Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. The Progressive

United States v. The Progressive[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

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/May 2, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 23:13, 24 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

United States v. The Progressive was a 1979 lawsuit against The Progressive magazine by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). A temporary injunction was granted against The Progressive to prevent the publication of an article by activist Howard Morland that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. The case was brought before Judge Robert W. Warren in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Federal courthouse pictured). Though the information had been compiled from publicly available sources, the DOE claimed that it fell under the "born secret" clause of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Because of the sensitive nature of the information, two separate hearings were conducted, one in public, and the other in camera. The defendants would not accept security clearances, and so were not present at the in camera hearings. The article was eventually published after the government lawyers dropped their case during the appeals process, calling it moot after other information was independently published. Despite its indecisive conclusion, law students still study the case, which tested the limits of the presumption of unconstitutionality attached to prior restraints. (Full article...)

1 point for date relevance (maybe), 3 May being international World Press Freedom Day. Nominated on behalf of WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. It was accepted by the proposer that the article would have would have no chance of being selected for 3 May. It wasn't my intention when I nominated the article at FAC that it would appear so soon, or indeed at all. The irony of the Wikipedia celebrating free speech is not overlooked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb is a little short at 966 characters (including spaces), when ideally it would be 1,200 characters. Also, can you either work into the blurb a mention of the building shown in the picture, or use another picture that's more easily mentionable in the blurb (e.g. File:Howard Morland 2008.jpg)? Bencherlite^Talk 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AAarrgggh, usually you complain that my blurbs are too long. Added a bit about the courthouse. I did not want to use the 2008 pic of Morland because he looks so different from the hippy he was in 1979. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1,198 characters. :-) Excellent! Thanks. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On behalf of WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, we'd really appreciate if this article could run 2 May or even 4 May so it can be near 3 May 2013, the day of World Press Freedom Day. Thanks so much for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid article, fairly relevant to the date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; a decent article. (If we run it 4 May it will appear on the evening of WPFD as seen from the US, which is where the article has relevance, but either is fine by me) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the article on Howard Morland be improved? -- it's likely to get many hits from those like me more interested in personalities than legal judgements, and is currently a stub lacking inline citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask him. He is a Wikipedian (User:HowardMorland). Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely accepted that the subject is the least appropriate person to update their article. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict (talk · contribs), please see DIFF, I've added inline cites to the article. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cirt, that looks good. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You're welcome, — Cirt (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have not looked at this article in several years. It is quite good, thanks to recent excellent work by Military History Project people. Yesterday I made my first and only contribution to the article by fixing a link. HowardMorland (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. unusual topic and interesting. different to usual mainpage fayre and hence worth a run. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]