Jump to content

Talk:Learned Hand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Influence in Patent?

Learned Hand had a fairly large impact upon US Patent Law and is considered one of the greatest patent judges, so this would be a reasonable addition to the page.

Some of L. Hand's patent opinions: Wright Co. v. Paulhan 177 F. 261 (C.C. S.D.N.Y 1910) (involves Wright Brother's patent on a "flying machine.") Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 128 F.2d 632, 53 USPQ (BNA) 563 (2d Cir.1942); Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)


Doctrine of Equivalents: Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1948). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeWitt (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DeWitt (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Question

Does anyone know of a book this guy wrote about body langauge? Thank you!

- - - - - - - - -


Another question:

Has anyone compiled a list of all Learned Hand's clerks? I think this would be a fascinating group.


208.27.111.121 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)interested party

Image

Can anyone with access to the book from which the image was taken confirm if it is indeed an official portrait, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Learned_Hand.jpg suspects? --Ec- 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wacky Naming Conventions...

This article needs some explanation of why his family went around making puns out of their children's names, like Learned Hand and Noble Hand. Anyone have an explanation they can add? --Kaz 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Learned" was actually his middle name (Billings Learned Hand) and was his mother's maiden last name. It wasn't really a pun at all. "Noble" was another name from a family member. See the first chapter of Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge by Gerald Gunther for more info. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should explain why he's known by his middle name. Did people actually call him "Learned" on a day-to-day basis? Elliotreed 03:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Being called by middle name is not rare.Jm546 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should definitely give a brief account of how his name came to be. To the casual reader - who will be a major force if this article goes FA - his name is a key area of interest and one of the more notable things about the man. To leave such an interesting name totally unmentioned in the article would be somewhat perverse. Satisfaction of reader curiosity is important to an FA. I'll do it myself if no one objects. François Metro (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS

Not as far as I can remember, perhaps out of political reasons.

Felix Frankfurter in particular pushed pretty hard for his nomination throughout the '50s, and he was notable enough to have probably been strongly considered in several instances, but he was never officially nominated. --Ec- 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

He was seriously considered several times. See Gerald Gunther, Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge, for detailed discussion including quotations from lots of the original documents. If you can't get hold of the book I'll post more details here, but the book itself is well worth reading. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed in the article. Reading between the lines in NYB's response, I gather that he was never actually nominated due to lack of poitical "juice", rather than specificly being ignored. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Never served on the supreme court

The opening paragraph claimed he was on the Supreme Court but if you check this link you see he was never a Supreme. The rest of the article claims his service and dates correctly but the first paragraph claimed otherwise. Needless to say, I did edit it.

http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=965


Your edit was incorrect; read the original sentence more carefully: "Hand is generally considered to be one of the most influential American judges never to have served on the Supreme Court of the United States." Postdlf 14:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Name

Is this that dude's real name?

YES, this is that dude's real name.
Did he rename himself, or did his parents REALLY REALLY want him to be a lawyer? --Sumple (Talk) 11:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose we should just accept that it's simply the greatest name ever and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.153.214 (talk) 19:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
"Learned" was his mother's maiden name, and yes, his real name was (Billings) Learned Hand. His cousin, Augustus N. Hand, was also a judge on the same courts. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has asked how "Learned" was pronounced. A visit to dictionary.reference.com says it is "LUR-nid". I would have guessed that, but not with any sense of certainty.Jm546 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Best name EVER --24.227.174.14 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Free Speech

It would be nice if this article contained more content on Hand's "early" advocacy of free speech in a country that had, apparently, forgotten about that concept. See, e.g., his opinion in Masses Pub. Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (D.C.N.Y. 1917), which, effectively, lost him promotion to the Circuit Court. See, e.g., Christopher M. Finan, From the Palmer Raids To The Patriot Act: A History of The Fight For Free Speech In America (Beacon Press, 2007) at p.29

Also, the reference to Posner seems to me to be totally inappropriate, as Posner didn't attain his law degree until 1962 and didn't begin his academic career until the early 1970s, whereas Hand died in 1961. As far as I know, Posner wasn't "influenced by Pragmatism" to formulate his views on tort theory and the relevance of economic theory to the law. [There is a difference between "being a Pragmatist [with a large "P"], which refers to a particular school (now long defunct) in American Philosophy, and being pragmatic. See, e.g., Chapter 4 of Posner's The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory (Harvard U. Press 1999) where Posner declares himself to be "not interesed" in the traditional concerns of the Pragmatists. Ibid. at p. 227]

Posner was influenced by his colleagues in the Economics Department at the University of Chicago, where he obtained his views regarding the use of economic analysis in law, not by the Pragmatists. OTOH, Hand may have been "influenced by the Pragmatists" as at least two of his undergraduate teachers at Harvard were the leaders of the Pragmatist movement.

Potential references

For quotes: Wikiquotes

Risker (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Reference to his famous I Am An American Day speech from NACDL: [1]
  • Reference to his folk song recordings (!): [2]
  • Harvard's collection of his papers: [3]
  • Interesting blog post with reference to court opinion on a Learned Hand quotation: [4]
  • Reference to the Learned Hand medal

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from NYB's talk page

I probably should ask this on the article talk page, but since people may be watching this page... would this be considered a reliable source? It seems kind of sketchy, but it does make one of the statements that is currently in the intro to the article, but unsourced. (The one about Hand being the most influential judge never to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court; I think it is a correct statement, but obviously a source would be nice, and helpful if FA status is to be achieved.) Neutron (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a recommended source, and everything in that blurb is available in at least one other more reliable source. I believe the quote actually comes from the book NYB mentions several times on the article's talk page. I'll copy this exchange over to the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's FA

As stated at the top of this page, this newly retired editor did not get the FA he apparently wanted. Right now, there isn't an active collaboration effort to nominate any particular articles he might have had an interest in for collaboration. Having said that, I think maybe one of the best tributes to him would be to get one of the articles he was interested in to as high a level as possible. Would anyone here be willing to work on one of the articles the editor was most interested in? Maybe, if we can get it to FA, a template to the effect of why the collaboration was done could be added to the article's talk page. John Carter (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He really wanted to get Learned Hand up to FA, but I know nothing about law and judges. Thatcher 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
John Carter, that is an extremely good and kind idea. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree! Paul August ☎ 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! For those who don't know about the topic, we can help with refs, formatting, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone with a legal background, I will help with Learned Hand, but it has to wait until after Sunday when my Tribeca Film Festival work ends. User:Cool Hand Luke and User:SWATJester also have legal backgrounds. --David Shankbone 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one very good biography of the subject, Learned Hand:The Man and the Judge by Gerald Gunther. I can get it. It's long (about 700 pages), but I can try to get it and read it in the next few days. There are a few other books I can find as well, Learned Hand on Patent Law and Learned Hand's Court, which I can try to get a bit later. But if anyone else has access to these sources, I could doubtless use the help. I ain't exactly familiar with FA's myself. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Giano could lend a hand in that regard. Paul August ☎ 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put the link to the Wikiquote page onto the talk page of the article. There are a few other reference sources mentioned in their article, as well. Also check google books. Will assist with formatting, structure and copy editing. Risker (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A judge called "Learned Hand"? That strikes me as funny. I will keep an eye out and try and help as well if I get the time. Getting this article to FA is a very good idea. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Learned" was his mom's family name. His full name was "Billings Learned Hand", which, in all honesty, isn't much better. Maybe Michael Learned is related to him, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
His cousin, also a judge, was named Augustus Noble Hand which maybe even top Learned Hand for sheer coolness. I agree this is a great idea. Learned Hand is one of the most famous judges in American history and there are plenty of sources to help bring that article to featured status (see for example this Worldcat subject search).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably should ask this on the article talk page, but since people may be watching this page... would this be considered a reliable source? It seems kind of sketchy, but it does make one of the statements that is currently in the intro to the article, but unsourced. (The one about Hand being the most influential judge never to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court; I think it is a correct statement, but obviously a source would be nice, and helpful if FA status is to be achieved.) Neutron (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a recommended source, and everything in that blurb is available in at least one other more reliable source. I believe the quote actually comes from the book NYB mentions several times on the article's talk page. I'll copy this exchange over to the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeing how I was supposed to collaborate with NYB on Learned Hand, I guess I should lend a hand with the article writing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just received an e-mail from NYB saying the three articles he was most interested in were this one, Nero Wolfe, and Judicial disqualification. The Nero Wolfe article falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, a group I am involved in to a slight degree. The other article is completely and utterly beyond my limited, non-legal mind. If any of the rest of you were to be interested in and competent to edit that article, I think it would be more than welcome. I'm still going to try to get the Hand biography tomorrow, however. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Judicial disqualification needs globalising, no other way forward and its already been tagged for this. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
/me coughs. miranda 02:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are three lawyers on this list already—David Shankbone, Swatjester and Cool Hand Luke—so perhaps there can be a division of labour here. The Nero Wolfe article requires some negotiation with other editors who have been very involved in its development to date, so I suggest it be the last one tackled. Perhaps it is now time to start looking at trying to organise this collaborative effort, dividing up for the different articles and the different tasks. I propose the following:

Learned Hand

  • Research/writing team, divided into
  • General biography
  • Legal precedents set/Influence (this probably needs a lawyer to advise on)
  • Supreme Court issue
  • Images
  • Locating further images and getting them uploaded and cleared
  • Image improvement
  • Copy editing and cleanup, including MOS and reference consistency

Judicial disqualification

  • Research to globalise the article (any non-US lawyers or knowledgeable editors willing to help?)
  • Writing up based on research
  • Image searches/creation—possibly some graphics if no suitable photos found
  • Copy editing and cleanup, including MOS and reference consistency

Nero Wolfe

  • Suggest that some preliminary discussions take place with the article's usual editing team, ensuring they are included in any FA drive.

Just my two cents. I'm up for copy-editing and cleanup of this article. Risker (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I told NYB originally, I can work on Learned Hand's life before he entered the legal profession. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Might want to start with reading materials and NPR. If anyone lives in NYC, I have no doubt his papers are located there. miranda 08:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the Gunther book and will add stuff as I read it. Not a lawyer so probably won't be able to make head or tale of the legal stuff, but though the bio is well written so hopefully the legal aspects are accessible even to the uninitiated! Slp1 (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

More stuff

Was looking around, and found that, in addition to the medal pointed out above (the Learned Hand Medal for Ex­cellence in Federal Jurisprudence from the Federal Bar Council), there is a professorship named after him. It is the "Learned Hand Professor of Law" position at Harvard Law School. See Professorial positions at Harvard Law School. Haven't been able to find out when this professorship was started, though.

I was also looking through "what links here" and found the following scraps of information that will need sourcing and verifying (there is more than I have put here, I concentrated on the biographical, rather than legal, stuff):

That's about it, but as I said, lots of legal stuff not included there. It would be easy to link to lots of legal articles based on "what links here", and equally to use the biography to talk about ones we don't have articles on, and to go the other way, from here to the legal articles currently linked from here, and provide a link back to here. Making sure to get the balance right, of course. Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

Could someone better versed in American college life explain to me the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity situation? An earlier version of this article had that "He graduated Phi Beta Kappa". Gunther mentions nothing about PBK in any context, and now Shoemaker's holiday has kindly added a photograph as a source that Hand was a member of PBK during his college years. Is PBK something you join while you are a student, or do you get elected when you graduate as the original text seemed to indicate? An additional question I wonder about is whether pictures and their captions count as reliable sources that we could/should use.--Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not just the image, but also Harvard University's comments on the image. But, yeah, that's really a secondary reference at best, it should be properly ref'd as well. Suffice it to say, being elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard in the 1890s is strong evidence of very high achievement. He would have been getting A's when C really was the average grade, and the average grade of a group of people already highly selected for intelligence by the entry requirements. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that we need another ref, though probably findable. My real question is still whether it was a fraternity he joined during his undergraduate life (as the text implies at the moment) or whether it is something one gets elected to at graduation, in which case we should move things around a bit. Hopefully somebody who knows about these things can elucidate.--Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was definitely 1893, and I believe he was definitely a student at that time, so.... =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He graduated in 1893, so I am not sure we are much further ahead!! This [5] implies it comes at graduation, I think.Slp1 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been a bit bold based on the source I found... what do you think? The new photos look great by the way! Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the picture

The picture used here, Image:Judge Learned Hand 1924-12-02.jpg, needs cleaning up. I think User:Durova does stuff like that, and there are others as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Durova is a good bet for this sort of thing. Sign me up for any copyediting etc. help needed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've put about 7 hours into that pic so far (in its high resolution Library of Congress incarnation). The result won't be magical: it has weaknesses in composition and an extremely narrow depth of field: only his shoulder is actually in focus, not his face, and the print is in poor condition. Shoemaker's Holiday spent a lot of time today looking through public domain archives to search for better images. DurovaCharge! 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Done this one. DurovaCharge! 08:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And the lead image. DurovaCharge! 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Others done too. Please ping me if more work is needed. Best, DurovaCharge! 09:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Great work!
Is it just me, or does he look younger in 1924 than he did in 1910? qp10qp (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's probably the blurring to some extent: I doubt Harvard would get the dates wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we ought to look a bit further into this though: Gunther book has this one [6] as being "probably mid 1930s" (dated 1910 at the moment)and I notice from the record at the Library of Congress record (where it is held) for the younger looking one [7] (dated 1924 at the moment) that there is no date attached to it on the record card at the repository.[8] Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...Hmm. You may be right: Here's all the Harvard information on the 1910 one of those: 

	Title:  	Learned Hand.
	Work Type:  	photographs; portraits
	Date:  	n.d.; ca. 1910
	Description:  	Three-quarter length formal portrait. Hand is turned slightly left, looking at the camera with hands in his pockets. Inscribed to Charles Wyzanski, Jr.
	Dimensions:  	32.2 x 20.8 cm mat; 20 x 12.6 cm image
	Associated Name:  	Wyzanski, Charles E. (Charles Edward) (1906 -), recipient
Hand, Learned (1872-1961), sitter
	Topics:  	judges; jurists; lawyers
	Materials/Techniques:  	photography on paper
	Note:  	Inscription: Inscribed in Hand's hand on the plate beneath the photograph, "To Charles Wyzanski Jr. / [illegible] / Learned Hand".
Provenance: Label attaching the photograph to the mat reads, "From / Goodspeed's Book Shop / 7 Ashburton Place Boston, Mass."
Subject: Born Albany, New York, January 27, 1872; B.A. and M.A. Harvard College, 1893; L.L.B. Harvard Law School, 1896; Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1909-1924; Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1924-1951; Chief Judge of the Second Circuit, 1939-1951; deceased August 18, 1961.
General: Forms part of the Learned Hand visuals collection.
	Repository:  	Harvard Law School Library
Record Identifier: olvwork371817

Would he really have given a 4 to 14-year-old a photo? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. [9] would imply 1932 as a likely date. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You're a good detective! I suppose we should be careful not to get into tooooo much original research, but it is rather satisfying to put the clues together, isn't it?!!! I would suggest following the book and saying "probably mid 1930s". That seems consistent with what you found too. I am also a bit dubious about the 1910 for this one too [10]. The book has a picture of him in 1912 with his three little girls and he looks nothing like this (but quite like the one listed as being 1924). Would you care to investigate, Sherlock? Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Harvard site states that the provenence is unknown, and it was possibly added as part of the move of a picture collection. It also gives the "n.d.; ca. 1910" date as the other one, but this may be from comparison with the circa 1932 one that we dealt with above - I could believe that they're from about the same time.
What this means for picture copyright, I have no idea. Things from before 1989 published in America without a copyright notice are technically not in copyright, but it's hard to say whether these sorts of things count as publishing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and if it helps, I can read the supposedly "illegible" text. It's written in Greek. Unfortunately, I can't translate it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ought to be careful and double check copyright status on that photo if it's really from 1932. If not, could there be an official portrait in public domain? Works for hire of the United States Government would be PD... DurovaCharge! 06:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to say well done to everyone who's worked so far on this article...you guys are doing a great job. Keep it up! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removed

I removed Image:LearnedHand.jpg because it is a poor quality picture. I think what we have there is enough now. No need to stretch and try and illustrate the "influences" section. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles etc

I have done a online search for Learned Hand on a legal article database, and have come up with many potential sources, including the two jbmurray added as "further reading" yesterday. I could email electronic copies if anybody is interested and willing to read and integrate useful info into the article. A legal background might be useful for some, though not all of them. If you would like copies, just send me an email from my talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not really here, but...) If you can put them in the "Further reading" section, with JSTOR links (like I did with the two reviews I added), then those of us who have JSTOR access can easily download them. As and when they're cited (I suggest) we can add them to the "References" section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What still needs doing?

I've changed the rating to B-class. What more needs doing to get to GA, A or FA class? Is the article comprehensive yet? Do we need more on the legal side of things? Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At a glance, the lead needs expansion. The Influence section is pretty much unsourced, and there are are some stubby paragraph-sentences there that need work. The biographical sections look OK at a glance. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there is lots of work required here, I'm afraid. I am slowly ploughing my way through the bio as my contribution, but since I am only on page 60 and there are 800 pages in the book I have a long way to go! It would be good if someone else could get access to the book and we could split the chapters or something. We also need to do a search for other books/journal articles about him and his legal decisions and incorporate some different perspectives and references. I note that some are available through googlebooks which will help [11]. Any copyediting and improvement of the prose I have added would be gratefully received, this will become especially necessary as topics become increasingly about legal issues and nuances that are something of a struggle for me to understand and thus express clearly.--Slp1 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing is still pretty poor. It's going to need a lot more references before this hits FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of sources overall may be a problem, and the fact that so many swathes of text are unsourced. The actual Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)volume of sources (20s) is fine, though, for a featured article. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I will obtain some further reference sources to supplement what is already here; there are quite a few although some are relatively obscure. Risker (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It does need more variety: If it's primarily sourced to one biography, we're going to be torn apart and FAC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that the section "Federal judge" ends with a long sequence of one-sentence paragraphs. They need to be smoothed out into a more connected whole, filling in with more details. Probably also needs divided off into its own section, as much of it occurs after his time as a judge. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a chance, guys! As I said, there is a long way to go in the Gunther book, and so the sourcing and the rephrasing will be done in time, as I get there. But it is true that others will need to look out other sources and contribute these: though FA biographies often rely on relatively few sources, the current limited range will certainly need to be expanded. --Slp1 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Gunther book is over 800 pages long. I would like to think that the final product will be 50+ KB long. I should be getting the Gunther book in the next few days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent news! Slp1 (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The latter two images aren't particularly inspiring...would it be possible to get something more "meaningful" (not sure myself what I'm suggesting, anyone got any cool ideas?) or at least have some more exciting captions? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Image:Learned Hand in Phi Beta Kappa Cropped.jpg? The trouble is that both that picture and Image:Learned Hand Hasty Pudding.jpg and the current one in the article, relate to his time at Harvard. There is room in that section for one more picture, but if we use more than that, you would have to start filling a gallery section at the bottom of the section. Images after 1923 are problematic for copyright reasons, though some free ones may exist. What I tend to do for biographical articles, if you can't get pictures of them throughout their life, is to be a little bit creative and give pictures of people they worked with, or places they lived, or stuff like that. Unfortunately we don't seem to have a picture of Albany Law School, and Image:WTM sheila 0036.jpg is an awful picture of where he worked as a judge. Pictures of The Albany Academy are of later buildings, after he left. The only thing I can justify putting in is a picture of a family member: Augustus Noble Hand. So I'll do that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Several problems with this article, and several proposals. For one thing, there's a lot of peacock language that may just be pointless, such as, "Hand's three years at Harvard Law School were stimulating both intellectually and socially." Even if you want to give Hand a hand, that's pretty crass for a FAC. I think that whole section is need of rewriting - not for substance, which seems to be mostly-correct, but to take out all of the hagiographical writing. We can give the man his props without sounding like we ousted our objectivity.
Second As for the "influence" section, I agree that it is predominantly unsourced/borderline OR (which is not uncommon in law related articles). That should be fixed. I would propose that we rename and reorganize the section to reflect Hand's "contributions to the development of American law." That seems to be the goal, anyhow. I can contribute from reliable sources, and non-OR, at least with respect to Hand's contributions to tort law.
Third, would anyone consider a "representative cases" section or subsection to the influence (or "contributions") section that briefly mentioned some of his more notable case contributions? (Suggested criteria for notability being those that are republished in one or more casebooks or mentioned in one or more law review articles?)
That's my three cents. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just given this article a pretty thorough copy-editing. Plenty more needs doing. But the first half is much better than the second. Congrats and kudos to Slp1, who I understand is the main editor there! In fact, while I was still on the first half, I was thinking the article could perhaps go straight to WP:GAN. But as the article progresses, it starts becoming much looser.

I have left lots of inline comments and queries. Apologies if that isn't such a helpful format for other article editors, but it's much easier for me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all the improvements. I really appreciate it. It is so helpful to have other eyes see what needs to be done: I just go 'doh' why didn't I think of that?!! I hope you will be able to keep up the help as I plough through the mighty tome.Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of a representative (or notable) cases section. If lex is prepared to undertake that, that would be invaluable, since it probably requires a legal specialist.
I now have Gunther, Schick, and Griffith and should be able to start editing constructively next week. Rather than getting in Slp's way on the biography, perhaps I could expand and ref the "influence section". Any other suggestions about how I can be most helpful to begin with? qp10qp (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a case for a section titled "Philosophy" (or something like that) between "Federal judge" and "Influence"? The Griffith book is about that, and it strikes me that a transition is needed between the biography and "Influence", because we should, in my opinion, show what Hand stood for before describing his influence. qp10qp (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What I am not clear about is how the notable cases, or even the influence section fits in with the bio. I am just about to get started on the some sections of his judgely life, and the cases form a part of this, obviously. We don't want too much repetition, I imagine. I just can't quite visualize it yet, unfortunately. But anyway, I think the influence would be a great place to start, or maybe you and NishKid and I could divide up the chapters of the book into three sections, and get through the book and his life that way? --Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I just started reading Gunther's biography. I will expand the early life section. Gunther dedicated over 70 pages for Learned's early life, so I believe we can have a much longer and factfilled section covering Hand's first 25-odd years. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. I'm not so sure, myself. I think if the early life gets too detailed, and we continue that through the whole article, then the article is going to be way too long. But anyway, it is up to you.Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do think the article should be expanded significantly in the future. I was thinking that it would be at least twice as long when we're finished. I don't know, maybe that's just me. :/ Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree completely. There is masses of info missing from his time as a judge. I have already read up to about page 150 and added what I think is a fair summary to the article, but there is still pages 150 to 700 to go. What do you think of the suggestion above of dividing up the book into three sections with Qp10qp so that we don't all have to read the whole book all the way through? Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, that sounds good. For now, I'll read up to page 150 by myself and fill in some holes in the article. When we're done, we can remove information that might not be needed or we can create subarticles. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think I'll start at the end of his life and work backwards. And maybe we'll meet in the middle!
Sounds good to me! Slp1 (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Senior status

In 1951, Hand assumed senior status, which is a form of semi-retirement.<|ref>Gunther 1994, pp. 586–587</ref|>

I've taken this out for the moment because I cannot find any mention of senior status on the pages referenced, which simply deal with his semi-retirement, as far as I can see. But it is useful information, if this is what happened. Gunther's index doesn't help me. qp10qp (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Page 586 states that Hand retired from "regular active service" as a federal judge. On the next page, Gunther writes that Hand continued to sit frequently on the Second Circuit. Naturally, I thought judge + semi-retirement = senior status. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This may be true, but I think we should only put it that way if the source puts it that way. I'll keep looking, in case Gunther says that somewhere else. qp10qp (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Judicial Center bio for Hand says he assumed senior status June 1, 1951.[12] Postdlf (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I've added the information back, but moved the Gunther ref along so that it doesn't purport to ref more than it does. qp10qp (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I Am an American Day

Gunther says this was an annual event. Does anyone know anything about it? Does it still go on? I can't find an article on it. It sounds notable enough to have one (150 immigrants and half a million others!). qp10qp (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It still goes on. However, you may now know it as Citizenship Day. I Am American Day was to occur annually on the third Sunday in May. In 1952, a bill was enacted to replace this holiday with Citizenship Day. It was also given a new date: 17 September. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand (1910)

Definitely 1910

I have talked to Harvard University, and they said it's definitely from about 1910, but was enscribed to Charles Wyzanski much later. They've updated the text describing it as well:

Inscribed in Hand's hand on the plate beneath the photograph, "To Charles Wyzanski Jr. / [illegible inscription in Greek] / Learned Hand". The undated inscription was made at a period later than the original production of the photograph. Correspondence between Hand and Wyzanski held at the Harvard Law School Library dates to 1932.

So, I think we're quite safe keeping that picture *wipes brow* Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And, let's face it, he didn't look that different when he went to Harvard Law School, 1894-96 (front row, second from right)
I am sorry, and with all due respect to Harvard, I am still not convinced. In the Gunther book there is a picture which is dated c 1912 and which must be correct because of the ages of the children in the picture. In the same book, there same photo on the right is reproduced, stating it comes the family collection, and that it is "probably in the 1930s". In 1912 he has jet black hair and non-bushy eyebrows. (Yes I know about hair dye and eyebrow plucking, but it seems a bit unlikely!) Hand looks much younger than this picture supposedly taken 2 years earlier. I myself do not feel that we can plump for the 1910 date when our most reliable source says 20 years later, in addition to the physical evidence. Maybe what we need is an expert in men's suits! I would be glad of others opinions about this: maybe someone else with the Gunther book? Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the book now and hope to help with the editing soon. It seems to me that Harvard are plum wrong. Why neglect the obvious, that he signed the photo for Wyzanski not long after it was taken? Why on earth would he give a photo of himself to someone twenty-two years after it was taken? As Slp1 says, the book has a picture of a much younger-looking Hand taken in 1912 with his family. The book says that the photo we label "1910" was taken "mid-career, probably in the 1930s". That in itself is enough to justify a change of caption. In my opinion, this is backed up by the fact that Hand is sporting grey-white hair and a suit of the period, with wider lapels than in the 1910s. His eyebrows are also three times as bushy, though that could just be because he hasn't trimmed them. Wikipedia 1, Harvard 0. (My only reservation is that at the age of fourteen, on the evidence of another photo, Hand looked about forty-five.) qp10qp (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Erk, Slp, this book is loooooooooooong! qp10qp (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've only just seen this. Yes the book sure is long!! And I tend to agree that Harvard is wrong, and was thinking of sending them an email to see if they know that the photo has been published elsewhere with a totally different date attached. Having got to about p. 150 now, I really don't think the sort of guy who would give a 20 year old photo to one of his clerks. I mean, who would do that really? I think one of the problem with the 1930s date, is that it brings some copyright issues, unfortunately.--Slp1 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the caption. I don't think it does bring any copyright problems, so long as the owners of the photograph think it was taken in 1910. But maybe we don't need to date the photograph in the caption at all. qp10qp (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
As a temporary measure, I've now removed the caption altogether. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: Harvard has now changed the date of this photo to c. 1930, [13] so I guess we now have a problem. I am glad in a way that they seem to have seen sense and admitted that 1910 was wrong, but too bad for the article! And they have other pictures there dated 1910 which sure aren't right either. Slp1 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
More photo dating issues. When I reinserted the photo last night I avoided dating the photo as 1924 because it doesn't appear to me that this date is reliable either. The library of congress has two Bain news service pictures of Hand, both wearing the same clothes and both wearing the same unusual pince-nez glasses and clearly taken at the same sitting.[14][15] One is dated 1924 and the other between 1910 and 1915. Based on comparison with pictures in the book, I think the earlier date seems much more likely. The 1924 date would mean that he was an incredibly well-preserved 56 year old too! The 1924 date has been reinserted, but I would feel more comfortable leaving it undated, given the uncertainty about whether this date is accurate.--Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand's religion

Alright, this is a section that I planned on including in the article, but I wasn't sure where it belonged:

In May 1886, Hand's father died of cancer. Hand was told of his father's illness until a few days before his death. Hand looked to his religion to help cope with the family tragedy. To his cousin Gus, he wrote, "If you could imagine one half the comfort my religion has given to me in this terrible loss, you would see that Christ never forsakes those who cling to him."[1] The depth of Hand's religious convictions were in sharp contrast to his agnosticism in later life.

Samuel Hand's death is mentioned briefly in the beginning of the "Early life" section. I was thinking of moving that bit of text around, but it seems Hand's death comes up again in paragraph three of "Early life". Any suggestions of how I can incorporate this into the article? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, would we say Hand was Calvinist as a child? Or Puritan? Gunther writes that Lydia Hand is Calvinist, but he also makes a mention of Puritanism on page 11. I'm not familiar enough with these religions to understand the differences. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the biography you're referring to, but I doubt "puritan" would be used in reference to a specific religious denomination of a 20th century American—it probably broadly referred to his values or outlook (what we mean we call someone puritanical). Could you give a quote so we can see the context? Postdlf (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that "Calvinist" has been added to Hand's infobox as his "religion," but it seems that this is a theological outlook and not a specific Protestant denomination; see Calvinism. Rather, there are numerous Christian churches that are described as Calvinist. Postdlf (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't? I was going by Image:Protestantbranches.gif. It looked like Calvinism was a branch of Protestantism. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
According to that timeline, it was, in the mid 1500s. After that, it split into the "Reformed churches" and Presbyterianism, which continue to the present. Postdlf (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose he was a Protestant as a child. I hate infoboxes. qp10qp (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Protestant would work, if we can't specify a denomination. Postdlf (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, changed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gunther 1994, p. 22

Style

(To Slp1) Because the two of us have largely written different sections, there are some slight style inconsistencies. I have no strong views, one way or the other, but we probably need to agree about certain things before copyediting commences.

  • Serial comma: I seem to use it, and you not.
  • I tend not to have a comma in compound clauses, while you do.
  • I tend to combine refs whereas you tend to use separate tags

Any strong preferences? qp10qp (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer multiple refs instead of a single ref with multiple items. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, no strong preferences. I don't mind whatever seems appropriate. It looks like it is more American style to use serial commas, so we probably should do that. But I cannot be trusted to change old habits so I will need a copyeditor of anything I write. In any case I have recently read David Crystal's "The fight for English:How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left" so am feeling a certain freedom from following punctuation rules rigidly (though I know that won't go down well here on WP!)Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am a bit idiosyncratic on punctuation myself, but we probably do need to be consistent within this article between us.
On tags, I tend to be ruled by the real-publishing-world preference for combined references over multiplication of tags. I think that decombining the refs might unleash another hundred blue tags into the text. However, I can work either way.qp10qp (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Incitement test

Slp1, obviously you have two strong sources (which I haven't access to) behind the point that Holmes adopted Hand's incitement test in his dissent for Abrams V. United States, but I'm getting a different sense from my own reading. Hand was unsatisfied with Holmes' formulation, it seems. And I have the impression that while Holmes updated his "clear and present danger" test to take account of Hand's "incitement test", imminence was still significant for him, not just intent of wording. The fact that in the Dennis case, Hand was later constrained to follow the "clear and present danger" precedents surely shows that his test had not yet won out. I'd be interested in hearing your sources' take on this. qp10qp (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, as I was a bit worried about overstating the case, though it is verifiable, I think! And, Holmes's Abrams was a dissent so not binding, surely, which is why the Clear and Present Danger thing was still in operation for Dennis? I do think that the influence of Hands' correspondence and conversation with Holmes is important to include as it is referred to multiple times in various books etc. Here's what Irons says on p 279: " Without mentioning Learned Hand, Ersnt Freund or Zechariah Chafee by name, he drew upon their critiques of his earlier opinions to refashion in First Amendment views. Holmes did not fully embrace the "libertarian" position on free speech, but he came close. He first adopted the "direct incitement" position that Hand and Freund had proposed. Nothing in the English leaflet advocated any law violation or obstruction of war production: only the Yiddish leaflet "affords even a foundation for the charge", Holmes wrote, but "it is evident from the beginning to the end that the only object of the paper is to help Russia and stop American intervention there against the popular government-not to impeded the US in the war that it swas carrying on." Stone says something similar about the influence of Hands' interventions, and quotes the dissent as saying "only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limite to the expression of opinion." However, I am not wedded to the bold phrasing about Holmes adopting the incitement test, and will try out something else when I have a minute to do so.--Slp1 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I take Irons to mean there that Holmes first did the incitement test and then he did the imminence test, coming up with a result that was partly in keeping with Hand and partly not. Holmes's test has two parts ("clear and present"), whereas Hand's has one, ("incitement"—in other words "clear"). Hand said, "I do not altogether like the way Justice Holmes put the limitation. I myself think it is a little more manageable and quite adequate a distinction to say that there is an absolute and objective test to language ... I still prefer that which I attempted to state in my first Masses opinion, rather than to say that the connection between the words used and the evil aimed at should be 'immediate and direct'". The way I see the evolution of these tests before Dennis is that though Holmes dissented, his adapted "clear and present danger" test was thereafter used by the Supreme Court. So that by the Dennis case, Hand had his hands tied (so to speak!). But his test did come to be adopted later on. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary refs

I've been crawling through Amazon Search Inside and Google Books, plucking out refs to support the material from Gunther, Griffith, and Schick on which we have largely based the article. I daresay we have enough variety now—there's a limit how far one can stuff a fig before it bursts. I was reassured to find the content of the article supported by these other sources, so I believe we have things pretty right. Most writers comment on the same few issues, it seems: there's no getting round the preponderance of Gunther refs for biographical info that he alone has documented, bless him.

I'm going to fuss about with minor details for a while, then make a stab at a lead (if no one else has by then), and try to improve the reading ease, concision, and general prose quality. Also format the bottom lists for more consistency. qp10qp (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have got a few books from the library and will try and trawl through the relevant parts and see what can be added, sourced to something else etc, but I agree that it is good to see how consistent they all are really. I quite busy in real life and have other WP projects on the boil too, so it may be a couple of days....--Slp1 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. For my part, I'm very slow. I must get round to reviewing Wilberforce: it was an FA cert last time I looked. qp10qp (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, goody-goody, so glad you think so!--Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To do

My suggestions:

  • Replace last section with assessment of his ideas: philosophy, politics, principles, influence, etc. I have the Griffith book, which will be useful for all this.
Done. This makes the article too long, for the moment, but when I was working on my biography bits I included legal philosophy chunks with the intention of deferring them to another section later on. So I'll now go through and remove duplication, etc., which will hopefully shorten and harden up the biography, as it needs. qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Write a decent lead—probably needs leaving till late.
I'm chucking bit and pieces into the lead as I go through Griffith and Schick again reinforcing and varying the Gunther refs where possible. This is not a definitive pass at the lead. Leaving that for the while. qp10qp (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Four-para lead written. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reinforce citations, where possible, so that we aren't totally reliant on Gunther.
Miserably time-consuming, but done. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Work on images and their sourcing.
  • Need something on Carroll Towing, something on the idea that he supported exploitation of the law re taxes, some more on Louis Dow, maybe a paragraph on friendships ... Croly, Lippman, Berenson, Frankfurter, etc.
Carroll Towing and tax are now in. qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we need to do fancy legal citations for the legal cases? I'm not that in favour, since Gunther doesn't, and since the links don't seem to lead anywhere much.
Pretty sure we don't need them. Not in any of the books I'm reading. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Headings and section design need rationalising: I've just been chucking them in as I go, without thought of the overall article structure. We are a little bit more chronological than Gunther, which is no bad thing, but it's difficult to make that precise.
Somehat improved. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I can take care of the lead and I'll chip in with other issues that need to be resolved. I got slightly distracted with other projects, so I apologize for not holding up my share of article writing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. It's probably best to have three paragraphs at the moment, and we can add another when the philosophy type section is done. qp10qp (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
We met in the middle. Yeeeh! I will look at other books, articles etc, with a view to expanding some of the sections noted above and also varying the citations a bit. I tend to agree that waiting a bit before writing the lead might be a good plan. Slp1 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is too big

The introduction? That's huge. Four beefy paragraphs. By comparison, John F. Kennedy and Dranklin D. Roosevelt have shorter intros. Isn't there some material that could be removed or placed somewhere else? Mastermund (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This version of the lead is very recent. It's enjoying a little microwave standing time and will be sharpened and shortened later this week, other things being equal. It consists of an introduction/summary of the main article, and so, as far as I know, doesn't contain any different information. qp10qp (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. The lead still has four paragraphs, but they are shorter. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Explaining what I'm up to

Slp1, I've embarked on a deep-grinding copyedit, taking things down to as hard a core as possible, ideally shaving some length off along the way. All things being equal, I plan to proceed through the article starting from the section with the most difficult reading level and working backwards, hopefully finding less to do each time, and finishing up with the lead. If you need to work on stuff, the following should give an idea of my intended order of progression, in case you want to work ahead along the trail. Don't worry, I am very slow.

  1. Influence
  2. Between the wars
  3. Federal judge
  4. Philosophy
  5. Harvard
  6. Albany legal practice
  7. Jurisprudence
  8. Postwar years
  9. Marriage and New York
  10. World War II
  11. Early life
  12. Semi-retirement and death
  13. Lead

What say you to our putting this up for peer review some time this coming week? qp10qp (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, I'm not sure that slow describes your work at all! I can't believe the amount of research and writing you have managed to do, and of such high quality too. Thanks for the plan: I don't think I will be doing anything major at all to the current text: I have a very few, very short sources that might have created some useful tweaks/refs, and will be happy to join in the copyediting too (I haven't even read to the end yet!). I think a peer review towards the end of week would be great. I still think the photos are going to be a major issue with the dates and all, and we need somebody to help with this. I tried to recruit Elcobbola, but I guess s/he is busy.Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to go through the images and address them one by one. I don't think we need so many pictures of Hand anyway, so losing the lead image, which we have to if Harvard now agree with Gunther that it is 1930s, won't be such a major loss. I'll move one of those more gnomic ones up there. And I'll look around for some tangential images, Theodore Roosevelt, maybe, Croly, or whatever. qp10qp (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here goes with some questions of my own
  • We don't have much about his character. Carrington, which I think you have too, summarizes some material about a bit of arrogance and rudeness, hatred of anti-semiticism but class bias etc.
There's also some useful stuff in Stone. In summary: decisions creative and modest, skeptical, open-minded, intolerant of absolutes, relentless in search for understanding, self-questioning/doubting.
It's difficult knowing where to place a character assessment, but I have a feeling it might go well after the first paragraph of "Semi-retirement and death". This is because the best anecdotes about Hand seem to derive from his legal clerks of the 1950s, including Gunther and Dworkin. Also I think his character was pretty well defined by then. The material would also combine well here with a mention of the later phase of his marriage, following Dow's death, when Frances seems to have become closer to him. It would fit with the mellow, valedictory tone of the last section. When I get to copyediting that bit, I'll add a paragraph there, unless you find an alternative solution in the meantime. qp10qp (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I put the bit about influencing Holmes in the text, but maybe it should go in the influence section with the part about influencing Chafee?
I think this fits in well where you have put it. qp10qp (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly about the Dennis stuff. Stone, puts a fair amount of stress on the importance of this, and so I am unsure about how much detail to put into the text vs the jurisprudence section where there is more.
Once the later sections were added, I tried to displace into them some of the more theoretical trials material from the biographical sections. Gunther treats Coplon, Dennis, and Remington as a significant Red Scare period group, but of those, only Dennis seems to be of major interest to the theorists. So I thought it would save the biography becoming just a series of trials at that point by mentioning Dennis only briefly there and more fully in the theory part. qp10qp (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have now quoted his actual formula. It's not the most transparent thing he ever said, but at least the readers can now judge for themselves whether our attempts at an explanation pass mustard. qp10qp (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
More later, no doubt.Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Or not... Sorry my lack of contributions: visitors (especially ones who cope with jetlag by getting up at 5-6 am several days in a row!) can put a halt to time and energy for editing. But I will be back in the saddle tomorrow after a good night's sleep. You've been working like a Trojan and I certainly want to do my part too!! --Slp1 (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Nae bovva. Well, I think it's getting time to jump out of the horse and commence the fray, so I'm going to put this up for Peer Review later today, all being well. Could you sign, and add to, if you like, my introductory spiel? I'll copyedit the "Semi-retirement and death" section first and try to add some of the character stuff you mention. The article is unlikely to get peer reviews out of blue, so I'll ask the group that came up with the idea for the NYB tribute, people who've commented on this talk page, and also any legal types I can think of. If you know anybody to pester, please do. After that, I'd want to move swiftly on to an FAC. I'd like to get this out of the way by mid August, when I'm off for a week skipping through the meadows.qp10qp (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm off mid August too, and though I have a brief respite for the next week or so, time will be highly limited from the start of August on. But I will do my best, and it is good to have a goal.--Slp1 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten the image issue, by the way. Leaving it till last. qp10qp (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and prompt somebody again tonight.Slp1 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers I might be able to sort the images out myself in the next 24 hours. Changes coming: watch this space. qp10qp (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've now added some character stuff in the last biography section. Seems to fit well enough there. qp10qp (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

There seems to be a campaign against date linking going on. I'm inclined to delink the few dates linked. Do others agree? Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth asking Tony to do it. He's going round delinking dates with a bot thing, in a series of fell swoops. qp10qp (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll just do it as I go along, if you are okay with it. For some reason I have an aversion to bots!!--Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments/questions

  • Philosophy section: I wonder if the last few sentences of the first paragraph of this section could be clarified. "He saw...." to "matter of taste". I find it difficult to understand, so difficult that I hesitate to try to work on it myself.
Well, here's the passage:

He saw the Constitution and the law as compromises to resolve conflicting interests, possessing no moral force of their own. This denial that any divine or natural rights are embodied in the Constitution led Hand to a positivistic view of the Bill of Rights. He interpreted the amendments only through their wording and in the light of history, not as "guides on concrete occasions." For Hand, moral values are a product of their times and a matter of taste.

For me this is accurate—but that doesn't mean it is easy to understand. I was trying to put these ideas in clean terms, but I didn't try to explain them. I'm not sure the latter is possible, given my limited knowledge of the subject, without reducing the material to a lower common denominator. What this passage says is: Hand did not believe (like many people) that the Constitution came from God or expressed universal principles; he believed it was made of documents that had been thrashed out as a means of adjudicating between conflicting interests in society. The word "positivism" may seem technical here, but that is the name for this philosophy. The sentence following shows what this positivism meant for Hand: it meant interpreting through history and analysis of wording rather than by reference to higher moral values. He believed that moral values vary with time and so cannot be read into the Constitution. I don't know if this gloss would help you to rewrite the passage in a better way. To help you further with that (if you want to do it), it might be best if I place here what Griffith says on this (but bear in mind, other sources have been used too):

Since Pragmatism legitimates and encourages diversity on the most basic assumptions held by the people in a society, it appears to invite conflict over goals, while the natural-law theories assume and seek to stress the commonality of ultimate ends and may suppress or ignore differences. A vital part of Judge Hand's understanding of the American system was his concept of law as the formal resolution of a conflict which government will support. Stated thus, the legislative branch serves an almost instrumental but vital function of marking the point at which resolution was reached and declaring that the government will enforce this agreement unless and until the whole process is repeated—the issue agitated and argued, its support measured, and the solution altered. Hand knew that legislators do more than this—they can and do participate in finding an acceptable compromise, but the status of the resulting law is not thereby altered. It remains the culmination of a contest among interests in the community waged in conformity with certain generally accepted rules of the game, more specifically known as "the democratic process". His high regard for the role of law in human society indicated his appreciation of the importance of the process and of the institution primarily responsible for its articulation.

This positivistic view is contrary to the natural-law theory, which anticipated that claims may be judged and conflicts may be resolved rationally in a way that is compatible with the superior law. Hand did not believe that American legislatures operate in this fashion or that they should. Since he believed that there is no absolute standard to be discovered, to profess to seek and to find it would allow a choice on some undisclosed and unacknowledged basis under the guise of eternal principles and thus the subversion of the democratic process. (This was his objection also to judicial decisions which are in fact legislative but which pose as interpretation of the general principles.) Legislators are not and need not be concerned with some ultimate good but with a choice among alternative actions—a solution which appraises as accurately as possible the weight of the interest on both sides and creates a minimum of dissatisfactions and a maximum of satisfactions. The values sought by the contending parties are incommensurable—there is no fixed hierarchy of values which can be brought ot bear upon the solution—and a measuring of the interests expressed through the democratic process provides a peaceful solution. (Griffith, 191–92)

  • I'm not sure about this sentence either " He took it as the right of members of a democratic society to campaign for their own values to influence government". What is "campaigning for their own values?"
I have changed this to "politically campaigning for their own values". It was a corollary of Hand's disbelief in universal values that democracy consists in the right of members of society to campaign for their own values: the winning values are represented by the legislation the winning government then enacts. qp10qp (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We need refs for the last statements of the first two paragraphs of this section. Perhaps they are covered by White/Griffith, but I don't have them to check.
I have reffed Griffith for the first one, where she says:

It was his devotion to a concept of relative values that prompted him to question opinions of the Supreme Court which appeared to place one value absolutely above the others, whether the value was that of individual freedom or equality or the protection of young people from obscene literature. He believed that each of these values must take place in the whole constellation of values which prevails; and while in some cases one may dominate, it was inconceivable to him that it would or should always do so. His understanding that moral values are but human choices made him most reluctant to have them written into law. He considered them largely matters of taste and felt that they should not be made coercive (Griffith, vii).

The second one was already covered by the ref given, but I have moved that to the end of the sentence and reordered slightly. qp10qp (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I worry that the political action of this section to be repetitive of earlier material. I have boldly prune it a bit, but feel free to revert if others don't agree.
Oh, prune away, don't worry. I felt it necessary to recapitulate the Progressive politics in order to go into the point about objectivity. In the biography section, the point being made is about Hand's retreat from politics because it didn't mix with the role of a judge, but here the point being made is that party politics didn't go with his philosophical position on detached objectivity either (which was fundamental to him as a person, not just professionally). qp10qp (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Critics of the pragmatic philosophy he had imbibed from William James at Harvard note its unsuitability as a tool for change. The political action needed to create a free society requires a choice between values." I haven't pruned this, but I don't understand its relationship to the previous sentence.

--Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the whole sequence:
However, he discovered that party politicking was incompatible not only with his role as a judge but with his philosophical objectivity. Critics of the pragmatic philosophy he had imbibed from William James at Harvard note its unsuitability as a tool for change. The political action needed to create a free society requires a choice between values.
The relationship to the previous sentence is that a Pragmatic, objective philosophy does not admit of partisanship: it insists on judging each matter on its merit, in non-ideological terms. The critics note (as Griffith shows) that it is therefore unsuitable as a tool for political change, because in order to change things politically, you have to choose one set of political values and remain loyal to them. You need to sign up to a political creed because you can't influence the political process by picking at issues individually as one picks food from a smörgåsbord. So, for example, Hand agreed more or less with Teddy Roosevelt's policy of reducing the political power of courts in order to help the people, but he writhed under the Progressive Party's policy on popular referendum for court decisions. qp10qp (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I really didn't mean you to go to all this trouble with quotes etc, and I certainly didn't mean to that it wasn't all verifiable. I was just trying to say that as a bit of a dummkopf I was finding it a bit hard to follow. I will read through and see if I can make any edits that might help clueless people like me, so thanks. Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's a useful rehearsal for PR/FAC. I expect some tricky questions on that section and "Jurisprudence", because they are difficult. This difficulty is inherent in the material. qp10qp (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have had a go at clarifying these a bit, but feel free to closely check/alter/revert etc if I haven't understood things properly.Slp1 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the criminal law stuff speaks to "influence", but it does answer swatjester's request. qp10qp (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree: I struggled for ages to try and find a place to squeeze it in, and in the end this was the most obvious spot. But feel free to move it to a better spot!--Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
We are getting there, though, which is quite exciting. I think we could go to FAC this week. What say you, colleague in crime? qp10qp (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are, though I do wish we had some more images for the later part of the article. I've been looking but it ain't all that obvious. I say we should go for it soon... I will actually have more time this week than next, which will be crazzzzzy at this end. Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've sprinkled some extra pictures in by way of illustration, sizing them below default because they're incidental. I'll pop us up for FAC now (I did ask a number of people to peer review but it's a quiet time for reviewers, so I don't think there's much point waiting longer). Please add your signature, comment, or whatever, and lets hope for the best. qp10qp (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Masses caption

Yup, will do.--Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

  • I have removed the lead image because Harvard University have redated it from 1910 to 1930, which has brought it back under copyright. :( I have replaced it with an image from lower down. I felt that Commons did not have the best license for this one, and so I have reuploaded it to Wikipedia with the PD US license for pictures published before 1923. I feel sure that it is an official one. Gerald Gunther describes Hand giving out photographs of this sort from a pile. qp10qp (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved this image here for a moment. I've raised a couple of issues about it with user:Durova, who knows about these things, as follows: [To Durova] "I'm just going through the images at Learned Hand prior to putting it up for Peer Review, and then, if all goes well, FAC. You did a brilliant job on cleaning up this picture, I must say, but I have a few worries. Here's my thought process. Although the license says that there are no restrictions on publication, a look at the source suggests that there might be a couple of provisos: that the image be used under fair use, and that we comply with their principles on serving originals. Infuriatingly, this photo is dated 1924, which is one year too late to give us totally free use of it, I think. I am not sure what "serving the originals" entails here, but I'm guessing that we wouldn't be allowed to photoshop it. You know more about image use than me, so can I ask you for your opinion? (For the moment, I am going to move the image to the article talk page.)" qp10qp (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
[Durova answered] "Bain Collection photographs have been released to the public domain. Look me up if anybody raises a fuss." Given that confidence, I will put the image back in. qp10qp (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Infuriatingly, I am sure the 1924 date is wrong. As I noted above, this other one from the Bain collection, where he is wearing the same clothes and pincenez, is dated as between 1900 and 1915.[16] . And I can't believe the 1910 date for the lead image either. Compare it to the Gunther 1912 picture and it is clear that this one is years later. He is much older than 38, surely. I am inclined to write to the Library of Congress and Harvard to get them to get them to check their dating. What do you think?Slp1 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you: the dating seems random. But we lost one image by contacting them, and so I fear it would be risky asking them to look more closely than they have in the past. The lead picture is not that different to the one we dropped—in fact, I reckon he's wearing the same tie. What if the source bods turned round and said, no, you're quite right, that's from 1930?
One thing we could do with the lead image is to not have a date in the caption. I tried this before with the other one, but did you notice that the date was twice put back in? We could, though, put in an invisible warning to people not to add a date. We could also lose the caption date on the Nosferatu-looking one. This way, we'd keep the images, even if we were a bit vaguer about them. qp10qp (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would certainly vote to remove the apparently erroneous date as a mininum, with hidden messages or even modifying the image file at commons or wherever to make it a bit more difficult for people to get the (unlikely) information and think about adding it. I suppose that I am inclined to think that legality/knowledge/truth etc is better served if we are upfront and honest to the hosting sources about our concerns that they 'got it wrong', even if the article becomes a bit the poorer for our scholarship.Slp1 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the main issue of public domain status, you can refer any questioners to the PD template on the image hosting page. Bain News Service went out of business and its image archives were subsequently donated to the public domain. So we're kind of lucky when we find those. I wish the focus and lighting had been better. :) Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That image seems safe, then. Many thanks.
Slp1, on the other one, I doubt there is anything dishonest in using an image in accordance with its archival copyright status, even if if we think the information is accurate. I would just call it a bargain. But I leave it to you whether to contact Harvard. For the moment, I have removed the caption from the lead image and added a hidden message, though the latter may be like a red rag to a bull. I think the look is pleasing without a caption at all, because the heading above is clear enough, and the infobox information now sits neatly below the photo. But I fear this may seem unstandard to the type of editor who likes tinkering with lead captions and infoboxes. qp10qp (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is dishonest, per se, just not height of the pursuit of knowledge/truth etc. But I think what you have done is great, since at least we are not promulgating the dubious info ourselves! Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are lots of about-the-right-date copyright-free photos of the village in Quebec where L and F met, got engaged (and had holidays later too). Would one of these be informative, do you think? Slp1 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What happened to this photo? I thought it rather charming.Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Too bad it's halftoned. I couldn't help you there. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose now its my turn to have scruples. I too think that picture is marvellous, which is why I scanned it from Gunther's book. But my conscience gnawed away at me because it is credited to "Family Collection". Even though the photo is very old, that made me fear that Gunther is the first to have published it—and copyright dates from first publication. :( Our present lead photo doesn't worry me on that score because I am certain it is a standard publicity photo and so would have appeared in the newspaper, or wherever, probably many times. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I don't understand much about copyright, but looking at this [17] makes me think that we might still have a case that it is okay, since the photographer would likely have been dead by 1938, surely and it was certainly taken before 1888. The 1938 thing seems to stand, even with the Gunther publication. Is it worth checking with others, or should we just leave it? Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If Durova is still watching this thread, she might be able to tell us. Looking at your link, I am reading: "Unpublished works created before 1978 that were published after 1977 but before 2003/Life of the author + 70 years or 31 December 2047, whichever is greater/ Nothing. The soonest the works can enter the public domain is 1 January 2048". qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And I am reading the next section down, about works published in the US. It that implies that it is 70 years after death of the author or end of 2047, but I don't know whether we have to go with the lower or higher number. Very confusing.Slp1 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The simplest solution would be to contact the surviving family and query them about whether this is a first publication. They would probably be very flattered by this featured article drive and might release any rights that still attach (and if it's possible to get a good scan of a better photograph, I'd be delighted to try for FP with something) Best regards, DurovaCharge! 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm... You're welcome to show them portfolio examples. This before and after might be persuasive in seeking better images and scans. Image:Brandeisa.jpg, Image:Brandeisl.jpg. DurovaCharge! 17:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think I have figured out the person to contact: his grandson Jonathan Hand Churchill, if someone would like to take it on. Probably contactable via Harvard, I would guess. In the meantime, here are some other possible images which appear to be copyright okay. One of Elizabethtown at about the right point, [18] and one of Albany Academy [19] They give a flavour of the period, I think, but will ask for other opinions before uploading.--Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Those temp files don't open, sorry. I'll stay in the background unless new portraits are in the offing. Best wishes! DurovaCharge! 02:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the links to possible new pictures: never knew temp links existed before! Slp1 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that worries me is that I already uploaded it without permission, though I did that in good faith, assuming it was a previously published photograph. Which, of course, it still may have been. The family may not be impressed with my downloading it first and our asking second. qp10qp (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If I were to venture a guess, they'd probably be pleased and honored to see their relative remembered in this way--especially so when they learn that Wikipedia's main page averages 10 million to 20 million page views a day. You uploaded in good faith and realized the possible problem afterward, and are being very conscientious. Good on you. :) DurovaCharge! 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamiltonism

Alexander Hamilton, whose constitutional philosophy was analyzed by Hand in his Holmes Lectures of 1958

I move this to talk, because I don't believe it. I've read the book, and Gunther's analysis; the references to Hamilton in it are commonplaces from the Federalist Papers, justifying Marbury v. Madison and no more. That's one lecture of three, and it's not Hamilton's constitutional philosophy; in fact, it is one of the parts of the Federalist in which Hamilton is presenting a position, now consensus, in which he did not believe.

The Bill of Rights is not Hamilton's province, and the severe restrictions which Hand would place on judicial power are, as Gunther suggests, Holmes, not Hamilton; the Hamiltonians approved of the extensive powers assumed by John Marshall. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that only the first lecture analyses Hamilton's Constitutional philosophy, but that doesn't invalidate the caption. I don't see how you can conclude that Hand is not analysing Hamilton's constitutional philosophy at all: he does so explicitly in the first pages of the published lectures, quoting Marshall as following Hamilton. Everything he says in that lecture (and in my opinion in all three) stems from the references to Hamilton and Jefferson with which he begins: those are his terms of reference. I didn't depend on Gunther (at all) for the philosophical angle, as you can see from the refs there. It's Griffith who really ties Hand in with Hamilton. (I have read the The Bill of Rights, by the way: considering the man's age, it's excellent stuff.) Anyway, I don't care about losing the picture, if you insist, since it was only a filler. (And, to be honest, Hamilton's no oil painting, anyway.) I sense you rather dislike the chap. qp10qp (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I see one citation of the 78th Federalist on p. 7; that's a routine part of any justification of judicial review. Hand does not analyse it; he quotes it. (There is also a sentence from the 71st, later.) What is remarkable in this lecture (did one not know what follows) is that Hand spends so much time on the opposition to judicial review. (If you have access to JSTOR, do read more widely; it sounds like this Griffith, whom I do not have to hand, may be making a rather tendentious case.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It is Hand's style always to go through every argument. If there is something in the material that you find inaccurate, please remove it. But I must have spent a week reading Hand's book and around the book and other aspects of the "Philosophy" section. Even so, I will be the first to admit that I am not a legal scholar, a philosopher, or knowledgeable about American constitutional issues. qp10qp (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
One must be very cautious in describing the Federalist as the philosophy of either of its chief authors. They were engaged in advocacy of the Constitution as passed, and both of them argued for provisions with which they personally had disagreed. More seriously, it tends to state the points about which they (and the New York audience) agreed with each other; Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism are largely the points about which they disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand?

Judgements owe their validity to statutes and the Constitution, not to their moral force or to principles of justice.

I quote this, from the discussion of Hand's philosophy, as it was when I got here. Is there a source for the first half? Holmes would have said that judgments are what judges do, and that is their validity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that the present form of the sentence has rather lost me. And I am not sure whether the citation tag was added by you for the original sentence above, or by that other editor for the sentence as he has rewritten it. My instinct at the moment is to cut the whole lot, because an explanation of legal positivism in this context was only added because someone higher up the FAC wanted one, and I was much happier as things originally stood. qp10qp (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To cite the sentence above, I would have to cite a book about legal positivism which I consulted in order to meet the request for an explanation. But this is really not to do with Hand directly, and so I have decided to cut the sentence, which is a carbuncle that formed only from the chafing of FAC and is not an organic part of the paragraph.
If I wanted to relate the sentence above to more Hand-specific sources, I would choose things like the following:
  • Griffith says that "[Hand's] advocacy of judicial restraint stemmed from a widely held positivist view that the Constitution and other forms of law are to be regarded primarily as historical compromises among competing interests; that they embody almost nothing in the way of durable principles and can contribute little to modifying the moral climate of the community; and that those who interpret them have only the task of discerning the meaning of the compromise."
    • Hand said in his Dennis opinion: "Once the question is answered whether the Smith Act is valid, and whether there was evidence before the jury from which they might hold it violated, we find no privilege and no right denied them which had substance ... it is not for us to say whether such a prosecution makes against the [Communist] movement, or, on the contrary, only creates more disciples; ours is only to apply the law as we find it". (United States v. Dennis)
Hand presumed that the fact of a statute's enactment gave it intrinsic validity, regardless of its moral correctness. qp10qp (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; Griffith is a good source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

"Hand's most famous opinion from this period is United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947), a Tort case in which he introduced the famous "Hand Formula" (aka "the BPL Formula")."

I've cut this for the moment but intend to include something about it when I can find references. Considering that this purports to be one of Hand's most famous opinions, how surprising that none of the three books I have on Hand appears to mention it. Well, to be more correct, it is mentioned by Lewis F. Powell in his foreword to Gunther's biography: "First year students of torts know Hand for United States v. Carroll Towing, in which he derived an algebraic formula to determine liability for negligent behaviour. Recent interest in the application of economic principles has brought renewed attention to Hand's formula." Not that useful.

Wikipedia has information at United States v. Carroll Towing Co. and Calculus of negligence, but unfortunately nothing that is usefully referenced. I'll look for some information to place in the article, in context and with citations. Help appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A few sources: [20], [21], [22] and [23], which is especially useful because it lists a number of journal articles specifically about United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Will check some of that out. qp10qp (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't famous during his life, and only became so after his death. Should probably clarify that. Most of the other cases here were immediately known to be a big deal. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats everyone!

Congrats to everyone who worked on this article, especially Qp10qp and Slp1! Phenomenal work, you two! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

All you relatives of Hand deserve a hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.120 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Learned Hand was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen a page like that before. What's the point of it? qp10qp (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
To make sure all federal judges have articles and the FJC federal judge bios are completely mined for information. My guess is this article already incorporates all of that information, if you could give it a read and let me know I'd be more than happy to delete the subpage. Postdlf (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's all covered. Cheers. The article's going on the main page tomorrow, so I'm getting a bit twitchy! qp10qp (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done too!

Well done to both of you that worked on this. I forgot to check back, but good on you and thanks for doing most of the stuff I'd suggested. As I said, I thought it was good anyway. Wikidea 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to the hardworking article writers who achieved this. Great work! :) DurovaCharge! 05:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks to Nishkid, Wikidea, and Durova: it's much appreciated. As non-experts, we know the article is not perfect, but it's a solid starting place for anyone who wants to look further into Learned Hand, anyway. qp10qp (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"Hand possessed a talent for writing" - made me smile, but I suppose there isn't another way of writing it. SGGH ping! 14:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Some writings desired.

Some internet-accessible writings (esp. well crafted legalese) by L. H. would be appreciated. Perhaps someone could add a few external links? Thanks - WP editor via IP access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.209.23 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation

This article should include an IPA transcription of how his first name is pronounced. Is it "lurnd", "lur-ned", "lairnit"?! Bizarre name though - as many American ones are. --80.193.214.2 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's pronounced "lurnd", since pronouncing it as "learn-ed" makes it sound like a secret society, or possibly a university pub (The Learned Hand). Fuzzform (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The NPR program [24] says "lur-ned", (in IPA ['lɜrnɪd]), which was also the way I have always pronounced it in my mind. I never thought to use my knowledge of IPA on this article, I must say! What do others think? Would it be useful to include? --Slp1 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems unecessary, IMHO. (to the IP - pot, meet kettle) APK straight up now tell me 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I would support adding it. Adding IPA pronunciation guides on any but the most obvious names can't hurt, and will clear up confusion for people like the anonymous user above (and me). -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Elmer Clark. No harm in adding it, and there's potential benefit. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added it. I've given the whole name, which seemed the logical way to do it, but perhaps just the IPA for "Learned" could be later in the article instead. I'm open to suggestions.--Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed citation

Learned_Hand#cite_ref-194 ("Dworkin 1999") fails to denote a work from the references section.  Skomorokh  06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Great spot. Should be 1996 (my typo). Now fixed. Thanks. qp10qp (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Weird. We must have done it at the same time and yours took. Anyway, aren't we fast! I may try adding the IPA as suggested above too. --Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. For me, IPA is a beer. qp10qp (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, see above. For me, you see, IPA is bread and butter :-)--Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks chaps, impressive response time.  Skomorokh  17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help with a 1926 case

In the end of March 1926 Hand began hearing a case brought by New York railroads against the State of New York. Railroads demanded a permanent injunction against enforcement of the penalties of the Kaufman Act. Here's the NYT Mar 27, 1926 report how the case began [25]. But how did it end? This site (scroll to "Kaufman Act") provides a clipping from Brooklyn Daily Eagle Sep 10, 1926 saying that Hand found the act unconstitutional. Could you direct me to something more reliable about this ruling? (the NYT archive and google are totally silent). TIA. East of Borschov (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it might not have been a particularly notable case from the vantagepoint of 84 years later, but since you're interested, I'll check around to see if I can find anything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to be reworked NPOV as is leaning heavily towards overinflating his accomplishments. So Judge Hand was the greatest appeals Judge of all time, isn't that like being the best AAA baseball player that never got into the major's? A little less biased revision would is warranted.

I don't think your comparison to sports makes much sense, you don't have to move beyond simply being a judge to let your legal intelligence shine. In sports, no one really knows what you can do unless you're compared to professionals. Further, while I'm just a lowly 1L, he's certainly quoted in my casebooks more than most judges so while there might be an inflation or two occurring, saying that he couldn't have been that great because he never went beyond being an appeals judge seems extremely NPOV to me. KenBest (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Learned_Hand/Archive_1&oldid=1244019119"