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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • I plan on reviewing this soon, although it may have to be in bursts because my connection is spotty.

Image checks

  • File:Step by step greene.jpg was this scanned or found online? If online, needs a web source showing proof of publication. If scanned, a bit more data is necessary (page, for example). Also, that "check categories" tag is hideous; perhaps something could be done?
I've posted an inquiry to the person that uploaded the file (I did not upload it). I'm hoping they can shed some light on the origin. The detailed information the uploader gave (Date= 1 November 1919; Source =New York Evening Telegram; Author= Sidney Joseph Greene) implies that there was some certainty about the provenance. --Noleander (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Original uploader provided the source (Newman library at CUNY) and I added that web site to the File's description pate. I removed the Check Categories tag. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the FUR. The size of original scan was around 2 megapixels; this low resolution is 0.17 megapixels .. a ratio of more than 10:1, so I think it is sufficiently degraded. But I can degrade it more if you think it is required. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)][reply]
  • I'd rather have it at a lower resolution, but a second opinion would be helpful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - No problem. I reduced the image to 300x200 pixels, so it should be okay now. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the image to 300x200 pixels, so the degradation should now meet Fair Use requirements. Regarding the context, the attorneys were a big deal in the trials, because (1) they harassed the judge; (2) the judge sent all the attorneys to jail for contempt; and (3) they were unable or unwilling to represent subsequent CPUSA defendants. The sources talk about the attorneys quite a bit, but if you think the image should be removed, that is fine. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:FoleyTrialCrowd.tiff has the same issues as above. This is a bit weaker in FUC8 in my opinion, as the infobox image shows fairly big crowds.
I reduced the image to 300x200 pixels, so the degradation should be okay now. Regarding the utility of the image: This image shows a large crowd of protesters outside the trial, in Foley Square; and it shows several police on horseback facing the crowed. That gives more information to the reader than the close-up photo in the InfoBox which is a small group celebration on the courthouse steps. So this image shows some confrontation/magnitude not found in the InfoBox image. But if you think the image should be removed, that is fine. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two mugshots used in the article. The LOC probably obtained the image from that NY collection ... but the ultimate origin was certainly a public employee, so the PD tag for public employee should be applicable. --Noleander (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An employee of the federal government, yes. Not necessarily of a state government. We should have at least confirmation that this was by a federal employee — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get some clarification on this: is the problem with both mugshots? Or only the non-FBI one? For the FBI mugshot, is there an issue about whether it was taken by a federal employee or not? --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the mugshot is shown to be by an FBI employee (or at least an employee of the federal government) it's certainly PD. If it's by an employee of a state government, say Michigan, its copyright status depends on when and how it was published. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I removed the Dennis FBI photo, because I could not find proof that it was taken by a fed employee. --Noleander (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UCLA web site gives a pretty explicit statement that it was/is released under CC. I'm not sure what more can be done there. Regarding the PD tag: I removed it since I see no evidence that the copyright was not renewed; and the CC should be sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's say I take a screenshot of Ruma Maida and post it on Flickr as CC-BY-SA. That doesn't make the screenshot freely licensed, as I have no rights to the image. The UCLA site should probably note somewhere if they acquired the rights to the collection; if there's proof of that, then the image is properly licensed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so patient .... I'm not a black-belt in WP image rules :-) The UCLA web site, on the page for this image, says "Source: Los Angeles Times photographic archive, UCLA Library. Copyright Regents of the University of California, UCLA Library. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License." I read that as saying that the LA Times donated a photo archive to UCLA, and the UC regents now own the copyright; and they have made that image available to the public under a CC license. If that is not sufficient, no problem, I can just remove the image from the article. --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This says "Copyright of portions of this collection has been assigned to the Department of Special Collections, UCLA." However (and I'm kicking myself for this) the license is not CC-BY-SA, but CC-BY-NC-SA... which is not compatible with Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Okay, I was not aware of that CC-NC rule. I've removed the Healy image. --Noleander (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Healy image with File:Elizabeth G. Flynn.jpg. The new image has solid permissions for WP. --Noleander (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Replaced that pic with File:FredVinsonReadingBook.jpg which has a firm provenance. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added categories for all images I uploaded; and a couple I did not. --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I could not find an image of Harlan that meets WP requirements, so I replaced it with File:Earl Warren.jpg, which has rock-solid credentials. --Noleander (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See item immediately above. --Noleander (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gus Hall.jpg source says nothing about the Federal Bureau of Prisons; if it was by a state or municipal police department it may be copyrighted (Note how Template:Mugshot redirects to a copyvio template).
Done - Replaced Hall mugshot with File:Gus hall headshot.jpg (a cropped version of File:Gus hall auto.jpg). The latter has a CC license. --Noleander (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but needs categories. The link to the source needs to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's missing from the defendant's photos?
Done - Foster. 12 leaders were indicted, but Foster was aged and sick, so he was not tried. That is mentioned in the article prose, but I updated the caption to explain it also. --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation tag added
Done - That fact was in a footnote, so I was avoiding a footnote to a footnote :-) Citation supplied. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Daily Worker urged" - Which is?
Done - That was the official organ of the CPUSA. I reworded the sentence to "... the CPUSA urged its members to bombard ...", removing mention of the Daily Worker entirely. --Noleander (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Journalist William L. Shirer was skeptical of the trial, writing" - Which publication?
Done - The source, Martelle, says Shirer's quote is from the New York Star ... I've added that to the citation. --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The defense attorneys developed a labor defense strategy" - We were already told this. Perhaps a different introductory phrasing?
Done - Reworded 1st (introductory) mention to " second, they attacked the trial as a capitalist venture ..."; then introduce the term "labor defense" in the 2nd mention 2 paragraphs later. --Noleander (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Michal Belknap?
Done - I expanded the first mention of him to say: "Legal scholar and historian Michal Belknap writes that Medina ...". Michal Belknap does not have a WP article, but he is a professor at Cal Western School of Law, and a major source for the topic of this article. There are three references in the References section by him. --Noleander (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)" - I think you have this marked as ACLU above.
Done --Noleander (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the #Bail section is short enough to be merged.
Done --Noleander (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • $260,000 bail - Do we need an inflation tag here?
Done --Noleander (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with $80,000 forfeited.
Done --Noleander (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Court would visit these free speech issues again in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) in which it firmly established the requirement that the threat of violence must be imminent." - Would this be better as a footnote? What about Yates v. United States?
Done - I added Yates information. Regarding footnote vs Body: I agree that this legal detail should be in a footnote, or simply a link to the existing First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Speech_critical_of_the_government article which already covers this in great detail. However, a reviewer below has suggested, in very strong terms, that that detail needs to be covered in this article. So, in the spirit of compromise, I'd rather err on the side of too much detail rather than too little --Noleander (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 6–2 decision" - Why was one judge absent? (the US keeps an odd-numbered number of judges, right?)
Yes, the Supreme Court has 9 justices. However, sometimes only 7 or 8 vote, for instance if one recuses due to a conflict of interest; or illness; or if the vote was taken while a seat was vacant. --Noleander (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth a footnote if one recused or something? I mean, odd how both cases end with 8 votes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many SCOTUS cases, perhaps 20 to 30%, have fewer than 9 votes, and the records often do not say why they are missing. In any case, I looked and could not find why the missing justice did not vote in these cases. --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(including Robert Klonsky) - Why does he warrant an individual mention?
That is a good question. The first 11 defendants from the 1949 trial were all pretty famous. Of the 132 second-tier defendants, about a dozen are notable enough to have their own WP articles. The FA criteria requires that this article be comprehensive, so they have to be linked somewhere in this article. We could either list these dozen in (a) the body of the article; (b) a SeeAlso section; or (c) in a footnote. Right now the article lists half in the body, and half in footnote #117. I have no strong view on where they should be located, although in the past, many FAC reviews have suggested that SeeAlso sections are not acceptable, since it implies a lack of completeness. So, I guess I'd lean towards the body and/or a footnote. What do you think? --Noleander (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a footnote (I note you have several in a footnote already). Those given mentions in the text also note that the person had fairly high rank in the CPUSA — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"defendant Steve Nelson could not find a lawyer in Pennsylvania who would represent him, and was compelled to represent himself" - During the CPUSA trials or?
Done - Reworded to " ... could not find a lawyer in Pennsylvania who would represent him in his Smith Act trial, so he was compelled to represent himself;" --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More currency (per above)
Done --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The federal appeals courts upheld all convictions of second-tier officials, and the Supreme Court refused to hear their appeals until 1956, when it agreed to hear the appeal of the California defendants; this led to the landmark Yates v. United States decision." - Rather short for a paragraph. Is there a good merge target?
Done - Merged into following paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same with "McCarthyism declined in late 1954 after television journalist Edward R. Murrow and others publicly chastised McCarthy."
Done - That used to be part of a larger paragraph which was recently trimmed by a reviewer, leaving that stand-alone sentence. I've removed the sentence, since it doesn't make much sense by itself, and doesn't contribute much to the article. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Defense attorney George W. Crockett Jr. later became a congressman from Michigan." - Might be worth mentioning the party.
Done - Added Democratic. --Noleander (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support - Just a couple of minor issues which are currently unresolved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders/archive1&oldid=497490174"