC, or due to heresay or other items, factual, unfactual, sourced or no (being listed in "Red Channels," etc). The ONLY sourced mention of any blacklistee being mentioned in Venona decrypts is in regards to Walter Bernstein, and it was in regards to an alleged promise that he would "write a report" after interviewing Tito for "Stars and Stripes" during WWII; there were no followups in Venona to this. There are ZERO mentions of blacklistees in Venona in regards to their work in Hollywood.

I'll be making additional edits to this article over time, as while it does a decent job of giving an overview on the subject, other paragraphs aren't particularly well constructed and could use work as well.

--Dh100 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, I added ", alleged," before "Communist Party activities;" in this sentence (so it reads, thus):

"...involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into, alleged, Communist Party activities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon444 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on sentence

 * Ten of those subpoenaed refused to give evidence, citing their First Amendment rights

Should this be Fifth Amendment rights? Deco 2 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

No, that was the mistake they made. (On advice of legal counsel) Had they taken the Fifth, they would never have been convicted. They appealed, but the Court ruled they weren't protected by the First Amendenment. After them, everyone takes the Fifth. Ted Wilkes 17:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Re edit: 20:55, July 15, 2005 Nobs01 (blacklist was by producers who were members of MPAA, not the federal government (HUAC doesn't even have enforcement powers as what would be an executive branch function,assuming its Constitutional)

They were only cited, not convicted but the blacklist was implemented immediately. The appeals weren't exhausted until 1950, meantime there was more three years of investigations and more and more people blacklisted. 17:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Much later, when anti-Communism became less fashionable, they were sometimes portrayed as heroes for their defiance of the committee.

Portayed can be a synonym of impersonate. I think the word evokes a connotation that they were not heroes, which is not neutral. How about: Much later, when anti-Communism became less fashionable, some considered them heroes for their defiance of the committee. 9/19/2005

Not sure it fits.
While I am certain that Michael Jackson might have greater difficulty pursuing his career as a result of his recent legal troubles, I don't know that he belongs on a list of Hollywood Blacklistees, and refering to his profession as a child molester, seems to me to be approaching vandalism.

-

You mean "Micheal Jackson"? This was part of some ongoing childishness from IP 204.100.180.37.


 * Elvis Presley and Walt Disney were blacklisted, couldn't find work, starved to death, and died in obscurity as victims of the Red Scare. Wow.  Learn something new everyday.  nobs 18:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Added Belafonte to blacklisted artists. Also - what about Dixiechick issue?
Chuck from Japan here.

I noted that Belafonte had not been included in the list of blacklisted artists, so I added him.

Another comment/suggestion about the title and relevant broadening of scope. The title suggests that the blacklist was limited to Hollywood, although we all know it included people like Belafonte, Seeger (whose name was on the list of blacklisted artists here). I don't propose changing the name, but at least it should be made clear that the blacklist went far beyond Hollywood, and in that sense, I think the list of blacklisted artists could be greatly expanded.

Second, and even more importantly, this all seems to be treated as a historical issue, but isn't blaclisting alive and well in the United States? I refer, of course, to the issue of the Dixie Chicks and the chilling "signal" sent to all other artists. Shouldn't there be some discussion about the fact that blacklisting to some measure is alive and well?

Also, I understand that Michael Moore had trouble getting his film distributed. In the context of the "modern blacklist," perhaps some mention could be made of this. I think this is a great article and could be even greater if it is put in the broader contexts of the arts in general and history versus present. What do you think?

Cheers


 * In case anyone else is unclear about this, "The Hollywood Blacklist" refers to a particular set of people who were blacklisted during a particular historical period, due to real or suspected Communist beliefs. It's not about any random entertainer who has gotten into trouble of some sort because of his/her beliefs or statements.
 * Re. Harry Belafonte, as far as I can determine he was never blacklisted in this sense of the word. He became very politically outspoken, and has caught some flack for his statements, much more recently. KarlBunker 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Article?!
Good Article?! This can't be serious. The only reason I came to the discussion page was to see why it hasn't been marked as needing cleaning up. Sentences are unclear, acronyms aren't identified, Ideas are fragmented and disjointed, and even punctuation is missing!

"The Hollywood blacklist stemmed from events dating back to the 1930s" - This should at least have a small overview of what type of events. (not to mention being a link to the 1930s)

"In October of 1947, a list of suspected communists...were summoned to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities..." - The list was summoned, or the people were?

"Witnesses such as Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan either felt it was patriotic to expose others or, out of fear for the consequences of non-compliance, named names." - Should this be removed as speculation?

I am just listing these to show why I feel this is not a "good article." I also feel that before this can be considered comprehensive, a list of works directly affected by the blacklisting should be added. I am going to mark it as needing cleaning, and clean what I can. Bitoffish 18:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Added E. Y. "Yip" Harburg, composer to blacklist
Chuck, Japan

the story of the rat kazan not added?
Im impressed that the story of Elia Kazan is missing, the rat Kazan, who was so happy to rat out some of his colleages to the HUAC, ruinning promissing careers of his colleages and how later he recieved an honorary oscar for his achievements, although everyone know that it was to forgive what he did (the academy is very sentimentalist about these things, or else, if it was only for achievements, Leni Riefenstahl would had got an honorary award a long time ago for his breakthrough in film making). The article is missing this key story, wich belongs to hollywood folklore.


 * Leni Riefenstahl was a woman! (-:  Hebron 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Other questions and comments
Question to Ted Wilkes: were all ten native born American citizens? Nobs01 28 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)

No story on that commie busting Kazan!
for same reasons as above, but thought I would just like to correct the sympathetic pinko and claim he was a anti-pinko whitsleblower!

RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

Holding place for mooted "Contemporary references" section
Not clear at all if this section is desirable--certainly not in its stubby state. It merely distracts from the serious historical content of the article. If someone is interested in working it up, with an edifying discussion of how the blacklist is treated in these examples of "modern popular culture," have at it:


 * Contemporary References


 * The blacklist continues to be an common theme in modern popular culture. Films like The Majestic and the television program Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip use the blacklist as a backdrop in plotlines.



—DCGeist 08:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm usually tolerant of popular culture sections, even though many of them are just backreference trivia. (If "what links here" had a better interface, or could be annotated ... hmmm.) In this case I'm surprised there isn't more, but maybe it was cut back at one time. Obviously there are a fair number of films that directly depict the situation and others that allude to it more generally. What's fascinating here as an opportunity is the real way that the blacklist ideological battles continue to be fought within Hollywood -- for example, the treatment of Kazan at the Oscars. Some of the same people are still alive and scoring points as it were. So this could actually be a full-fledged section closely related to the article, rather than a seeming afterthought. --Dhartung | Talk 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking Issue
Just a small thing. I've never edited before and don't know how, so I'll leave it up to someone more competent. The link near the bottom to others blaklisted has a link to a Joseph Bernard. The link then goes to a turn of the century french sculptor. I actually knew the man; he was a Jewish-American actor and teacher who had many connections in the theatre world and served in World War II. So...maybe that link should be deleted, or whatever it is that happens. Thank you! 24.253.47.205 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And thank you! Correction made.—DCGeist 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a good website about people blacklisted, but I'm not sure it fits here because I think it's about some people from Hollywood as well as outside of Hollywood, so you decide if you want it added: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAred.htm Sundiii (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blacklists because of Racism
Shouldn't we add a section for the Hollywood people who are being blacklisted because or racism, such as Don Imus? littlebum2002 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about "blacklists" in general, it's about "the Hollywood blacklist", which is a very specific event in history. RedSpruce 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Testimony
I'm not so sure that it is correct to say that Reagan testified that Communist allegiance was "rampant" in the movie industry. (The Blacklist Begins Section) In fact, all he testified was that there was a "small clique" who followed "tactics that we associate with the Communist Party", but that the other "99% of us" keep them "curtailed." See, e.g.. Accordingly, I think either Reagan's name needs to be removed or if Disney's testimony is not fairly characterized as claiming it was "rampant" then removing this entirely. RGorman 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reagan certainly has stated in writing that the threat of communists in the film industry was a serious one (e.g., in an article he wrote that appears in "McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare; a Documentary History, p. 125"), though in what I've seen he didn't claim that their numbers were large. So perhaps the wording of that passage should be changed. RedSpruce 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I used some of your language to clarify for the time being, but the passage might need some more refining.RGorman 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayden quotes
Okay, fine, I can see your point that my augmenting the quote you had with another one might be considered redundant. However, nothing about the way your quote was set up suggested that the reference listed at the end of the paragraph was for the quote. Rather, it looks to me as though the reference is intended to cite the rumor you list after the quote, not the quote itself. Nothing about my quote was "inside" yours, and it didn't appear in my careful examination to be an encroachment on your citation, at least not the way it's framed. But I'm content to leave mine out as redundant; it's in the article on Hayden, too, so in retrospect it is, I suppose, particularly redundant. Monkeyzpop 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish targets?
I ran across http://www.sfjff.org/site/pages/index.php?ptype=4&pchild_id=92&detlID=24, the sanfran Jewish film festival 25 year retrospective that looked at the work of blacklisted Jews. It states in part "Six out of the so-called “Hollywood Ten,” and 10 of the 19 brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) were Jews." I have no idea whether this belongs in this article in any form, but I hadn't seen that noted before, though it doesn't surprise me. Mulp 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There were and are a fair number of Jews in Hollywood, and I don't think the 6/10 or 10/19 was that out of line with their proportion in Hollywood. So, this change seems unnecessary.Arlesd (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Links in the names
I guess Lee Gold the filker, who is linked to from the name,is not Lee Gold the screenwriter blacklisted in 2003. I couldn't find any details, though (after a little search), except for some other screenwriter, whom it may be just a bit late to blacklist. — AVRS 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the article so it's now a red link to "Lee Gold (screenwriter)" instead of a blue link to the wrong Lee Gold. RedSpruce 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks — AVRS 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood Ten disambiguation
Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page or link for Hollywood ten? When searching in the general search it goes directly to Hollywood blacklist and there is no link to the page for the Hollywood Ten (film 1950). I had included information on the film in the 1948-1950 section (see my previous edit), as I think there should be some way to link to it.--Almw113 (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a disambiguation link to the top of this article. RedSpruce (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist in general
Why not include all people who have been blacklisted in the tumultuous war years and post-war years. Why not talk about the Nazi fifth column, too. At the outbreak of WW II, there were many Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in America and they were blacklisted from Hollywood and from other jobs and areas of society. Some of these peoples lives were destroyed and they were put in jail. Whatever happened to them? The 1st Amendment protection for U.S. citizens should extend even to people that we don't like -- isn't that the proof of a strong first amendment? To talk about the "Hollywood Blacklist" and only have it discuss Communinists makes me worry that there is sympathy for their ideology, too. If this article could include other similar events that were happening at almost the same time and for the same reasons would prove that this is not just a justification exercise for supporting the Soviet Union. And this would show fair-mindedness. People who are against blacklists should stand up and be counted and those who are just opposed to blacklists of Communists should be asked to explain this discrepancy. It is a high principle that is at stake. Lkoler (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules of Wikipedia require that articles reflect the current scholarly literature on an article's subject. In scholarly (and popular) literature, "the Hollywood blacklist" has a specific and confined definition, and that's the definition that this article is adhering to. RedSpruce (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that I would then like to turn to the opening discussion of the HUAC then and point out the connection there in the Historical background section. The HUAC was used during the war to go after Nazis and their sympathizers. Many communists and their sympathizers in Hollywood were anxious to name names (and did), but only after Hitler invaded the USSR. This would put the whole issue of the importance of Hollywood as a prized propaganda tool in perspective. The communists certainly thought that blacklists compiled against their enemies were a good idea. This is very important because the way this article reads now it is purely from the POV of the blacklisted communists without historical context of why blacklists in Hollywood were compiled and why Hollywood was viewed as so important to the war effort and to the cold-war effort. Lkoler (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on Wikipedia rules.

Summary
The article used, and uses in other names:
 * Jean Rouverol (Butler)
 * I found it confusing, since my first thought was that she was somehow a blacklisted person who worked as a butler. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For example:
 * Eddie Anderson (comedian)
 * Harry Brooks (composer)

Rejected compromises:
 * Jean Rouverol (changed by Norton) This was first change to standardized format. This was reversed back to the DCGeist's original version by DCGeist.
 * Jean Rouverol Butler (suggested by Norton as compromise) This was reversed back to the editor's original version.
 * Jean Rouverol who worked under the name "Jean Rouverol Butler" (suggested by Vernon as compromise). This was reversed back to the DCGeist's original version by DCGeist.
 * Jean Rouverol (suggested by RedSpruce to back to first change) This was reversed back to the DCGeist's original version by DCGeist.
 * Jean Rouverol, wife of Hugo Butler (suggested by Norton) This was reversed back to the DCGeist's original version by DCGeist.
 * Jean Rouverol (with no qualifications, parenthetical or otherwise, per Norton, Bigtimepeace, RedSpruce, and EJF) This was reversed back to the DCGeist's original version by DCGeist.

Comments
How about "Jean Rouverol Butler" since (butler) is reserved for occupations to disambiguate people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For example:
 * Eddie Anderson (comedian)
 * Harry Brooks (composer)


 * Jean Rouverol (Butler), made me think they were a butler for their occupation
 * Jean Rouverol Butler, whereas this would make me think their maiden name or married name was "Butler". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: User went on to reverse the change and write: "rv--nope, the exact same style is used above for two other actresses who used their married names in private life but retained their maiden names for their public careers; it's perfectly standard"

Well, there is your standard for the article, which I found confusing, and thought that their occupation was as a butler. But Wikipedia has different standards. Yes, that style is used elsewhere in the article, but of, course we can assume, its your style again used within the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )


 * I'd say that "Jean Rouverol Butler" is the less correct option since AFAWK that isn't a name she used. Maybe it would be best just to leave off the married names? RedSpruce (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If she were a butler it would be Jean Rouverol (butler). Without looking up policies on maiden names, I would say that one could list her as "Jean Rouverol, actress and writer sometimes credited as Jean Rouverol Butler"


 * I don't see the "Givenname Maidenname (husband's name)" mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as a standard. How about the compromise above, since you rejected the previous compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. "Sometimes credited as" would be fine if there was evidence that such is the case, but the sources adduced provide no such evidence. It is not a "compromise," but an assertion of fact that is unfounded. I don't see any compelling reason to change the stable and consistent style of the article because one editor happens to think that "Jean Rouverol (Butler), actress and writer" in a list of blacklisted entertainment industry professionals means Jean Rouverol is a butler. No dice.—DCGeist (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you say it was "utterly pointless to include this" (your comment to a change I made elsewhere)? Since she is not known by her maiden name.  How about pairing her with her husband? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a manual of style with rules for naming people. I am converting to the MoS version. If your argument is she should be called "Jean Rouverol (Butler)", that argument should be made at her article page, and unconventional naming should be avoided, and the MoS rules applied. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For an example of complex naming see: Alberta Christine Williams King not Alberta Christine Williams (King). I haven't seen your techniques used anywhere else in Wikipedia. I sometimes see it, or a variation of it in obituaries, and its confusing there too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The style that the article uses and will continue to use for such cases is the style predominantly used by the cited sources. You remain the first and only person to be confused by it. Your confusion—which should be fully cleared up by now...Jean Rouverol was not a blacklisted butler—does not require a change in style.—DCGeist (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The MoS for Wikipedia is what determines the style used in Wikipedia. Just as an article from a Russian source may correctly put the name in Cyrillic, that wouldn't follow the Wikipedia MoS either, even though it was still a valid representation of her name. Every reference work has its own style guide, each contradicting the style guide of its rival publications. Internal consistency is more important, to give the same "look and feel" to each article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was asked to look at this. To me, it is quite clear that "Jean Rouverol" would be the preferred form of the name used in this article. My understanding of the Wikipedia naming conventions, Manual of Style and disambiguation guidelines, is that adding "(Butler)" to the end of Jean Rouverol's name is certainly non-standard and does not have precedent. The addition is unnecessary and could be confusing to the reader. "(Butler)" should only be used as a disambiguator for articles in which the subject of the article is indeed a professional butler. If it is wished for the article name to be known as Jean Rouverol (Butler) it would be more appropriate to file a requested move at Rouverol's article page, which would fail, due to its non-compatibility with our standard practices. I don't see the case to having her name represented as "Jean Rouvernol (Butler)" due to the possibility of confusion and due to the deviation from 3 major guidelines. As far as I can see Jean Rouvernol or perhaps Jean Rouvernol Butler would be the most appropriate forms of the name to use. If this naming issue continues it may be best to file a request for comment (done now) . Regards, EJF (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pairing with husband. See the new compromise version: "Jean Rouverol, actress and writer, and wife of Hugo Butler" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Outside comment. I'm a bit unclear as to why we would want to use the name Jean Rouverol (Butler) in the first place. DCGeist makes reference to "cited sources," so I'm assuming this means that the Buhle and Wagner book refers to her as "Jean Butler," or states that she was known as "Jean Butler" in film credits (or as that in private life but by her maiden name in films)? Some clarification of that would useful. Regardless, I think the name to be used should obviously be the name by which the person was generally known. Unless our wiki article is wrong, that name is Jean Rouverol. If that is wrong then the issue should be addressed at that page. The "compromise version" seems very odd to me. She seems to be the only person in the list who is listed as "wife of so-and-so." She had her own career and was blacklisted in her own right, so I think we should refer to her alone using whatever name she was most commonly known by. I'm still unclear about what is underlying this dispute so perhaps that could be clarified, but that's where I stand for now. Oh and, incidentally, I certainly would find Jean Rouverol (Butler) confusing at first glance, and imagine many other readers would as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside comment. The only form I know of using a parentheses with a name would be Jean {Rouverol) Butler, to indicate a woman's maiden name, but that is always put in the middle. Since she was apparently known more widely as Jean Rouverol, that would seem to be preferred. --Parkwells (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that style in obituaries of the maiden name in parenthesis, and it still can be confusing, especially when the woman has been married multiple times. Sometimes they use her previous married surnname, and sometimes they use he birth surname. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to add my belated comment. We need, in a project of this magnitude, to maintain consistency. Since this person was a performer, we should use the name under which she professionally worked and was most frequently credited. The parenthetical additional name is a violation of our naming conventions. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Overview and other edits
The article starts out saying that many young artists' participation in the Communist Party of the US was "because of events rooted in the 1930s and '40s", but then says nothing about what those events were, not even about the Great Depression and millions of people out of work. The article can serve two purposes - tell people about the Hollywood blacklist, but also tell them about why idealistic people might have turned to the Communist Party in the 20s and 30s. Instead, the article only refers to the fact that they didn't know about Stalin's murderous excesses until later, not offering why they were attracted to Communism in the first place. Adding a phrase about the Great Depression is not extreme, and putting the learning about Stalin later (where it happened in time) makes sense. One editor has rejected all my edits as "bad", but in fact I am a good writer and editor, and my services have been requested by others (as you can see by my Talk page). No one is supposed to assume he or she "owns" an article. At a minimum, I know Wikipedia discourages the use of contractions, and this editor even reverted such changes of "couldn't" to "could not". That seems like an attempt at ownership of this article by one person.


 * I didn't reject all your edits as bad; I used that unnecessarily contentious language about most of the edits you made to one section: "This decision was found to be due to the influence of..." is a more awkward and less precise recasting of what was a perfectly functional sentence. "Co-written" changed the proper and consistent style of "cowritten" (the style preferred by The Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster's) to a style that is less preferred in contemporary American English. Changing the sentence that began "And there" to "There" weakened the sense and flow of the paragraph. The notion that a sentence should not begin with "and" is not supported by any major manual of American English style—adherence to that particular notion is often the mark of those who imagine themselves to be more familiar with good writing than they actually are. If I overreacted in my edit summary, it was probably because of memories of the neverending battle on behalf of the leadoff "and" and "but." They're valuable expressive tools with a proud history. But don't take my word for it. Here's a good place to start:.
 * Since you have the Chicago Manual of Style handy, does it also encourage sentences that end in prepositions - "the decision Kirk Douglas was largely responsible for." That was the part that struck me as "off", not claiming my solution was the best one.--Parkwells (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I should note that you elsewhere made such changes as altering "Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in...the American Communist Party" to "alleged past membership." That is simply incorrect. Artists were barred for alleged membership, past or present. You unnecessarily changed the proper and consistent number style in one section—and then didn't even apply your unnecessary style change consistently throughout. (Even if you had, it still would have been an improper change to make: our Manual of Style states clearly that you should respect a stable, consistent, proper style in an article unless there is a compelling reason to change it.) You took good style ("federal antitrust suit") and turned it into overtly bad style ("Federal anti-trust suit")—"Federal" is never capitalized in professional writing in this sort of grammatical context; the closed compound is again preferred by The Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster's, and certainly allowed by our MoS. The reason I originally reverted the mention of the Great Depression you added is that your version managed to suggest that the 1930s "followed" the Depression. Oy. However, you are right that it is worthwhile to mention it, to suggest the motivations of some of those who joined the Communist Party. The Depression appears once again in the article. You are correct as well about contractions.—DCGeist (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to suggest was that most of the artists accused were no longer members or active in the Party. I know that did not affect the weight of the allegations, but was trying to show also that they were being condemned for actions long past. Oy, of course I know the Great Depression didn't follow the 1930s and didn't mean to suggest that. You have fixed it and at least now provided a reminder to the many people whose history is fuzzy of events of 1930 and after that affected why people might join groups on the Left. --Parkwells (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Bias
This article suffers from a severe bias. It is almost uniformly sympathetic to those blacklisted, and ignores the deep roots that the CPUSA had in the guilds and studios and their near successful attempt to takeover or dominate these organizations.

There is relatively no discussion into the motives of the individuals who did testify. Many of them did so because they became disgusted with the tactics of the Hollywood communists and the realization that they were little more than Moscow puppets.

Statements like “Much of the onscreen evidence of Communist influence uncovered by HUAC was feeble at best.” Certainly don’t represent wither a neutral style or even a factual tone.

I will be doing a good deal of work on this article over the next several days, and will remove the tag then. Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to establish that the changes you want to introduce reflect the majority view among scholars and authors in the field. See WP:UNDUE. As you're probably aware, the consensus view among scholars, authors, film historians, etc., is that the blacklist was a gross injustice and a subversion of American values. While you and others may believe this consensus is mistaken, your view is a tiny minority view, and that's what matters according to the rules of Wikipedia.
 * That isn't to say that I think this article is perfect, and if you can make some good changes that aren't focused around correcting the conventional wisdom around the blacklist, I'd personally be happy to see them. RedSpruce (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * RedSpruce, yours is a COMPLETELY FALSE statement: WP:UNDUE does not require a majority, not by a longshot. Your statement shoule be covered by WP:UNDO :)


 * I never stated, nor do I believe that the blacklist was not an injustice, only that this article is a one sided puff piece. For example, no where is there a discussion of the fact that those who testified and took the fifth was little more than a legal strategy by Crum Margolis and Kenny wherein they could keep silent and appear indignant, while simultaneously being able to build an appeal for contempt charges. Nor is there any indication that the hostile witnesses legal team was dominated by Communist part members and that all “group decision” made were handed down from the Party’s leadership. A fact that Bartley Crum, who took the case on real 1st amendment grounds rather than to advance the Party’s agenda, was very upset with when he found out.


 * No where is there any indication that Dalton Trumbo, perhaps the most famous of those blacklisted, became very disillusioned with the Communist part over behavior during the blacklist. Trumbo came to the conclusion that the Ten were more valuable to the part as a propaganda tool and did nothing to help them get their ruined careers and reputations back.


 * But you cant have it both ways. The way I have interpreted the policy, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if there is a dispute, which there would seem to be, the tag has to stay or my edits have to stay. You cant have your cake and eat it to in this case. CENSEI (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like all other content, adding a "POV" tag is dependent on consensus among WP editors. So far I'm not seeing any consensus to add one.
 * I never stated, nor do I believe that the blacklist was not an injustice... That's good to hear, but let's focus on your actual edits. You removed a lot of content about the damage the blacklist did to people's lives and careers. Any "commonly accepted reference text" (WP:UNDUE's phrase) will focus on this aspect of the blacklist, not on the actual communist affiliations of some of the accused. RedSpruce (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be only 2 of us talking about this, so I would say that 50% of the editors who have weighed in think there is a dispute. After further reading the link from the NPOV tag, I find nothing about the need for consensus among WP editors to add it or keep it. CENSEI (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed your edit but am willing to keep the POV tag for now. Please discuss the content of the article, including any changes you would like to see, and why. If you don't discuss the article, then there is no dispute over the article's neutrality, so no justification for the POV tag. RedSpruce (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated most of my edit. I has rewritten the over the top language in the intro, and removed "often made betrayal of friendship (not to mention principle) the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry. " because the vast majority of those who testified did so willingly with no reservations about what they did. CENSEI (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The text you removed is well accepted as part of the standard history of the Blacklist. It should be given a reference, and I'll try to get to that soon. Your notion that "the vast majority of those who testified did so willingly with no reservations" is interesting; do you have a reference for that? RedSpruce (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tossing an unsolicited amicus curiae here: I'm in agreement with RedSpruce.  I think there's nothing biased about the passage -- it's clear from sources within and without the article that expediency and honor were at tremendous odds during this period for many called to testify.  I have a much harder time accepting CENSEI's statement that "the vast majority of those who testified did so willingly with no reservations".  That's all.  Just weighing in with an outside opinion to help provide some consensus. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article remains biased and lacks a neutral point of view. It states that Stalin's crimes weren't well known when most members joined the CPUSA. This statement is unsourced and not entirely accurate. Dalton Trumbo officially joined the party in 1943; by then he should have known Stalin's true nature. The article completely omits one of the main reasons so many joined the party in the 1930s.

Reading the background one would think that the CPUSA was a normal political party, only more humanitarian. It is impermissible to point out why so many found the CPUSA objectionable. The first rationale for removing adverse information about the CPUSA was unreliable sources. No one provided a single example of the sources publishing inaccurate information (and the best writers of non-fiction make mistakes). If the sources were unreliable there would be multiple sources questioning their reliability. The most specific criticism was that they are "professional anti-communists," whatever that is. The sources are used for other Wikipedia articles. Some of them are top scholars in the field. Theodore Draper was a writer for communist publications. If anything he was a professional communist. Yet his accurate quote of the CPUSA's constitution had to go.

The next rationale is that mentioning the nature of the CPUSA is not relevant. No reason why the information is irrelevant is given. In an article about alleged membership in the CPUSA, one would think that its nature is highly relevant. It is okay to provide motivation for joining the party, but not the motives of the blacklisters and others who opposed the CPUSA.

Finally, one can't even summarize the United States Constitution. All three branches of the government ruled that the First Amendment does not permit one to avoid testifying. Attempts to point this out get deleted. Unlike everyone else, the Hollywood Ten are to be allowed their own interpretation of the constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Ten Should Be Separate From Blacklist
The Hollywood Ten should be a separate article from the Blacklist. Would you have all articles about battles of the American Civil War or World War Two redirect to the war, proper? And why does this say it is part of the Screenwriting project. The Blacklist affected more than just screenwriters. It affected directors, producers and actors, among others.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Misstatement of law
Currently the article reads ""Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Such membership was not and had never been illegal."

This is simply incorrect, a false "fact." Membership in the CPUSA was illegal under the Smith Act, passed in 1940, and remained so until Blau v US (1957). In the early 1950's many leaders of the CPUSA were indicted and convicted for being members of an "organization advocating the violent overthrow of the government of the United States."

Barring objection, I'll correct in three days. Solicitr (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear. The Smith Act did not legally bar Americans from membership in the Communist Party. What it did was make it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government or to organize for the purpose of such advocacy. Unquestionably, the Act was used years later to prosecute members of the ACP, but that's a very different matter from claiming that the Hollywood Ten violated U.S. law by joining the ACP. They simply had not, and there was no claim in the HUAC hearings that they had.—DCGeist (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion
Next to the blacklisted names near the bottom there is something like this "(Herman 1997: 356; Dick 1989: 7) " What in the world does this mean?! Unknowntbeast (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Badly formatted references. No time to do so myself, but these should be reformatted to WP standard in-line citations. Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. It's a perfectly proper reference format.—DCGeist (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Wording
I am not sure who the idiot was, that referred to the America First Party as Neo-Fascist. But the accusation is asinine. Please, stick to the facts and stop with the political opinion please.

Thank You.

-Pat

09:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs)


 * Seems to be an accurate, well-sourced description. You have been reverted, dear sir/ma'am.—DCGeist (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More Blacklisted Names, Investigated Names, and Those Who Named Names
Vincent Price, Ruby Dee, Ossie Davis, Rosetta LeNoire, Josephine Baker, Frederick O'Neal, Dick Campbell, Helen Martin, Jack Carter (the actor not the comedian), and Hal Roach were blacklisted by HUAC. The following were also investigated by HUAC but never blacklisted:
 * Lauren Bacall, actress
 * Lucille Ball, actress and comedienne
 * Tallulah Bankhead, actress
 * Humphrey Bogart, actor
 * Marlon Brando, actor
 * James Cagney, actor
 * Montgomery Clift, actor
 * Bette Davis, actress
 * Dorothy Dandridge, actress and singer
 * Marlene Dietrich, actress and singer
 * Helen Gahagan Douglas, politician
 * Melyvn Douglas, actor
 * Philip Dunne, screenwriter
 * Roger Edens, composer and vocal arranger
 * Sylvia Fine, composer
 * Stan Freberg, comedian and voice actor
 * Ava Gardner, actress
 * Judy Garland, singer and actress
 * Betty Garrett, actress
 * Ira Gershwin, composer
 * Georgia Gibbs, singer
 * Julie Harris, actress
 * June Havoc, actress
 * Rita Hayworth, actress
 * Sonja Henie, figure skater and actress
 * Libby Holman, singer
 * Katharine Hepburn, actress
 * Rock Hudson, actor
 * John Huston, director and screenwriter
 * Danny Kaye, actor and comedian
 * Gene Kelly, actor, director, dancer, singer, choreographer
 * Burt Lancaster, actor
 * Joseph L. Mankiewicz, director, producer, and screenwriter
 * Fredric March, actor
 * James Mason, actor
 * Groucho Marx, actor and comedian
 * Harpo Marx, actor and comedian
 * Vincente Minnelli, director
 * Robert Mitchum, actor
 * Marilyn Monroe, actress and model
 * Sidney Poitier, actor
 * Anthony Quinn, actor
 * Eleanor Roosevelt, former First Lady, social reformer, and humanitarian
 * Frank Sinatra, singer and actor
 * Kay Thompson, singer and vocal arranger
 * Shelley Winters, actress
 * William Wyler, director

the following "friendly witnesses" named names in front of HUAC:
 * Pandro Berman, mogul
 * Ward Bond, actor
 * Roy Brewer, union leader
 * Harry Cohn, mogul
 * Gary Cooper, actor
 * Cecil B. DeMille, director and producer
 * Walt Disney, mogul
 * Clark Gable, actor
 * Samuel Goldwyn, mogul
 * Sterling Hayden, actor
 * Hedda Hopper, gossip columnist and actress
 * Howard Hughes, mogul
 * Robert Hughes, screenwriter
 * Burl Ives, singer and actor
 * Elia Kazan, director
 * Louis B. Mayer, mogul
 * Adolphe Menjou, actor
 * Robert Montgomery, actor and director
 * Larry Parks, actor
 * Louella Parsons, gossip columnist
 * Mary Pickford, actress and producer
 * Ayn Rand, author
 * Ronald Reagan, actor and future President of the United States
 * Jerome Robbins, choreographer, dancer, and director
 * Ginger Rogers, actress
 * Lela Rogers, screenwriter, acting coach, and mother of Ginger Rogers
 * David O. Selznick, mogul
 * Budd Schulberg, screenwriter
 * Barbara Stanwyck, actress
 * Robert Taylor, actor
 * Jack L. Warner, mogul
 * John Wayne, actor
 * Henry Willson, agent
 * Walter Winchell, gossip columnist
 * Darryl F. Zanuck, mogul--98.226.9.223 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Denied Entry into US?
Are former Hollywood stars who are denied entry to the US, such as Charlie Chaplin, automatically part of the blacklist? 92.20.168.62 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Little criticism and Paul Robeson

 * 1) One this looks like to be a really great article
 * 2) I respectfully suggest an ad infinitum listing of those black listed does not belong in this article
 * 3) move the ad infinitum list to another article then submit it for, at the very least, peer review if not GA

I can't take out anything from the Robeson article and dump it here, this article is too heavily researched and those lists make the article too long to read. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, from Bert Bell, I have Bill Radovich being blacklisted by the NFL, which eventually led to the formation of of the National Football League Players Association—which was clearly a monumental moment in American sports history. I think my usage of the word, blacklisted, is correct in the article. I invite the editors of this article to reevaluate devoting 50% of this article to lists. I humbly suggest, this article should not list all those names, especially if they exist in a book somewhere—that violates Wikipedia NOT; this article can not copy and paste a list of 200-400 names from a book and put it here—it violates wikipedia NOT. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * if an editor can comeup with a better term for Radovich's blacklisting, which was an entirely management/employee thing, as opposed to a result of a communist thing, then post it here or just edit the verb in the Bell article. But my criticism of this article still stands w respect to the lists.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From dealing with the Robeson article, I would surmise that people are very passionate about their favorite person being listed in this article. I humbly suggest the editor's of this article should deal with the expected complaints from other editors and delete those lists. I respectfully suggest the article will be stalled by including such long lists in the article. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This entire section violates Wikipedia rules: The Red Channels list (see, e.g., Schrecker [2002], p. 244; Barnouw [1990], pp. 122–24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijustreadbooks (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting deletion of the entire section: The blacklist
Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
What is the evidence that Theodore Draper, Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley, and Daniel Flynn are unreliable sources? Draper was a recognized expert on the founding of the American Communist Party. He was a writer for several of its publications. Flynn has strong opinions, but so do other sources cited in the article. No one has identified any cases where he misrepresented facts. His publisher, Random House, is very large and reputable. Billingsley's research is very thorough. No one has accused him of misusing facts. He was a correspondent for the London Spectator. He has written for the Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Wall Street Journal. Do these publications hire unreliable writers? Without evidence, deleting these sources as unreliable is an arbitrary decision based solely on opinion.

It is a well-established fact that the American Communist Party advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. One editor notes this when discussing the Smith Act. Draper's source is a Communist Part publication.

No one disputes the quote from William Phillips about some of the Hollywood Ten really being communists and lying about it. What were they lying about if it wasn't the scenario described by John Huston?

Another editor indicated that the article is biased. It creates the impression that the blacklisted people were simply naïve about the party they joined. That is far from the truth.

So far, no one has provided any objective evidence that the quotes I added are inaccurate. Unless it is provided in a few days, I will restore them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are three professional anti-Communists, determined to rehabilitate the witch-hunters and blacken the reputations of anybody who was blacklisted. If you've got some sources not so notorious in their biases, bring them out. (And the Wall Street Journal certainly has notoriously unreliable writers working for them on their editorial pages.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Orangemike. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Still no evidence, just opinions. Name some notoriously unreliable writers working at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, keeping in mind that they may read what you say. Do the San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, and London Spectator hire unreliable writers? Billingsley is cited in other Wikipedia articles. Are you going to delete the material at those articles? Is the American Historical Association unreliable? They gave an award to Draper. Your opinions aren't enough. You have to produce evidence. It's irrelevant that you dislike these writers' opinions; so far you haven't cited one example that they use facts in an unreliable manner. This is an encyclopedia. Claims are supposed to be verifiable. Calling someone unreliable and notorious isn't verifiable. Provide something besides opinions. LesLein (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dinesh D'Souza is the obvious one. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the sourcing question, there is the issue of relevancy to the article. The evils of the Communist Party have absolutely no relevancy to this article whatsoever. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no real sourcing question. All of the sources are credible. No one has yet provided any specifics about why they are unreliable. The only reason provided is that they are "notorious" and "professional anti-communists." Notorious is an adjective; there's no evidence that any of the sources are notorious. There is nothing wrong with being professional, or anti-communist. Draper was the leading expert on the American Communist Party. He had been a communist himself. He won major a major award from the American Historical Association. Will someone go to his Wikipedia article and say that he is unreliable? Will someone go to the AHA's article and say that it is unreliable? Good luck with that. Saying that they are unreliable without evidence may be defamatory. To go by the background provided before, one would think that the American Communist Party was a great bunch of humanitarians. Without briefly addressing its evil nature there is no explanation for the origins of the controversy. Its members had some responsibility for understanding the organization they joined. This information is highly relevant. The members of the American Communist Party had some responsibility to understand the organization they supported. Readers ought to know what the fuss was about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Bias
This article is very biased. Edits that I have added keep getting removed.

My posts are factual. They refer the reader to a book by Robert Conquest, and suggest the reader learn about Walter Duranty. These are relevant to the subject.

The current wiki article is very much a soapbox. A statement such as "The party was the primary force in the United States fighting for the rights of poor people" is pure propaganda. The party was "fighting" for the Soviet Union, which was killing more "poor people" than anybody had ever done before. The statement that the "blacklist" " promoted "ideological censorship across the entire industry" is Orwellian. It was in fact the Communist Party USA, including some of those discussed in this article, who were attempting ideological censorship.Some of the very same people discussed as victims in this article did in fact have a real censorship committee which attempted and sometimes succeeded in enforcing the Party ideology on real movies. Yes, they actually tried to force screenwriters to submit their scripts to the committee for ideological approval. You could look it up, but wiki readers cannot if these sort of unwelcome facts keep getting deleted.

It is highly relevant, and factual, to say that some of these people were working for Stalin and against the United States. And it is extraordinarily unbalanced to present, as this article does, the injustices that may have been suffered by some of those "blacklisted" without discussing the murders of so many artists by the very people whom these "blacklisted" "victims" were working for. A relevant comparison might be this: on one side of the injustice scale there were "scores", maybe hundreds of people who lost their jobs, while on the other side there were millions killed thanks in part to the efforts of at least some of those who were later "blacklisted". Some more balance might be achieved by adding a picture alongside of the "Hollywood Ten" protesting their impending incarceration. The second picture could show some of the many artists murdered by the people for whom the Hollywood Ten had been working.

Nreganwiki (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a point. The "background" section seems to be original research and POV bias. Everything in this article should be directly related to the blacklist. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the "soapbox" statements that you identified. The solution to a POV issue, when you're dealing with gratuitous text, is not to insert an opposing POV but to remove the offending statement. Otherwise you get a battleground. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Figureofnine: Thank you. Your modifications appear to have resolved some legitimate issues regarding neutrality which had marred the article. @Nreganwiki: While you may have been well-intentoned in desiring to make the article more balanced, your changes (a sampling:
 * ,, , , ) were reverted because they were in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies, not to censor information (note, for instance that WP has an entire article on Walter Duranty). Per Wikipedia's stricture against original research - more specifically against original synthesis ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - statements not explicitly made by reliable secondary sources cannot made in a WP article. (i.e. if no reliable sources can be located that clearly state there was a direct connection between Stalin's murderous exploits and the Hollywood blacklisting, then such cannot be stated in WP's mainspace ). If you wish to edit this and/or other articles in the future, which you are most welcome to do, please also familarize yourself with policies on encyclopedic tone (keep it formal and non-conversational);  properly citing sources (i.e. directing readers, in the article's text, to "learn about" a particular subject crosses the line from citing to promoting - a practice prohibited on Wikipedia); assuming good faith on the part of editors who revert or alter your edits, as well the proper protocol for responding to such reverts/changes. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For a long time Figureofnine tried to maintain the article's bias. When I first read the article the background on the CPUSA tempted me to look for Joan of Arc in the picture of the Hollywood 10.  To provide a balanced perspective, I provided some accurate and reliably sourced information showing that the CPUSA did not consist of many saints and martyrs.  Figureofnine concurred with another editor that my sources were unreliable since they were "professional anti-Communists"; besides the fact that Theodore Draper once wrote for the Daily Worker, it is revealing of the article's gross bias when editors think that being anti-communist is pejorative.  Figureofnine was perfectly content to let the ludicrously laudatory information on the CPUSA to stand until Nreganwiki joined the discussion.


 * The article still has its biases. It states that "The other ten refused, citing their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly."  Only the Fifth Amendment  provides a constitutional right to silence.  If anyone here ever gets called on to testify, don't rely on this article for legal advice.LesLein (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Month of fingerprinting photo
I believe that the November month given for the fingerprinting photo (added by this edit by User:DCGeist on 28 October 2006) may be in error. I think the photo may have been taken on December 12, 1947. I have found several sources, including the supposed copyright holder (see discussion on file's talk page for more information) saying December (but also some saying otherwise) and December fits in better with the general timeline of the Hollywood Ten story. The location is also uncertain. The copyright holder's information says Los Angeles but steps do not looks like the United States Court House (Los Angeles, 1940). Plus some sources say the picture was taken in DC but I can't tell which building it would have been. It does however look like it may be the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York City. Totally confused at the moment on the location. The Corbis data listing also says that only nine of the ten are in the photo, but all ten seem to be there, further making their claim confusing. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Hollywood blacklist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927015754/http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2247 to http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2247
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061027052439/http://www.oah.org:80/pubs/magazine/coldwar/briley1.html to http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/coldwar/briley1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015082054/http://twcnet.edu:80/cschutz/history-page/Consensus/Reagan-huac-testimony.html to http://www.twcnet.edu/cschutz/history-page/Consensus/Reagan-huac-testimony.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for explanation of an edit
The editor Thewolfchild objects to this edit in which the entry


 * Zero Mostel, actor and comedian

was changed to


 * Samuel "Zero" Mostel, actor and comedian (later a cast member of The Front)

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


 * Samuel "Zero" Mostel, actor and comedian (later a cast member of The Front)

that Thewolfchild feels he needed to edit war about it? BMK (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pinging 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. - the WOLF  child  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. - the WOLF  child  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)

unacceptable bias
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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Huston quote
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 (talk • contribs) 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.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

did Reagan "name names?"
"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 http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.16.84.181 (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)

new category
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: https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

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
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719134730/http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/arc/libraries/feuchtwanger/exhibits/Brecht/HUAC.html to http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/arc/libraries/feuchtwanger/exhibits/Brecht/HUAC.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5Ycuqy8Og?url=http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=1958 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=1958
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111171828/http://www.nypost.com/seven/02222007/entertainment/fathers_footsteps_entertainment_lou_lumenick.htm?page=0 to http://www.nypost.com/seven/02222007/entertainment/fathers_footsteps_entertainment_lou_lumenick.htm?page=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP STATS
This article states "During the war, membership in the party reached a peak of 50,000". That is false. According to the FBI, the peak of CPUSA membership was in 1944 when the Party had 80,000 members.

The complete CPUSA membership stats may be seen in an FBI monograph entitled "Membership of CPUSA 1919-1954". A link to that document is here: CPUSA MEMBERSHIP 1919-1954


 * Wartime CPUSA membership in the USA was as follows:
 * 1939 = 70,000
 * 1940 = 55,000
 * 1941 = 50,000
 * 1942 = 60,000
 * 1943 = 65,000
 * 1944 = 80,000
 * 1945 = 64,600

The same information can be found in FBI-New York City main file 100-80638 which is captioned "CPUSA Membership". Ernie1241 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC) ernie1241 Ernie1241 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * One of the things that cranks do is title everything they do IN CAPITAL LETTERS, because everything they have to say is really, really important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

greylist
shouldn't searching on greylist or graylist somehow lead to this article? I come across references to actors being greylisted, but then search for the meaning and only find an article about email..

Gjxj (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, not to this article specifically, but to Blacklisting (employment). I've created a redirect from Greylisting (employment) to Blacklisting (employment), and created a dismbiguation page at Greylisting (employment). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you can provide citations, the greylisting of actors for political reasons might be mentioned in this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * greylisting of actors is already mentioned in this article. ("grey" seems the more common spelling btw) For a specific example see Edward_G._Robinson article. There is a whole section on his greylisting. It just seems there should be a link to this article for more detail.
 * Gjxj (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Gray" is normal American spelling, "grey" is normal UK spelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Myron Fagan
May need to include reference to Myron Fagan...

Red Stars Over Hollywood (Full Documentary) - 'The Hollywood 10' Investigation - Myron Fagan (1968) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9Hh9SvxL7U&t=4701s&ab_channel=DeepStateMappingProject Four hours thirty mins recorded testimony on vinyl record.

Summary: In the mid 1940's Myron Fagan launched a one-man crusade against what he claimed was a "Red Conspiracy in Hollywood." Out of this crusade would come the Cinema Educational Guild. The culmination of this crusade would be the 1947 congressional hearings where more than 300 famous stars, writers, and directors from Hollywood, Radio, and TV were investigated, many of whom were blacklisted as Communists. These hearings resulted in the imprisonment of the Hollywood Ten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ivy Bethune
I believe character actress and civil rights activist Ivy Bethune should be added to the list per the documentary Troupers, but I'm curious if she appears listed in any of the sources in this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Current blacklists or how it has changed over time
It seems strange that there are not more references to more recent blacklistings. There have been many actors during my life that suddenly don't get work once they do it say something that doesn't fit Hollywood sentimentalities. I am sure you would not think that blacklisting has gone away. It just looks a bit different today. 70.94.41.105 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actual blacklisting is an organized activity. People deciding that a given individual has become toxic because of their racist or otherwise despicable behavior bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual blacklists; and to pretend that they are the same is false equivalency in action. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why does the 2nd sentence in the article state that the blacklisting of alleged communists continues to today, but mention noting about it? 50.123.68.208 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not there anymore, because it's not true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Does the book "The Communist Dream" exist?
The caption of Storm Center Poster informs about the book "The Communist Dream". Is it a real book? Google does not list it. If it does not exist the title should be removed or some comment eg. (nonexisting) (fictous) added. The context suggests that bad McCarthy persecutet sweet dreamers. Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The film is fiction, not documentary; and the book at the center of the fictitious storm is itself fictitious. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fictious people may read and discuss real books. Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you accept a fictitious "The Nazi Dream" in this Wikipedia? Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)