Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Marshall Harlan II/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 9 May 2009.

John Marshall Harlan II

 * Nominator(s): Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was written by User:Lord Emsworth (who unfortunately has retired) a few years ago. My involvement with this article began, when I saved it at GAR. Later I added new sources and improved some parts of it. Now I am nominating the article for featured article because I think it is ready now. Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * Ref formatting checks out fine with WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Fix the 2 disambiguation link.
 * Fix the 1 dead external link. -- T ru  c o   17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed all. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments a fine article, and kudos to Ruslik for salvaging it. As an attorney, I figured I should review this:

I'm a bit concerned about the name of the article. I see it was discussed in 2006 but nothing was done. Perhaps John Marshall Harlan (grandson)? To use II implies it was part of his name (a la MLK III) or else, I suppose, king! Now to substantive points.

First, I find the fourth paragraph of the lede a little weak. The lede is to be a summary of what is to follow. It is not terribly significant to the article that Harlan's papers are at Princeton. The general rule I follow is that the first paragraph of the lede is an overall summary, the next two discuss the subject's life, the final his death and then somewhat of a valediction. Your mileage may vary, but I think more meat is needed there.

Looking at the references, it is customary to give both the first page of the case and the page that you are relying on to give your point, and also the year. For example 500 U.S. 285, 312 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting). (that's an invention, just for an example). This article may be consulted by lawyers and judges, who would expect to see references in the form most useful and familiar to them.

The section "Supreme Court career" concerns me. I understand that a lot of the material on his career there is contained under "jurisprudence", but cannot more be said about his time on the court? Have you consulted biographies of other justices, say Warren, Black, and Douglas, to see what is said about Harlan and his dealings with his colleagues? Two specific points, I see that he appeared before the Judiciary Committee. The article indicates that this was not unprecedented, yet it was Harlan's appearance who set the precedent? Perhaps a rephrase is in order. Also, the final paragraph reads like someone eulogizing Harlan. Is this a direct quote? If so, it should be attributed, and perhaps done as a blockquote. —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt which was interrupted by the following:
 * His civility is frequently mentioned in various reviews (in Dorsen, for instance). Here I tried to emphasize this fact. So it is me who is "eulogizing Harlan". Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably best if you cited the various sentences, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Harlan is frequently referred to as John Marshall Harlan II. See for instance Supreme Court Historical Society. So, I think, the title of the article is OK. I also replaced the last sentence in the lead, with one about Rehnquist. Ruslik (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I copy-edited the lead and added page number as you suggested. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As to hearings before the committee. Before Harlan only some justices were questioned by Judiciary Committee (Stone in 1925, for instance), however it was not an established practice. Beginning with Harlan the committee questioned every candidate. Ruslik (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jurisprudence:

Equal protection clause: "sided with the civil rights movement". Perhaps that could be rephrased. In each case, there are parties that justices either side with or don't, not movements.
 * "similar to his grandfather, the only dissenting justice in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case." Of course the latter is true, but did Grandpa vote that way in other civil rights cases, or is an extrapolation being drawn from Plessy?  What does the source say? —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt  which was interrupted by the following:
 * I copy-edited the paragraphs. As to older Harlan, I agree that it may be difficult to compare him with his grandson&mdash;they lived in different epochs. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Due process clause:
 * The Supreme Court has sided with Harlan: I find phrasings like this, which occur several times in the article, unbearably fuzzy.  Harlan wasn't a party.  Perhaps "The Supreme Court has since adopted Harlan's approach ..." ? —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt  which was interrupted by the following:
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation: The last paragraph has a very confused timeline. If I were to read it as a lay person, I would assume that before Warren got his mitts on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, led by Harlan, ruled that only fundamental rights were incorporated, and then Warren nefariously snuck in and wildly expanded the number of fundamental rights. (I'm exaggerating for effect). That, we know, is not the case. In addition, the first phrase is fuzzy, as I've indicated. —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt which was interrupted by the following:
 * I partially rewrote this part. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First amendment:
 * "Justice Harlan concurred in many ... " do you mean he noted concurrences, or did he join in the majority opinion? Or did he do both?  Same applies in "Criminal procedure"
 * "but felt that the guarantees of the First Amendment applied more stringently to the federal government than the states because of the federalism principle he believed implicit in the Constitution." Technically correct, I guess, but it may be lost on the layman.  Can you rephrase and say what the practical effect of the principle applying more severely to the Feds than to the states would be?
 * "Harlan delivered the opinion of the court" Yes, Supreme Court opinions do say that, but unless Harlan actually read it from the bench (which does happen, though more often with dissents), I'd probably say "wrote". —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt  which was interrupted by the following:
 * Fixed. I rearranged this section to emphasize Harlan's belief that the federal obscenity statues were unconstitutional, while those of states were not. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Criminal procedure:
 * Can you consolidate the two references to Gideon?
 * Katz: You say his concurrence is "often cited", yet surely that is not verifiable by looking at the reference, which is the text of the Court's (and no doubt Harlan's) opinions in the United States Reports. —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt  which was interrupted by the following:
 * What do you mean by consolidate? I removed "often cited" . Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean you mention Gideon, go on to mention another case, then come back to Gideon. It probably would read better if you were to bring the two mentions of Gideon together.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Voting rights:
 * Justice Harlan rejected the theory that the Constitution enshrined the so-called "one man, one vote" principle, or the principle that legislative districts must be roughly equal in population. Citation needed, only cites in section are directly to cases. —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt  which was interrupted by the following:
 * I added a reference to the lecture of Hickok. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Retirement and death:
 * I believe the lowest ABA rating is "Not qualified" not "unqualified". Can you check this against contemporary reports? —This is part of a comment by Wehwalt  which was interrupted by the following:
 * This report also says unqualified. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally a fine article, and I look forward to supporting. It needs closer attention to legal fine points, and also a bit more about Harlan the person. There's very little about his personal life. I see he married and had one daughter, but for all the article tells me, his wife was dead by 1930 (I'm not sure if the daughter's name gives a married name or a middle name). Surely Warren, or Burger, or Nixon eulogized him when he died, and we can get something from that? I come away thinking I know more about Harlan the judge, but not Harlan the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His personal life was not especially remarkable, and I do not have sources except Dorsan, which is a collection of anecdotes about Harlan. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3
 * All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:John Marshall Harlan II.jpg - Please include an artist and date for this image.
 * File:John Marshall Harlan II.gif - Please add a source, author, and date for this image. Currently, the claim that it is public domain because it was made by someone in the federal government cannot be verified.
 * For the first I found artist's name, but not date. For the second I found source, but no other information. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We still have no information that suggests that the second image is in the PD. Have you checked to see if it is from the Library of Congress? I looked around a bit but could find no additional information myself. If nothing further can be found, this image will have to be removed from the article and deleted. Since Harlan died in 1971, photographs of him looking this old are likely to still be under copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the Library of Congress and found nothing. Well, I asked User:Postdlf (who uploaded it) for a clarification. Ruslik (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find any PD pictures of the nine members of the Court from that era? Then you could crop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image with one from the Supreme Court collection. Ruslik (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. I will read it again over the next couple of days and also pull the NY Times obit on Harlan and see where we are.  How do we know his private life was unremarkable?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 2 (Ariens...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 9 (http://www.harlanfamily.org/book.htm) what makes this a reliable source? First, it's a self-published genealogy book (even professional genaologists don't trust family history books) and second it's a blurb on a family website adverstising the book!
 * Current ref 10 (Leitch..) needs page numbers
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
 * What makes http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=447 a reliable source? Find a grave is user submitted.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ariens is "is a Professor at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas." He is a publisher of this information.
 * I got rid of ref 9 and replaced it with ref 10 (Princeton Companion).
 * I do not know page numbers in the printed version of Princeton Companion, but I added a link to the web version.
 * Findgrave is only used for illustrative purposes, i.e. to show readers Harlan's grave.
 * I will fix newspapers titles.
 * Ruslik (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the findagrave, if it's only used as illustrative, it should go in the external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed a ref to 'Find a grave', but added a note to the previous ref stating that the photos can be found at 'Find a grave'. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with Ariens? Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He's self published, so he needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I eliminated Ariens. As to Princeton Companion, I can not find page number in the print edition. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So it has no page numbers? How many pages does it have? (i.e. is it a pamplet?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have this book so I do not know. Ruslik (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 559 pages, see --Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) With that many pages, we really do need page numbers for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're aware the link is directly to the Harlan entry in the electronic version of the book hosted at princeton.edu? 86.44.26.233 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt:
 * Thanks for clearing up those issues. I'm still concerned about the lack of info as to Harlan the person in the article; we don't even know if his wife survived him (or survived very long).  Have you consulted newspaper obits?  They should not be hard to find.  In addition, any info on whether Harlan helped decide any cases of note in his year on the 2nd Circuit?  Also, I do not think it is necessary, and just take it as a suggestion, but an image of the nine justices at some part during Harlan's career would be good in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times did a fine article on him on his retirement, one of the "Man in the News" articles it used to do, on September 24, 1971, it is quite interesting. Did you know he represented Gene Tunney?  And the Times did a long obit, four thousand words.  I would find someone with access (I do not have time to help out, I am sorry) and get some of this info in the article.  By the way, his wife did survive him and died in June 1972.  But right now, I would have trouble supporting on comprehensiveness grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found found only two relatively interesting cases in which Harlan participated as a circuit judge (this and this). However I am not a lawyer and I do not know how important they are. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not cases that I have ever heard of before, but I have never done an espionage or treason case (few have). I don't think they are likely to be important.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that defendants in these cases have article in Wikipedia (see John David Provoo and Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn). Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to mention those, just to have something to say about his service on the Second Circuit. Please try to get access to those Times articles (another newspaper with the same amount to say about Harlan would be fine.  This isn't so great, but at least it is free.  Always run a Time Magazine search.  They even have a little note in Time about his engagement and they did at least three feature articles on him ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I created a new section - 'Family life' and added some information into 'Supreme Court carrier' and 'Death' sections. I also added a paragraph into 'First Amendment' about his decision on Smith Act as both circuit judge and justice. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's better. Still would like to see more on the cases Harlan did as a private attorney. Please see if you can get those Times articles, the cost is not exorbinent if you can't find someone with a subscription.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded this part. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is good. I'll probably try to add a bit myself as time permits.  However, please take a close look at your expansion and clean up the typos.  It is getting near the point that I think I can support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I find it simpler to simply add the needed material myself. I think the article minimally meets FA standards. It contains all the information it needs to. I'm not thrilled with the choppy prose, and it arguably could use a good copyedit, but it minimally meets the standards, and I think will be promoted once this process is done. Another couple of images, perhaps of the Warren Court or of Frankfurter wouldn't hurt, and if you are completely desperate, the court building will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and additional information that you added. Ruslik (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing more: please be sure that info in the lede can be found elsewhere in the article, and then you should not have refs in the lede unless there is a very good reason to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Greater Toronto Area is a more direct than environs of Toronto, Ontario.
 * in Greater Toronto Area Canada does not seem proper construction. Maybe in the Greater Toronto Area (with or withoug Canada).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Wehwalt, something still looks odd about this construction. How about a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is awkward and anachronistic, given that the term GTA did not come in until the 1990's. I also don't like the parenthases.  If you feel you have to have the word Canada in there, I suggest something like "He then attended two Canadian boarding schools in the Toronto area, ...".  If you want to pipe GTA to Toronto area, I'd have no problem with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Piped. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could say two Canadian bording schools to keep Canada in the section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York linked in the text and not the WP:LEAD?
 * Should it be linked twice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The second link is different. Ruslik (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it confusing to have different links under the same piped words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I unlinked the second. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Second???? That is odd of WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of them -> One such case
 * What does "who was a sister of John Gottlieb" add if it is neither linked nor explained?
 * I would link colonel, Presbyterian.
 * What is Route Clark?
 * I don't know what "Circuit Justice responsible for the Second Circuit" means. Did he monitor behavior, finances, rule adherance? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Replaced.
 * Linked.
 * Fixed.
 * I excluded John Gottlieb, because it would require several paragraphs to explain who he was, and unfortunately there is no article about him in Wikipedia.
 * Linked.
 * It was a misprint (in the cited source). Should be Root, Clark, Buckner & Howland&mdash;law firm.
 * I linked Circuit Justice.
 * Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jurisprudence section
 * It seems to me that Precedent is an important technical term here deserving of a link.
 * Linked. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you link it twice on purpose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, on purpose. I think it is logical to link precedent at the beginning of the Jurisprudence section in addition to the lead. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * we say that "Harlan was an ideological adversary—but close personal friend—of Justice Hugo Black", saying "his contemporary Hugo Black" is doubly redundant in that we already know his first name and know he is a contemporary. They latter may be a stylistic redundancy, but the former is absolutely unnecessary.
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I see constitutional adjudication, I feel Judicial interpretation should have been linked or piped when interpretation was used in the WP:LEAD.
 * Linked. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does political process mean legislative activity? If not, what does it mean?
 * It means more than just legislative activity. I wikilinked it. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that Dissenting opinion is an important link for the Great Dissenter. civil rights, Majority opinion should also be linked, IMO.
 * Linked. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my point is that if this were on the main page and someone read the LEAD, they would not understand the meaning of great dissenter. Shouldn't it be linked there?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked 'Great Dissenter' to Dissenting opinion. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain to me why you do not link civil rights.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Linked. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Gomillion v. Lightfoot touches upon either general Redistricting, Redistribution (election) or Gerrymandering. However, I am not sure what I should be looking up about this article. You might want to link to one of those.
 * I added a hatnote. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many legal and political terms such as "federalism" and "separation of powers" are left unlinked and unexplained. Other terms you may consider linking include "substantial arbitrary impositions", "purposeless restraints", "free speech", "at trial", "on appeal", "Eavesdropping", "search", "petitioner", "warrant", "jurisdiction", "congressional district", "right to vote"
 * I linked the majority of them. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, "substantial arbitrary impositions", "purposeless restraints", "free speech", "at trial", "on appeal", "Eavesdropping", "search", "petitioner" , "warrant", "jurisdiction", and "right to vote" remain unlinked and unexplained. This may be the disagreement that caused you to withdraw the nomination. I like to overlink, but many of these terms seem to warrant a link or an explanation. Give me a ten word or so explanation on why you do not link each so that I may understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked all except "substantial arbitrary impositions" and "purposeless restraints", because they are from the quote, and I prefer not to link anything in direct quotes. They are Harlan's words not mine, and readers should decide for themselves what these words mean. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The way "at trial", "on appeal" are linked they don't explain the idiomatic use. I.e., you only linked the second word. Is that the best we can do?  Maybe a Wiktionary link or two or a contextual explanation would help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I miss the links for "free speech", "search", "warrant", and "jurisdiction"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you don't think any context should be added to "substantial arbitrary impositions" and "purposeless restraints" for the reader.  I don't really understand the terms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would change "the only exceptions" to "the exceptions" since there are so many.
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are there underscores in Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn?
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office belong in the see also section of this article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I apologize. List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office does belong.  I think I got confused when commenting and meant to question List of United States Chief Justices by time in office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1a. The problems don't look to be many, but at the very least, this needs a good copy edit for consistency by a third party. For one, comma use to separate parenthetic expressions is all over the map (i.e. "Upon his return to the U.S. in 1923 Harlan worked ..." and "Later he served as ...", but then "Historically, Harlan's family had been ..."). Please get someone to polish it up. Wehwalt characterized it as a low-grade FA, but I'd say high-grade GA is more apt. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.