Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Learned Hand

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [1].

---

Learned Hand

Nominator(s): qp10qp (talk); Slp1 (talk)

When Newyorkbrad left the project, he said in his leaving message, "I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done". He was referring to Learned Hand, a famous U.S. judge and legal philosopher. We feel the article now meets the criteria, and we bring it here as a tribute to Brad. qp10qp (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was endlessly impressed by Newyorkbrad's participation here, and was deeply shocked by his departure. Making this encyclopedia better, in content amongst other things, was for me the only proper way to respond. Learned Hand would have made a great WP editor: he was a clever, fair, hard-working person and a great writer. And a human being too. Remind you of anyone, perhaps? We look forward to hearing your comments, suggestions and edits to the article itself to make this article the best tribute it can be. --Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review here. qp10qp (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. I have done a fair amount of minor copy-editing on this article, both recently and earlier on. But the people who have really put in the work have been qp10qp and slp1. This is a hugely impressive effort. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but I have a few nit-picks.

1. The sections are rather lenghty -- perhaps some sub-headings might make it easier to read.

   I would not really like to insert subheadings now, because each section has an organic form. A big effort was made to keep prose clear and provide a smooth read. The reading-ease figures, which you can click on from the box above right, are quite reasonable, I think. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2. "The next Second Circuit vacancy arose in 1921, but with the reactionary Warren G. Harding administration in power, Hand did not put himself forward." This sentence lacks a citation, and some readers might take issue with the characterisation of Harding as "reactionary." I'm not sure the man had any ideology, myself.

   A ref lower down the paragraph covered this, but I've now reffed the sentence to Gunther, where he says: "By then the Republican party had swung sharply to the right: while Hand had hoped that the relatively liberal Herbert Hoover would be the Republican nominee in 1920, Warren G. Harding had been chosen in the smoke-filled room, representing all the conservative business-oriented forces that TR had sought to overcome eight years earlier". This isn't necessarily personal to Harding, more a characterisation of his administration, which represented the anti-progressive side of the party. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since someone else objected to this further down, I have changed it to "conservative". qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative" makes sense. Otherwise you'll get complaints every few months from Harding fans -- yes, they exist. Coemgenus 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think it's an excellent read. Coemgenus 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I changed to support since my issues were addressed. miranda 08:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolvedWeak opposeSeveral MOS issues.
In the lead:

Supreme Court should be "Supreme Court of the United States"

Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"A gift for language." - Seems like an opinion

It's a view that all the sources agree on. It's a significant aspect of Hand, because it is unusual for judges to write opinions with such high literary style. It is often argued that without it, he would not have been so famous or so influential. qp10qp (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to cite that fact. miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is cited in the last section, where the relationship between his literary style and his influence is covered. But, anyway, I have now cited it to Schick in the lead as well. (Wyzanski said that a Hand opinion was like a sonnet, but we've left that degree of drooling out of the article.) qp10qp (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if it's cited elsewhere...it is no use to cite the fact in the lead, since you are basically summarizing the article in the lead. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Constitution needs to be hyperlinked because there are many different constitutions

Last sentence seems like a quote dump.

Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead, he advocated the "combination of toleration and imagination that to me is the epitome of all good government."

I think there is a better way to sum this information up without using exact quotes. miranda 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but might you not then think it was an opinion? qp10qp (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but you can sum up an author's intention without using direct quotes. "He advocated strict tolerance of federal/government" or whatever. miranda 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the selective use of quotes can be elegant and telling. There's is a lot more to this quote than I could summarise in my own words. It brings together his attitude to judging and his attitude to government, both of which were combined in his views on the constitution. Hand words it beautifully, and I am not enough of a writer to reword it for him without loss. qp10qp (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "he described himself as a person who advocated "[quote]"."? That would be much better... miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article:

hyperlink "Jan. 27, 1872"

comma after 1872

Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"," not ", - I see several instances of this occurring throughout the article.

We are trying to use logical punctuation, as recommended by the M0S, rather than American style. We place the commas outside the quote marks where they would not logically be part of the quote. qp10qp (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know I am and many others are used to the "," rather than the "", unless you are grouping two different quotes. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

history, science, and languages need to be decapitalized b/c they are general classes not specific classes like Applied Science, Ancient History, etc.

There are two schools of thought on this, and I don't think it matters either way. qp10qp (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just decapitalized them again before reading this. I must be of the other school of thought. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Law Review needs to be ital.

Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

uncle - what was his name since he had so many?

Matthew Hale—I've added it. qp10qp (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Spanish-American" hyphen, not a dash

Because this is a war, the disjunctive en dash is used rather than a hyphen ("Spanish-American people" would have a hyphen). qp10qp (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But the article is Spanish American for the references to people. And, when I research facts on the Spanish-American War, it's always a hyphen and not a dash. miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Spanish American as a noun but Spanish-American as an adjectival compound. In Spanish–American war, the meaning is Spanish v. American. qp10qp (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Show me where you got this information, because in books, they use hyphens. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's covered here a bit: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes. To be honest, though, I don't rely so much on the MOS as on more established manuals. Brian Garner, in A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, says: "The en dash is used to join pairs or groups of words wherever movement or tension, rather than cooperation or unity, is felt. It is often equivalent to to or versus. E.g.: 'current–voltage characteristic'; 'the Fischer–Spassky match'; 'the Marxist–Trotskyist split' ." qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks. miranda 08:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"December 6, 1902" - hyperlink

U.S. v. Kinnerly" - future article? if not, delink

Certain to be article. It's an important case, and there's a lot of material on it. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hand had voted for Hoover in 1928 and 1932" simplify the cruft

Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand had voted for Hoover in 1928, and he did so again in 1932; but in 1936, he voted for the Democrats and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a reaction to the economic and social turmoil that followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929. - See what I mean? miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes in the context of Hand's rejection by Hoover in 1930 for the Supreme Court; so we need a pluperfect for the first vote before continuing with the perfect for the next two. qp10qp (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"August 18, 1961" - hyperlink

That's all I can see for now. miranda 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the decision has been not to hyperlink dates in this article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this goes against MOS. miranda 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ...which says "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, striked those. miranda 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another "21 May, 1944" needs to be May 21, 1944 for consistency. miranda 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The date delinking drive is so recent that it's left one or two ragged edges, by the looks of it. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another point. Does Bill of Rights need to be italicized in Alexander Hamilton's caption if it's not italicized anywhere else in the article? miranda 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that in the rest of the article the Bill of Rights itself is talked about, whereas The Bill of Rights was the title of a book of lectures given by Hand, and this is what the caption referred to. However, I agree this may not be clear and so have changed the wording in the caption, eliminating The Bill of Rights. qp10qp (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I see that, now. Then the caption should read: "Alexander Hamilton, whose constitutional philosophy was analyzed by Hand in his book Bill of Rights, published in 1958." miranda 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think my new wording has solved it by leaving out mention of the book altogether. qp10qp (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - The Fa-Team did not get enough time to perfect it. This shows, so I regretfully oppose. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Invalid issue, not actionable, nothing to do with WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did ask the FA team to keep an eye on the article, but this isn't an FA team mission. We have not rushed the article, I assure you.qp10qp (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it was part of Mission 3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me, I never noticed that; I do apologise. At any rate, neither Slp1 nor myself are members of the FA Team, though I have helped out with their projects. qp10qp (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's alright. I'm more concerned by the fact that everytime I make a comment at FAC Sandy somewhat attacks me. I was simply notifying the noms, not really making a negative presence here. I just felt that we were unfinished, but after a thorough read, I disagree with my earlier !vote. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not personal. Sandy points out unactionable opposes. It's just a matter of giving some actionable reasons. In other words, an opposer has to give the nominators something they can work on. qp10qp (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. I checked this article at PR, but I double checked here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, as always. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:LearnedHand1910a.jpg - Source link is broken.

Been having trouble with that. Believe it or not, I relinked it just before putting the article up for FAC, but it's died already. So I have delinked the source: it is easy enough to find (Harvard University Library). qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Conscription.jpg - Full publication information for the scan source is a good idea.

• Image:Physically fit-Glintenkamp.jpg - Full publication information for the scan source is a good idea.

I've added publisher and ISBN for the ones I have the book for. Let me know if it suffices.--Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Joseph McCarthy.jpg - The license seems to be incorrect here. I doubt this was published before 1923, being that the photograph is dated 1954.

The licence covers pictures whose copyright has expired because they were published before 1923 and also some later pictures whose copyright may have lapsed for other reasons. The source shows that this one comes under other reasons. (I'll leave the two above to Slp1.) qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is an entirely separate tag for the 1923-77, published without a copyright notice, permission. I'll try to find it. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got it. Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

These should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments (I haven't edited this article until the FAC.) A wonderful article. I've read about Hand here and there, particularly in books about free speech, but never a whole biography. Thanks! Here are my prose nitpicks:

• Friends and admirers often lobbied for Hand's promotion to the Supreme Court, but circumstances and his political reputation conspired against his appointment. - What reputation?

That he had supported the Progressive Party and, in particular, run for a position under their colours. Taft brought this precise point up when he opposed Hand for the Supreme Court, where he said that Hand "had turned out to be a wild Roosevelt man and a Progressive, and though on the Bench, he went into the [Bull Moose] campaign ... If promoted to our Bench, he would most certainly herd with Brandeis and be a dissenter. I think it would be risking too much to appoint him". qp10qp (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we add a phrase or sentence explaining this? My question was meant to imply that the sentence was too vague. Sorry it was too vague in and of itself. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "political reputation" to "political past", and the reader can surely now see that this refers back to his running for office on the Progressive Party ticket, which was already mentioned. qp10qp (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• His decisions in specialist fields, such as patents, torts, admiralty law, and antitrust law, set lasting standards in craftsmanship and clarity. - "craftsmanship" is a bit vague

That word struck me as a bit odd at first, but I found that it comes up again and again in the sources and in legal appreciation of Hand. It refers to the extreme care he took in seeking precedents and historical data and constructing opinions that logically satisfied all angles. His reinterpretation of the "clear and present danger" test is an example; another is the formula he devised for the Carroll Towing liability case. I think it is hard for us non-legal types to grasp this aspect of judicial decision-making. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be better to say "extreme care in seeking precedents and historical data", then? I wasn't really sure what "craftsmanship" meant in this context, but this is explanation is very clear. Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to use the word craftsmanship. There is even a book of Hand's writings, published in the sixties, called The Art and Craft of Judging. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• who had risen rapidly through the ranks of an Albany-based law firm in the 1860s and by age 32 was the firm's top lawyer - Is "top" perhaps a bit collloquial?

Changed to "leading. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• At the end of "Early life", the article says Hand was accepted to Harvard University, then the "Harvard" section says he attended "Harvard College". - Technically correct, I suppose?

Good spot: changed to Harvard College for consistency. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• initially focusing on classical studies and mathematics as advised by his late father - "suggested" instead of "advised", maybe?

I like advised because Samuel Hand doesn't sound like the suggesting type to me. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He was "un peu special", as they say in French! --Slp1 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• A frequently-cited 1913 decision was United States v. Kinnerley, an obscenity case concerning Daniel Carson Goodman's Hagar Revelly - "was" or "is"?

I doubt it is still cited: certain decisions get cited again and again until they are superseded. Obscenity cases later moved on, thanks to Hand. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• which stemmed back to a seminal English decision of 1868, Regina v. Hicklin - "English" or "British"?

English it seems, based on this Hicklin test and other reliable sources [2], [3] Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that Scotland has its own legal system. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As Hand expected, Roosevelt lost to the Democratic Party's progressive Woodrow Wilson, though he polled more votes than Taft - It is confusing to describe Wilson as "progressive" when the previous sentences discuss Roosevelt's "Progressive Party".

OK. I have cut the word "progressive" there. qp10qp (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Several possible war-related positions presented themselves, but nothing came of them, apart from the chair of a committee reporting on the effect of the war on intellectual property rights. - A little hard to follow

Clearer, now I hope.--Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to: "After the United States entered the war in 1917, Hand considered leaving the bench to assist the war effort. This proved unnecessary, and he was able to spare time from work to chair a committee that reported on the effect of the war on intellectual property rights." If you mean that the job itself seems unclear, I suppose it is. Certainly obscure. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I changed it a bit more, having figured something different out during an edit conflict. Now reads "Several possible war-related positions presented themselves. However, nothing came of them, aside from the position of chair of a committee on intellectual property law that suggested treaty amendments for the Paris Peace Conference." --Slp1 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never really like mentioning things that didn't happen, though; it just gets in the way, I feel. qp10qp (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. True, except that I think the point is that he really did want to join in the war effort, and was very disappointed when the opportunities promised didn't work out. And even embarrassed: it was part of the the reason he couldn't speak out in WWII because he hadn't done anything in WWI. It was more than sparing time, and things that weren't necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like the statements are slightly different. Leaving the bench was unnecessary vs. nothing came of his efforts to leave - slightly different meaning. Do we know which it was? Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just meant that since none of the jobs materialised, it wasn't necessary for him to leave the bench. I'm happy to let Slp1 take charge of this one. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hand sought to refresh a senior judiciary that was seen as corrupt and inefficient "reform", maybe?

Actually, the nasty mistake there is that "Hand" somehow must have crept in instead of Coolidge. It was Coolidge who was seeking to refresh the judiciary with new blood. I have changed this to "add new blood". His only influence lay in appointments because he couldn't sack federal judges. qp10qp (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• He rarely spoke out publicly, not only because of his position but because he thought fighting talk unseemly in an old man - "fighting talk"? Sounds a bit colloquial.

Changed to "bellicosity". --Slp1 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I love that word! Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• He concentrated on relations with his judges and on cleansing the court of the odor of corruption - just the odor of or actual corruption?

Worked on this to explain about the patronage appointments.--Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Augustus Noble Hand died in October 1954, but Learned Hand himself remained in good physical and mental condition. - Why "but"?

One died but the other kept going. I think "but" is correct here. qp10qp (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why are they being contrasted? Just because they are related, we can compare their lives? Why not compare them to other people? It all seemed a bit arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The books make a good deal of their long life together, coming from the same family and working on the same bench for decades. But we haven't emphasised that in the article, so I have dropped mention of Augustus here, leaving "Learned Hand remained in good physical and mental condition for most of the last decade of his life". qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point his gospel was skepticism - "his gospel was skepticism" - This phrase rankles this skeptic. :)

I anticipated that this might raise eyebrows, so had taken the precaution, in a footnote, of quoting Hand saying this. The more I read about Hand, the more I realised that this was not just a throwaway line. Look how he talks about his "faith" in that famous Spirit of Liberty speech.qp10qp (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would quote Hand saying it in the text, then. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very awkward to fit in grammatically and we are just about to go into another quote there. Instead, I've changed it to "He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point, he became a sceptic". The gospel bit is still in the note. I think it is an important point that Hand replaced one kind of zeal with another. It did take faith to hold on to what he believed when that differed from what the government or what the people believed. In the Masses case, he knew full well when he went against the new Espionage Act that he was throwing his changes of preferment out of the window. Scepticism was a faith to him; he wasn't a cynic. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• He held it desirable that the members of a democratic society should seek to influence legislative decision-making. - Important part of sentence is buried.

Have tried to make it clearer.--Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Any judicial ruling that had the effect of legislating from the bench troubled Hand, particularly the decisions of Supreme Court judicial review - Seems a bit wordy

OK, I've cut the second half of that, since we go on to talk about his views on the Supreme Court. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:PUNC

I've repunctuated this article's quote style three times now, back and forth, after requests at PR and here, and no one is ever happy. That MOS section needs rewriting so that it is clear. It positively guarantees objections if it is followed. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the quotation punctuation, which does not follow logical punctuation. This part of the MOS, I feel, is fairly clear. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain? I've repunctuated the quoting three times, so clearly I am missing something. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotations that are sentence fragments and come at the ends of sentences in the article should have periods outside of the quotation marks. Ex: Learned Hand was "blah blah blah". Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Brings us back where we were twice before. qp10qp (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting and engaging article! Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble. I didn't think you would want to review this, but your comments have helped us improve the article. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My moonlighting interest in US constitutional law is little known. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went to link the birth and death dates, and I saw a note saying that the decision has been made not to link these. Can someone please explain why that is? We do it so that date preferences work, and I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't. Raul654 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• New MOS rules. Datelinking is now optional. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Search me, Raul. Keeps us on our toes, I suppose. One fallout is that in an article like this which has to use American style (September 12), the delinking has exposed the "12 September" form that we had used as wrong. So we've been playing catch up. qp10qp (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Tony1 is the man for these questions, Raul. I have been just trying to keep my head low, and going with what seems to be the FAC flow.--Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to WP:DATE (with which Tony was involved) have basically made this not recommended. Readers don't see autoformatting if not logged in, so it just confuses them for no noticeable benefit. Reading User talk:Tony1 should have some answers to your questions, there's been a lot of related discussion there. —Giggy 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support but with a nitpick. (not blocking but a nice to fix?) The first picture of Hand in the article proper is this one Image:LearnedHand.jpg which is not until considerably into the article. It has no context in the caption whatever. I suggest it might be improved with a date... presumably this was when he was first appointed a federal judge? Are there any pictures of him when he was younger that might be usable earlier on? Other than that, a very nice article about one of the most important jurists of the 20th century. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but <sigh>. We have spent a lot of time and energy on the pictures for this article. Looking at the talkpage you will see our struggles with Harvard, the Library of Congress and pictures from his biography. The first picture in the article is dated 1924 at the Lib of Congress. This is almost certainly wrong (he doesn't look 52, the clothes are wrong for the period, and he is wearing the same outfit and pince-nez as another picture by the same agency also in the LOC which is dated 1910 to 1915). So rather than giving information that seems clearly erroneous, we have omitted the date. And finding copyright free images, as not proved at all easy, despite our best efforts. It would be great if others could succeed in tracking something down.--Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've lengthened the caption–though, as Slp1 says, we have to be vague because we really have no idea about the real date or context of this picture. For the earlier part of the article, there is the possibility of that Dostoyevskian one in Gunther, from 1893. What has stopped me adding that so far is that we are well-imaged for that period, what with the two pictures of him in group photos, etc. Slp1, what do you think of my adding that one? qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great. I think one of the group shots is plenty.--Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think it looks good. qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some comments from someone presumably someone with some knowledge of the subject have been made here and here. The article's authors might want to make some changes based on these. —Giggy 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the link to very useful suggestions. I will start by fixing the easy ones; and here is a start on the Posner thing. Not the height of legal literature perhaps, but a beginning. [4] Slp1 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see an article getting a review from outside Wikipedia. Some useful stuff there, though the assumption of ignorance on the Kennerley typo is a bit galling. We don't pretend to be legal experts, and we've been asking for help from legal experts all along, without really much response. We haven't done any social networking (we are backwater article writers); I never spoke to NYB in my life.

Some people there would like an article about Hand's cases, and certainly there should be one, but this article is more about the popular Hand. The structure of the article uses Hand's life to look at a series of important stages in American history over a very long period, from Lochner to Brown. The chance to do this in a single article is quite rare. The article doesn't dumb down Hand's ideas, but it is aimed at a popular readership who would like to get a handle on Hand, so to speak. The more popular books about Hand don't use legal citations: I raised the possibility on the talk page, but there was not much input from legal people on that score. We could add them, if reviewers would like, but the cases are famous enough to find easily. qp10qp (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonight I reread Ronald Dworkin's 1994 review of Gunther's book (republished in his book "Freedom's Law"). Dworkin was one of Hand's clerks, and I laughed again at the eye-witness account of the young lawyer who, unexpectedly confronted with Hand as judge in a trial, requested an hour's adjournment so that he could call his office, saying "My senior partner will fire me if I don't give him a chance to argue this case." Sure enough, an hour later, not one but two unprepared senior partners were on their feet in front of Hand!

More to the point, Dworkin divides the issues of Hand's life into four "stories". The first is Hand as part of the story of America 1872-1961, a few years after the Civil War, till just before the radical 60s. The second is the psychological portrait of a shy man, lacking in confidence, who was also charming, and whose marriage was less than he wanted. The third is the professional story: what law students learn about how he changed and influenced law in the 20th century. The fourth story is about Hand, the Bill of Rights and the issue of judicial restraint.

While it's true that I lack a legal background (despite encouragement from my school to enter the field!), nevertheless I think Dworkin is right to see the broad picture; his life is not just his judicial decisions. People who are interested in the legal details can click through to the specific articles, though One is right that these could do with some intensive work (from editors who made different professional decisions than I did, I suspect). I'm still looking at and thinking about some of One's suggestions, especially the Patent law and Posner aspects, but honestly, I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for this article to be a detailed overview of his legal opinions. Slp1 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about and reading around the Patent and Posner issues. Gunther doesn't highlight any particularly important cases in patent law. I realize that Blaustein wrote a book in 1983 on the subject, and there is also a 1940s article referring to his work in this field, but view of the more recent sources on Hand give anything more than cursory attention to his work in Patent Law, including Vile's "Great American Judges: An Encyclopedia". I am not sure why the article would need to emphasize an area that more receent scholars/books haven't.

I feel the same about Posner: it seems that there is a link there, but I suspect a reference to this belongs more in the Posner article than here. Posner's opinions involving Hand's formula are not widely accepted, so I am not sure why this article should include what seems to be fairly tangential subject. It's not like Posner is taking Hand's work to new heights of influence. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support For disclosure: I had a minor role in expanding this article (a few KB of text, I suppose). I applaud Slp1 and Qp10qp for the phenomenal work they've done on the article. It meets all the FA criteria and I believe it truly exemplifies the best of the best. I'll see later on if I can find ways to improve the article even further. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport While the article is strong factually, and the writing is very good, I don't like a couple of judgmental statements in it, and a few picky style things. I point at:

Between the wars:

"reactionary Warren G. Harding administration". I think a better phrasing could be found that doesn't include "reactionary". Having read the above comments, perhaps: The next Second Circuit vacancy arose in 1921, but with given that the Harding Administration was far more conservative than Hand himself, he did not put himself forward.

OK, I have changed it to conservative. But we lose a distinction between Harding and Coolidge: they were both conservative, yet Hand was willing to put himself forward under Coolidge, and Coolidge was willing to appoint him. qp10qp (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Calvin Coolidge, gladly appointed" . . . unsourced, who says he was glad? Are there Coolidge letters quoted in Hand's bios? Another adverb, properly sourced, might be good there. Maybe "readily"?

I have removed "gladly", which is not important. I chose the word based on the following in Gunther (275): "Calvin Coolidge was receptive to merit considerations, for he was eager to put the sordid politics of the Harding era behind him". From this I deduced that he was glad to appoint Hand. qp10qp (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"a passionate supporter of freedom of speech, and any sign of the "merry sport of Red-baiting" alarmed him." I dislike attributions of emotions to people, and think that it could be better phrased (of course, if the bios quote a letter saying "I am alarmed", then never mind).

OK, I have toned it down to the following: "He remained, however, a strong supporter of freedom of speech, and any sign of the "merry sport of Red-baiting" troubled him." He was actually highly emotional in his letters, but we have largely kept this out of the article in favour of cooler wordings. qp10qp (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Postwar years:

"Once again, his attack on traitor-hunting" Certainly an odd phrasing. What it traitor-hunting? It turns up 196 google hits. Might want to rephrase.

I've changed it to "attack on McCarthyism". He used the term "witch-hunting", but I am reluctant to use that expression without directly quoting him. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Influence:

"Marvin Schick has pointed out that this mythical status is paradoxical." Surely that should be "mythic"? Hand did exist, I studied his cases in law school.

Changed to "mythic". qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, it looks quite good. Over the long term, I'd suggest expanding the parts about Hand's less popular views, such as his (actually very reasoned, though I disagree, I've read it)" opposition to Brown. Perhaps a quote or two. Be interesting to wonder if he had been on the court, or appointed CJ so Warren didn't make it, what would have become of the case . . . but I digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good article. It is one of the best biographies on Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support; excellent work, meets criteria. Great work guys. —Giggy 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, compelling, gives a great, in-depth look at the Judge Hand and his life. Outstanding job. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• As I am impressed with the quality of writing especially (even after some stronger prose was removed for perceived POV reasons above), and the article is well-referenced, I believe this article should be promoted. All biographies of persons living and dead on the project should be so well-done. S. Dean Jameson 14:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support; Excellent, complex, and well-sourced article about an important and interesting figure. Very minor question: under 'Early life', would the proper grammar be 'family have been described', or 'family has been described? Favorite quote of Hand's: "This is the most miserable of cases, but we must dispose of it as though it had been presented by actual lawyers." Broke me up. JNW (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Has in American, in formal agreement with the singular family. Please fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. JNW (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. This is what comes of our not being from the United States. qp10qp (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Questions:
  • Do we need Albany in the lead, when we are about to repeat it?

We say that he was born in Albany and then that he started out as a lawyer in Albany; if we don't say that he started out as a lawyer in Albany, readers might assume that he started out as a lawyer in New York City. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The wording on his name is mushy; it suggests, but does not state, he was named after relatives named Learned and Billings. Is this so? Who were they?

• • • Learned was his mother's maiden name; we should say so.

Changed to: "His mother's family traditionally used surnames as given names, and the name "Learned" was her own maiden name." qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Holmes recommended him for the Supreme Court in 1923. When? On what occasion? Before Harding's death? (If it is for the vacancy filled by Pierce Butler, 1922 would be better.)

Changed to "by 1923, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wanted him on the Supreme Court". I think he was just recommending him in general rather than for a specific appointment. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Why is Hamilton adorning this article? A sourced summary of the Holmes Lectures would be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Hand starts the lectures with an analysis of the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian positions on the Constitution. This wasn't an original research decision, though: it is based on the emphasis in the sources. I think it appropriate to place a picture of Hamilton in the philosophical section, since Hand's constitutional philosophy specifically derives from Hamilton's. Two other considerations were involved: we were short of good images for this section; and Hamilton is an interesting figure, whose importance to the U.S. Constitution may not be known to everyone—perhaps this will nudge them to look him up. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that Hamilton has been on the United States ten-dollar bill since the 1920s (and various other denominations before that), I think the curious would have probably already looked him up. ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that not everyone who reads Wikipedia is American. qp10qp (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All of which is an argument to link to Hamilton (and to Jefferson). The picture is off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would also rephrase the wording on the book itself. It gave comfort to the South; but it was intended to support Holmes' dissent in Lochner v New York. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify this for me, please? Is the book you are talking about the "Spirit of Liberty"? Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights, I should think. In it, Hand argues that judicial restraint would forbid the striking down of segregation laws; of course, it would also have forbidden the striking down of worker-protective laws, as in the Lochner case. PMAnderson, in what way do you think the wording should be clarified? qp10qp (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would leave out, or recast, These lectures proved to be the last major critique of judicial activism from a progressive. If a progressive = Hand, this is trivial; if it = "from any progressive", I don't think it's true.

• I would mention Holmes, or Lochner, in explaining it; I would also, on Gunther's authority (p. 665f) mention Frankfurter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the word "major" makes it true. Anyway, changed to: "These lectures proved to be Hand's last major critique of judicial activism, a position he had first taken up in 1908 with his attack on the Lochner ruling."

• Mentioning Frankfurter is likely a good idea, since Gunther does make much of it. However, I think some caution is required too: Boudin, in his Standford Law Review of the book says "... Gunther unexpectedly blames Justice Frankfurter for Hand's sour view of the Warren Court and thus indirectly for Hand's damning doubts in the Holmes Lectures about the basis for judicial review. ... With great respect, this explanation rings of special pleading, seeking to mitigate Hand's unsatisfactory positions."--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a good case for caution on Frankfurter; maybe even silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Gunther mentions Frankfurter a lot in this context, but no one else seems to. qp10qp (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• • ANB says that "Hand had failed two years earlier to attain a federal judgeship", which sounds like the 1907 judgeship was created and went elsewhere. Please check.

What happened was that Congress was going to create this new judgeship in 1907 (at least, the New York legal community assumed so), but it didn't happen; the new judgeship was actually created in 1909, when Hand put himself forward for it again. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Should this line from the article (He later described himself as a "serious boy", a hard worker who did not smoke, drink, or consort with prostitutes.) be changed to add quotes like this (He later described himself as a "serious boy", a hard worker who did not "smoke, drink, or consort with prostitutes".)? It just seems like language is lifted from the source material. Remember (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not lifted. "Serious boy" comes from page 30 in Gunther, where Hand says: "I was a serious boy, oh boy, wasn't I a serious boy!". The rest is paraphrased from page 29, where he says he was one of "the very obedient, docile little boys. We went to our classes. We didn't drink. We didn't consort with the hetaerae. We worked every night. And we were nice boys". I think that word "hetaerae" discouraged us from quoting this full on. qp10qp (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice quotation, though, and a sample of Hand's sense of humor; with a link, hetaerae would not be a problem. Some will object that this is not excruciating accuracy in quotations, so this may be better after FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the hetaerae myself. In another FAC I was involved with the term "cause célèbre" was taken out because it was a "foreign" non-English word that was too difficult to understand (or link to apparently).--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on what you cited, I would remove the prostitute info. I can't tell from his quote whether he was actually referring to real prostitutes (and the quote seems to imply that prostitutes were a common vice) or whether he was just referring to refraining from loose women in general in a joking fashion. In the alternative, I would put the actual quote in the footnote so people know where you got that information from without having to get the book. Remember (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see quite what distinction you are drawing; but prostitution was certainly a common vice in 1890's Boston. (The same page has a calmer quote saying that he "didn't smoke or drink at all in college. Mother wouldn't want me to." Prostitutes would have been right out.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Remember, but there is, as you might guess, more than that mentioned above: Gunther talks further about Hand's sexuality on page 76. "Learned had not yet met a "respectable" woman whom he could imagine spending his life with, and he avoided prostitutes. As Charlie Barlow [a Harvard friend] wrote after an evening taunting Learned about his abstinence from worldly temptation: "Chastity, sir, is certainly the greatest aim of mankind on earth and I trust you will cling to yours"." --Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. It appears you have a lot of support for the statement that he avoided prostitutes (which I guess was a notable thing at the time). I would, however, put the citation from Guther on page 76 as support for the quote. Remember (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm afraid to say that all-male universities and prostitutes tended to go together in those days, rather inevitably. qp10qp (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Not that my opinion matters much, but this article is impressive. Remember (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's opinion matters! Thanks for your comments and suggestions, and of course for support.Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Supreme example of positive collaborative editing by wikipedians. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Provisional support: I think that this is a very good piece of writing, and a comprehensive account of the man. Here are the things I would change as well:

• birth and death date format

Can you explain further? If you are thinking about date-linking that we have decided not to use this in this article --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• which Progressive party - link in intro goes to disambiguation

Thanks, fixed. It was linked correctly at the first mention but not the second. The second link may not be even desirable --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• a sentence on where the weird surname combo comes from

There is something about this in the first section of the bio, but I will add a bit more there.--Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• just for structure, I'd make subsections: a lot of people (like me today!) will just want to look at the article for his legal work: e.g. you could just put the first lot under biography, and then the rest under academic work.

I'm not in favour of this, since the sections are organic and will not yield to subsectioning without an entire rewriting. There is a section about jurisprudence at the bottom, but some of the legal material is necessarily bound in with the biography. qp10qp (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would link every case, even if the article isn't there yet and there's that nasty red colour on your beautiful article. This is just because legal readers are good at coming along and going "oh I know that case" and putting it up. This encourages people and it saves people going back later to link it.

I hate redlinks, but probably a good idea.Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. There aren't many without an article. qp10qp (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Red links for all cases now in place. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• All cases, also, must have proper citations in the footnotes. Don't know if you two are lawyers, but I think this is essential. For Americans, you're really lucky because the majority of judgments are also online. If you can find them, put in the external links too.

No, we aren't lawyers. As Qp10qp noted, there is a tension about whether the article is a general biography or a source for legal beagles. I think it is quite likely that another article about his cases is required that can satisfy the needs of lawyerly types. But still yes we can add the citations. Will do it as I have time.Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that we aren't lawyers, plus the fact that the general sources for Hand don't bother with the legal citations, was a reason why we didn't think legal citations would add much. We asked about this on the talk page and didn't get much response. Since you ask, we will of course add them to the notes; but I think the cases the article talks about are easy enough to find anyway. qp10qp (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal citations have now been added for each case. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• List of judgments: that's what I came looking for. There isn't one! I think you need this. Just put something in there above the see also section: start with the famous ones he's done and that already have articles. There's an article calculus of negligence which you should link to the sentence US v. Carroll Towing.

I would like to see fewer lists at the bottom of articles. They are temptingly easy to add to and soon get out of control. I don't think it would add anything to the article to list the cases we already mention, and to list cases we don't mention would raise the question of why we didn't mention them. On what basis would we choose which to list from Hand's four thousand judgements? I also don't believe that Hand's fame is really about the mass of his judgements: he is known for a small few, but his fame rests more on his public profile. qp10qp (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to Calculus of negligence added. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that for an FA (this is just me) a few blue quote boxes go well. This guy was a man of letters, renowned for his clear, incisive and witty judgments. I think that you should putting in a few of his most famous lines here and there.

There are already lots of his more famous quotes included, just not in blue box format. I personally like the fact that they are integrated into the text. Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, I think it's great article. Certainly perfect for a biography: but if you do these few more things to make it a little more helpful for picky lawyers like me, it'll be even better. Wikidea 13:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA (and thanks to Qp and Slp for robbing me of an opportunity to nag on command :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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