Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. No consensus on merging, but anyone can be bold and do that if they feel like it. -Bobet 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case
Floyd Abrams appears to be sufficiently notable, but a separate article for his involvement in each (important, for sure) case he argued in? Too much information, and way too much branching. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion (see List of prominent cases argued by Floyd Abrams for more information -- I am not nominating the list for deletion):


 * Floyd Abrams and the Landmark Communications case
 * Floyd Abrams and Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.
 * Floyd Abrams and the Nebraska Press Association case (not yet created at time of AfD, but author apparently intends to create in short order)
 * Floyd Abrams and the Wayne Newton case
 * Floyd Abrams and The Heroin Trail case
 * Floyd Abrams and the McCarthy documentary case
 * Floyd Abrams and the Brooklyn Museum case
 * Floyd Abrams and Campaign Finance Reform litigation (also not yet created at time of AfD)


 * Delete all I can't think of any other case where we have a separate article on one (and only one) of the parties' attorneys. There may well be some useful information here, but, if there is, it belongs in either his article or, more appropriately, the article on the case. Looks like someone doesn't like Mr. Abrams. Fan-1967 22:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the tone of the articles, it feels like the author admires Mr. Abrams. To be honest, I also suspect copyright violation on at least some of these, but I have no direct evidence.  --Nlu (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All per Fan-1967 and Nlu. I'll try to see if I can find proof of copyright violations. -- Nish kid 64 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

KEEP ALL: I'm the author of the articles.  Floyd Abrams is inextricably linked with every notion of the First Amendment that we, as Americans, have. You can't separate his arguments from how Freedom of Speech is interpreted in the United States. I took it upon myself to summarize--there is *no* copyright violation, and I'm a law student, so I know--to be found here. I think this is very important information. The man has argued before the Supreme Court numerous times. His thoughts, observations, and the people he has come into contact with are living history. If you look at the biography I wrote of him (incomplete) you'll have a sense of this. I'm open to figuring out a better way to do this, but basically I am summarizing an historical document that many law students will find fascinating and informative--make Wikipedia more relevant to their lives. And to ours. I review his legal strategy, his observations on the Supreme Court and standing before them, the legal problems he encountered, and how he dealt with them. If not Wikipedia, where else? The way I have set it up seemed like the best way to go about it. It's a long process, longer than I thought. Mainly because I work and have other scholastic endeavors. But I think it would be a real shame to delete these articles without trying to preserve the information. The man is a legend. His word carries weight in many circles. He is the father of Dan Abrams. I think we would hurt the site if we voted to delete this series. Frankly, I think it speaks to what Wikipedia can be--an amazing treasure trove of information. All the wording is my own; I was carefult to rephrase and re-work the text. There is also an entire subset of articles I've created based on these cases. What I plan to do once I am done summarizing/rewording the cases based upon the memoir is research newspaper articles (with my free Lexis account) and other reviews, editorials and newspaper clippings about the cases, to make them more full-bodied and NOT just about Abrams's point of view. But my starting point has been his memoir. Yes, I do revere him--we all should, in my humble opinion--but I also want to make the articles more complete and not so Abrams-centric. That takes time, guys. I'm trying. --DavidShankBone 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep all, I looked over the articles expecting them to be boring but, they are not. These articles are well written and referenced. They have not violeted any of Wikipedias policies which would reguire a vote for deletion. I can't understand a "vote" for deletion on the speculation that they have a copyright violation. I can understand a delete vote if a copyright violation has been proven, but this does not seem to be the case. The writer or originator seems to have spent lots of time in these articles and to delete his well writen work would not only discourage him but, would also discourage other excelent writers from contributing to our Pedia.

Sure he wrote quite a lot of independent articles related to the same lawyer however, it would impractible to lump them all in one article. This is what is considered a "series" (and I have seen other series in Wikipedia). As long as there aren't any copyright violations and the articles are encyclopedic and informative within Wikipedia guidelines, I urge a Keep. Tony the Marine 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep all per Tony the Marine. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of detailed information that sets Wikipedia apart from any other resource either in print or on the internet. We've all written articles on some pretty ephemeral subjects at one time or another. For instance, I wound up writing a separate article for the technical specs on the Mercedes-Benz 6.9 article I worked on. I've only recently discovered this user's work, mostly because I've been away for so long. He is extremely passionate about his work and I found that out when I deleted a very incomplete work of his in progress. I can appreciate his passion and I strongly feel that deleting a body of work that took hours to complete instead of a few minutes would be a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and a tremendous blow to the editor who created these. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not paper. It shouldn't be a random collection of facts, but these works don't fall under that category. - Lucky 6.9 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete all Merge per nominator and Fan-1967. Also, while I don't fully know the policy regarding this, courting votes has always seemed dodgy to me (as is being done in this case). --MZMcBride 04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's sad about your vote is that I wasn't "courting votes" but asking other editors who I have been in touch with (by the way Lucky 6.9 and I only last night had a major argument where he blocked me), but wanted their opinions. Although I asked for their "help" I didn't coach them on their opinion, but said, "if you think the information is important." So, to vote delete based upon this, in my opinion, is "dodgy." can't you give some more depth to your vote than that? Did you even read the articles (which are incomplete)? Looking forward to a response... --DavidShankBone 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have known about these being up fro deletion if I hadn't been told about them. I would have voted to delete them if I felt they didn't belong.  Nothing wrong with alerting other editors to a discussion like this one. - Lucky 6.9 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I voted to delete merge the articles because the process for something like this is to write an article about the person and then branch out when there is sufficient information about each sub-point. (E.g. 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where each individual section eventually became so long that it was split into a separate page.) Also, informing others of an ongoing vote like User:Postdlf did on the WP:SCOTUS talk page seems more appropriate to me rather than contacting individual editors that you may or may not know and asking them to support you, but it's not my choice to make. Also User:DavidShankBone, some of your comments seem attacking, and I won't respond to those. From the discussion on the WP:SCOTUS talk page, you seem to have a penchant for becoming too impassioned. --MZMcBride 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge—I am familiar with the work of Floyd Abrams and the impact he has had upon the law, but dedicating a separate page to each case he has worked on seems like overkill. If there needs to be a page about his work separate and apart from his biographical page, it should be one article dedicated to his work, titled "Litigation of Floyd Abrams" or something like that. It's just a thought...--Eastlaw 05:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Eastlaw, I have no problem with a merge. To an extent, I'm working/writing in a vacuum. That's why I said above "I'm open to suggestions about how to do this." I felt this was information that we, Wikipedia, could benefit from contributing to the public sphere. But how to do so, frankly, I had difficulty in figuring out. So, I am open to suggestion. but to just delete seems so gorralia-ish to me. I can change my method, but to just not contribute this information is, in my view, myopic. --DavidShankBone 05:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC) As a PS:  Other accomplished attorneys have asked me to do the same thing for their tomes that I am attempting to do for Floyd Abrams. If you all don't see how that validates ALL of us and our work, then that saddens me.

Keep all - In response to Eastlaw above, I think the individual case articles are going to be far too detailed to keep them on a single manageable list. These aren't vanity stubs, they're pretty thoroughly sourced. And just because no other living lawyer has articles on his/her cases set up in a series like this, doesn't mean Abrams can't be the first. I thought WP was in the business of innovating the way we collect and present knowledge. These articles take a unique approach that's worthy of continued experimentation.

Every time someone RfD's an interesting or unique article, usually on an obscure subject, just because it doesn't fit into someone's idea of what is "conventional," I'm sadly reminded of the story of the demolition of the old NY Penn Station... Wl219 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all (see end of comment for details as to where). These are unencyclopedic summaries of a memoir&mdash;note Speaking Freely by Abrams cited as the main source in the footnotes for all of the above. It seems to me that splitting up the accounts in that book like this at best forms the intersection of discrete topics (the biography of Abrams and notable court cases), and at worst merely repeats Abrams' POV of the events without considering that he is the source for those accounts.  Yes, POV is normally a matter for cleanup, but these articles are fundamentally premised on the primacy of his perspective in title as well as content, yet not written as biography either.  Any factual information could be used to expand Abrams' biography and/or merged into articles on the court cases, or if the case articles don't yet exist these articles could just be moved to appropriate titles and alter content accordingly so these are about the court cases generally rather than about the role and perspective of one man in them.  Postdlf 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or Merge or at least Rename. Information is verifiable from reliable sources. It's likely that article titles that brought on this AfD - I could see how the thinking went. These are not POV forks as far as I could tell - they're harmless forks, and some could use a merging, but these are famous cases and if someone did write the extra encyclopedic articles, we should probably thank them. These are not exactly detailed descriptions of evolved fire-breathing pokemons, if you catch my drift. As to copyvio, did it occur to anyone to just ask the contributor if he copied them out of someplace? A round of AGF on me, barkeep! - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all Well written, well sourced, well layed out articles. Whether or not to merge is not a matter for Afd. - FrancisTyers · 10:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree I at times am too impassioned. I'm willing to admit to my flaws, apologize for them, and work on them.  But the source of my Wikistress has almost been exclusively in the realm of trying to beat the clock other editors set for me.  I do not lightly create articles; every article I create is source-able and noteable.  It's a source of stress to undertake a creative act and have someone want to tear it down before it is even complete.  Which brings me to my second problem: impatience.  I would be happy to create these articles in a sandbox that could stick around for weeks and week while I slowly built the articles to full-bodied examples of what the Wiki community is capable of.  But the sandbox is not like that.  I created "WatchingWhales" as a sockpuppet to do just that (build articles on that User page).  But the Abrams series was going to be much too big for it.  What am I missing?  I'm open to advice.  Because from where I sit, WP's biggest problem is its members desires to take content off.  If it is excellent work to remove vanity and uninspired information.  But when deletionist knives start to cut into bone, I wonder about the future of this site.  Creating useful and full-bodied articles takes a lot of time (even more than I realized).  What is the solution, because obviously impassioned argumentation isn't working so well for me.  I'm open to advice.  The one Abrams article that is "most complete" (but far from it) is Floyd Abrams and the Landmark Communications case.  --DavidShankBone 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a day off from WP and let you guys discuss this issue. I want to point a couple of things out.  How many people knew about Wayne Newton and his ties to organized crime?  In the back ground to the Floyd Abrams and the Wayne Newton case I haven't even begun to discuss NBC's role yet.  But if you go to Newton's article, there is nothing about organized crime or this libel suit, which is well known in First Amendment caselaw.  Luella Mundel is now dead; I haven't finished researching Helen Whitney. But now you all know about them.  Frank Piccolo and Guido Penosi are planned, giving an addition to our coverage of organized crime.  If you go to User:WatchingWhales you'll see the jungle that is the William J. Brennan, Jr. award.  I start researching, and I sometimes uncover vast information.  My point is that currently this project is "under construction."  This AfD is a good example of how difficult it can be to work on Wikipedia, racing to finish projects before they get deleted.  I'm doing this to propagate knowledge, not to propagate  myself.  I think these are things people need to know about.  I understand about POV issues, and one of the beautiful things about WP to me is the collaboration that goes on amongst all of us.  I also personally grow from it.  My writing improves.  My personality improves.  I'll never forget when the 2006 Qana airstrike page took off their POV tag.  It was the first time in my life that I felt the Middle East may find peace.  That's the beauty of WP - it gives me hope, and shows me possibility.  If there is a better way to create articles without taking them live, I'm not aware of it and could stand to be enlightened.  But I also liked the idea of getting input from other editors about the task I am undertaking; how to do it better; pitfalls not to repeat.  But it's inherently stressful to have the only input come in the form of removing them completely, especially since they aren't anywhere close to being finished.  All of your comments are appreciated, but my other articles show I have a sense of what is expected of me when I create.  I will see you all tomorrow.  --DavidShankBone 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, per Postdlf, into Abrams' article where appropriate, or perhaps an article on his book. Any information of general relevance to the individual cases should be included (if it is not already) in the articles on those cases (case background, for instance).  Thurgood Marshall, perhaps, could be a guide for how to present information on notable cases in an article about an attorney. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, The Thurgood Marshall article is a great example. Notice that the cases in which he participated are linked to his article even though each case merits its own article. If the articles were merged into one, it would be one hell of a long article and impractible.

What I suggest is this: rename some of rhe articles, example; "The Landmark Communications case" instead of "Floyd Abrams and the Landmark Communications case" and link them to "Floyd Adams" following the example of the Thurgood Marshall article.

Or: rename the "case" articles as mentioned above and create an info box or template such as was done in the Puerto Rican immigration series, ex: French immigration to Puerto Rico, thereby providing an inter link between the articles.

I believe that a "Keep all" with one of the suggestion maybe a good idea. Tony the Marine 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * These cases already have their separate articles (as United States Supreme Court cases). There is no good reason to pull the information specific to Abrams out of Abrams's article or the Supreme Court case article to highlight them independent of the man or the case.  --Nlu (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind taking the "Floyd Abrams" out of the article titles - it never sat well with me, anyway. I disagree with Nlu's perspective. The reason I don't think these articles fit with the case articles is because they are more examining the strategy and circumstances surrounding the cases, and the people who worked on them, then the "just the facts" aspect of the main case articles. What I most would prefer is if everyone could hold off on making any judgment about the articles until at least two or three are in final format. Right now, I feel these articles are being prematurely judged, that any decision (whether I agree with it or not) might be the wrong one. Nlu, most of these had "under-construction" tags on them, yet you nominated them for deletion. Don't you find this rash, when you don't even know what they are going to look like in final form? You think you know, but you don't; how could you--I don't even know? I have a free Lexis-Nexis account I plan to use. What happens when I start researching Guido Penosi or Helen Whitney or any of a host of other characters in these plays? I don't know. How many other editors have been in the act of creating an article, without even getting the real meat in there, before another editor deletes? It's highly frustrating. Nlu made a comment about my "bad writing", although my Tompkins Square Park Police Riot article is up for a GA, once I make a few minor adjustments. What is the solution between those who create, and those who want to delete information? --DavidShankBone 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One solution: Make the sandbox more than it is.  I think the sandbox should be where editors can create and tool with articles until they are ready to go live.  I don't particularly want to use my User page, which I am using to showcase my work.  I could create a string of sock puppets to host these articles, but that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia, and is an awkward "work-around" to avoid overzealous deletionists.  Is there a way to make the sandbox a sketchpad, where editors can build articles over time before taking them on the main sight? That would solve everything, in my opinion.  I like the notion of getting input from other editors during the act of creation; but Nlu wants to get rid of articles without even knowing what they will look like.  I don't see how he can make a sensible decision on an unfinished product, or how any of us (including myself) can.  --DavidShankBone 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, David, you can create subpages of your userpage and, as far as I know, you can have as many as you want. For instance, User:Jersyko/sandbox. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, that's what MZMcBride mentioned to me yesterday; I didn't know that, and it didn't sink in when he told me. Okay, well, that's a solution to it.  Is there a special way you have to do it?  I guess the answer is in the Toolbox?  --DavidShankBone 15:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I need for them to be in final format in order to judge them to be too much information. (Indeed, any information you add will be too much information.)  This amount of coverage, focusing on a single participant's participation in the case, is not warranted.  Indeed, if these articles will be deleted anyway, I do not want you to waste your time on adding to them whereas your time can be better spent elsewhere, either on this Wiki or not.  Another point that you appear to be unwilling to acknowledge is that the perceptive is inherently POV -- no matter how much you change the wording, concentrating this much on Abram is inherently taking the case out of focus and conducting hero worship.  (See WP:PEACOCK.)  --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nlu, thanks for the comment, but I disagree with it, again. What is "too much information" on a community encyclopedia?  How do we decide that?  What are the guidelines for "TMI"?  I understand your concern about the POV, but I don't think it is relevant.    The accuracy of Abrams's POV is not in question here.  He is one of the most accomplished attorneys in the history of this country, and his re-telling of the facts and background and people in a case is not in question.  Book reviews reveal that; you are relying on conjecture without citing to sources.  I appreciate when people point me to policy (I really do) but WP:PEACOCK is irrelevant because I am not flattering Abrams throughout; indeed, I have a section reserved on each article for criticism.  But I do take him as a factual *primary* source; if you dispute that, I wish you would give reasons or at least cite to a book review that shows Speaking Freely is inaccurate and unworthy as a source for Wikipedia.  I can counter with The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, et. al.  Right now, the tide appears to be against deletion; why don't you instead help me shape them to be better? --DavidShankBone 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Second Point: Why I wanted to do these articles:  I'd like to tell you how I witnessed law students using Wikipedia in class at Fordham. When I make broad statements, please keep in mind they only apply to my own experience. It may or may not be unique. Today, law students aren't reading (all) the cases they discuss in class. That's because the socratic method has fallen into disuse. The overwhelming amount of material we are assigned doesn't get pored over like it used to because there is little incentive. I used to always sit in front of class, but last semester I could not afford to buy any of my books, so I sat in the back. I had a perfect view of what my classmates did on their computers during discussions. They went to Wikipedia to get summaries of cases in order to understand them. What I wanted to do with the articles was to give depth to cases. I wanted law students (or anyone else--I don't write them in legalese, which I oppose anyway) to have a sense of what went into the arguments, how they were won, and where counsel messed up. I plan to make them fuller, like I wrote, but I started with the memoir Speaking Freely.  By not including these articles in some form on WP, you deny a class of people--law students--easy access to valuable information.  Doesn't that go against what Wikipedia is all about?  --DavidShankBone 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No law student should ever rely on Wikipedia for what the holdings are out of a Supreme Court case. While I consider Wikipedia a worthwhile project (or otherwise I wouldn't be devoting this much time on it), the idea that law students might use the articles as reference scares me, frankly.  In any case, law students can get the holdings and the history of the cases much more clearly elsewhere, for free.  --Nlu (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with law students using wikipedia for a quick summary though. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep all Perhaps some of them could be merged or renamed, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Garion96, there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a reference. Which is my point: I want to *improve* its use as a reference. Nlu, you have in the comments above made statements about how much information should be in Wikipedia, and how people should use it. I've said my peace on this subject, and the vote has been to keep. So, I'll continue working on them. --DavidShankBone 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Too Much Information?, since when is "Too much information" in an article a justification for a deletion? Where in Wikipedia policy does it state that "Too much information" is against the rules?  This is something that I fail to understand.  I suggest that User: DavidShankBone continue his excellent work here in the Pedia because that is exactly what Wikipedia needs.  By this I mean that we need more editors whose dedication to this project have helped Wikipedia obtain some degree of credebility.  There should be no more debate on this issue.  Let the community decide.  Tony the Marine 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are taking what I wrote out of context and you know it. What I mean, which is clear from above, is that it is not justified to have these branch articles detailing Abrams' involvement in the cases, what his strategies were, &c.  We're beginning to get into the territory of what belongs in a book about Abrams, not about what Wikipedia should cover.  Wikipedia is not a shrine.  --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nlu, something I am working on is over-impassioned argumentation, yet you are showing passion in deleting a series of articles that most people see merit and benefit in (thankfully). What horse do you have in this race?  Because right now you are the only one who doesn't see how cool they will be.  I will focus all my efforts in getting these finished; once that is done, I will alert all editors to review them and see if they would work better renamed, merged, or cut n' pasted in other articles.  I'm not opposed to any of that--I'm only opposed to removing the information, which is the position you are alone in arguing.  In the future I will avoid this issue by making use of my User subpages.  I am very open to suggestion on how to improve this series; but Nlu, you appear to have a personal issue with them.  I'm not building a shrine to Floyd Abrams, I'm examining his work, which has greatly affected this country and our view of the Constitution. Of course, I've raised all these arguments above, which you apparently haven't read.  You certainly haven't addressed them, but just keep chanting "delete, delete, delete."  Best of luck to you, Nlu; I habor no ill will, just perplexity.  --DavidShankBone 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded to your points. The fact that you disagree with them doesn't mean that I didn't respond to them.  In any case, the fact that even you admit that you are overly passionate on this subject is perhaps a sign that these articles are too inherently POV.  --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm overly impassioned on every subject, so you misread that quote as applying to this case. Passion for a project--especially for one's own creation--does not mean one is injecting a POV.  I would passionately defend against deleting the biography of U.S. Grant just as much.  Nlu, I don't think you and I are getting anywhere, except that we are repeating the same arguments over and over and over.  Since you seem to want it, I'll give you the last word and wait for other editors to come to a more definitive decision.  As the vote stands now, it is either keep all or merge them.  I've offered two other solutions: 1.  Give me two weeks to finish them and revist the issue; or I can take them to my User pages and take them live later and we can all decide then.  But our repetition of the same arguments is even wearing me out, especially since you don't really address the arguments I raise but just repeat your own POV argument, which you haven't even proven.  --DavidShankBone 18:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think that while Nlu has argued for the deletion of the articles, Nlu has also agreed with those of us who have posted here requesting that the articles be merged into an article on Abrams' book. I think you're amenable to the idea as well, aren't you David?  It seems to me that this afd is going to finish with a large number of both "keep" and "merge" votes.  Fortunately, these solutions aren't mutually exclusive. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi Jersyko. The only issue with this is that one such article would be *massive*.  Abrams is a primary source for information on cases that shape all of our lives (and so is opposing counsel and the justices themselves).  I'm taking a primary source and I am summarizing it into articles, then fact-checking that primary source against other sources (newspapers, the opinions themselves, book reviews, etc.)  If Abrams is not a primary source, then I would like to know how not.  But since he is a primary source, the informtion belongs with the case articles, or as subarticles to the cases.  I once again direct you to the Floyd Abrams and the Wayne Newton case where he sues NBC, and I have yet to even mention why or how.  It's painstaking to summarize and re-word chapters.  If you saw what a mess I've made of this book.  I have two suggestions:  1.  Give me two weeks to put them in a state where their potential is realized and a more complete picture of what to do with them can be seen; or 2. I'll put them on my User subpages, bring them live later and we can decide how to handle them then.  I'm fine with either idea.  But I don't see how one incredibly large article about a book can do justice to the insights into the law and American notions of Free Speech that he has essentially created (the S.C. adopted the language from his brief in New York Times Co. v. United States.  --DavidShankBone 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be merged into an article on the book; they should be merged/adapated into separate articles on the cases generally (which at this stage, isn't too much of a task). Postdlf 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably the best idea. I kind of contemplated it at the time, but thought I would finish them as they are now, and then figure out how they should be dispersed. I'm fine with incorporating them into the main case articles and having other editors take a crack at the writing and remove any POV issues, which I strive to avoid.  But can I be given two weeks to do it?  Once accomplished, I will alert every editor who has taken part in this discussion.  --DavidShankBone 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.