Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LaRouche criminal trials


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008.

LaRouche criminal trials

 * Nominator(s): ·:· Will Beback  ·:·

This article is comprehensive, fully sourced, and neutral. It has passed PR and GA reviews. I've just finished converting (almost) all of the citations to templates. I think it's ready for FAC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the only concern is the American-Almanac things, and even there, as far as using it for LR positions, it should be fine. It would only be on third-party type things that it would be questionable, and it sounds like Will is checking those? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two statements about 3rd parties that are of concern:
 * According to Barbara Boyd, Billington's attorney had not prepared a defense, assuming that Billington would "cop a plea," and the judge refused to permit Billington to substitute a different attorney, despite the fact that one stood ready.
 * While the shading may be a bit biased, I have read another account that more or less agrees with this. Plus the attorney is unnamed, making it less personal (though I gather the attorney in question is fairly prominent now). I think it's probably OK. Any other thoughts? Another statement from an SPS stood out for a different reason:
 * Bostetter said the government's actions amounted to bad faith regardless of whether government agents and attorneys had intended this outcome. He found that the government's actions and representations in obtaining the bankruptcy had the effect of misleading the court as to the status of the organization, leading to a "constructive fraud on the court."
 * I happened to read over one of the appeals court opinions last night and saw this footnote:
 * We also note that the Defendants have greatly distorted the character of much of the evidence presented in support of these claims. They assert, for example, that the bankruptcy court found that the bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith when in fact the bankruptcy court expressly rejected the contention that the petition was improperly motivated. In re: Caucus Distribs., Inc., 106 B.R. at 928. Much of the other evidence presented in support of these claims is equally lacking
 * Since this assertion is directly contradicted by the appeals court, the best thing may be to simply remove it. Sorry for not finding this earlier. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the first one, my best advice would be to back it up with the other source, if possible. The second, I'm afraid that removing is probalby the best option, or another option would be the "attribution" option, maybe something like "American Almanac says that (blah) occured, but the appeals court found (opposite of blah), which contradicts AA." or similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed both, more or less as you've suggested. I deleted the part about not being prepared to make a defense, as that only appears in the SPS, and is somewhat contradicted by a statement from another LaRouche spokesman. The article does name the lawyer, so extra care is needed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The lead contains many statements without sources. Per WP:LEAD: The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. ;
 * 2) The section named "State trials" contains a cover of a book, in violation of WP:FAIR;
 * 3) The title of section named "Claims of LaRouche supporters" could be changed to something more neutral and factually accurate, and contains unsourced material such as "The convictions of LaRouche and his associates were a defining moment in the history of the LaRouche network." Surely there must be sources that make that assertion. The section title "Attempts at exoneration" could also be changed to something more neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I didn't know you reviewed FACs. This is a rare honor.
 * Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. - WP:LEAD
 * The current lead was discussed on the talk page and all requests for citations have been met.
 * WP:FAIR sets out ten criteria for inclusion of images. I believe it meets all ten. The title (pictured on the cover) makes the assertion of having been a "political prisoner" and serves as the source for the assertion in the text. Is there a specific citerion that it fails?
 * "Claim" has a legal meaning which is not prohibited. However it could be replaced by a word like "argument". I'm not sure how "attempts" is non-neutral. Would "efforts" be better? I'm not sure why, but if it is then that's fine too.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FAIR for a book cover requires does not apply in this case. A book cover can only be used in an article about the book, or in an article that discusses the book critically. As for the section titles, I am sure you can find a more neutral presentation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FAIR, the policy you cited, doesn't mention book covers. Are you thinking of some guideline? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way "claim" is being used here is completely different than the legal meaning of the word "claim", so the normal rule should apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would "arguments" be better? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Leads don't require citations as long as facts are cited in the body, except in the case of direct quotes.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:LEAD says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I quoted WP:LEAD above, and that seems to be exactly what it says. Have you read WP:LEAD?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have, have you? (my highlight) ''The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nobody has pointed to any contentious material or anything else in need of a cite. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations Are you asserting that the material in the lead is neither complex, current, or controversial? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * May. If there is anything there that you think needs a special citation, above and beyond what's already in the body of the article, please point it out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All material in the lead needs to be cited, given the controversial aspects that it treats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement for that. The lead is just a summary of the sourced material in the article. If you see something specific that needs a cite please point it out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As requested ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I haven't gone through the article that thoroughly yet, but the refs to legal documents are still kind of a mess. "Appeal, United States v. LaRouche, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989)" is probably the worst - is this a motion? a decision? what year was it filed in? what court wrote it (or what court was it filed in? what case does it pertain to? It appears to be the motion for an appeal filed by LaRouche in the 4th circuit but it's really hard to say. I know that these documents are reprinted in that Spannaus book, but really we should have sufficient citations for readers to find the original documents if need be. Hopefully there is enough info in Spannaus that can be added to make it so. Any court filing should have the name of the filing, the name of the case it relates to, the volume/reporter/page # of the case it relates to (or at least the docket number, but hopefully we can avoid that), the court it was filed in, and the year it was filed. (Court filings include normal briefs, amicus briefs, motions, etc.) Do you have access to that book? It appears that my law library has it but I don't know if I'll have time to go get it or not. Another big-picture issue with the article is how it mushes up all the appeals for what appear to be separate cases at the end. As a legal reader I find this extremely confusing, because each case surely deals with different issues on appeal, so it makes no sense to group appeals with each other rather than with the cases they pertain to. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to Railroad!, the Spannaus book, and the nearest library that has it is a hundred miles away. I tried to get an interlibary load without success. There is a law library near me that should have some of the actual appellate decisions. See also the list of appeals on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I went back and supplemented the list at Talk:LaRouche conspiracy trials. (Many of the others were appeals concerning FOIA requests that originated before the releveant charges.) There are ten or twelve cases that the appellate courts heard that were directly related to these charges, plus some lower court affirmations that I haven't tracked down. Of those twelve, the newspapers apparently reported on only a few, and were rarely precise when they did. There were also trials and appeals in a several states. The movement must have had a couple of federal and state appeals going at once. Reporters don't note proper case names or numbers. It may be beyond our ability, using the reliable sources, to exactly pin down which motion was made in which appellate case was an appeal of which of the many cases that the defendants lost. This is a legal whirlwind. The defense attorneys at the first case filed 400 pretrial motions. After OJ that may seem routine but in 1987 it was notable. There's no way we can ever untangle all of this. I hope the article does a good job of summarizing the main points of the appeals. Most remarkable are the appeals following the Boston trial, which ended in a mistrial. When the prosecution moved for a retrial the movement appealed on the grounds of double jeopardy (and lost). The Alexandria trial intervened and after the convictions there the Boston DA dropped the charges, saying that justice had been done. The defendants appealed that motion, saying that they were seeking vindication in that venue (and they lost that too). So they appealed the planned retrial and then they appealed the dismissal. It boggles the mind. That's why we should keep it short and mostly based on secondary sources like newspapers, even though they're imperfect. I believe the article correctly summarizes those. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the task is too difficult to undertake, or that it is impossible? If the former, maybe you can ask others to assist with the parsing of all that data. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the large quantity of data that makes it difficult- it's the small quantity. The appeals cases weren't covered thoroughly by the press, and when they did cover them they didn't always make it clear which appeal they were writing about. At the level of an enyclopedia article covering the whole set of trials and their appeals it may not make a difference exactly which appeal was which. They lost every one. We have six fairly short paragraphs on the appeals. There's not much more we can say unless we start summarizing the original opinions from the primary sources, but it's probably better if we don't. This was discussed on the talk page already, and the view was that a full listing and analysis of the appeals cases would overwhelm the rest of the article. Maybe that'd be a good topic for a new article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There should not be a problem with untangling the appeals, given the appropriate research tools. Westlaw has graphical listings of procedural histories of cases. They don't appear to have all district court cases from this time period, but they do appear to have all circuit court and supreme court decisions. I haven't looked into what state court decisions. I don't think that it is necessary to list every appeal, but I am still a bit confused about why we want to lump all appeals together in one section, rather than having them accompany the discussion of the individual cases they relate to. It's not as though appeals exist in a vacuum or really probably have anything in common with one another. An appeal is challenging something specific that went on in a lower court, so in almost all cases is best understood in conjunction with that lower court decision. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't recall why we treated the appeals separately - but it was probably in order to clarify the issues. As I not just below, I've re-writtn the section. Now that that is done, it's apparent that the appeals are clearer than I thought before, and the appeals between the two federal trials don't overlap much. It'd be easy to move the Boston-related appeals to the end of that section. It'd be harder to get everything into perfect chronology especially since there were so many appeals that started even before the first trial. The appeals related to the Alexandria trial, including the "main" appeal of the convictions, might be best left where they are, following the convictions in the other trials. I'll see about getting that material moved. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've distributed the appeals to more appropriate locations. Except for the Frankhouser appeal, they're still segregated in their own sections. How does that look? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've begun drafting a revised "Appeals" section in my sandbox. The aim is to be more straightforward: simply listing each appeal, the date it was made, its chief claim, and its disposition (though since they all failed it may be redundant to say that repeatedly). Since we don't quote the prosecutors we probably don't need to quote the defendants either. I'll try to finish that tonight or tomorrow. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted the new draft. I need to add some citations, but it's mostly just taken from the appellate opinions. I hope it is clearer than the previous version. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * This article must be suffering from a bad case of TLDR. I'm finding embarrassing grammar problems in later sections ("State Trials"). I'm repairing...
 * Thanks for the repairs.
 * "five of LaRouche's associates were also found guilty: William Wertz...Edward Spannaus... Dennis Small, Paul Greenberg, Michael Billington, and Joyce Rubinstein...". I count six.
 * Six is the correct number. Fixed.
 * really, the "State Trials" section kinda sticks out for awkward prose. It definitely needs copy editing. The other section may need it too, but not as badly as that one. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed an awkward paragraph of claims by supporters of the defendants. That leaves the section with a more straightforward account of the trials.
 * Bad Link:"Testimony Of The Schiller Institute Submitted To The Committee On The Judiciary, UnitedStates Senate". american_almanac.tipod.com (July 13, 1998). Retrieved on October 12, 2008. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the link again and it seems to work. http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dojtest.htm The automated external link checker (at the top of this page) also reports no problems. Maybe it was a momentary glitch.


 * Oppose this time around, as per 1a. I'm pretty sure there's an FA lurking inside this article somewhere, but it hasn't been coaxed out yet. The prose toward the end feels a bit skeletal or rote. The whole article had a faint odor of I-can-tell-the POV-of-its-editors as well, though I'm not putting force behind that statement, because many of the facts are irrefutable. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The prose at the end, in the section now titled "LaRouche supporters' reactions", was mostly written by a now-banned editor (and LaRouche supporter) who was not a good writer. I don't want to remove too much of the LaRouche POV, at least from that section, but I'll see if I can polish the writing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about a minor anti--LaRouche bias. The Background section clearly explains their detractors' POV, but doesn't let the LaRouchies label themselves... and there's at least one very prominent guy mentioned (Ramsey Clark); the WP:LEAD should say something like "These people (list one or two prominent ones) said he was guilty (list prominnt supporting evidence) but supporters such as (list one or two prominent ones) said (whatever).
 * The article seems to fail WP:LEAD, now that I think about it...
 * While we're on POV, it might be nice to know if those violinists at the bottom of the page support LaRouche's political idea, or just the Verdi tuning bit. Important distinction.
 * Eh, it just occurred to me thay the article should be retitled/moved. The word "conspiracy" may have several legal connotations and may even be technically correct, but it really has strong associations with conspiracy theory. The LaRouchies are apparently 'all about conspiracy theories; it is almost their raison d'être. There really should be an article about LaRouche conspiracy theories, but then the association between that article and this would really become too powerful. This one should be LaRouche criminal trials, or perhaps something more specific regarding the charges (though we both know that no charge-related title will ever escape the gauntlet of Talk.)
 * But 1a is the key word for the day; the article's writing isn't FA level. Sorry. Needs copy editing...
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Could you be more specific about how the lead violates WP:LEAD? I didn't write it, so don't worry about offending me. ;)
 * The article had long been at {{United States v. Lyndon LaRouche]] but was moved during the GA review becuase it covers more than the single case, that the old name implied. LaRouche fraud trials would be accurate, as the main charges related to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and, in the first trial, obstruction of justice realted to the investigation of fraud. FYI, there is an article titled Views of Lyndon LaRouche that includes many of his conspiracy theories.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added to the "background" section a quote from a follower that describes LaRouche in glowing terms. Regarding the violinist, Norbert Brainin, it's not clear whether he supported LaRouche's politic, but he did support LaRouche. In 1988 he gave a concert to benefit LaRouche's legal defense fund, "Constitutional Defense Fund" (CDF). An article on the concert said:
 * The concert playbill explained that the CDF, located in Upper Darby, Pa., "has taken on the commitment to funding numerous cases against the government's effort to destroy Lyndon LaRouche and the political movement he leads because these cases involve the blatant use of government power for the purpose of political persecution." Brainin, former first violinist with the Amadeus Quartet, introduced LaRouche as a "very good friend of mine" and said he wished to "pay homage to a great man and to bear witness to his stainless character," according to [LaRouche spokesman] Scanlon, who was at the concert.
 * The other musician listed, William Warfield, was a supporter of the Verdi tuning movement and became a director of one of the LaRouche organizations, the Schiller Institute. Do you think that more information is needed on the involvement of those who signed the petitions? While we avoid it in the current draft, the movement sought signatures on several petitions seeking exoneration of LaRouche, and when a list of endorsers was published several claimed they hadn't realized what they were signing. It's interesting and relevant, but there isn't room for everything. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support The article is massively researched, comprehensive and objective. The facts are irrefutable that LaRouche and a number of his followers were found guilty of serious felonies and were unable to get their convictions overturned on appeal. LaRouche's accusations that he was the victim of a political conspiracy are covered but are not given undue weight.--Dking (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is looking good, although I share a concern about the title. Why not just call it LaRouche trials or something similar? Another issue is the lead, that seems to be a bit on the long side. I am sure that some sentences can be dropped for a tighter lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per comments from Ling.Nut and Jossi, I have re-written the lead. While it's about the same length as before (487 words versus 470 words), it's less verbose and adds some important aspects that hadn't been in the previous draft. Regarding the article title, some current proposals are "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement", "LaRouche criminal trials" and "LaRouche fraud trials". "LaRouche trials" would be inaccurate because there have been a number of unrelated civil trials concerning LaRouche and his movement that aren't covered here. The benefit to having "movement" in the title is that at least 13 associates and three corporations were also involved.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per discusion here and on the talk page, I've moved the article to LaRouche criminal trials. That title matches the scope of the article, which covers more than just the conspiracy charges or even just the fraud charges. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed one large paragraph from the lead, which makes the lead tighter and much easier to read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Much improved. (However, will this reduction increase Ling.Nut's complaints (above) about the problems in article's WP:LEAD, such as not mentioning prominent people that are involved?) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That surgery seems a bit drastic, but it certainly does make the intro shorter. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - I changed the following sentence in an attempt to clarify the quotes. Please check my changes for accuracy:
 * According to the Boston Herald of May 5, 1988, one of the jurors described the poll: "It seemed some of the government's people caused the problem, adding that the evidence showed that people working on behalf of the government 'may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign.'"
 * Also, this needs a reference citation.
 * This link appears to be dead: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/878/878.F2d.1571.88-1415.88-1323.htm

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I modified the quote a little more and added a cite. It doesn't really matter which newspaper reported it, or the exact date, so I dropped those.
 * One juror told a reporter that "it seemed some of the government's people caused the problem", and that people working on behalf of the government "may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign."
 * The link was missing a final "l", which I've fixed. Thanks for catching it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the headings a little. I remember how confused I was when I initially looked at the article, when it was up for GA review. There seemed to be too many confusing headings, but feel free to change them back. I wish that under Boston trials there was another heading for Main trial, but I can't think of one. Calling it LaRouche trial would be misleading because of the co-defendants? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One option would be to change the Boston headings to "trial of Frankhouser" and "trial of LaRouche, et al."
 * (BTW, the circuit court consistently spells it "Frankhauser" while every other source spells it "Frankhouser". It's hard to say with absolute confidence which spelling is correct, so I would't use a [sic] annotation. But would a footnote, or a note following the entry in the list of appeals, be helpful? I think it's confusing and may lead readers to think we made a mistake if it isn't explained.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A note or footnote explaining the situation probably would be a good idea, in case someone obsesses over that in the future. This article is much clear now. It is a fascinating story. You have done an unbelievable amount of work figuring it all out.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion for the section heading rewording: change the Boston headings to "trial of Frankhouser" and "trial of LaRouche, et al." - would there be any objection to that?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I also added some of the case names to the text and did more prose-polishing. (Thanks for the noticing the effort. You're right—it is a fascinating story and that's why I've found it so interesting. The events and characters have a quality of high drama or opera.)  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Article is now ready for prime time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - When I first encountered this article, I could not make heads or tails out of it. Now it is a fascinating pleasure. You have done a great job of making sense of all of this and telling a story that I did not know at all before encountering this article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 05:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A great read on a tough topic to pull together cohesively. The article is structured well and has good flow throughout. Very well done. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd really like this moved to a less informal name, perhaps the one from the lede, "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement". As it is now, before I clicked it, I thought it was about a trial of Lyndon LaRouche specifically, when it obviously isn't. At the very least, 'movement' needs to be in the title, as "LaRouche" is ambiguous, possibly referring to Lyndon, his wife, or his movement. --Golbez (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement" was an alternative that I'd proposed to which no one specifically objected. It's the more accurate, though more verbose. I'll go ahead and move it there. (Though I won't move this FAC to match the new name - that seems to screw up hard-to-fix links.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, now that I think of it, such a title could be construed to mean trials conducted BY the movement. So 'of' could be maybe 'against' or 'involving'. But that's picking nits, at this point. :) Thanks for the move. I've been on a minor crusade against such informal names ever since "Mozart's operas" came up on FLC. --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop!. There has been much moving of the title already. Why doesn't everyone take some time to think about it and get more opinions. Maybe there is no perfect title. The current one (arrived at after some discussion) is sufficiently vague but contains the word "LaRouche" so that anyone interested in the subject can take the time to read the first short paragraph of the lead that explains the topic of the article. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing it be moved away from Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement? I don't know what you mean by "sufficiently vague", I wasn't aware we aimed for vagueness in our titles. --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Matisse may mean "sufficiently broad". The original title was "United States v. LaRouche", which was too specific because it referred to only one of the dozen or so trial that the article covers. Another title was "LaRouche conspiracy trials" which covered only one set of charges (and was also too vague because "conspiracy" has multiple meanings). I think that "LaRouche criminal trials" and "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement" are both good, and I prefer the first just because it's shorter. "LaRouche movement criminal trials" is another variation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. I also prefer the shorter title because I prefer short titles. I don't think the longer title adds anything and might even be misleading. Looking at the article LaRouche movement, it seems that the criminal trials in this article involved only a small subset of the various people, groups, parties, companies, political causes etc. that the LaRouche movement article describes. It does not involve any of the topics listed under the "LaRouche movement" subsection of the LaRouche movement template on that page. Further, the LaRouche movement, according to that article, involved many other countries all over the world. This article is confined to criminal trials in the U.S. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no further comment from Golbez I'll restore the previous title, "LaRouche criminal trials". I hadn't anticipated that Matisse would object to the newer title, "Criminal trials of the tLaRouche movement", so my assertion that no one objected turned out to be wrong. I'm not sure I see the "formal/informal" distinction. I can't see how anyone could seriously think that the movement had conducted criminal trials, since criminal trials are conducted exclusively by governments. The longer title doesn't appear to really add much except more words. Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with "LaRouche criminal trials". Cirt (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jumble. Ok, the article moves have resulted in a jumble, with a redlink to the FAC on the talk page and the FAC out of sync with the article. Please don't move it again without checking in with me so I can help you get all the pieces in the right place.  When you decide on the name, I need to make several corrections.  If it's moved again and then has to be moved back, I can't fix it because I'm not an admin.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please check the dab link that needs attention in the dab finder in the toolbox. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the second move since the FAC started. I couldn't figure out how to fix the FAC link on the talk page the last time. I've fixed the dab -it was a new link added recently. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you're certain everything is settled, I'll get all the pieces in the right place. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure how we'll know then it's settled for good. ;) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing no more commentary, I've moved it back to "LaRouche conspiracy trials". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I feared, the FAC pages were moved and I cannot correct them now without admin tools. So, I'll get someone to help sort it all out.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved it - anything else left to move? Cirt (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt; I believe everything is OK now, but if I find anything straggling that will foil the bot, I'll ping you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to perseverate over this, but I thought reasons were given above why LaRouche conspiracy trials was not right and we settled on LaRouche criminal trials so I am baffled. But whatever.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this title is the most appropriate, and consensus exists. We should just go with it and move on. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion here, just pointing out that the pages were out of sync, and if there are more moves, it will probably take an admin to keep the pieces correctly named for the closing bot. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops oops oops. I made a mistake writing this last night - the consensus was for "LaRouche criminal trials", not "Larouche onspriacy trials". Everything was set, but, niw it's all moved to "conspiracy." Sorry for this mixup, everybody. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I think we are all in agreement that this name is appropriate as well. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment—The lead shows a certain fuzziness in the prose, particularly in referents—is this the case throughout? Commas throughout could be audited for easier reading. Here are examples from the top:
 * "They" in the second sentence is fuzzy (could refer to the prosecutors themselves, until you read it twice).
 * Comma after "evasion", and "was" before "sentenced". Consider "and received a 15-year sentence" instead.
 * Comma after "conspiracy", because there are two ands.
 * "Found guilty"—why not "convicted"?
 * Was it the trial procedures or the appeals that were "unsuccessful"?
 * Unsure about the semicolon then the period: please think about the relative closeness of the clauses. Tony   (talk)  13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question to Tony: The lead is completely unrepresentative of the article. After much discussion of what and what not should be included in the lead, since the article is so complex, the lead was whittled down with all details removed in one edit, thus leaving the fuzzy "they" and such. It has not been touched since. The result is what you read.


 * We could carefully add back a little more explanation, hopefully without alienating those who felt strongly the lead should not contain detail. Is this your go ahead that we should to do this? Or could we just copy edit to fix the "they" and the comma to rectify the two ands. Plus perhaps clarify that one of the trials was a mistrial, some defendants were not convicted, and none of the appeals were successful.


 * If you do read the article, you will understand that it is extraordinarily difficult to summarize in a lead.(It is amazing that the editor was able to make sense out of the plethora of facts). There were a multitude of investigations, investigating agencies, charges, trials, defendants, and convictions (and a few failures to convict) as well as various trial locations. There were too many appeals to detail in the article. Therefore, it was difficult to select which particular facts to include in the lead, because any one statement, such as "and received a 15-year sentence" could be criticized as misleading if not qualified, since, for example, in the case of LaRouche, the sentence was reduced by a judge and then he was paroled before serving the reduced sentence.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made copyedits to address each of Tony's issues. Mattisse's question about whether we should include more information in the lead still stands. The deleted second paragraph was 195 words of dense narrative. It'd be possible to cover the key points in half that space if we wanted to do so. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To cover the trials, a pared-down paragraph could look like this:
 * In 1986, hundreds of state and federal officers raided LaRouche offices in Virginia and Massachusetts. A federal grand jury in Boston, Massachusetts, indicted LaRouche and 12 associates on credit card fraud and obstruction of justice. The subsequent trial, described as a "courtroom extravaganza", was repeatedly delayed and ended in mistrial. Following the mistrial, a  federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted LaRouche and five associates. After a short trial in 1988, they were convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. LaRouche was also convicted of tax evasion. Three LaRouche-related organizations were forced into bankruptcy after failing to pay contempt of court fines. 
 * Would that help round out the intro? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. But it is hard to read Tony's mind. His comments seem to come out of nowhere, since he hasn't read the article. (If he sees a huge distinction between "found guilty" and "convicted" when it is stated that the sentence is 15 years, then I am lost.) Perhaps he would object to the "courtroom extravaganza" part. Just a guess. I see you have fixed his specific objections. Perhaps that is enough. A whole host of objects may be raised by Tony and others if you change much. It might be asking for trouble. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Don't do anything hasty!  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add it if there are no objections. The lead should cover the main points of the article and this is a minimal treatment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I'll add this paragraph as a minimal outline of the main cases. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review - There are lots of issues that need to be cleared up with regards to the images:
 * Image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:William Weld-cropped.png - There is no information on the image whatsover nor on the image it was cropped from Its license cannot be verified.
 * Removed.


 * Image:Supreme Court.jpg - Source link does not work.
 * These links work: http://free-stock-photos.com/supreme-court.html, http://free-stock-photos.com/patriotic/supreme-court-1.html &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly reassured by the assertion on that site that Hammond from the USDA is the photographer (upon which the PD claim rests). We need to find something more solid. Can anyone find the USDA link? Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the question whether Hammond took the pciture, or whether Hammond is an emplyee of the US government? Based on searches, it appears that Hammond is a prolific USDA photojournalist. I found another Commons image credited to him with a similar USDA URL that is also down - they apparently moved or removed the images from the website. image:Wool.www.usda.gov.jpg. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This search includes cache results that show Hammand did a series of photos on landmarks in Washington D.C. The file names and URLs are similar to that for this image. And like with the image, the URLs are all broken. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While it's not as good for this article, IMO, I swapped inImage:United states supreme court building.png to replace this image. It's sourcing info appears to be complete. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Boston Post Office and Courthouse.jpg - This image is missing author and date information.
 * I see that someone has added "unknown" to the author field. Does that mean we are unsure if this image really is the work of the federal government? Perhaps you could point me to the part of the website that explains that images on the website are in the public domain? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed.


 * Image:VP Bush 1981.jpg - The source photo needs an author.
 * It is an official portrait, so that would likely be "White House staff", which I've added


 * Image:Old Alexandria District Federal Courthouse.jpg - Please add a description, author, and date to the image description. Also, please explain why you believe this photo was taken by a federal employee.
 * I see that someone has added "United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia" to the author field, but that is simply who runs the website. Perhaps you could point me to a place on the website where it says that the images on the website are in the public domain? Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed.


 * Image:Ramsey Clark in Nandigram cropped.jpg - The source image for this is missing the source, date, and author.
 * It's uploaded by the creator. I've filled in the other fields.


 * Image:Arturo Frondizi 2.jpg - What is the source for this image?
 * Apparently it's from Todo es historia, Nº 444, pag. 65.
 * What is that exactly and what is the rest of the publication information for it? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed.

Let me know if any of the above are unclear. Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the two courthouse pictures on U.S. government sites, while the other pictures in this list were already on Wikipedia. I see that other recently featured articles have images where the date is the apparent date of uploadning, and the author is listed as "unknown". For example, Image:USS_Nevada_(BB-36)_in_drydock.jpg. If that's an acceptable solution then this will be easy to deal with. Otherwise it may be impossible to obtain date of creation and author information.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Other FAs are irrelevant to this FAC; they may have not received an adequate review, images may have been added later, and Fair Use varies depending on the article. This article needs to conform with crit 3 of WP:WIAFA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm a bit confused. Are date and author required in order for a public domain image to have an acceptable image license? I can't find that requirement in Copyrights, Public domain, or FAQ/Copyright. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These two pages may help sort it out: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. (Example: If we don't know who the author is, how do we know when they died?)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed some of the above image issues. I think the only one unresolved is the image of William Weld, which is unfortunately not public domain, and I have put that one up for deletion. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added further questions above. Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The bulk of these images are more decorative than informative. It's probably not possible to determine the sourcing details that have been requested. Rather than wasting further effort on this side issue I'll remove the images that have questions remaining. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With help, I found an image on Flickr of the Alexandria courthouse. Image:Martin V.B. Bostetter, Jr. United States Courthouse.jpg/. It has a compatible license and all of the sourcing and authorship info. If there are no objections I'll insert it into the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.