Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Amendment to the United States Constitution/archive1
First Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
This is a self-nomination. I extended the previous article by adding Supreme Court decisions and the like. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find good images, so I included those of two Supreme Court Justices. -- Emsworth 21:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'll support, but I think something needs to be said about school vouchers, and I'm not sure exactly what the Supreme Court has said on that--I know that they're acceptable, but not the precise rationale or restrictions. Oh, and I added an image of the Constitution. Meelar 16:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't read the article in depth, but from my glossary reading it looks quite good. →Raul654 22:19, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd support -- it's a damn good article -- but, as a non-US reader, it'd be nice for it to include the text. I didn't know much apart from the First Amendment covering freedom of speech; I'd certainly like to see the annotated text (like in Fourteenth Amendment), as I'm not even remotely acquainted with the actual words. OwenBlacker 12:04, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I won't oppose, but I think the opening paragraphs assume far too much knowledge about the United States government. A bigger history section (right now the history is essentially limited to the second paragraph) and fewer mundane details (or at least hiding the mundane details at the bottom) would be better. Basically, instead of a legalistic description, I'd like to see an article on what the First Amendment really means to the United States. What separates it from protections in other countries? Why was it created (besides the tautological statement in the first paragraph)? anthony (see warning)
- I'll second anthony's comments; as a UK reader, I find it slightly inpenetrable. This may be as much my fault as the article's, and I can't make any concrete recommendations in that regard. I also agree that it focuses too much on how the text has been interpreted legally. Some history / context of why and how the ammendment came to be would be an improvement. — Matt 00:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see the concentration on legal history as a demerit; in fact, I think that the meaning of the amendment should be the primary concern of the article. I had intended to write articles on the various Amendments and Articles (I've finished Articles One to Seven and Amendments One to Four). It was my intention to have the history of the first ten Amendments together at Bill of Rights. Furthermore, all of the articles are to form a part of a series (see Template:USConstitution). -- Emsworth 00:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
- True, but you don't want to have readers have to go through a whole series. I think a nice short section touching on the historical roots and implications (possibly involving links to separation of church and state and American exceptionalism) would go well. Meelar 13:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with an article which is concentrated on legal history, I just think something featured on the front page should have a broader appeal. anthony (see warning) 21:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see the concentration on legal history as a demerit; in fact, I think that the meaning of the amendment should be the primary concern of the article. I had intended to write articles on the various Amendments and Articles (I've finished Articles One to Seven and Amendments One to Four). It was my intention to have the history of the first ten Amendments together at Bill of Rights. Furthermore, all of the articles are to form a part of a series (see Template:USConstitution). -- Emsworth 00:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I'll second anthony's comments; as a UK reader, I find it slightly inpenetrable. This may be as much my fault as the article's, and I can't make any concrete recommendations in that regard. I also agree that it focuses too much on how the text has been interpreted legally. Some history / context of why and how the ammendment came to be would be an improvement. — Matt 00:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. Obscure. Zw 07:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- not a legitimate reason. Few people know about James Bulger murder case. and even if legitimate, it is not obscure. --Jiang 08:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I object to regularly featuring articles which are completely obscure and irrelevant to people who are not from the USA. Zw 08:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- To quote myself from the talk page "If people want to lodge...erm, "silly" complaints then I reserve the right to disregard them.". I believe that observation applies in this case. I do not intend give this objection any heed when promoting. →Raul654 04:25, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Jiang on both counts. Anti-Americanism is not a reason to object to an article. --mav 09:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's anti-American to not want articles which are completely irrelevant to people not from the USA featured on the front page. This is essentially the reasons behind my not-quite-opposition. anthony (see warning) 12:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think that an article's topic's relevance to a particular nation is relevant. I objected to Billboard below because, while billboards are internationally relevant, the article contains information on American billboards only. The very topic of this article, however, is American; what is being suggested is that the topic, not the article, is defective. Nevertheless, several articles concerned with only one particular nation have become featured: London congestion charge, History of the English penny, Origins of the American Civil War, Adoption in Rome, Poetry of the United States, Irish poetry, U.S. Electoral College, Peerage, and others. -- Emsworth 13:25, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Jiang: "obscurity" isn't a criterion, as far as I'm aware. We already have History of the English penny, Heavy metal umlaut and All your base are belong to us featured. — Matt 13:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Further, the notion that this is only relevant to the US is misguided. This was the acknowledged precedent of a similar measure in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Similar influence can probably be found in dozens, if not hundreds, of other national constitutions. -- Jmabel 04:18, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I object to regularly featuring articles which are completely obscure and irrelevant to people who are not from the USA. Zw 08:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- not a legitimate reason. Few people know about James Bulger murder case. and even if legitimate, it is not obscure. --Jiang 08:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Object. The photograph of the Bill of Rights is not attributed. How do we know that it's not a copyright violation? --TreyHarris 08:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)- the Bill of Rights are over 200 years old...it's attributed now.
- Thank you for attributing it, but you misunderstand my objection. I wasn't claiming the Bill of Rights was copyrighted! I was saying that the photograph of same might be, and how could we know since it wasn't attributed? Since the photograph was in color, it was likely to be copyrighted if not explicitly dedicated to the public domain. Now that we know the photograph (as well as the document in the photograph) is from the U.S. government, I withdraw my objection. --TreyHarris 09:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- the Bill of Rights are over 200 years old...it's attributed now.
Object. Having read the article carefully after seeing the prior criticisms of Amero-centrism, I'm forced to renew my objection on different grounds. While the idea brought up by some that the topic is too Amero-centric is laughable (and should not disqualify the article in any case, if we're serious about the philosophy that any article can gained featured status given enough effort), my disagreement of that idea does lead to my objection—namely, that the effect of the First Amendment on world political philosophy is not discussed at all in this article. Americans are taught from as soon as they can read that the First Amendment is the shining example to the world of political freedom. Is it? If so, where's the discussion of the impact it's had on the world? If not, what is the difference between First Amendment rights and analogous rights in other countries? This is a serious objection and a hard one to answer, I know, but I think it needs to be addressed to make the article complete.--TreyHarris 19:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)- I don't think this is a serious objection. The idea that the first amendment to the US constitution is of great importance for the rest of the world is rather peculiar. If it needs to be dealt with at all, a mention of some of the earlier discussions and examples of the concept is all that is needed. Markalexander100 03:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral on article, but I disagree sharply with what Markalexander100 says here. The First Amendment is as important for its international influence as for its role in US law, and the article should certainly engage the issue. -- Jmabel 04:22, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I think this says more about the US education system than about the first amendment. Lucky we non-Americans have Americans to tell us what we think is important. ;-) Markalexander100 05:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be appropriate to speak in gushing tones about the First Amendment's international influence. I think that perhaps it might be more appropriate for there to be a comparison with foreign jurisdictions. -- Emsworth 16:58, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I think this says more about the US education system than about the first amendment. Lucky we non-Americans have Americans to tell us what we think is important. ;-) Markalexander100 05:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Do a search on Amazon for books just whose title includes "First Amendment". (That, incidentally, destroys any claim that the First Amendment is obscure, with over 435 books in print written on the topic.) Click on a few of the histories that have "look inside the book" and take a look at the tables of contents. The impact of the First Amendment on political thinkers outside the United States is always at least a chapter. --TreyHarris 04:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral on article, but I disagree sharply with what Markalexander100 says here. The First Amendment is as important for its international influence as for its role in US law, and the article should certainly engage the issue. -- Jmabel 04:22, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a serious objection. The idea that the first amendment to the US constitution is of great importance for the rest of the world is rather peculiar. If it needs to be dealt with at all, a mention of some of the earlier discussions and examples of the concept is all that is needed. Markalexander100 03:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. It’s pretty uninteresting. I never thought to made an article about Amendments... As a curiosity, it is socially important... an Amendment? Maybe Americans are interested in that. And some featured articles are also only interesting to American. There's even a nomination to a soap opera that showed for decades that I never heard of. And as far as I saw it was pretty boring. If that were in here (Portugal) I would sign a motion to take it off from TV. But maybe some people think that was fabulous. -Pedro 03:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Importance. Well, let's see. The first written guarantee by a government to its people of freedom of speech, religion, etc. What would be a more important matter in the history of written constitutions? -- Jmabel 04:24, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Not to criticize the article, which looks excellent from my limited skimming, but the Declaration of the Rights of Man was promulgated before the Bill of Rights (which only went into effect in 1791). Furthermore, some of the rights in the First Amendment were, I believe, already present in the English Bill of Rights. john k 05:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the sequence is
- Bill of Rights drafted (along with two other amendments that were not ratified)
- Declaration of the Rights of Man drafted and almost immediately approved
- Two years later, Bill of Rights finally gets the state ratifications it needed to take effect.
- But please correct me if this was a misimpression on my part. As for the "English Bill of Rights", it granted the freedom of speech only in Parliament. The only general right it granted that is generally associated with the First Amendment was the right of petition. -- Jmabel 18:15, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the sequence is
- Not to criticize the article, which looks excellent from my limited skimming, but the Declaration of the Rights of Man was promulgated before the Bill of Rights (which only went into effect in 1791). Furthermore, some of the rights in the First Amendment were, I believe, already present in the English Bill of Rights. john k 05:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Being interesting is not a criteria - only how well written and comprehensive it is. Everyone has different interests. Those interested in constitutional law will be interested here, those interested in sensationalist media stories will be interested in the James Bulger murder case. I could care less who James Bulger did. How is he important? --Jiang 06:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, since the standard of "interest" would be highly arbitrary. -- Emsworth 16:39, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Importance. Well, let's see. The first written guarantee by a government to its people of freedom of speech, religion, etc. What would be a more important matter in the history of written constitutions? -- Jmabel 04:24, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- A new section has been added comparing the First Amendment's protections to certain other countries. -- Emsworth 20:17, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Not bad, but does the first amendment really guarantee religious freedom? I thought the point of it was to protect the state establishments of religion from the federal government. anthony (see warning)
- While Clarence Thomas took the same view in the recent case involving Michael Newdow, one cannot say that the First Amendment does not protect religious freedom. It explicitly precludes Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The state establishment-protection theory has not been clearly proven, I believe. Nevertheless, the theory became moot when the First Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth. -- Emsworth 12:58, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Not bad, but does the first amendment really guarantee religious freedom? I thought the point of it was to protect the state establishments of religion from the federal government. anthony (see warning)
- I withdraw my objection. Thank you, Emsworth. --TreyHarris 06:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Object. The opening paragraph mentions five rights, and we seem not to cover two of them at all: "the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (i.e. protest)."— Matt 14:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)- I've added a section on the topic. -- Emsworth 15:47, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)