Talk:House Un-American Activities Committee/Archive 1

Robert E. Stripling
...has no wikipedia page?

A partial film reel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29zhXHoMvn0 seems to show a partial sequence that was used fully in the film "The Atomic Cafe". If you watch the youtube video, it shows a man holding up the pumpkin at about 40 seconds into the clip, which lines up with the same image shown just shy of the 30-minute mark in "The Atomic Cafe".

Both the youtube newsreel footage and the scene from the film match up and follow together: after the pumpkin, it shows what appears to be Nixon (the tie matches anyway) sitting down at a table on which rests 2 film canisters and a couple of microfilms, then it shows Nixon and another man looking carefully at the microfilm. That's where the youtube clip ends, but in the "The Atomic Cafe" the clip is continued, and Nixon goes on to say "I am holding in my hand..." and gives a prepared statement describing the microfilm found in the pumpkin.

I looked at some pictures online, and deduced that the man sitting next to Nixon in this clip is Stripling. During the time Nixon is speaking, Stripling sits next to him, blinking very rapidly and conspicuously, as well as raising his eyebrows repeatedly, out of time with the words being spoken. It is not a natural expression, and it is not a reaction typical in microexpression studies. It almost looks like he's trying to express a coded communication.

I tried to find an online version of the clip, but I failed. That youtube clip literally cuts off just as Nixon is about to speak. I tried to find out who Stripling was and now I'm more curious than ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.196.243 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Load "The Atomic Cafe" from Netflix, you'll see the scene I'm talking about at 30:10. He raises his eyebrows fifteen times in 13 seconds. Twenty-six blinks, some tending more towards one eye than another, and a little eye flutter at the end. Any ideas who this guy is or what was happening? 74.98.196.243 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

McCarthy
"The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy, as a senator, had direct involvement with this House committee, and he had everything to do with the infamous "blacklisting" of creative talent."

So, which is it? Was he involved or not? --99.250.177.248 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to believe the he WASN'T involved. McCarthy was a senator, and obviously could not be affiliated with a House of Representatives committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.142.116 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion Request
I dig everything here. This article could do with a lot more, though (specifically, everything between 1947 and 1967). I'm tagging it for expansion, hope that's cool with all. Grahamdubya 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the internment of Italians and Germans under the committees authority and is therfore a complete misreprsentaion of the history. I normally associate this oversite with left-wing ideology who should releize that the committee was established in response to the German Bund and subsequently in place when Pearl Habor was attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.56.189 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

general comment
The general tone of this article is very supportive of the HUAC. I think it would be more interesting if it quoted a few supporters and a few critics. The HUAC did huge damage to the reputation of US society in Europe, where it was generally seen as 'proof" of the undemocratic nature of the US... jm

(this guy can't even spell, why is this akrticle even in here, edit or delete it.)

Former article unamerican activities, now made into redirect. This is inaccurate, non-NPOV, better stuff in current article:


 * Un-American activities was a phrase used by the House Un-American Activities Committee, during the McCarthyite trials. The phrase was applied by some committee members to those who were accused--often falsely--of being engaged in political activities funded or otherwise supported by the Communist Party.


 * The phrase came from the title of the House Un-American Activities Committee, formed in 1947 to investigate the supposed inclusion of Communist propaganda by Hollywood.

Ortolan88 09:31 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

There were actually a lost of leftists and communists in the 1950s. While Joseph McCarthy et. al went overboard, there were still nonetheless alot of communist sympathizers.

sj7700 15:27 July 1, 2005 (PDT)

Too bad during this same time period there were a lot more right wing nuts in the USA willing to force poor kids off to die in Korea/Vietnam and make minorities sit on the back of the bus.

24.56.36.55 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

German-American

 * [In the late thirties, the committee's] work was aimed mostly at German-American involvement in Nazi and KKK activity.

Can someone clarify: --Sam Francis
 * 1) Does this refer specifically to ethnic German-American's involvement with the Nazis, as opposed to American cooperation with German Nazis (I presume it's the former)?
 * 2) Is it 'German-American' involvement in the KKK that is being referenced, or the committee's investigation of the KKK as a whole (I presume it's the latter)?


 * Does this refer specifically to ethnic German-American's involvement with the Nazis, as opposed to American cooperation with German Nazis (I presume it's the former)?
 * Sam, I was under the impression it was actually the latter.
 * Is it 'German-American' involvement in the KKK that is being referenced, or the committee's investigation of the KKK as a whole (I presume it's the latter)?
 * I agree with you on this one. David Hoag 06:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I've put a lot of work into fixing and expanding the Hollywood blacklist article and still have much more to go. I haven't gotten to the "Mission to Moscow" etc. referred to in this HUAC article however inserting an NPOV notice for such a small matter as an interpretation of a film doesn't seem to solve much. If you (sj7700) disagree with this or something else, just change it because your comment above does't warrant an NPOV insertion. I will probably get around to rewording it as I too am no expert on films I have never seen and know nothing about. Even if I had seen it, I doubt I am qualified to "interpret" much of its meaning. Ted Wilkes 1 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
 * Ted: I came across this article the other day, I thought it might be interesting for what you're doing. Good work.  Nobs01 2 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ted Wilkes 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Ted, thanks for your good work. I hope you'll continue. IMHO, a lot of fact-checking is particularly needed. The election fraud reference is unclear (at least to me) and, perhaps, a distraction to the reader. I can find absolutely no references to the claim that the committee uncovered shipments of bomb-grade material to the USSR. The company named in the story does not appear in any search engines in this context: you'd think a revelation of that magnitude would leave plenty of traces. The story is also completely lacking in references to the civil liberties issues (with criticism not only from the left but also from some centrist Republicans) which at least ought to be referenced. But the article has been greatly improved, and it's a difficult one to write. Thanks again! --langohio 16:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Petitions
 Individuals such as W. E. B. DuBois and I. F. Stone were found to have been affiliated with literally dozens of Comintern sponsored groups, although, in reality, many of the groups were petition drives involved in election fraud the Committee determined.
 * This sentence just had a major change in tone and conclusion. What's our source for the election fraud determination? Thanks, -Willmcw July 4, 2005 21:24 (UTC)
 * FBI Silvermaster file; see Peter Rhodes for example. The information comes from the Dies Committee and clearly uses the word "signature", not "name". This warrants even further investigation, because Rhodes may have been outside of the United States at the time the petition was signed.  This is not unusual; Joe McCarthy for example ran for Senate while serving in the Pacific.Nobs01 4 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
 * Also, as to the "number of glorified petition drives", let me refer you to History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States, which granted, is incomplete. Thanks again. Nobs01 4 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)


 * You mean on the basis of one guy who fraudulently signed a petition we're calling the entire effort fraud? That seems to be a bit excessive. In the modern citizen initiatives it's not uncommon for tnes of thousands of fraudulent signatures to be discarded. I didn't see any mention of the matter in History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States. Are we just using Wikipedia as the source for associating DuBois and Stone with election fraud? -Willmcw July 4, 2005 22:41 (UTC)


 * I put back the old text, leaving the new text as a separate sentence. -Willmcw July 4, 2005 22:46 (UTC)
 * OK, so it was uncorroborated; the next couple of dozen instances should take care of that.Nobs01 4 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
 * It needed to be edited into two sentences as regards Dubois & Stone, cause they really werent the example; I was just balancing another editors work. Good job.Nobs01 4 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

New Left
Placed here for (1) sourcing (2) rewriting:
 * "In its later years HUAC investigated the New Left, but these investigations were less successful. The young witnesses like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman had much less to lose than the targets of the earlier investigations, and they swayed public opinion in their favor by openly defying the congressmen and making the investigations look ridiculous by performing pranks such as appearing in a clown suit. In the 1960s and 1970s the Committee conducted a major investigation of the Ku Klux Klan. nobs 18:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was hoping somebody would cover the HUAC's investigations of the Ku Klux Klan after the 1930's. The way this article is written now, you'd think that they just let the KKK do whatever they pleased after the 1930's, but that isn't true. DanTD 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture for Decline
The Decline section needs a better picture. A Viet Cong flag hardly relates to the article at all. A picture of Rubin would be much better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information
The page is missing very simple, yet vital, information such as how many members were on HUAC at one time, and what was the ratio of Republicans to Democrats on the committee. 8:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.144.124 (talk • contribs).


 * The committee was active for almost 40 years, and would have had changing partisan membership from term to term just like any committee. The size may have changed as well, but we have some hope of finding that info. You might try looking in the sources already listed. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 21:44, 1 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 06:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

HUAC vs. HCUA
Although "HCUA" is in some sense more technically accurate, the fact is that "HUAC" is the term that is used in the English language. See the numbers connected with this search versus this one. In a book search (this vs. this), the difference is less overwhelming but still conclusive. Please don't "correct" this article to introduce an error. RedSpruce 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The accurate name of the committee was the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA). There should be some effort here to emphasize that fact. I agree with you that the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) is the more popular term. (The more popular but less technically accurate term most likely came into usage due to the spacing needs of newspaper columns. It is even found in many of the anti-Communist films made in the 1950's.)  Most of the history book indexes or indices that I consulted listed the committee as the House Committee on Un-American Activities and only a few had the other. (I consulted books from 1952 to 2007.) One that did, never actually used House Un-American Activities Committee in the text of the book. It used the accurate House Committee on Un-American Activities or the more popular initials HUAC instead. Since either is correct, I would not agree with you that an error was introduced. You have only shown that one is more popular than the the other. --Diosprometheus 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a fact tag to this footnote. While it might be fine to opine what did or didn't occur, once we get to stating corrections as points-of-fact we really need to cite an authority (and not ourselves).  So if someone wants to find an authority for the name or abbreviation, that would be great. Wjhonson (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've modified the footnote so that it merely expresses that both abbreviations, and names are used in sources. I don't think we can put ourselves in the position of stating the relative usage, since we've only citing modern sources and skewing toward what Google has indexed versus what it hasn't.  I'm not comfortable with that. Wjhonson (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is that "HUAC" is overwhelmingly more often used than "HCUA", and this fact should be noted in the article. There's no reason to cite anything other than modern sources, since modern usage is all that's relevant, and all that WP is expected or required to cover.
 * A google search of multiple sources obviously has more authority than any single source, but I've added a citation to a specific WP:Reliable source to support what the Google survey makes clear. I also added some interesting information (with a specific citation to a reliable source) on what some claim is the origin of the "HUAC" abbreviation. RedSpruce (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Better sources for decline
Does anyone have any sources that the Yippies were responsible for the decline of HUAC other than the Yippies themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was going to ask the same thing. The article reads well until we get to the "Yippies." Surely, there must be some good sources out there that documents the rise and fall of the House of Un-American Activities Committee. J Readings (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph seems to say that Hollywood after all is full of Communists and that HUAC has been vindicated, which seems counter to common knowledge. I'm not sure how this relates to NPOV, but that last paragraph seems problematic. Emily100 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So what happened between the early 1960's and when the committee was dissolve in 1975? If "not much" then what did anyone benefit from such a committee, and why did it last so long? --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

HUAC wasn't formed until 1938

 * Although the committe from 34 to 37 was a precursor to HUAC, The term House Committee on Un-American Activities wasn't used until 38. Before that it was called the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized to Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities. True many of the same people and personnel came from the previous committe, but it wasn't officially called HUAC.annoynmous 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Captilismojo makes the statement that just beacause the committe changed it's name 3 times doesn't alter when it began. Actually the committe only changed it's name twice. It went from the "Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized to Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities" to the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" in 1938. As far as I know there was no name change when it became a standing committe in 1945. It then changed it's name in 1969 to the "Committee on Internal Security".


 * Every source I have found on the internet says that HUAC was created in 1938 from the national archives to the Eleanor Roosevely historic site. Yes the MD committe was a precursor to HUAC, but other than some of the same personnel it was a different committe. The term HUAC was not officially used until 1938.


 * It's perfectly fine to mention that the MD committe was a precursor to HUAC, but to say that HUAC was created in 1934 is simply incorrect. annoynmous 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be said that I'm basing this entirely on the national archives designation of when the committe began. They state it as beginning in 38 and ending in 75, despite the name change in 69. Maybe we can change it too 38-69 to be technically accurate. annoynmous 11:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I reverted it back to 34 because I'm not interested in getting into a fight right now and the issue of when it officially became HUAC is very confusing. The National Archives have HUAC starting in 1945 and ending in 1975. It appears they see both the MD and Dies committes as seperate special investigations. For them HUAC officially started in 45 when it became a standing committe.


 * I feel in the future this issue should be discussed and an exact date for when HUAC officially began should be determined, but I'm not in the mood to argue about it right now. annoynmous 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Precursor

 * While I really don't feel like doing this myself it seems to me that the article should establish that the MD Committe along with the Fish committe of 1930 were precursors to HUAC. I think we should strive to be technical and technically HUAC wasn't formed until 38. Otherwise we might as well say that HUAC was formed in 1930 under Hamilton Fish.annoynmous 14:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made the changes stated above including the Fish committe and the MD committe under the title as precursors to HUAC.annoynmous 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who testified?
I don't understand why this information is missing: names of those who willingly testified before HUAC, participating in ruining of others' careers. Examples include Elia Kazan, Ronald Reagan, and Walt Disney. I don't think we thus so obliquely describe the hysteria and venom of the HUAC hearings as a crime lacking perpetrators when, historically, we know perfectly well who "named names".

I say we should dispassionately include the names of some prominent persons who testified before HUAC and whether or not they implicated others, took the fifth, or were held in contempt, perhaps linked with the names of those they implicated or caused to be blacklisted, and let readers decide for themselves whether such testimony was an act of patriotism or of cowardice. -Kasreyn (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there's two key concerns. The first, of course, is that we would need strong, reliable sources, preferably secondary sources (i.e., not the transcripts themselves).  The other issue is how to choose which to include, since a very large number testified willingly with HUAC.  The first issue could resolve the second--that is, those people who are commented on in secondary sources could be included.  We definitely, though, don't want any sort of inclusive list, as that would go beyond being encyclopedic to being excessive.  For that matter, whatever is written should be done in prose, not a list/table format, as prose is almost always preferred for this type of info.  All that being said, it's possible some of the info could reasonably be included.  So, do you have any particular info you think should be added, along with secondary sources to back it up?  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not certain why the transcripts themselves would not be preferred to a secondary source - isn't the official record better, at least from a scholarly perspective, than one taken at secondhand? And secondly, to handle the issue of notability, I would agree that far more people testified than are worth noting here.  Limiting it to those who have their own WP page would be a good first step (since that means the community here already considers them noteworthy, or else they wouldn't have a bio page).  Thoughts?  -Kasreyn (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, the whole primary/secondary source thing always seems odd, especially to people coming from academia (as it sounds like you are). While you can read the details at WP:PRIMARY, the basic point is that Wikipedia isn't actually writing from a scholarly perspective--we're writing from an encyclopedic perspective.  The problem with using primary sources is that this usually requires a lot of interpretation, a lot of deciding what something means and what is important (especially in something as extensive as HUAC transcripts).  Instead, we are usually supposed to rely on reliable secondary sources (academic journal articles, historical books by reputable authors published by high quality publishers, etc.) to, in essence, tell us what the primary source "means" and what is important about it.  As an example, lets say that Person A testified, and Person A is a notable person, but the only thing Person A said is that Person B was seen talking to Person C.  Now, that seems not worthy of inclusion.  But if Person C was an open member of the Communist Party, and, as a result of the testimony, Person B was blacklisted, fired, or otherwise punished, that might make Person A's testimony interesting and noteworthy.  But, per Wikipedia's rules on original research, I (as an editor), am explicitly not allowed to make that connection and analysis myself, because that constitutes original research.  As such, I need a secondary source, like an academic historical analysis that I can cite, to say that Person A's testimony was particularly important and in fact had important consequences for Person B.  I hope my long-winded explanation helps; I know I myself was confused when I first started working with WP and primary/secondary sources.  Ultimately, we may only use primary sources when a plain, "common sense" reading by anyone, even without background knowledge of the subject, would produce the same interpretation.  Qwyrxian (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV #2
This article focuses almost exclusivley on HUAC's actions against the left in the US, but overlooks their actions against the far-right. DanTD (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you fix it?   Will Beback    talk    10:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to try, if nobody else has considered it. DanTD (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be expaned
Its seems to be communist heavy when that was a mere small part of the committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Major players are missing in this article.
The president of the US, Franklin Roosevelt and the FBI head, Hoover played a major role and I do not see any information to that effect on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Name Move
There are House Committees in the United states on various topics. The term is House Committee, NOT House Un-American Activities Committee. If you have any objections please respond here. --ShaunMacPherson 12:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

objection

Please reference some documents that use House Committee on Un-American Activities instead of House Un-American Activities Committee to give your theorectical argument some cogency.


 * I can't give you any documentation (I'll see what I can find), but having participated in debates on this topic back in the day, I can asure you that this point came up repeatedly. Opponents of the committee liked the pronounceable acronym HUAC while supporters very much preferred the unpronounceable initialism HCUA, which they viewed as correct (and much less useful as a rhetorical tool).  Both "sides" are grinding their axes on this one.  Ortolan88 23:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The proper name is "House Committee on Un-American Activities," so the proper acronym is "HCUA". That is a matter of historical fact that is beyond legitimate contention. However, as noted, Communists and other sympathizers on the left insisted on using a deliberately altered version, calling it the "House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)." Switching the order of the name was a deliberate and conscious effort to employ psychological warfare, as the altered version of the name serves to derisively suggest that the Committee itself was engaged in un-American activities--thereby casting the Committee in a negative light and drawing the focus away from the activities of those being investigated by the Committee. Many of these Communists and sympathizers were from the media and academia, which is why numerous print references used the incorrect and derisive version of the name. The tactic was highly successful, and the improper name and acronym persist in common usage today, to the point where the improper "HUAC" acronym is sometimes used after the correct "House Committee on Un-American Activites" name--even the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives is guilty of this error. Jim5769 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This article says "Only Mission to Moscow was ever found to have traces of propaganda in it", but I ask: according to whom? What qualifies as a "trace"? But most of all, what about the movie Salt of the Earth? I don't know enough about the issue here to be able to write it into the article myself, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be mentioned.

Name change, again
Please see the above seciton on the name of this committee. Apparently it is properly called the "House Committee on Un-American Activities." -Willmcw 21:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is properly called the "House Un-American Activities Committee". See Naming conventions (common names) and then check Google.  If your argument was the case, then the article Shining Path would be Communist Party of Peru and Khmer Rouge would be Communist Party of Cambodia, the "proper names".  But that's not how it works, we do it by the Wikipedia naming convention standards, not what you think is "proper".  If the rule were to do things by what people think is "proper" instead of the common name naming convention, the articles Shining Path and Khmer Rouge would have disappeared a long time ago. Ruy Lopez 21:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Ruy is correct. The formal name (I used to work for the House of Rep.) would have been "Committee on Un-American Activities" (HCUA) but general usage is "House Un-American Activities Committee" (HUAC). For accessibility you need the more common title in the headline, and one reference in the first graf to the formal name -- which the article already does. --langohio 16:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment in the above section as well, but from the Naming conventions (common names) (emphasis added):
 * "...Ambiguous[3] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
 * The actual and proper name is "House Committee on Un-American Activities," abbreviated as "HCUA". The non-neutral and deliberately derisive alternate version of "House Un-American Activities Committee" or "HUAC" appears more in Google searches simply because many of the individuals promoting the use of this non-neutral and deliberately derisive version of the name were from the media and academia (and still are). Use of the correct name would much better serve the public as a source of reference in this case, while preserving neutrality. In order for those using the improper term to search for information, all that is needed is to redirect the page using the improper name to the page with the proper name--the exact opposite of what is being done now. I concur with the point made by Ruy Lopez about the naming of pages not strictly adhering to the official names, but in this case, the use of the improper name as the title serves only to further promote an identified agenda and detracts from the quality of this article as a neutral reference. I propose moving the content of this page to the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" page and redirecting the "House Un-American Activities Committee" page to it.Jim5769 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Name Change, YA... Requested move: U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities
Just to make the name consistent with other House Committee names. This isn't about CUAA or HUAAC or whatever. Just whether US should be in front of it all.


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support - Change to "United States House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA)" so that it appears in format consistent with other Committee names.Jim5769 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Comment: Can you give the link to a Category or list where the House Committee's appear. Thank you. nobs 05:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Link for list of current Committees (HCUA is no longer an active Committee)is http://clerk.house.gov/committee_info/index.aspx. Jim5769 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is determined by Naming conventions (common names).


 * Google for HCUA: 756
 * Google for HUAC: 172,000


 * Google for "House Committee on Un-American Activities": 67.900
 * Google for "House Un-American Activities Committee": 169,000

So if you want to change the name of this page, you have to go debate the existence of this convention. Because the committee is more well known as HUAC. Ruy Lopez 05:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawn: Ruy Lopez made a convincing argument. I'll take it back. Cheers! --Mark Adler 11:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez's argument fails on the grounds that google's seach does not imply or suggest accuracy of a name... it only "suggests" commonality on usage. The issue is not about google, but rather about the official nomenclature of the United States House of Representitives' own published document DATED FROM THAT TIME (as opposed to recently published documents). Sweetfreek 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're the one making the losing argument. If Wikipedia followed Sweetfreek's rule instead of its own rule (Naming conventions (common names)), then there would be no Khmer Rouge but a Communist Party of Kampuchea, no Shining Path but a Communist Party of Peru and so forth.  Wikipedia policy does not care about "official nomenclature".  Personally, I don't care one way or another for this rule, but I'm certainly not going to allow it that all these other pages must follow the rule, but you don't have to on this page.  Your problem is with this rule, not the title of this page.  If you want to change the rule, fine, you might even do so, but as long as the rule stands you are not changing the title of this page. Ruy Lopez 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT changing (and re-nominated in above section). Ruy Lopez' argument does not hold up under scrutiny. For example, Shining Path is the translation of "Sendero Luminoso" which was the name of the rebel group that might have later become the "Communist Party of Peru" but that doesn't make the name of the page invalid. Furthermore, the Wikipedia policy Ruy Lopez cites states "...Ambiguous[3] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered...When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The "HUAC" version was NEVER correct, it was a deliberately derisive variation used by the Communists and their sympathizers on the left. Since many of those individuals came from the media and academia and wrote frequently about it, that is why the "HUAC" version appears more frequently in the Google searches. Using the improper name as the main article title in this case serves only to further a deliberately skewed narrative, while undermining the accuracy and neutrality of the article as a reference. Making the page name with the more prevalent, but incorrect and non-neutral, name redirect to the page with the proper name would better reflect the reliable "reference" resource that Wikipedia strives to be.Jim5769 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:COMMON still over-rides other arguments. Regardless of the alleged bias involved in the broader use of HUAC, the simple fact is that House Un-American Activities Committee/HUAC is the commonly-used name. Ad hominem assertions aside, that's the simple fact not to be ignored here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alger Hiss - Proof?
The article says 'The present-day House of Representatives website on HUAC states that "In the 1990s, Soviet archives conclusively revealed that Hiss had been a spy on the Kremlin's payroll.' 

Actually what the website says is' '' Hiss maintained his innocence, a claim that stirred controversy among historians for decades afterward. In the 1990s, relying on Soviet archives and records from the Venona project - a secret U.S. program that decrypted Soviet intelligence messages - some scholars argued that Hiss had indeed been a spy on the Kremlin’s payroll.' ''

'Some scholars argue' is not 'conclusive. Since this case is among the most notorious actions of HUAC, I am reluctant to amend till there is some reaction from editors. Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What Was Its Official name?
I have seen it called "House Committee on Un-American Activities" (HCUA), as does the Buckley book in the bibliography. Which is right? Either way, it should be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.250.164 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on House Un-American Activities Committee. 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/20060830171725/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hiss.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hiss.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916043311/http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&intID=169 to http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&intID=169
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903060443/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm

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) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Add
Add section about how women were effected by HUAC? BrynnAF (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)