Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/Archive 1

Notice given of new article creation

Posted notice regarding the creation of this new article, to the following WikiProject talk pages and user talk pages:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech ‎
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy
6. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
7. User talk:Cirt
8. User talk:Newyorkbrad
9. User talk:Bearian
10. User talk:Bradley0110
11. User talk:Lquilter

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Next step: Expand lede intro

Next up going to expand lede intro, summarizing main article contents, per WP:LEAD. Just going to give it a breather for a bit to read over the article and soak it in before going back and summarizing it. Will update here. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good so far. Are there any more reviews of this book? Bearian (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes there are, I started it out with these, there's a couple more in The New York Times, and I'm going to travel to search in a few more databases. Will keep you posted here. Of course, if you come across any other secondary sources discussing the book, let me know. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a bit more to the Reception section, also created a Themes section. And created a Lede Intro section. — Cirt (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Passed as GA

This article was recently reviewed and passed successfully as WP:GA quality, review is at Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/GA1. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors

This article underwent a copy-edit through WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. — Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed sect, Author, per FAC

Removed this sect, per FAC comments. Posting it here below in case there's any useful info for future incorporation here or somewhere else:

---

Author

Main article: Anthony Lewis

Anthony Lewis (1927–2013) was twice awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. Lewis was a columnist for The New York Times before retiring in 2001. His first Pulitzer Prize award was awarded in 1955 for journalism with the Washington Daily News reporting on a member of the military dismissed from the United States Navy. The individual was later allowed back into military service due to Lewis' investigative journalism. In 1963 Lewis received his second Pulitzer Prize for his work for The New York Times reporting on the Supreme Court of the United States. He was awarded the Nieman Fellowship by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

Lewis' previous works include Gideon's Trumpet (1964) about Clarence Earl Gideon and the U.S. Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright, Portrait of a Decade: The Second American Revolution (1964), and Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment (1991) discussing the U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. He edited the compilation work Written into History: Pulitzer Prize Reporting of the Twentieth Century from The New York Times (2001). Lewis died on March 25, 2013 at the age of 85.

---

Perhaps this info could be made use of somewhere later.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

to all involved. This is an excellent summary of a good book. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're most welcome! Thanks very much for the kind words, — Cirt (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Verification needed tag

Regarding this verification needed tag - please check the cite itself, the title is just a title, not the verification for the info, ROFLMAO. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Liptak, Adam (The New York Times) (June 15, 2008). "U.S. sets itself apart in allowing hate speech—other countries, like Canada, with similar legal systems allow prosecution for stirring hatred". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pennsylvania. p. A–10.

1. This is the actual title of the article.
2. I accessed it from NewsBank.
3. I will trim the citation to just have the first part of the article's title, so there is no confusion.
4. I will also add a note about accessed via NewsBank to the citation.

Hopefully this is satisfactory, — Cirt (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do a Google search for it and couldn't find it, which is why I thought you may have accidentally put a quote in the title field and dropped the real title. Thanks for clarifying! NW (Talk) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no problems, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense! — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Line breaks

Removed unnecessary line breaks inside citations. — Cirt (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote Origin

Being the smart ass that I am I would like to point out that a very similar quote appeared previously in Rosa Luxemburg's 1918 essay on the Russian Revolution (published 1919). "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" ("Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently")
I don't think it's necessary to include that information in this article. I just felt it needs to be known to anyone who wants to work with this quote and assign any greater significance to Holmes genius. --BjKa (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a similar quote, and I'm sure there were plenty of similar ideas around that time period, but not the same quote. During the course of my research I haven't come across any secondary sources satisfying WP:V and WP:RS that state Holmes got the idea from this source, so barring a source that does state that, we cannot make our own assumptions and place them in the main article space that violate WP:NOR. But it is an interesting tidbit, nonetheless. — Cirt (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And before even Rosa Luxemburg, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906, on the attitude of Voltaire. And I suspect that other people have said similar things at different times, perhaps unaware of previous utterances on the basic principle. A quick perusal of the judgments in Schwimmer (how brief they are, compared to modern judgments in the UK at least!) shows that there is no mention of authority, legal or non-legal, for the proposition taken by Holmes, but that does not mean that he thought he was the first person to say it, of course. Bencherlite^Talk 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Alien and Sedition Acts punishing the Republican party?

The Republican party as linked in this article didn't exist until 1854, so punishing it in 1798 would be rather difficult. However, the Democratic-Republican party did exist, and was, I think, the target of those acts. 207.245.177.5 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC) KPM

Thank you, and fixed. — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

re-appearing vandalism

Apparently rolled back, this line in the intro has returned: "The book istelf, was quite awful." Manytexts (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this appears to have since been addressed. — Cirt (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by-tagging of FA

Please, stop the drive-by-tagging of a Featured Article quality page. Instead, discuss concerns on talk page, thank you.

— Cirt (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Longer strung together sentences

This change creates a longer strung together sentence with multiple commas which is too long and exists better in the prior version as two separate sentences. Please let's keep it to the previous style of shorter sentences, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of summary material from the lede intro

This edit was inappropriate as it removed summarizing info from the lede intro sect. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect is supposed to be able to function adequately as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. This is the version approved at FAC and one single solitary sentence is not enough of a summary of the entire Reception section. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Creating longer sentences in Contents section

This change creates unnecessarily longer sentence in Contents section. This is unnecessary and inappropriate. Best to keep it to prior version of two separate, shorter sentences. I'm really against this tendency to add commas liberally and then mash two shorter sentences together. — Cirt (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed infobox fields

I've gone ahead and trimmed unused info box fields, in addition to the "preceded by" field which apparently per {{Infobox book}} is only intended to be used for series books. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks analysis

• Checklinks

Will go through links in article and perform some minor fixes with Checklinks report in mind, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, all that can possibly have archive links, now have archived links in citations. — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)