Talk:United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management/GA1

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

Initial comment
I will be undertaking this review. It may take a while to complete, owing to 'real life'. This article appears to be stable (albeit largely unedited, being the work of one extremely thorough and hardworking contributor, User:Tim1965), comprehensive, focussed, well-referenced and containing appropriate images. I will be checking some Manual of Style issues and forming an impression of whether the article is balanced - it looks to be so, but as the creator of all the text is a self-identified labour union member, it is something I will keep in mind :-) This looks to be one of many excellent pieces of 20th century historical research by this editor. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Background and creation
 * First sentence commences "Beginning in 1955,..." Yet the second sentence commences "In December 1952, Robert F. Kennedy was appointed..." The chronology is immediately confusing. It needs to be reworked so that it is clear how something can "begin" holding hearings three years after someone became assistant counsel.
 * Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Kennedy resigned in July 1953, but rejoined the committee staff as chief minority counsel in February 1954.[4] When the Democrats regained the majority in January 1955..." This needs an explanation to a lay person (or indeed a non-US person). What is a minority counsel? Why did the guy have to resign to become this? If he had been on the staff in a committee in a Westminster system country (eg. UK, Australia, New Zealand), this would not make sense, as the staff are non-partisan and serve both sides. Was it caused by control of the Senate changing hands in '53 or '54 (as well as '55)?
 * There is, shockingly, no Wiki article on U.S. congressional staff, and the article on committees in the U.S. Congress doesn't contain any information on committee staff either. So I added a much larger footnote than intended. The footnote explains the committee staff system in a very few words (I hope), and adds citations. I'd appreciate feedback on this footnote, especially if it answers the questions. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Second para: "Much of the Permanent Subcommittee's work focused on a scandal in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters which emerged in 1956..." Teamster is a US word, and this just needs a slight tweak to introduce it to the audience more generally. I suggest: "Much of the Permanent Subcommittee's work focused on a scandal in the powerful trade union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters."
 * Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More terms that a lay reader will not know: "paper local" (I know it is wikilinked, but could a phrase be substituted that gives the gist of what these were for?); "charter" in this context: does it mean apply for membership of the union? Apply to become a local branch or become affiliated with the union? Not sure how best to handle this, and will take advice.
 * I added a parenthetical phrase about paper locals in the text. I'd prefer to deal with the "charter" issue in a footnote, because as you noted it is a slightly complex issue. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Robert Kennedy proved to be an inexpert interrogator, fumbling questions and engaging in shouting matches with witnesses rather than laying out legal cases against them". This and other nearby sentences all rely on the one citation (Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector). This seems to be a fairly important assessment of Kennedy's effectiveness in the committee process, and I wondered whether other sources agree with this view?
 * I added other sources to support not only that conclusion, but to support other statements in the paragraph as well. I would appreciate a re-review of that section to see if anything needs further support. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "Criticisms" section at the end of the article also documents criticisms of RFK's behavior and questioning. Given your concerns about that section (see very bottom), would it be better to just add these statements about RFK's questioning into the "Background and Creation" section (either as full sentences or as footnotes)? - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Investigations
 * "...the Committee had also been strongly criticized for its handling of witnesses and its apparent one-sidedness in exposing union but not management corruption." This is a crucial claim that needs citations, preferably to multiple sources, and certainly to at least one academic / secondary analysis (ie. it should not be supported only by contemporaneous newspaper reports).
 * Should it include both contemporaneous and later assessments? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "...gathering enough power unto itself to destroy the national economy." This is a strange turn of phrase - is it a quote from a report or speech of the time? Otherwise, perhaps "...gathering enough power to destroy the national economy" would be adequate.
 * That's my own weird phraseology. I've adjusted it in the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "By the summer of 1959, it was clear that the Select Committee was not developing additional information to justify continued operation." This analysis of its (in)effectiveness should be supoprted by a citation.
 * Done! Clearly, this was not a factual judgement, but a political one. A paragraph lower in the article talks about the jurisdiction being transferred to the Permanent Subcommittee. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms
 * "Only three of the committee's eight members looked on organized labor favorably, and only one of them (Senator Patrick McNamara) was strongly pro-labor." This needs a citation.
 * Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Other points
 * Do any of the books that cover this topic discuss the committee's legacy in terms of its effect on the careers of the main players such as Kennedy?
 * That could be easily added. The article length is already a concern, and I don't want to add too much. My sense is to add a sentence each on the boost to John F. Kennedy's career, the boost to Robert F. Kennedy's career (it made him a household name), and the impact on McClellan's career (he went to on to chair investigations of the Mafia throughout the 1960s). As for Jimmy Hoffa, Beck's resignation boosted him into the Teamsters presidency, and made him famous (of course). - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! I would appreciate any review of this change. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had trouble reconciling the apparently damning evidence uncovered about Hoffa with discovering later in the article that Hoffa became President of the Teamsters. This really needs more explaining. How could there be wiretaps etc etc and yet he not only was not imprisoned, but actually continued to rise in power?
 * Because the evidence wasn't as damning as the committee seemed to believe. Hoffa was never convicted in a court of law on any of the charges made by the committee. Additionally, some of the behavior Hoffa was accused of wasn't a crime at the time (e.g., the violations of union democracy, misuse of union members' money, etc.), but would be after the passed of the Landrum-Griffin Act. I could address this briefly, although it should really be addressed in an improved article on Jimmy Hoffa (that article needs significant work!). - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! I added a couple sentences on Hoffa beating the indictments against him. I would appreciate any review of this new bit. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to think some more about the section "criticisms" at the end. I feel it may be better integrated into the article somehow, and I also wonder about its balance. Would it be better to have a section on analysis of the committee's legacy, which dealt with criticisms of its operation, positive effects (if analysts think it had any), and its influence on the careers of key players (Kennedy, the Senators, and for that matter Hoffa). Will try and give this more thought.
 * My thinking was that a pretty positive view of the committee's work (bringing down Beck, attacking Hoffa, passing legislation) is interwoven into the rest of the article (in telling the story, I think any storyteller naturally praises their subject), and I wanted to balance that out with a stand-alone section on criticisms. But suggestions are very welcome. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd make a quick further comment re the section on criticisms. I think, in an ideal article, this would not be separate material, but would be integrated into discussion of the committee's effectiveness and political support (for example, links could be made between the concern over its impact on individuals' rights and the level of political support the committee garnered amongst democrats, the public, and some media outlets perhaps. In other words, did the criticisms you have identified in the references have effects on the committee's operational effectiveness etc?) It could also be integrated into discussion of the committee's legacy in terms of its effect on the careers of its key players, particularly Kennedy, to whom a considerable portion of the criticisms appear to relate. I recognise that this integration may not be straightforward, as some of the above thoughts don't quite mesh with how the article is laid out. But there you are. I'm happy to negotiate!
 * Real life has gotten in the way in the last three days, but I'm fiddling with something off-line to integrate this material into the main article. Just wanted to keep you apprised that changes will be forthcoming soon! And thanks for the many terrific comments so far. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I finally finished "distributing" this information throughout the article. I decided the best approach would be to identify when each criticism was made. For example, many of the criticisms of Kennedy mentioned in the "Criticisms" section came in March or April 1957, right after the Beck and Hoffa hearings. I did some additional research (which took me a week; someone had checked two books I'd relied on out of the library! D'oh!) and identified the years in which these occured. The criticisms now are scattered throughout the article according to the year in which they were made.  This gives the criticisms a bit more weight, as they are now linked to the distance (or not) from the events in which they occurred. I appreciate any review or advice you can give about these changes! Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are my initial thoughts. Fabulously detailed references. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)