Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive1

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive1

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a major episode of the Cold War. The title may seem a bit daunting, but it is a fascinating story. The article has Good Article status, and has been through three Peer Reviews: one, two, and three. My prior FA articles include W. E. B. Du Bois, Birth control movement in the United States, and π. I believe this article meets the FA criteria, and I'm ready to make any improvements needed. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comments: Supported below Alright, I've started my review. The prose looks like it is in pretty good shape, only a few small comments thus far.
• "The defendants claimed that the instructions "I find as matter of law that there is sufficient danger of a substantive evil that the Congress has a right to prevent to justify the application of the statute under the First Amendment of the Constitution" were erroneous," Might want to add commas around the quote, not sure.

Hmmm. Not sure about that one. I tried putting in commas, but it did not look right. I think the quote marks themselves serve as sufficient delimiters here. But I can add commas if that is considered better. --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In his opinion, Vinson wrote" Might want to consider a block quote here.

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Check for repeat linking, a few terms are linked more than once after the lead.

I deliberately included a few redundant links in situations where the 2nd occurrence was far from the first, and the term was obscure. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, I just ran the tool on it and thought I'd mention it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The attorneys raised a variety of issues on appeal, including the purported misconduct of the judge, and the claim that they were deprived of due process because there was no hearing to evaluate the merits of the contempt charge. The attorneys argued that the contempt charges would prevent future CPUSA defendants from obtaining counsel, because attorneys would be afraid of judicial retaliation. The attorneys'" You start three consecutive sentences with "The attorneys..." here, probably want to rephrase for some variation.

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The second-tier defendants had a difficult time finding lawyers to represent them: All five lawyers" vs "The attorneys' initial appeal to the federal appeals court was not successful: the court reviewed " Check for consistency wrt capitals after colons.

Done - The convention followed in this article is to capitalize after colons; I fixed the mistake you pointed out. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Some second-tier defendants were unable to post bail because the government refused to permit the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) legal defense fund to post bail." Repetition of "to post bail" here, is there a good way around it?

Done - Changed to "Some second-tier defendants were unable to post bail because the government refused to permit the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) legal defense fund to provide bail funding." --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "After prison, Carl Winter resumed Party activities, became editor of the Daily Worker and died in 1991." I'm unclear here, did he become editor and die in 1991? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - Added 1966 date for Daily Worker job. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've added some commas and changed some wording, feel free to revert if you feel I've messed anything up.

Looks fine. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some possible overlinking here, consider delinking Russia, Bail, and Indictment.

Done - I delinked Russia; but left bail and indictment since those terms may be alien to english-as-second language readers. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent about introducing block quotes with colons, also an issue with non-block quotes: I see "A New York resident wrote: "..." vs "Another wrote "the trial".

Done --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Ten days after the trial, Time magazine featured Medina on its cover, and soon thereafter he was asked to consider running for governor of New York." Might want to note if he ran or not.

Done - I added that fact (he did not run) in the footnote ... let me know if you think it should be in the body. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Should probably double check that you comply with WP:ELLIPSIS, since you use a lot of them.

Done - In compliance with MOS. --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The Moscow press wrote that Medina showed "extraordinary prejudice"; the London communist newspaper wrote" Are "The Moscow press" and "the London communist newspaper" names of publications here?

No, they are not the proper names of newspapers; and I do not have specific newspaper names. Those phrases come from the New York Times reporter which wrote a synopsis of the world-wide coverage; but they did not identify the specific international papers they were summarizing. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "suddenly to national fame [[The Wheeling speech|when he claimed]]" I'd consider delinking this, since it redirects to McCarthy's article. Not a big deal though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - I delinked it; but added the link into the footnote so curious readers will have access. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• You have "George W. Crockett, Jr.," with a comma in one part, and without later in the article.

Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Third party presidential candidate Henry A. Wallace" Should there be a hyphen here?

Done - The sources seem to go both ways, but I added the hyphen since it seems better. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Check image captions, only complete sentences should have periods.

Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see a couple places in "Background" where you could probably abbreviate United States to US.

Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• You have "''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine" once, and then "[[Time (magazine)|''Time'' magazine]]" another couple times.

Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• "After the first trial, the government prosecutors" should this be "government's prosecutors"?

Done - Changed to "After the first trial, the prosecutors ..." so the issue went away. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

..... Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reivew! --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Alright, I'm ready to support this article on 1a, 2a, and 2b--the prose, presentation, and MOS compliance look fine to me. IANAL etc. so I can't comment on the aspects of whether the legal details are quite right/comprehensive. Overall, definitely a very good article, impressive work. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comments - I think a good deal of work, mostly related to the legal issues, is required before this article can satisfy the Featured Article criteria. Trying to write an article about the trials that spawned half a dozen marque First Amendment precedents, without giving much background or analysis on the First Amendment issues, is like trying to write an article about Roe v. Wade that shuns substantive due process. This stands in start contrast the the orgy of Cold War context given by the article. Basically, any development in the Cold War on any continent, or any instance of anti-Communism anywhere in the United States, is mentioned, without regard to its nexus to the trial. I certainly think much Cold War context is warranted, but the imbalance is what draws my attention, given that this article is after all about legal trials where the only substantive defense raised by the defendants was the First Amendment. More specific comments follow: Savidan 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The link to “First amendment issues related to speech critical of government” (really a link to First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Speech_critical_of_the_government) is insufficient for a few reasons. In my view, this article needs to give: (1) the legal background on the First Amendment issue raised by the trials, i.e. a summary of the Supreme Court cases on "dangerous speech" prior to the these cases being brought. The article at times alludes to prior doctrine (to suggest that the trial judge or intermediate appellate court diverged from it in an effort to convict the defendants), but makes no concerted effort to summarize it; (2) analysis of the changes in First Amendment doctrine brought about by the appeals arising from these trials, i.e. citations to books and law reviews that note the way the Court's analysis of the First Amendment issues was different, if at all, from prior cases; (3) subsequent development of First Amendment doctrine by the Supreme Court on the precise issue raised in this trial (mostly Brandenburg, but also its progeny), i.e. an analysis of whether the law that permitted these convictions remains valid today. The existence of an article about the First Amendment itself cannot absolve this article of the need for such coverage, as that article is not tailored to be most relevant to the readers of this article (for example, by dividing the content into the three periods I have suggested, and summarizing only the narrow issue raised by these cases).

Not done - The article already contains a level of legal detail comparable with that found in the several secondary sources on the topic. Additional detail about First Amendment law is already present in WP in another article, First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, specifically in the "Speech_critical_of_the_government" section. Because you raised this question at the GAN, I queried two Peer Reviewers (in the second PR and third PR), and neither reviewer suggested that more legal detail was needed. Until other reviewers, besides yourself, give persuasive arguments that the level of detail is insufficient, I'm inclined to leave it alone. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - I've added significant detail regarding the evolution of the first amendment law regarding speech critical of the government. It is in the section Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#Appeal_to_the_federal_Court_of_Appeals. It does not quite go into the level of detail found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article, but a link is provided to that latter article for readers that want more information. --Noleander (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Not done" was more accurate. In my view, in order to be FA-comprehensive, this article must show the state of the law before these cases, the evolution that came about from these cases, and the degree to which that evolution is an accurate picture of the current law. As for the level of detail in secondary sources, this is somewhat a product of which secondary sources are cited. As others have pointed out on the talk page, you have peculiar ways of searching for them. I assure you that the amount of detail I am advocating, and much more, could be supported by secondary sources. These could be found in at least two ways (and perhaps others): (1) using Westlaw or Lexis, see which secondary sources cite the Supreme Court cases mentioned in this article (using Shepardize or KeyCite); (2) put the names of said Supreme Court cases in quotation marks and search them on Google Scholar. As for the peer reviews, they were not given in the context of the FA criteria and no editor other than yourself appears to make a comment that is specifically in conflict with what I am saying. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The article needs to give the text of the two operative Smith Act criminal offenses, the advocacy of violence clause, and the membership clause, that gave rise to these prosecutions. The article alludes to what the Act actually prohibited at many points, but never gives the readers a chance to see for themselves.

Done - The article already contained snippets of the law, but - per your suggestion - I put in the entire statute in a footnote. Let me know if you think it should go up into the body of the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

in my view, the footnote is not enough. It should be set out in the body. Otherwise, the article's explanation of the charged conduct, and the evidence at trial, has no context and makes no sense. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The article explains the fact that the indictment only went back three years by referring to some minor change in the leadership of the CPUSA. This suggestion is implausible. The far more likely reason for this is a 3-year statute of limitations.

Done - I removed the speculation as to why 1945 was the cutoff date ... the sources are silent on the matter. --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• • “The appellate decision regarding the jury selection methods is 83 F.Supp. 197 (1949).” Given the citation, this could not possibly be an appellate decision. This must be a district court decision.

Done - Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it; and added the correct appellate case: 183 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1950). --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The article makes many claims about the judge’s mental state (e.g. "Medina came to believe that . . ." x 2; "Medina's attitude towards the defense . . ."), but provide no real foundation for what the source of these could be (e.g. the judge’s private letters, etc.) other than speculation.

Done - Several secondary sources make those assertions; but I see your point. The secondary sources do not say what primary source they used to draw that "believe" statement, so I have removed it. For the "attitude" statement, again, several secondary sources mention that, but I think they are referring to actions rather than beliefs, so there is not so much of an issue here. In any case, I changed it to "According to Michal Belknap, Medina's behavior towards the defense ..." --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you say "done," when the article still contains the claim "Medina came to believe..." without giving any hint of a foundation for what could back that up. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • ”He instructed the jury that the prosecution was not required to prove that the danger of violence was "clear and present"” and ”The judge's instructions included the phrase "I find as a matter of law that there is sufficient danger of a substantive evil ..." which would later be challenged by the defense during their appeals” The article does not give the reader the context necessary to understand these sentences. “Clear and present danger” is a legal concept which was undergoing substantial evolution before, during, and after the time period of the trial. At the time, the concept primarily existed in the dissents of Justices Holmes and Brandeis. In other words, there was no Supreme Court case holding that proof of a clear and present danger was required. The claim of the defendants surely was that the statute was unconstitutional for permitting their punishment without proof of a clear and present danger. Given that the trial judge rejected their legal contention that the First Amendment required such a showing, it would have been only natural not to involve the jury. Thus, the (over)emphasis on whether the issue was submitted to the jury is a red herring, a product of lack of legal context.

The article contains an accurate representation of what several secondary sources say. If you can supply quotes showing another viewpoint, I'll be happy to incorporate them. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - I've added more text into that section, indicating that the clear and present danger concept was not established law at the time, thus giving more context to the reader, so they dont get the impression it was. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The Supreme Court case upholding Dennis’ contempt conviction is not cited. It’s fine to cite the AP too, but the case itself should also be in the footnote.

Done --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Many of the Cold War events chosen seem to have no logical nexus to the trial. For example, the University of California requiring faculty members to take an anti-Communist oath. I can understand the relevant of including extremely impotant Cold War events to give a sense of the timeline, and less important events with a demonstrated connection to the trial (e.g., another anti-Communist trial in the same courthouse) but this seems like a relatively minor one. Similarly, NSC-68 was classified until the 70s, so the suggestion that it had anything to do with the public perception of the communism during the appeals seems like a stretch.

Done - Those examples were from the secondary sources (I suppose they were trying to give readers a sense of the state of affairs in the US at the time). I removed the UC example. But I think the National Security Council Report 68 example should be retained because a Peer Reviewer suggested that the article needed more examples illustrating that the government perceived communism as a genuine threat. But I can remove it if you think its absence would improve the article. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How could a classified report have anything to do with public opinion? How could it have anything to do with the appeal? Do you have a source that says the appellate judges were privy to it? I regard this as being a more pervasive problem in the article. Just because the same book mentions a historical event and the trial does not authorize an open-season of cherry picking. I see two solutions. First, every piece of "Cold War context" should have an explained nexus to the trial. If you say you have found them through secondary sources, and if they are in fact relevant, the secondary source should say why. For example, if the prosecution or the defense referred to the event in the trial; or if the secondary source asserts there was causal relevance (in which case the same should be attributed). Second, if you are unable to supply a nexus for certain context that you regard as critically necessary, I suggest that it be moved into a single section at the beginning of the article, perhaps with a title like "Cold War background" and a {further} link. This way it would not interrupt the flow of the actual narrative of the trial. Further, it will not create the appearance of original research, for example by implying that the fact is causally connected to the other facts in the paragraph. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • ”depended on the precedent set by the 1949 trial” - this is an implausible claim, as trial court decisions (and especially not jury verdicts) do not set any kind of legal precedent.

Done - Thanks for catching that. Changed to "12,000 of those depended on the outcome of the 1949 trial." --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This semantic change does nothing to remedy my concern. Since district court decisions do not set precedent, there is no way they could have "depended" on the outcome. What are the exact words of your source? What are the exact words of the primary source it is quoting? It is possible they are referring to the anticipated results on appeal, or merely saying that the cases would be analogous to this trial. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • ”Courts had previously considered a "clear and present danger" test (first articulated in 1919's Schenck v. United States) to determine if speech could be prohibited.” This is unequivocally wrong. While the words “clear and present danger” did appear in the Schenck opinion, Schenck did not say anounce “clear and present danger” as an element that must be proved in any prosecution of dangerous speech. This came much later in Brandenburg. Between Schenck and Brandenburg, the clear and present danger test only existed in Supreme Court dissents by Holmes and Brandeis. While I have no examined the Dunlap source, assuming that it is correctly cited, it is a clear minority view. For one example of the majority view (as opposed to what I would characterize as the anachronistically optimistic view), see the “Expression that Induces Unlawful Conduct” section (pages 19 to 63) of Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet, and Karlan’s First Amendment casebook. Similarly, the suggestion that Hand fundamentally changed the clear and present danger test in his opinion, when such test was not even the prevailing doctrine, is just too implausible.

As I pointed out in the GAN, several secondary sources - law school professors included - support this text (see footnote #101). To take two at random: O'Brien page 7 (professor of Constitutional law as Univ of Virginia): "Reviewing the evolution of the clear and present danger test since Shenck, Judge Hand concluded that it was no more than a balancing technique. But he also ostensibly gave the test greater precision by adding that courts must consider 'whether the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danter.' … As refashioned, the clear and present danger test was sharper than Justice Holmes's initial formulation …". Another source: Belknap 1994, page 222 (Professor of law at CalWestern): "In recent years [preceding the 1949 trial] the Supreme Court had interpreted that constitutional provision as permitting punishment of speech and writing only if the utterance in question created a 'clear and present danger' of a substantive evil .... In order to hold the conviction of the Eleven constitutional, Hand formulated a new version of the 'clear and present danger' rule. ...[explains Hands new rule] ...". I have at least four sources that say a similar thing. I've looked but I cannot find a source that says anything different. Could you please provide me with quotes from any RS (I do not have access to the Stone source), so I can incorporate it into the article? I want the article to be accurate, and I'll be happy to incorporate any materials. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - I've added material to the article (in the Appeals case section) which gives more detail on the free speech law of the time; I've reworded the text to emphasize that "clear and present danger" was not a test which was formally adopted by the Supreme Court; and I've added text indicating that the law was "unsettled". --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some law professors subscribe to the minority view and claim that the Supreme Court had in fact adopted this extremely high level of First Amendment protection even though it had never reversed a single criminal conviction on this basis, and in fact that the two justices were consistently dissenting on this basis. Perhaps it is acceptable or desirable for the article to include their views as well, but not to the exclusion of the majority view, and not with a disproportionate degree of emphasis. I think if you search Lexis/Westlaw/Google Scholar as I have described above, you will find more than enough sources subscribing to the majority view (and, the fact that you have not found a single such source yet is highly troubling to me in terms of the comprehensiveness of the sources you have consulted). I do not intend to reproduce all 40 pages from the text book, but the textbook author's comments are quite clear (spaced between the excerpts from the cases) and they also serve up relevant excerpts from the leading secondary sources. Many libraries carry the Stone source, including every U.S. law library, so you should be able to get your hands on it (if in fact you cannot find sufficient sources in the first two ways I have described). I do not have the time to do the research for you, but I have pointed you to a tertiary source that also includes many secondary sources. It's not enough just to say that the law was unsettled; it would be more accurate to say that the law was settled that the present-day version of the clear and present danger test was not the law, although there were hints that the law was moving slowly in that direction and two persistent and emphatic dissenters. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Prose

• I'd like to see a through copyedit of this entry. One doesn't provide an amicus brief, one submits it. There are inappropriate characterizations like: "the New York World Telegram which eagerly reported..." Eagerly? Interesting information is wedged into parentheses: (in spite of the fact that the CPUSA had supported the 1941 prosecution of Dobbs under the Smith Act). And there are organizational issues. The section "Perception of communism in the United States" is a hodgepodge of government activity and international events, with little on the topic of perception. And padding like: "the Cold War continued unabated in the international arena". (emphasis added) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Partially done - Thanks for your comments. The article has been through three peer reviews, and I'm sure that any remaning prose issues are manageable here in the FAC. Regarding your suggestions: I changed "provide" to "submit"; I removed "eagerly" although that is an accurate paraphrase of the secondary source (Martelle, p 76) who used "gleeful anticipation" - apparently trying to convey to the reader that much of the mainstream press was somewhat against the defendants. On the parenthetical comment: I removed the parenthesis, but that sentence is an accurate reflection of what the sources say. I removed "unabated". Regarding "Perception of communism in the United States": That section was added in response to a peer review which suggested that the article contain a summary of how the cold war was viewed in the US during the trials (even though the secondary sources don't give much detail on that) - but perhaps the section is a bit disconnected ... I'll see if I can improve it. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Comment

• As the editor who did the the first GA review (there were two as well as at least two three peer reviews), I think this is a case of too many cooks stirring the broth. Noleander has attempted in every way to accommodate editors' comments, and as a result the article has swung back and forth, resulting in its current problems. I felt the article was too sociological and POV for a legal article when I read it for GA. Originally, it sounded like the trial(s) were blatant, unwarranted persecutions, the governments fear of communism was completely unreasonable, the judge was overly biased and misused the law and so on. Then some one suggested that the political climate of the times should be added (USSR exploding the bomb, etc.), so that was added. And so it went, back and forth on various issues. I originally asked Savidan to get involved because I felt a lawyer's expertise was needed, and both Noleander and I have poked him about it since. I think Savidan is right. The issues he brings up are what bothered me in the GA review, but I didn't have the brain power to lay it out. Noleander has worked very hard, but the legal subject matter is very complex and needs the input of legal experts, in my opinion. I know I nearly burst my brain doing the GA review. For what it's worth, this is my view. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As you say, the article covers a complex and broad topic, but that is no reason we cannot get it to FA status. The article already incorporates all viewpoints that I've found in the numerous secondary sources. If additional viewpoints can be found, I'll be happy to incorporate them into the article. At this point, any additional viewpoints need specific quotes from secondary sources. I have no personal opinion on this topic (the trials, communism, the cold war, etc). I'm just a simple scribe, capturing what the secondary sources have written. If anyone can find something I've overlooked (although I doubt I've overlooked anything) give me a quote from a source, and I'll incorporate it. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

reply

• My feelings on reading the sources for my GAN review was that too many were political historians with an agenda, and few if any were legal experts examining the legal aspects aside from a retrospective history of the politics of the times. That is why Savidan's imput is so important. He is looking at the law, and not speculating on how the judge "felt" etc., stuff for which there are only politically biased speculations. I urge you to get legal experts to evaluate. It's fine to have editors picking apart the prose, punctuation etc. but I don't think that is the fundamental problem with the article—although it definitely needs a good copy editor. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is like writing a medical article without involving medical experts but only writers with views on medical issues. Again, please get input from legal experts. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, in fact, articles are best written by consulting reliable secondary sources published by reputable presses. Relying on material from non-published experts is not permitted and would constitute original research. Your comments are puzzling, because this article relies exclusively on top-notch reliable sources including:

• Jerold S. Auerbach - Professor Emeritus of History at Wellesley College.
• Michal Belknap - Earl Warren Professor of Law Chair, California Western School of Law
• Paul Finkelman - President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy, and Senior Fellow in the Government Law Center at Albany Law School
• John Earl Haynes - American historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.
• Milton R. Konvitz - Professor at Cornell's Law School
• David M. O Brien - Leone Reaves and George W. Spicer Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia.
• Victor Saul Navasky - Journalist, editor, publisher, author and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
• Richard G. Powers - Professor of History at CUNY
• Martin H. Redish - Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University School of Law
• Arthur J. Sabin - professor at The John Marshall Law School
• Samuel Walker - Emeritus Professor of Criminal Justice at University of Nebraska
• Roy M. Mersky - Harry M. Reasoner Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas School of Law
• Ellen Schrecker - professor of American history at Yeshiva University
• William V. Dunlap - Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University School of Law

How you can claim that these sources do not include "legal experts" is beyond me. --Noleander (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend reply

• Sorry. I've not written clearly. I truly commend you for your range of sources and agree they include "legal experts". But I'm sure you'd agree also that it is what is picked and chosen, how sources are pieced together and presented in an article, that are also very important. Covering such a broad topic as the article does, with both historical, political and legal elements is a huge job, while avoiding POV. I'm just saying that much like MEDRS standards, something like that should be in operation here for legal articles. The sources used contain legal analysis but also person opinion and political slants, and all of this is mixed in. That is why Savidan's imput is so important. He is looking at the law clearly, and my view is that if this is to be a legal article on the law, than it should focus narrowly on the law, and leave the other stuff for another article. Just my view, and certainly no poor reflection on you, Noleander, as I think you've done a superhuman job in trying to put this together. I wish this to all turn out for the best and in my view Savidan's suggestions supply what I wanted to know when I read the article for GAN. There are many articles already on the hysteria of the "Red Scare", McCarthyism, the Hollywood Ten etc. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• p.s. And just as medical editors can't use the popular press as reliable sources, even reputable ones like The New York Times or the BBC to support medical facts, my view is the some should hold for legal "facts". MathewTownsend (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not "a legal article on the law". It is an article describing a historical event comprising many threads: social, political, and legal. Historians may want to see more about the Cold War; politicians may want to see more about the CPUSA; and, yes, lawyers may want to see more about the First Amendment. But it would be wrong to single out the First Amendment for special emphasis especially when the secondary sources on this topic do not emphasize First Amendment issues. When readers want more detail on those topics, they can follow links to the related WP articles: Cold War, Smith Act, CPUSA, McCarthyism, and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That latter article already has an outstanding section devoted to free speech issues related to criticism of the government. There is no reason to duplicate that section within this article: that is what wikilinks are for. However, in the spirit of conciliation, I've recently added quite a bit of material on the First Amendment into a legal section of this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MathewTownsend's concerns. This is an article about a legal, criminal trial that spawned half a dozen important First Amendment precedents. The only substantial defense raised by the defendant's at all of the trials was the same: the First Amendment. I do not doubt that there are social and political issues that demand coverage as well, but that does not relieve the article of its duty to comprehensively cover the legal issues. Moreover, your claim that there are no secondary sources about the legal issues (when in fact they are legion, as you would see even by consulting the small subset that are included in the leading casebook) is very troubling to me. I agree that you have no duty to improve the First Amendment article in order for this article to receive FA status, but the converse is surely true. This article cannot be excused from comprehensively dealing with its subject-matter just because some other article exists on Wikipedia. Moreover, this article must provide a summary of the First Amendment issues as they are relevant to this topic. Hence the idea of a freeze frame of the law before the trial, a spotlight on the changes brought about by the appeals arising from the trial, and highlighting the changes post-trial. No one is asking you to duplicate. Savidan 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko comments: I'm just responding to your request on the WPUS talk page. Here are a few things I noticed that I recommend.

Thanks for the comments! --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• The lede is a little too long IMO

It is a pretty standard sized lead for articles of this size. But if you can point out a specific sentence or two that seems superfluous, I'll be happy to remove it. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - OK no problem. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think ref#4 is more of a note and probably should be split into a separate notes section.

See comment immediately below. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also the note part of ref#70, 109, 126, 131, 137, 140 and 142

My preference is to merge notes and citations into a single, shared Footnote section. I find that that encourages editors to provide extra, sometimes important, details to readers. The WP MOS gives lots of flexibility on whether or not notes & citations are merged, and FA - to my knowledge - has not required one method or another. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done OK, your right it is more personal preference on this. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Recommend using a consistent format for the citations. In some like 61 you shorten it and others like 6 you don't

Done - The convention used is: If a source is used 2 or more times, it is put in the References section, and WP:CITESHORT format is used. If a source is only used once, the full citation (not shortened) is put in the footnote. Some citations also include an informational note. For example:

• FN #6: Belknap (1994), p 179. President Roosevelt insisted on the prosecution because the SWP had challenged a Roosevelt ally.
• FN #61: Belknap (1994), pp 212, 220.

I think all the citations have a uniform format, following that convention, but I'll double check.

--Noleander (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - OK Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some citations don't have a date like 60, 120, 121 AND 122

Yes, the year is provided only when needed to resolve ambiguity. For example, since there is only one reference by author Auerbach, a short citation for that is "Auerbach, p 67"; but author Belknap has three entries in the References section, so a short citation must be uniquified as follows: "Belknap (1994), p 123". --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Personally I think that using a standard format is best because it makes it easier to read but I don't think its required. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Are that many Further reading really necessary? I recommend trimming a few out if possible

That is a good question. WP:FURTHER says that the Further Reading section should contain a "reasonable number" of items. The items listed now are all directly relevant to the article, but if necessary, some could be removed. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Ok Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is there no good online links for an External link section?

There are quite a few external links within the footnotes, such as the Supreme Court cases. Another one is a Mike Wallace interview. Any informative external links I found are in the footnotes, but if you know of any more, we can add them. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - Fair enough. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• If you have a term linked in a section you don't have to call it out again as a see also link. An example can be found in the section for Yates v. United States. The term is already linked so you don't need to link it again in the beginning. Another example is in Dennis v. United States

Those two sections (Dennis and Yates) are using the {{main}} template, which tells the reader that there is an entire article devoted to that topic, which is an important fact that the reader may not notice if the target article link is buried down in the middle of the section. That is a bit different that a {{see also}} template which, as you point out, is sometimes redundant. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Ok. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really the prose guy but it looks like there are a lot of unnecessary thats and there are a few places where it seems to praise one side or the other and I recommend that be toned down a bit. Other than that a very well written article. Great job.

Can you point out a couple of places where something needs to be "toned down" ... I'll be happy to reword if you can point me in the right direction. --Noleander (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple places where there is a that, that IMO is not needed.

• Line 2, a 1940 statute that set, I think it sounds better if you remove the that.

That sentence is: "... were accused of violating the Smith Act, a 1940 statute that set penalties ..." - I'm pretty sure the word "that" cannot be removed. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Line 3, The prosecution argued that

That sentence reads: "The prosecution argued that the CPUSA's policies promoted ..." - I don't think "that" can be removed. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Line 3-4, the defendants countered that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the

I don't think the word "that" can be removed in either location. But if other reviewers think that these sentences should be entirely reworded to eliminate the use of "that", I can do so. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, there are a lot of places in there that to me removing some of the that'ss let the text flow more smoothly. There are quite a few more but I hope this gives you an idea what I'm talking about. Kumioko (talk)

Comment I did a peer review, and I will likely support, but I want to see how the discussion above goes and if it results in changes to the article. I should add that Noleander has worked very hard on this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The article was in decent shape after PR but has been improved further still here. Echoing Wehwalt's note (and adding my own congrats) to Noleander's hard work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I helped with one of the GA reviews, think it's a fine work. igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend comment

• I have reread the article. The two peer reviews and subsequent comments here at FAC have been extremely helpful in improving the article. My POV concerns basically have been addressed. (Don't like the Paul Robeson image and caption as POV but I'll shut up.) I believe my concerns about legal context have been remedied (though I'm no expert on this). I think the article is now quite good.

The hard-working Noleander is to be commended for being open minded and willing to address the comments by reviewers, rather than being defensive. The peer reviews were excellent. The coming together of this article is a model of collaboration that is the best of Wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support My concerns were answered at the PR and I looked it over and it seems still worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)