Talk:Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll give this a try.
 * Opening comments
 * U.S. - US is preferred
 * The WP:MOS says either is okay. See also MOS:ABBR. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When there is more than one citation at the end of a sentence, they should be sequential, i.e. [1][2][3] and not [2][1][3] etc.
 * The editor has no control over the numbers: they are automatically generated. User Ettrig fixed this problem.  Let me know if more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The See also section is too long and needs to be integrated into the article. There are so many "Aftermath" events (or concurrent maybe), like the Hollywood Blacklist, House Un-American Activities Committee etc. How did you decide what to include?
 * See Also sections are discouraged when the article reaches FA status but they are acceptable for GA status. Do you have a specific one that you think should be added to this article for GA status? --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, maybe the other article title was better (more descriptive).
 * The problem with the other title was that no sources used that name; yet quite a few sources use "Foley Square trial". It verges a bit on WP:OR to use the longer "1940 communist leader trial" name. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comments
 * I don't know whether you want to do this, but to integrate some of the "See also" links into the article, perhaps you could add more "Background" the First Red Scare and other indications of the history leading up to this point in time. (Just recently Dalton Trumbo was given screenwriter's credit for Roman Holiday, showing the long term effects of all of this.) This trial didn't come out of the blue and only recently are remedial actions being taken.
 * The FA criteria require an article to be "comprehensive" and suggest that any "See also" topic should be mentioned in the body. GA criteria, on the other hand, do not require that. Is there a particular "see also" topic that you think is essential (to be added to the body) to meet GA standards?  --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The trial ended up being the longest federal trial in history" - need to give time frame, as it might not be forever.
 * Fixed .. sentence now clarifies that it was the longest trial that had happened up until 1949. --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are requesting a PR now, I think I will close the GAN. Too many changes are likely to result to make my effort worth it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and suspend the PR request ... I only initiated it because it looked like it was going to be a long time until the GA got started. But, since you've been so kind to start the GA, it would be great if we finished it.  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, all the fair-use image issues raised on the Talk page have been addressed. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * I wonder about their use of a "labor defense" when actually it was an issue of free speech - First Amendment - the most important point IMO. ("labor defense" seems like a wacky defense to me.)
 * I added the "First amendment" connection into the 1st sentence of the lead, and also added "Freedom of speech" in other places. Regarding 1st amdmt vs labor defense:  the sources mention first amendment only a little bit, and they make a big deal of the "labor defense" - probably because it is so provocative.  The sources put "labor defense" in quotes, so it clearly was a term invented/publicized by the defense attorneys during the trial.  So I think the article represents the sources' viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you should use Cold War political jargon in the lede.
 * Changed "fervor gripping the nation" -> "then prevalent in the nation." Let me know if there is more jargon that can be made more encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be clear that Dennis v. United States was a free speech case and that two justices dissented (while one did not participate) and that it was ultimately overturned as a free speech issue
 * Good idea. The 6-2 vote is already in the article, but I added wording about free speech.  The overturning wording is also improved. --Noleander (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that I am reading the rest of the article, I don't think the lede is representative. It gives one side of a complex issue.
 * Done. Are you thinking about the threats posed by communism?  or the fact that the defense attorneys were obnoxious?   Probably the latter.  To fix that, I added "During the trial, the defense routinely antagonized the judge and prosecution, ..." to the lead.  --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More comments
 * Don't know how much you want to get into the legal history but apparently it was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and from there to the Supreme Court.
 * That is a good question. The article currently states "The trial resulted in a dozen appeals to the federal Court of Appeals, and five appeals to the Supreme Court.".  What I did was pick the single most famous one of those 17 appeals, Dennis, and discussed it.  I think at this point in the article's life, that is sufficient.  Maybe next year it can grow and include more of the appeals? --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When it finished, the trial was the longest federal trial in history to date - to 1949? "to date" could mean to 2012.
 * Improved wording to "Although later trials surpassed it, in 1949 it was the longest federal trial in history." --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard not to think that many of the arguments in the trial (Communists were less than 1% of the population, use of paid undercover agents, etc.) apply today to efforts against "terrorists".
 * Yes, that is a good point. I didn't see any of the sources discussing that, so it is not in the article. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Smith Act
 * ". The US communist party membership in 1950 was around 32,000, or less than one tenth of one percent of the US population (it's membership peaked at around 75,000 during World War II, when the US was allied with the USSR)." - don't think the size of the Communist Party is worth saying much about. - it's really not the issue. It makes it sound like this is a valid argument, when it's not - it's a free speech issue.
 * The sources emphasize that point: I think what they are trying to say is that the Dept of Justice overreacted to the actual threat.  Some sources say that the FBI/DoJ deliberately exaggerated the threat in order to get more funding.  In other words, the sources are not talking about the constitutionality of the CP, instead they are addressing the motivation of the FBI/DoJ.   --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Communist Party was never a serious threat to the US government." - this is out of place here. If you want to make retrospective statements, then put them in a section that looks at the long term effects. It is POV where it is, unless you can find some citations that show at the time that was known to be a fact.
 * Good point ... definitely POV. Following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV I changed it to "According to historian Victor Navasky, the Communist Party was never a serious threat ..". --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Pre-trial antagonsim
 * "The defense challenged the jury selection process," - I believe this is the first mention of the jury and in the lede the impression is given that it was all the judge's decision.
 * That is a great question. The sources say that, at the end of the trial, the judge made a legal decision "that the Communist Party did pose a clear danger to the government"  and he told the jury they were not able to decide that: he did.  But the Jury did decide whether the defendants (a) endorsed the CP philosophies; and (b) conspired together.   Let me know if you want that kind of detail added somewhere.  The lead says "The judge was openly biased against the defendants, and the jury found all 11 defendants guilty." which is a good synopsis.  Can you suggest an improvement? --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Should not link to articles already linked in article or to disambiguation pages, (per Manual of Style/Layout} so I removed a couple.
 * Thanks for doing that ... I forgot to double check those. --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Organization
 * I believe some reorganization would be helpful.
 * Background
 * Smith act
 * Undercover informants
 * Indictments
 * But then under "Trial" is
 * Pre-trial antagonism (shouldn't that be in section above?
 * Then all of these are under "Trial":
 * Prosecution
 * Defense
 * Developments outside the courtroom
 * Convictions and sentencing
 * Out on bail
 * Appeal to Supreme Court
 * Prison time
 * Aftermath
 * Rise of McCarthyism
 * Trials of second-tier officials - is this a common term and why is it a equal heading to "Rise of McCarthyism" and not under it?
 * Impact on Communist Party
 * Decline of McCarthyism


 * "Second tier"
 * Yes, all the sources use the words "second tier" or "second string" to describe the cases that followed in 1951-1955. I think that term "second tier" must have been widely used during the 1950s, because all the sources use it.  In the article, the phrase is in quotes, so the reader should grasp that:  "These post-1950 defendants were called "second string" or "second tier" defendants..." --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Organization
 * Per above: I moved the Pre-Trial section up above the Trial section. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Yates v. United States be mentioned higher up, more directly related to the legal followup?
 * Hmmm. I'm not sure where it could go. It is mentioned already in the lead, and in the InfoBox.  But Yates was not until 1957, and the article is laid-out chronologically, so it is in the correct section now.  If you can identify a specific place to also mention it, let me know and I can work it in. --Noleander (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think Brown v. Board of Education is directly related to the issues in this article. After all, the Hollywood blacklist was at its height in 1956, two years after the Brown case. This case was not a civil liberties issue. It has nothing to do with desegregation.
 * You are correct. I reworded that to remove Brown and generalized what the source was saying. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel that the organization hinders the focus on the article subject, diffuses it. The essential point is that this is a free speech issue that was clouded and undermined by the hysteria of the times. The bad behavior of the defense just played into the whole hysteria. This article, IMO, should clarify rather than muddy the issue. And not confuse it with civil liberties or desegregation, or other irrelevant issues.
 * Done. You are right. I think all those concerns have been addressed:  Brown was removed; 1s amend is now mentioned in lead; "freedom of speech" is emphasize more. The article tries to capture the evolution of the "fighting words" exception to the 1st amendment, by describing Black's dissent in detail, and by elaborating on the "clear and present" test that Yates came up with (or restored).  If you look at First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution  I  think there is a good discussion of the 1st am issues you are talking about.  Let me know if you think some of that material should be copied into this article, or just linked-to from this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That is original research. You should be using sources that discuss the legal issues in a dispassionate way. Not piecing them together from other articles. Are any of your sources legal scholars? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all the sources are historians. I'm not aware of any legal scholars that have written on the trial, but I can look.   Do you have any reason to believe that the sources used thus far are not reliable?  Or have POV issues?   --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this was the reality, but the way this case is presented in this article, I can see why they lost. Surely they must have presented a better case than what is described here. It makes the defense sound wacky.
 * Yeah, the defense acted outrageously. The sources speculate that the defense was trying to provoke the judge into declaring a mistrial.   The defense did write some memoirs, and they say they deliberately chose the "labor defense" to try to sway public opinion in their favor.  --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Where was the American Civil Liberties Union?
 * Good question. I've added some material about that from the Walker source:  "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was dominated by anti-communist leaders during the 1940's, and did not provide much support to persons indicted under the Smith Act. However, the ACLU did provide minor support to the Foley Square defendants by filing an amicus brief endorsing a motion for dismissal."  --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I'm busy in RL right now, but I"ll take care of them later today.  --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "labor defense"
 * I guess what bothers me about the defense as presented is that it uses Communist Party jargon. - its like they weren't even trying to make a case but rather to propagandize.
 * "The defense attorneys used a "labor defense" strategy, which attacked the trial as a capitalist venture that could never provide a fair outcome to proletarian defendants." - surely it was obvious that tack would never work. Did they even bring up the First Amendment? Someone must have, since it was an issue when the case went to the Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States. Just curious, as I know it's not your doing! But it's like they weren't serious about trying to get the men off. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources say that the defense first considered a simple, sober 1st amendment defense; but they concluded that - given the political climate - they did not stand a chance with that approach. Therefore, they chose a more outrageous approach, hoping to (1) propagandize for the CP; (2) maybe get a mistrial; and (3) turn public opinion in their favor. The defense attorneys were all left-leaning, and did not mind employing CP tactics, apparently.  --Noleander (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * I think the following sentence is a red herring and ought to be removed, or minimized:
 * "The US communist party membership in 1950 was around 32,000, or less than one tenth of one percent of the US population (it's membership peaked at around 75,000 during World War II, when the US was allied with the USSR)" - I think this is taken out of context. I looked it up on page 26 of the referenced book, and the author is speaking generally, and not relating it to the "threat" it posed but rather (as I read it) just the lack of success of the Communist Party for a variety of reasons. Would it have made a difference if it were much larger or much smaller? "Terrorists" are surely much, much smaller a percentage, yet a much greater perceived threat.
 * The prior page in that source (page 25) describes how the small membership meant the CP was not in a position to inflict any damage to the US, so in that context, the page 26 material makes more sense. I'll see if I can clarify the article. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But size has nothing to do with threat. e.g. "terrorists" today. Is that a neutral source?
 * The author of that source is Victor Saul Navasky. He appears to lean a little to the left, so that should certainly be taken into account.  I'll look and see if other sources cover the size/threat issue and get a more balanced view of the matter.  --Noleander (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe a reference that relates the size of the membership to perceived threat. But for one thing, it wasn't the numbers as much as that several high profile persons were thought to be Communists. And some in the entertainment world admitted they were. e.g. Elia Kazan who was persecuted for "naming names".
 * I'm looking through the rest of the article. I appreciate your cooperativeness! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comments
 * "The judge was biased against the defendants" - seems like a very broad statement, and to quote one jury member can be biased. This is not written in a NPOV manner.
 * You are correct. I'll try to find balancing sources, and/or attribute that POV (several sources say that "judge was biased"; on the other hand, other sources suggest he was a reasonable person).  --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are your sources for this article neutral? Are they mostly sources that are looking at the trial from a political view point? I notice that someone recommended this article be merged with Dennis v. United States. Perhaps the correct tack would be to write this as a political happening and not write it as covering a particular trial from a legal point of view.
 * That is a good question. I don't think I've yet seen a source that takes the "other side" ... but I'll look again.  In any case, the article certainly needs to  be very neutral and not just repeat POV sources.  --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article says "Junius Scales, who in the postwar anti-Communist fervor was the only American sent to prison for being a member of the Communist Party"
 * That is technically correct: Scales was the only person convected under the "membership" clause of the smith act. All the other defendants were convicted under the conspiracy clause of the Smith Act. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "One technique the prosecution used to impugne defense witnesses was to ask them to identify other Party members" - how is this a technique to "impugne" the defense witnesses? - Isn't it a common technique used to this day? It's just asking people to name others who they think or know are involved. How is it devious?
 * It made the witnesses plead the fifth, which made them look like they had something to hide. Then the judge would threaten them with contempt in front of the jury.  I think in the modern era, there is a rule that attorneys are not permitted to ask questions that they know the witness will plead the 5th on.  --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. People plead the Fifth all the time. Where do you get the idea that people can't be asked questions? Nothing "makes" a witness plead the Fifth. The Fifth is an option they have if they choose not to answer questions. Please provide some sources for that statement.

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources say that the prosecutors in the Foley Square trial deliberately used a strategy of asking the witnesses to "name names" so that the witnesses would be forced to plead the 5th, and made to look guilty.  The article just repeats what the sources say.  I'll check the sources and make sure the article reflects the sources accurately.  --Noleander (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is POV. Show me a legal source that says witnesses can't be asked questions because they might be "made" to plead the Fifth. In other words, police techniques are against the law. And they clearly have not been found to be against the law, or in violation of any constitutional rights. The Fifth is a privileged provided by the Constitution that not all countries have. I think you are using sources that have a political agenda, and not legal sources who will look at the trial from a legal perspective. That's why I recommend that you not write it up as a trial. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are convinced that the sources are POV, we should probably just close the GA reviews as "fail" for now, and go from there. I'll see if I can find sources that present alternative viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * One of your sources (I think the same one you were using for size of the Communist Party), said the Party dwindled because the American public just wasn't interested and was put off by the Party's jargon and general way of going about things. So the defense uses the Party's jargon to gain public sympathy? It doesn't make sense.
 * Maybe peer review will have a different view of this matter. I dropped a note on the Legal Project to take a look. I think if you wrote it up as a cultural/political event you would have more leeway as to the view you could take. But as a legal article, it doesn't work IMO. That doesn't mean it isn't an interesting article and shouldn't exist in some form&mdash;just not as a legal description of a trial. So please don't give up on it! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for all the input you gave. I'll gather some more sources and see if I can introduce more balance.  I think the sources definitely treat this trial as a cultural event not so much a legal event (that is why the available sources on the trial are apparently all historians, not legal scholars).  So maybe I'll tilt the article away from the legal aspect, if possible.  --Noleander (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional feedback. I'll address the issues soon.  I've put a couple of comments in now; more later. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * It looks much improved! Let me read it through again. Can you do something with that link to the Fifth Amendment? I've fiddled with it but I don't know how to fix it:

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've improved that see also link so it now looks like this:
 * See also: First amendment issues related to speech critical of government
 * Let me know if it could be better. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be away from the computer for a few days, so if you have any remaining issues, I can get to those when I get back. --Noleander (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Title is questionable, as pointed out on the talk page, the "Foley Square trial" could refer to any of hundreds of trials held in the Foley Square Courthouse by District and Circuit Courts.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * "According to Victor Navasky, the Communist Party was never a serious threat to the US government" - this may be true but it is taken out of context - the source does not relate the percentages of Communist Party members to actual threat to the country and there is no reliable source that relates this. (re: threat of "terrorists" today is not related to percentage of "terrorists" in the US population). Source is a journalist, not a historian or political scientist. In the source I could check, this was not supported. It certainly was not a main feature of the trial.
 * "According to Victor Navasky, one technique the prosecution used to impugne defense witnesses was to ask them to identify other Party members. Most witnesses refused to identify other members and were threatened by the judge with contempt of court." - too much emphasis on what this journalist thinks. Asking witnesses to identify others is a technique used by police departments, grand juries etc. today and is not considered a "impugne defense witnesses" by a majority of legal scholars or criminal justice experts.
 * Presents contradictory information: "FBI leader J. Edgar Hoover personally attacked lawyers that objected to informants or who counseled their clients to rely on the Fifth Amendment." - why would Hoover do this if using the Fifth was a technique to impugne?
 * "The second tier defendants also had a difficult time finding lawyers to represent them: all of the lawyers in the first case had been convicted for contempt of court." - many attorneys are convicted of contempt of court and it doesn't prevent them from representing other clients or even the client they were representing at the time.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * Does not remain focused on trial but wanders into speculation on whether the percentage of Communists in the US population was a "threat",
 * Unclear what is meant by references to the Fifth Amendment being used to "impugne defense witnesses".
 * Unclear what "Aftermath" section is trying to cover, as McCarthyism went on for a while after 1956.
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Question the reliability of some of the sources as they appear to conflict with factual information or are inaccurate.
 * I question if some of the source information is used selectively.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Suggest Peer review as the way to go. Potentially a good article but needs more eyes on it, IMO. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Suggest Peer review as the way to go. Potentially a good article but needs more eyes on it, IMO. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Suggest Peer review as the way to go. Potentially a good article but needs more eyes on it, IMO. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest Peer review as the way to go. Potentially a good article but needs more eyes on it, IMO. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest Peer review as the way to go. Potentially a good article but needs more eyes on it, IMO. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)