Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cohen v. California: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:52, 14 September 2010 editDontwriteplays (talk | contribs)194 edits →Background of the Case: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:03, 26 October 2024 edit undoGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 edits Add Bluebook citation style box 
(34 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
9/14/10 I am in no way a legal scholar, and in fact was only exposed to this decision today in my Law class. Still, I believe the case details on this page are inaccurate. My reading of the footnotes of the opinion has that Cohen had worn the jacket upon entering the building and then removed it when he entered the court room, allowing the police officer to take notice and speak to the judge. My reading of this article has that Cohen did not put on the coat until after he exited the court room, which creates an important distinction in his level of protest. I'm unwilling to change anything, though, as I am in no way an authority. ] (]) 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|1=
⚫ {{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Media|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
⚫ {{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases|importance=High |needs infobox=no |flag= }}


}}
⚫ {{WP SCOTUS|class=start|importance=High |needs infobox=no |flag= }}
⚫ {{WikiProject Law|class=start|importance=}}


{{Bluebook}}
== Background of the Case ==


{{User:MiszaBot/config
⚫ {{Expert-talk}}


|maxarchivesize = 250K
9/14/10 I am in no way a legal scholar, and in fact was only exposed to this decision today in my Law class. Still, I believe the case details on this page are inaccurate. My reading of the footnotes of the opinion has that Cohen had worn the jacket upon entering the building and then removed it when he entered the court room, allowing the police officer to take notice and speak to the judge. My reading of this article has that Cohen did not put on the coat until after he exited the court room, which creates an important distinction in his level of protest. I'm unwilling to change anything, though, as I am in no way an authority. ] (]) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Cohen v. California/Archive %(counter)d
}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-10-05">5 October 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-12">12 December 2018</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ], ].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Further reading ==

I've added '']'' to the Further reading section. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 07:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Can we get a photo of the jacket? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Article Evaluation ==

This article only had 6 references, which was not nearly enough. The references were also mainly citing the government record of the case, so it did not provide more than one view of the case.] (]) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks for the feedback, ]. I've placed a template ({{tl|primary sources}}) at the top of the article which indicates that it needs more secondary sources.'''&nbsp;— <u>]]</u>'''] 03:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
:::I removed the template. Per ], primary sources are authorized, and in some manners preferred for legal articles. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::Does https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/11/the-f-bomb/ qualify as a secondary source? ] (]) 22:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

== Potential References ==

Here's a list of potential references I'd like to add to this article.

** Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California - DA Farber (in Duke Law Journal)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=A.|first=Farber, Daniel|date=1980|title=Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California|url=https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/322/|journal=Duke Law Journal|language=en|volume=1980}}</ref>
** A Look Back at Cohen v. California - William Cohen (in UCLA Law Review)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cohen|first=William|date=1987|title=A Look Back at Cohen v California|url=|journal=UCLA Law Rev.|volume=34|pages=1595|via=}}</ref>
**Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court - Thomas Krattenmaker (in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Krattenmaker|first=Thomas|date=2012|title=Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court|url=|journal=Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J.|volume=20|pages=651|via=}}</ref>
] (])

⚫ {{reflist-talk}}

== Revising ==
I'm going to start on a major revision of this article, including formatting the article according to ], revising the references to allow pinpoint references, and expanding. I'll probably change the reference system to ], if there are objections, please let me know, but the current system cites to the entire work instead of the point in the work that supports the text in the article. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:03, 26 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cohen v. California article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconFreedom of speech High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconU.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article follows the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalichan. Peer reviewers: Weinshel, Erujhaider.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Further reading

I've added Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to the Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Can we get a photo of the jacket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

This article only had 6 references, which was not nearly enough. The references were also mainly citing the government record of the case, so it did not provide more than one view of the case.AstroFan2017 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, AstroFan2017. I've placed a template ({{primary sources}}) at the top of the article which indicates that it needs more secondary sources. — PinkAmpers& 03:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed the template. Per WP:MOSLAW, primary sources are authorized, and in some manners preferred for legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 19:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Does https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/11/the-f-bomb/ qualify as a secondary source? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential References

Here's a list of potential references I'd like to add to this article.

    • Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California - DA Farber (in Duke Law Journal)
    • A Look Back at Cohen v. California - William Cohen (in UCLA Law Review)
    • Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court - Thomas Krattenmaker (in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal)

Shalichan (talk)

References

  1. A., Farber, Daniel (1980). "Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California". Duke Law Journal. 1980.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. Cohen, William (1987). "A Look Back at Cohen v California". UCLA Law Rev. 34: 1595.
  3. Krattenmaker, Thomas (2012). "Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court". Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 20: 651.

Revising

I'm going to start on a major revision of this article, including formatting the article according to WP:SCOTUS, revising the references to allow pinpoint references, and expanding. I'll probably change the reference system to Bluebook, if there are objections, please let me know, but the current system cites to the entire work instead of the point in the work that supports the text in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 19:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories: