Talk:Beyond the First Amendment/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Beyond the First Amendment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Use of primary source when secondary sources suffice

Regarding this addition, there is no need to utilize primary sources, when secondary sources already used back up the same information. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind, the primary source here actually helps to supplement the secondary sources and provides some helpful context for the reader if the reader wishes to go that route. :) Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's okay, choose whichever you want. I usually am of a mixed mind with sources; on biographies, I usually like to have a mix, since sometimes the primary ones (what the person says in their own words) is good, but I think we all prefer the secondary ones. On some articles I'd like more primary ones, such as census data & P&L statements on companies, to supplement the secondary stuff, but it's often difficult finding good stuff. :) Wondering about using Google books as sources; sometimes Google only shows certain pages -- does this change (ie which pages are shown) each time it's viewed, or by user? If pages shown change everytime then the references won't work consistently; I'm trying to learn about this. Anyway, good article -- tough subject -- important one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words about my work on this article. It is most appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About the DYK stuff. Don't know much about it other than it's interesting tidbits but it generates lots of article hits. My guess would be to improve the article further by fleshing out what he means by the "pluralist framework"; possibly consider chopping the "Publication history" subhead (but keep the content); wondering about the subhead "Reception" -- maybe replace with "Analysis" or "Reactions by critics" or some better wording perhaps; the book must have specific examples of speech situations and I think examples of them would help readers grasp what this is about. It's kind of a nebulous subject, hard to think about without tangible examples. Does the author give any specific examples of speech situations in which the first amendment & US Constitution doesn't work well? If so consider including these as cquotes possibly? Just ideas. I always love pictures in article to make it more visually appealing -- wonder what pictures might be good. -- With more specific examples, then one of those might be nominated for DYK -- if you find something can you tell me how to help you out with secondary nominations or whatever is needed? tws--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will ruminate on all those helpful ideas, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for new stuff

Here's a rough draft of an example but I don't know if its DYK-ish enough but you might want to consider adding it somewhere if you like it but if you don't like it please disregard. ----Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nelson gives an example which shows how the narrow construction which judges free speech by using only the First Amendment is more adequately handled by using his so-called pluralistic approach. The case of flag burning has been considered as a free speech issue but which has been inadequately resolved, according to Nelson, by the Supreme Court in a 1989 decision. The ruling impacted situations such as when both veterans and an anti-war protester were at a public event such as a Memorial Day Parade. By using the current First Amendment logic, only the flag-burner -- by claiming free speech rights -- prevails, according to the Supreme Court. He or she gets to burn the American flag, while the Veterans have no say. But Nelson argues that this construct is unfair and simplistic, and that both the flag-burner and the veterans have "claims to make" and that these claims can be resolved politically using his pluralistic model. Nelson suggests that free speech is broader and more important than merely one principle in the First Amendment; according to him, there isn't only a "single principle by which to judge all outcomes."^[1]

Where was that review published? What journal? -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One of your sources. I clicked on it and it took me there -- Lichtman does a good job of explaining Nelson imo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but the above cited source appears to be a personal essay, not an actual review from a published journal or newspaper, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at your third external link -- you put it in; that's where the material comes from, that is, it's your source; I merely quoted it. Whether journal article or essay, I think it's the best description out there about what the book means. I like Lichtman's way of working the reader into the subject by taking us from the familiar into a rather complex subject. After reading his take on it, I got what the book is about. I was only trying to help. In my view, the flag example makes concrete the rather nebulous freedom-of-speech issue in a way that helps me think about it; still, I think you're doing an impressive job with this article and I only wanted to offer suggestions, so it's up to you whether you wish to heed them or not. And if you're looking for DYK stuff, the flag thing may be a candidate for you. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I put it in as an external link because it is not appropriate as a source within the article text itself. Most unfortunate situation regarding that person's personal essay. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have thought this over, and due to the fact that the reviewer is himself an academic in the field, this source is most likely acceptable for usage. Wondering how best to incorporate it. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I added it as a source for some secondary sourced Analysis material, will ruminate further on utilization as a source for primary material summary info. Thanks very much. -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Note

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

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Also notified two editors active with the WP:LAW project, Bearian (talk · contribs) and Bradley0110 (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

GA passed

This article was reviewed and passed as a GA. The review is at Talk:Beyond the First Amendment/GA1. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors

I've put in a request for this article to be copy-edited, by WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.—Cirt (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This has since been

Done.—Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

^ Reviewed by Steven B. Lichtman, Department of Political Science, University of Vermont. (January 2006). "(Book reviewed:) BEYOND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE POLITICS OF FREE SPEECH AND PLURALISM, by Samuel P. Nelson". bsos.umd.edu. Retrieved 2010-01-19. (Vol. 16 No.1 (January 2006), pp.59-64) The Supreme Court's 1989 application of the First Amendment to flag-burning was, to Nelson, nothing more than a rote gesture that failed to account honestly for the legitimate reactions of onlookers. Using a group of veterans reacting to flag-burning protestors at a Memorial Day parade as his counterexample, Nelson shows that, while the traditional First Amendment approach mandates that "the flag-burning speaker is protected, and the audience of veterans has no claim to make," the pluralist approach instead provides that "both the speaker and the audience have claims to make, and these may be resolved politically" (p.147) ... see "existence of a single principle by which to judge all outcomes" (p.141). {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[twsJanSd11-1] Reviewed by Steven B. Lichtman, Department of Political Science, University of Vermont. (January 2006). "(Book reviewed:) BEYOND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE POLITICS OF FREE SPEECH AND PLURALISM, by Samuel P. Nelson". bsos.umd.edu. Retrieved 2010-01-19. (Vol. 16 No.1 (January 2006), pp.59-64) The Supreme Court's 1989 application of the First Amendment to flag-burning was, to Nelson, nothing more than a rote gesture that failed to account honestly for the legitimate reactions of onlookers. Using a group of veterans reacting to flag-burning protestors at a Memorial Day parade as his counterexample, Nelson shows that, while the traditional First Amendment approach mandates that "the flag-burning speaker is protected, and the audience of veterans has no claim to make," the pluralist approach instead provides that "both the speaker and the audience have claims to make, and these may be resolved politically" (p.147) ... see "existence of a single principle by which to judge all outcomes" (p.141). {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]