Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [1].

Overman Committee edit

Nominator(s): Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the few (only?) editors who works at WP:REQ, I often have the opportunity to research some really obscure subjects. The first obscure subject that I actually researched very deeply was the article I am currently nominating, the Overman Committee. It's a bizarre tale of Red Scare xenophobia, and would sometimes be laughable if it wasn't true. Sadly, there is a dearth of sources describing the subject. As Schmidt puts it, "The Overman Committee is only briefly mentioned in literature and there is no comprehensive study, based on the primary sources, on this early forerunner of the HUAC". Furthermore, there is sometimes conflicting information. The most glaring example is the name of the committee. The US Senate website calls it a Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee; others (Lowenthal) give it no name other than "the committee". However, I have chosen Overman Committee because it is the most descriptive and the most commonly used.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe what I have compiled here is the "comprehensive study" of this obscure committee. You might object to how much of the article is in quotes, i.e., how much of it is directly quoted from the Committee. This was necessitated to avoid WP:OR as I skimmed through 4000-whatever pages of primary source testimony. I hope all the images are acceptable; however, only one could be found of the Committee itself in action. I of course will be happy to fix whatever problems anyone can find. I apologize in advance for any typos! Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. ~~It still needs a bit of work, though.~~

~~"Black and white photo of" conveys little useful info of and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.~~
~~"three members of the Overman Committee" can't be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image (please see WP:ALT#Verifiability) and duplicates the caption (please see WP:ALT#Repetition).~~
~~The big letters "U.S." in the political cartoon should be transcribed somewhere into its alt text as per WP:ALT#Text.~~

Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done?. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and so far so good~~, but now we have more images with more alt text, and there are still some minor comments about the previous alt text~~.

The alt text "A picture of a special section of the New York Times" cannot be verified by looking just at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability) and doesn't transcribe any of the text in this all-text image. I suggest discarding the existing alt text, and replacing it with something that focuses on transcribing the main headline (in all caps) and the subsidiary headline, as accurately as possible, as per WP:ALT#Text.
~~The phrase "A political cartoon" in the alt text repeats the caption, and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. (There are two instances of this).~~
~~A very minor point: the first cartoon says "U.S." but the alt text says "US"; the alt text should transcribe the text as accurately as feasible.~~

Eubulides (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I believe I have fixed all three points now. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that did it. I tweaked it a bit more to preserve capitalization and mention it's a clipping, but this was minor. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those last two bits yourself. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
Facts and Fabrications About Soviet Russia is a reprint of a 1920 work (see here. This should be reflected in the bilbiographical entry.
~~The Yeardon/Hawkins ref says "Lulu.com" as the publisher, which is a self-publishing company. Note the World Cat entry gives a different publisher. What makes this a reliable source?~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting to hear why the second source is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like you said, the World Cat entry said that the book was published by a more reliable publisher - Progressive Press. Furthermore, this is the publisher listed on the second page of the Google Books scan. I hope that makes it reliable enough. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly thinking this is a "more reliable press". Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed both ([2][3]) uses of the reference. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: File:9000007p.jpg has no proper source to verify its PD status. Other images seem fine. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Apparently the image is a duplicate of the commons version which has proper sourcing. I've tagged it with db-f8. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, most of them minor.

Any particular reason you used European style dates in the references? This is okay, you're consistent in using American dates in the article and European-style dates in the refs, just a little odd. Feel free to keep it this way, just bringing it up. Also on the American vs. European style note... most of the time, you have punctuation outside quoted sections European-style. There are some sentences where you don't, though... is this because the quoted piece also had a period there? Anyway, my personal preference is to stick punctuation within the quotation marks except when this would change the sense of the quote, but it's your call, just be consistent. Only bringing it up to make sure that the sentences with punctuation inside the quotes are in fact intentional.

I'm American, but I prefer the European style of dates and punctuation with quotes. I changed all the dates in the article to the American style after I had "completed" the article because the subject of the article is American, so I figured that was more appropriate. I didn't change the dates though. As for punctuation with quotes, I believe most of the time when the periods are inside the quotes that's how they were originally quoted. I'll try to find any that aren't.Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through again, and there are quite a few inconsistencies. Not sure what to do here. I think I'll make them all American style. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've finished this one. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many American citizens also criticized the Committee for publicizing the names of those alleged to be associated with illustrious organizations.

Was the criticism as specific as this sentence implies, just about naming names, or was is a more broad criticism of the Committee itself with the names just being one complaint? And is "American" necessary here? I might be tempted to try and weasel out of guesstimating just how much discontent was generated and reverse this with "The Committe attracted criticism from civilians for its perceived overreach, especially the publicizing of names of those accused of association with communist organizations." The word "illustrious" is also weird here because it's a positive adjective: were these people (definitely) illustrious yet accused of badness, or did you actually mean "disreputable?" Because technically the sentence means these people were accused of being members of the Rotary Club or the United Way.

Yep, I screwed that one up. I've replaced it with your sentence, with minor changes. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others who testified criticized the Committee as "a witch hunt"

Testified to the Overman Committee, I assume? And multiple witnesses used this phrasing? Does Lowenthal have any more details on this? Did they make this criticism during Congressional testimony (pretty cheeky) or immediately afterward to the newspapers or decades later to historians? More details on this would be appreciated, if possible. (I ask because, so far as I know, "witch hunt" became a popular attack on the Red Scare in the 1950s, not the 1920s... if they were using it even in 1919, that'd be quite interesting.)

I've tried to clear up that sentence, and yes, the witness said that to Overman's face. Lowenthal mentioned this, and I managed to find it in the Committee records. I chose to use the Committee records instead of Lowenthal as a ref because I prefer primary sources. Lowenthal appears to have exaggerated it a little, as you can see on p. 893 of the transcripts. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell from just the transcript, but I think Robins was gently chiding the committee rather than insulting it. He basically says "You're all wise and smart people and thus you certainly wouldn't do something dumb like a witch hunt, right?" He brings up witch hunts, yes, the Senator says "This committee has been called a witch hunt," and Robins responds "I wish to make no possible sort of criticism of the Committee. I wish to say that I have never been treated more fairly than I have here." It's possible he was even sincere when he said this... don't get me wrong, I see the version where he says this with a big grin on his face, but it still strikes me as a bit bold to say he called the Committee a witch hunt. He brought up a witch hunt to then immediately deny it, which is a cute rhetorical trick, but not directly "he called it a 'witch hunt.'" Dang, what's the name for that? There's gotta be one for things like "I just want to let everyone know that I do not believe Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya out to subvert the United States," where you deny an idea just to raise it. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"OVERMAN:This Committee has been called a witchhunt." I think I'll leave it in there. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This media attention caused the Overman Committee to be a vital factor in the development of the First Red Scare.

This has got a ref, just... the fact that apparently there aren't many sources on the Committee causes me to wonder if this might be a bit hyperbolic? Correct me if I'm off here but it sounds like the Committee was just "riding the wave" to some extent, and it probably pushed the Red Scare hotter, but calling it "vital" (and in the lede, "instrumental") might be a bit much? Murray, who you ref for this, apparnetly wrote an entire book on the Red Scare 1919-1920, yet it looks like he only devoted about 7 pages to this incident from your references. There's a natural temptation to play up the importance of what you're writing about, but would it be reasonable to tone this down as merely an "important" or a "notable" factor?

I've changed it to "notable" per your logic. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be tempted to focus more on the media attention being important and say "The media attention generated by the Overman Committee was an important factor in the development of the First Red Scare."

I was considering writing a section just called "effect on media" or whatever, but then I realized I would not have enough sources; too few newspapers have (free) archives from that era. I went through many on this list, but I couldn't find much that looked at it from a historical perspective, as obviously that's not how newspapers usually work. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee's final report found that these organizations, through financial support, bribes, boycotts, and coercion sought to control the press, elections, and public opinion.

Do historians have an opinion on the veracity of this? The article makes clear that modern historians consider the Committee's work on communism a load of hooey, and that the initial BOI investigation accused anyone vaguely connected to Germany as being a spy, but were there actually any spies working to bribe the press and swing elections? In other words, was the Committee right about at least a few people (and then wildly extrapolated), or were they just completely wrong from the beginning?

It's mentioned earlier in the article that there was a German spy ring that had operated earlier in the decade. I will look for more on this though ASAP. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole "German Investigation" section reads a bit choppily. Not sure how to improve it, though. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much info on the part of the final report that was on the Germans, probably because the war was over by then. I'll also try to look for some on this ASAP (i.e. Saturday). Thanks for the review. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly, the only source that I can find relating to that section is the one from the NYT. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Aside from my complaints above, the scholarship seems solid on this, which is the most important thing to me. I'm not a subject matter expert, but from the referenced newspaper clippings I looked at this article seems accurate. It's too bad that apparently not much was written about this.

My main suggestion for improvement is the prose. It can shift abruptly at times, lurching from one factual statement to another. Flip side, if you'd written more "connecting" sentences that explained one event in light of another, somebody else would have attacked it on grounds of "original research via synthesis," so I respect that Wikipedia's guidelines are somewhat problematic here too for topics with light coverage. Anyway, I think it could use a brush-up, but even as is it's a good enough article to be featured to me. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvement to the witchhunt sentence and with the quotes (I was unsure what to do with serial commas... shows what I know). Just FYFI, I changed back the sentence dealing with the Seattle General Strike because I thought the original sentence showed how the Senate was reacting to the strike. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief addendum: Sheerly by chance, I ended up coming across the Manual of Style on punctuation in quotations, and, er... it seems that quotes are an exception to the "use a consistent writing style." They should apparently always be British-style, with punctuation outside unless it was in the original quote (though the stated reason, which is fair enough, seems less relevant here - fear of people editing the sentence structure later and keeping a comma in incorrectly). I already stated my personal preference for American style on this matter, but apologies, didn't mean to encourage you to make a change that turns out not to be with policy. Not that this likely matters much one way or the other. SnowFire (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem because User:Dabomb87 just went through and fixed a number of WP:MOS problems, including that one. Thanks for pointing that out still, I hadn't seen that. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.