Talk:United States v. Progressive, Inc.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States v. Progressive, Inc. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United States v. Progressive, Inc. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 2, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
January 15, 2013	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
March 24, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Freedom of speech Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

United States: Military history / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kennedy 1991 = good source

Kennedy, Caroline (1991). In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action. Avon Books. pp. 37–55. ISBN 0-380-71720-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I'll try improving this article with this source soon. ;)—Cirt (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed newly added info from sect, Background

Removed newly added info from sect, Background. Let's please not get into the habit of adding info without page numbers in cites, let's maintain a high standard for new info added to this page, please.—Cirt (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are desireable but not a requirement. I do not think it is even reasonable to have them everywhere. I am an editor of a scientific journal and we never require page numbers (nor they are required in a dozens or so journals where I have published). Not to mention that some sources such as online books do not have page numbers at all. Nor they are common in encyclopedias. Please do not impose your own rules. If you wish to add page numbers, go for it, but please do not delete sourced material. - BorisG (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently undergoing a major revamp. Inline citations are absolutely required for verification at higher assessment levels, and these require page numbers. (See WP:CITE) It is unreasonable to ask the spot checkers at FAC to find a single fact in a whole book or article. Since you have the pages in front of you there should be no difficulty providing the page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this comment by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs), especially the part about FAC.—Cirt (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography sect

Suggest we junk it or move it to the talk page. It's not really doing anything at the moment, and eventually we'll substitute it with Notes and References sect.—Cirt (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed them "Notes" and "References". I have them all here, all will be used, so please do not delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, sounds perfect!—Cirt (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article to create

Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse
- File:Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse.jpg

— Cirt (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The courthouse photo is nice, but I would prefer the magazine cover in the infobox. It tells the reader what the case was all about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree here. The tradition for most Wikipedia articles about U.S. court cases is to have the seal of the court in the info box, for a federal court case. This picture is a temporary holding place for that seal of the federal court.—Cirt (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah! No worries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although the court is correct, I do not think the case took place at the pictured courthouse, but at Warren's courthouse in Milwaukee. can you verify this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - But isn't the court building for United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin this one?—Cirt (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasn't in 1979. The building in the photo wasn't constructed until 1984. See: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103994 As for resolving the venue, even though the case was assigned to the Western District of WI, Warren was an Eastern District Judge and it looks like it was indeed tried in Milwaukee. See middle of first paragraph: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ucollr61&div=10. Mojoworker (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this info! So what building would that have been?—Cirt (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which building do you mean? Based on this I would say the that the Western District building at the time was File:WI-Madison 1929 Ref.jpg which is now the Madison Municipal Building. If you mean the Eastern District Milwaukee Court, it looks like it's the Federal Building (Milwaukee, Wisconsin). Mojoworker (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well I mean which building did this court case take place in?—Cirt (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this (p 202), the one in Milwaukee. It appears when Judge Doyle recused himself, this Western District case was heard by Warren in his Eastern District court. Mojoworker (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, swapped image out. :)—Cirt (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date format should be USA

Date format should be USA. I notice so far the text uses both conflicting USA and UK date formats. This case is entirely about USA material, so it should use USA date format.—Cirt (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will make sure that they are consistently in mm dd yyyy format. It is not UK format, but US military format, which is always used in our US military articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, understood, thanks!—Cirt (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior restraint - more info

The sect on Prior restraint should have some history and background info on prior legal doctrine and case precedent on prior restraint law in the United States.—Cirt (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over-burdened by background ?

This article is supposed to be about United States v. The Progressive, but it seems to be getting over-burdened by background info. Maybe we can trim some sects down, with links in those sects to more info on the respective parent articles?—Cirt (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to touch the parent articles, but I will trim a paragraph out of each subsection. In the meantime, feel free to fill in the Prior Restraint Section Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, currently doing research on that sect, reading through sects of some great books pertaining to that sect. ;)—Cirt (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements?

Has the great improvements to this very interesting article some time ago ceased altogether? The User 567 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not permanently. I will get back to it soon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Teller-Ulam design online

So if Wikipedia is not censored, does that mean that if someone happened to know the details behind the Teller-Ulam design they could add that information to either this or the Teller-Ulam design article; assuming the reference was from a peer reviewed journal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would be welcome to do so, so long as the information was from a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kidder

The important role played by Ray Kidder deserves a mention. Accordingly, I have added a paragraph and three footnotes. HowardMorland (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Argonne and the Hansen letters

I cleared up some confusion about which letter was published by the Daily Californian (it was the Argonne letter, not the Hansen letter). In adjusting the footnotes I used the page numbers from the online pdf version of the DeVolpi, et al. book, which are different from the hard copy page numbers. HowardMorland (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States v. Progressive, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]