Talk:Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/Archive 1

Title of this article
Is this an agreed upon title for this trial in the references and other sources? In the one I looked in it was called the Foley Square Communist Trial. Other sources seem to use other names, like various Supreme Court case names, for the trial(s). In fact, it seems like there were several trials. Foley Square trial is referenced as the "main" article for many different articles on trials on wikipedia (going by "what links here". Could someone straighten me out? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, thanks for taking an interest. I thought long and hard about the title. In fact, this is the second title for the article: I originally named it 1949 trial of Communist Party leaders.    It should not be confused with Dennis v. United States, which is the subsequent SCOTUS appeal (and has its own article already). The sources do not have a single, standard shorthand name for the trial.  I used Google, and found that "Foley Square trial" (or variations thereof) was the most commonly used name, by reliable sources, so I went with that.  The only other name I could find was Smith Act trial, but that could be very confusing, because there are two trials called that:  a 1941 trial, and the 1949 trial.  This article is about the latter.  I don't think there is yet an article on the 1941 Smith Act trial.  --Noleander (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the same initial concern, but after Googling I concluded the article name is correct. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless Dennis was a consolidation of several appeals (and even possibly then), this should probably be merged with Dennis v. United States (there's so little content in that article that, at this point, it would be more like merging that article into this one). The de facto consensus (and this may even be written down somewhere) on Wikipedia is that article names for court cases should be the name of case, as docketed by the highest court to render a decision on the merits. I suppose in the unusual case there may be a need for daughter articles for lower court opinions or trials, but again, this is most readily imagined in the special case of consolidated actions. As for "Foley Square trial," there are probably been an uncountable number of trials in Foley Square, which is the site of both federal and state courthouses. Savidan 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, mergers might be a good path, but sometimes the lower-court trial, and the attendant details, are so widely documented, that they merit their own article.   The Dennis article is a SCOTUS case article, with the SCOTUS InfoBox, etc.  That article, like hundreds of other SCOTUS articles, focuses on that one case.  This article is on the 10-month long trial that was a publicity circus which made the cover of Time magazine and Life magazine, etc.   The Scopes trial might be a good analogy.    --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason Scopes trial is not the best analogy is that Dennis is actually quite well-known as a Supreme Court decision (whereas the appellate decision in Scopes is not of much importance). Further, "Scopes trial" is a well-known and unambiguous moniker. Personally, I've heard of Dennis and I've heard of many trials in Foley Square; I had never heard this referred to as the Foley Square trial, and have some doubts that this is far and away the most important trial to ever occur in that location. So far, I think that both the trial and Supreme Court case can be covered in one article of reasonable length, and that doing so in a single article would be most useful to the reader. Savidan 08:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If the 11 appeals were not consolidated, perhaps this article does not need to be merged. I would suggest clarifying the degree to which the appeals proceeded, whether separately or together. Savidan 09:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use images
I asked about the fair use images used in this article and received the following reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria&diff=473250033&oldid=473246772 from User talk:Geometry guy who is pretty much an authority. I think you should adjust your use of Fair use images accordingly. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I addressed the issues in the linked page:
 * - Removed image from InfoBox
 * - Removed image of Budenz
 * - Added detail to Fair use rationale for the picture of attorneys ( and corrected 6 to 5)
 * --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)