Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These nominations predate the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and have been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate (May 2013)[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath, starting with {{TFAR nom|article=NAME OF ARTICLE}}.

The result was: not scheduled by BencherliteTalk 12:24, 13 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Schenck v. United States (1919), Whitney v. California (1927), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). The title of the book is drawn from the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (pictured) in United States v. Schwimmer. Holmes wrote that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The book was positively received by reviewers, including The New York Times, Harvard Magazine, Nat Hentoff, two National Book Critics Circle members, and Kirkus Reviews. Jeremy Waldron criticized the work in The New York Review of Books and elaborated on this in his book The Harm in Hate Speech (2012). This prompted a critical analysis of both works in The New York Review of Books by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (Full article...)

It will have been 84 years since the 27 May 1929 decision in United States v. Schwimmer where U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote his dissent: "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." — the quotation from which became the title of this book.

Note: Please note that United States v. The Progressive was about nuclear weapon information — and this article is different in that it is more a generalist topic about freedom of speech, itself, which historically has been underrepresented on the Main Page.

Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • -1 point (1 point for date relevance, -2 points for a similar article within 1 month of the proposed date). Both this and United States v. The Progressive (3rd May) are articles about freedom of speech in the US; that's enough to attract the points penalty even if one is general and another is specific. Both are in Category:First Amendment to the United States Constitution or its specific subcategories. Please note the instructions above: the blurb should be formatted as only one paragraph not three (I've fixed this) and it should be as close as possible to 1,200 characters including spaces - it's currently more than 800 characters too long. Please trim it. BencherliteTalk 13:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Okay, I've trimmed the blurb. Hopefully the negative points is just a guide, and not a rigid hard fixed absolute unyielding standard? I hope it can still be considered as it's really not very often in Wikipedia's history that there's been anything educational for readers related to freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  1. The subject is underrepresented at WP:FA, there really is a dearth of articles on the subject of freedom of speech.
  2. The article could be considered a contribution to a "core" topic or a "vital" article, as it helps educate the reader about freedom of speech.
  3. The article is educational and encyclopedic, and probably would be useful to students at all levels of education. I think readers would only benefit from being exposed to this article on the Main Page.
  4. Not seeing the harm here with this article about freedom of speech appearing on the Main Page.

Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. "Freedom for the thought that we hate" is a principle that I hold close to my heart. But... the problem with freedom of speech being an underrepresented topic at FA is that using two articles within a month uses up too high a proportion of them... Espresso Addict (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'm just not sure when another relevant date will pop up for this. Thank you for acknowledging the importance of the topic. I will, of course, defer to community consensus about this. :) It sure would be nice to see more editors embarking on quality improvement projects within this generalist topic of freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for this year. If the object is to pick a relevant date, but the problem is how close it is to a similar article, I would suggest holding the article over until next year's anniversary, which would at least be a multiple of 5. If the article is to run sooner, the blurb must be trimmed in length to be acceptable for the Main Page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no problems. Blurb trimmed. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate (September 2013)[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 25, 2013 by BencherliteTalk 08:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is a 2007 non-fiction book by Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lewis discusses key free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). The book's title is drawn from the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (pictured) in United States v. Schwimmer, who wrote: "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The book was positively received by The New York Times, Harvard Magazine, Nat Hentoff, two National Book Critics Circle members, and Kirkus Reviews. Jeremy Waldron criticized the work in The New York Review of Books and elaborated on this in The Harm in Hate Speech (2012). This prompted a critical analysis of both works in The New York Review of Books by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (Full article...)

Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as nom. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support appearance, Oppose weak oppose re proposed date. This seems like a good choice for appearance, but I'd quibble about the date. The oppose vote in the prior discussion suggested delaying the appearance until 2014, on a 5-year anniversary date. I don't think I would go that far, but I think there ought to be consideration of whether to place it on a September 25 date (anniversary of the 1789 submission of the joint congressional resolution containing 12 proposed amendments to the States for ratification), a December 15 date (anniversary of the 1791 adoption of the United States Bill of Rights by ratification of 10 of the 12 proposed amendments by the state of Virginia, or a March 1 date (anniversary of the 1792 official certification of the adoption). As I understand Article Five of the United States Constitution, the proposed amendments became "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States". Based on this, I think that a December 15 appearance date is more appropriate than September 25. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your rationale and explanation, Wtmitchell. I just don't think it is of such weight that it warrants an oppose for this particular date. And I am of course disappointed by that. I hope that you will reconsider your thoughts on this. It is an important subject related to freedom of speech, and readers can only benefit from being exposed to educational material about this encyclopedic topic, regardless of what particular date it happens to appear on the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your comments above and here on my talk page. I've changed the "oppose" part of my response above to "weak oppose", not so much in reaction to your points but, having looked at this video, I get the impression that the focus of the book which is the subject of the article is more on the judicial interpretation by SCOTUS from c. 1919 onward of the 1st Amendment than on its proposal or adoption. From the video, the book appears to be less about the birth of the 1st Amendment than about its judicial adolescence. I disclaim that I'm not legally trained and that I have not read the book, though I have ordered a copy after becoming aware of it through this discussion. Because of imperfect postal service to my location, it's not certain that I will receive the book copy I've ordered, and it'll take several months to reach me if I do receive it. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Thanks very much, I am so glad that this discussion stimulated you to wish to read the book itself! I hope that it arrives safely in your possession soon. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: the blurb currently displays at 1,455 characters; please trim it to a max of 1,200 including spaces. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bencherlite:, Done. I've gone ahead and trimmed the blurb to 1,200 including spaces. Thank you for pointing this out, — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both the appearance and this date (or December 15 as a 2nd choice). I don't think that waiting a full year merits any purpose, and I see no reason to oppose this date, especially in the absence of competition for the date (or am I not looking in the right place?). This is a worthy article about a worthy title written by an esteemed author, scholar and subject matter expert on the First Amendment. Normally I would lean towards the anniversary of adoption over the anniversary of submission, but given the relatively weak association to either date, I'm allowing emotion to override logic, and to me, this just "feels" more like a September article than a December article. I'm not exactly sure why, perhaps it is today's date working on my subconscious, perhaps I fear this topic getting lost amongst the chaos of the December holidays. Either way, let's just get it done.  —Grollτech (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_We_Hate&oldid=1087817430"