Talk:Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Earth calling

I've been doing some bold copyediting in the last 24 hours.

  • (a) I'm somewhat surprised, given the amount of discussion here in recent months, that no one seems to have noticed the several [clarification needed] tags and so forth, not to mention fixed any of the little (I hope) errors I've inevitably introduced. There'd be no hurry on this except...
  • (b) I just realized this is supposed to become Today's Featured in a day or two. And here I've littered it with all these [clarification needed] tags and stuff -- which please note raise issue I believe are there independent of any copyediting, and ought to be address before it becomes Today's.

Anyone home? EEng (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I've been paying attention and I think you've improved the wording immensely. As far as supplying sources though, I don't have them. I did the first GA review and failed the article. I also complained at the FAC. So I'm not in a position to do other than praise your writing skills and agree that the tags are needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of these issues look fixable, but it would be tough to do so without having the sources on hand. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • His copy editing is good - an improvement IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I just commented one bit out, so two down. We might want to bring this issue up at WT:TFAR, if the TFA's author isn't active the day before the article hits the main page, there's no way to avoid this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I moved a couple refs and removed two cite needed tags, it seemed like the refs I moved were intended to cover the two statements. Well, it's been up for two hours now and I've only had to block one person for editing it, so this is going smoothly :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the value of the removal of dates from image captions. If there were only one trial, then it would be justified, but there were multiple trials and distinguishing the "1949 trial" seems sensible to me. I don't accept that the reader should be forced to work out from the text of the article which trial each image refers to. Other opinions? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that images are well within the very large 1949 section, readers can know to which trial their captions refer not by working it out from the text of the article, rather simply from the section in which the images are displayed. Anyway, I'm not convinced that captions referring to "the trial" are any more problematic than captions referring to "the defendants" or "the defense attorneys" (which have been there since long ago) nor, for that matter, any more ambiguous than article text proper making similar references. If you really feel that captions need to be specific as to which trial(s), I think it would be best to try to vary the stilted "1949 trial...1949 trial....1949 trial" over and over. EEng (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The first one that I saw removed was from the lead image, which is clearly a loss of information. The 1949 trial section is in fact so large that a casual surfer might find themselves looking at an image so far away from the heading that it is by no means obvious that it refers to the 1949 trial. You can't assume that someone browsing knows the background to the same extent as you do. Finally, I'm not convinced by the claim that "1949 trial" is stilted. You removed dates from captions reading:
I simply don't see that having the phrase "1949 trial" in three out of the thirteen captions matches your description of 'the stilted "1949 trial...1949 trial....1949 trial" over and over'. This sort of sacrifice of useful information for a weak aesthetic reason really isn't improving the experience of reading our encyclopedia for most viewers. --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead image: Problem solved by shortening to Defendants Robert Thompson and Benjamin J. Davis surrounded by supporters. Anticipating an objection that this removes yet more information: yes, that's true -- but why does it even matter that the photo was taken, specifically, "during the trial" instead of (possibly) "just before the trial opened"? It adds little. Otherwise, why not extend the caption to include all kinds of conceivably informative data e.g. Defendants Robert Thompson and Benjamin J. Davis surrounded by supporters late in the evening at Washington Square Park, in donated clothes, just after the halfway point of the 1949 trial?
  • Courthouse image: Problem solved by removing the image, which I was going to propose anyway. Such an "establishing shot", of a generic-looking building whose appearance tells the reader nothing really, might be appropriate in a children's book, but is just deadweight here, in my opinion (as the article text becomes more concise the layout's becoming overdense with images anyway).
  • Crowd image: Happy to add back 1949 since I don't want you losing any more sleep over this.
However, you still seem to miss the main point in my earlier post. Your concern that casual surfers "might find themselves looking at an image so far away from the heading that it is by no means obvious that it refers to the 1949 trial" I could re-render as a worry that casual surfers "might find themselves reading a phrase such as the defendants so far away from the heading that it is by no means obvious that it refers to defendants in the 1949 trial" -- the latter problem ought to be just as serious and yet no one seems to worry about it. (Though admittedly captions are meant to be somewhat more self-contained than text, I don't think this invalidates my point.)
You may be right that 1949 trial appeared in only three captions, but it was all over the place in the article in toto. Any number of potential annoyances might detract from the pleasure of reading. A possible ambiguity in a caption is one such annoyance, hypnotic repetition of a certain phrase is another, and deciding which the reader will have to tolerate is an exercise in good writing.
EEng (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was exactly right that "1949 trial" appeared in only three captions, but thanks for your grudging acceptance anyway. In the case of the lead image - which is not part of the 1949 trial section - it needs to state which trial it refers to. The article is entitled "Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders". That's trials in the plural and your edit to the lead caption loses the disambiguation between the trials for no gain. You miss the point that the '1949' in "Defendants Robert Thompson and Benjamin J. Davis surrounded by supporters during the 1949 trial" does not serve the purpose of conveying the time that the photograph was taken, but of identifying which trial the picture relates to. The rest of the argumentum ad absurdum becomes clearly irrelevant for the same reason. As for the other captions, you are still missing the point that the article is about more than one trial. While a casual surfer would not be astonished to see that an article about trials would contain the word "defendant", they could not be expected to immediately recognise which of the trials any particular image is related to without suitable text. The '1949' qualifier served a purpose and you made the article worse by removing it. --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits are useful, but a few have caused the article to misrepresent the sources ... I'll try to rectify so that the article more accurately reflects the tone & balance of the sources. --Noleander (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please exercise more care: Someone put this in the article: "Congress had refused to authorize membership in the League of Nations and President Woodrow Wilson was disabled, the country essentially leaderless.[1] (see image)." The article has been through two GA reviews, three Peer Reviews, and a Featured Article review. Yikes. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone removed "Leaders of the CPUSA, bitter rivals of the Trotskyist SWP, supported the Smith Act prosecution of the SWP" from the Background section ... that is a critical fact that many sources emphasize. I'll restore it. --Noleander (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? "After the war's end, however, several factors contributed to renewed " ... what purpose does "however" serve here? --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The biggest damage seems to be in the Background section: important information was removed, and some errors were introduced. I'll revert the section, and see if I can find any useful changes to re-introduce. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
One change that might be useful is that some editor added mention of Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 to the Background section; but even that was not quite right: it is sourced to an entire book, without a specific page number (Murray, Robert K. (1955), Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920). As a general rule, page numbers are needed. Also, it is best if the source specifically ties the concepts to the Smith Act trials, although for Background sections, that is sometimes not needed. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Source needed: Someone changed a pic caption to include the word "reporters" ("Outside the courthouse during the 1949 trial: defendants' supporters, onlookers, reporters, and police.") The source only mentions supporters of the defendants, not reporters. I'll revert the change, but in the future, please supply a source when new material is added. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Word missing from caption: another editor just fixed another major problem that was introduced yesterday: the word "the" was missing from a caption. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the article is now in decent shape. I'm not saying it is perfect. If anyone wants to improve the Background or "Start of trial" sections, could they please propose the improvement here in the Talk page first ... that way we can look at the sources and make sure we get it right before putting it in the article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

page numbers given

The page numbers are from the first reference: Murray, Robert K. (1955), Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920, University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 978-0-313-22673-1. Online version[1]

  • nation leaderless, Wilson disabled - ref is on page 11

Note: the first reference in article, to "many Americans were fearful that Bolshevism and anarchism would lead to disruption within the US." - doesn't have page number. Please add page number or remove, as you did the other information referenced to the same source but without page numbers.

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Racial integration in the CPUSA leadership

Someone more expert than I perhaps could comment on this matter: a reader will observe that the leadership of the CPUSA was racially integrated (although there were no women among the leadership figures who were on trial). During the era when the trial took place (and for much of U.S. history) most institutions were dominated by whites. The leadership of the two main U.S. political parties was white. The photographs were so interesting because they showed the leadership of the CPUSA to be more integrated than the leadership of the principal US political parties. Even the defense team was integrated!Iss246 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the CPUSA was a pioneer in racial equality in the USA throughout the first half 20th century. For example, the CPUSA was the primary defender of the Scottsboro boys. That particular aspect of the CPUSA is best covered in the CPUSA article .. but I'm not sure if it is addressed there or not. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

FA questionability

Some more information needed such as the fact that the US goverment was trying to get rid of popular mass movements and so on, (the idea that there was fear of soviet actions etc is laughable, eg Stalin promised to stay out of the greek civil war and the US supported the anticommunist forces, the communist partisans, mostly peasant and worker based i.e the population hundreds of thousands were killed), maybe have a legacy or aftermath section which has relevant news articles today that reflect upon this period. Just something I thought when reading through.--JTBX (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement in the article. I can help look for sources, but I cannot quite understand your points. You write:
  1. the US goverment was trying to get rid of popular mass movements and so on
  2. the idea that there was fear of soviet actions etc is laughable, eg Stalin promised to stay out of the greek civil war and the US supported the anticommunist forces, the communist partisans, mostly peasant and worker based i.e the population hundreds of thousands were killed,
  3. maybe have a legacy or aftermath section which has relevant news articles today that reflect upon this period.
I understand the final point (although I don't recall any source discussing that, I can look again) ... can you clarify the first two points? --Noleander (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.

Okay well first is the fact that you have to remeber during this time, the business community hated the New Deal measures, and they were signed mostly in response to mass activism from workers and the population (and they worked, naturally, to curb the worst effects of the depression). After the war there was an opportunity to get rid of mass opposition, if you can find any reason to arrest common people, demonize unions, demonize organisations, arrest blacks etc etc then yes they did it, this should be added, with references of course. I apologise if this makes little sense as I have been very tired lately.

There was certainly hysteria at the time, but you have to remeber public opinion was only in favour because it was whipped up by those in power. In fact if anything, not the communists but the business community wanted to overthrow the goverment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Second point, here [2] if theres anything else Ill try to add it, its hard to find sources etc, but yes this was my point, a lot of wikipedians are obviously american and so you actually dont get a neutral point of view on a whole range of articles. --JTBX (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Grammar in proposed lead

Ironman: the following text you are proposing is not right: "The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders were held from 1949 to 1958 when leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, ..." That wording is saying that "1949 to 1958" is the period "when leader of the CPUSA ...". Could you please propose improved wording here on the Talk page, so we can take a look and refine it before it goes into the article? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives include: (a) "The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders were a series of trials held from 1949 to 1958 in which leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act ..."; Or if the repetition of "trials" is a concern: (b) "The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders were a series of federal prosecutions conducted from 1949 to 1958 in which leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, ..." . --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Two names in lead?

Ironman: Why do you think both names of the Smith Act should go in the lead, where space is tight, rather than the body? --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders/Archive_3&oldid=1025365933"