This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Harvard Law School Library has published a website for searching, browsing, tagging and discussing over 130k Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. documents. I've added it to the 'external links' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.226.18 ( talk) 18:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting potential trivia: I once had a professor who claimed that Holmes had met both John Quincy Adams (when Holmes, Jr. was a young child, which was possible considering that his prominent father probably knew JQA) and Lyndon B. Johnson. Has anybody ever run across that fact? I have questioned the LBJ claim as Holmes died before LBJ was first elected to Congress, but it is possible based on their ages. Gurss ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Does Buck v. Bell deserve the level of prominence it receives in this article? I would think Lochner, the free-speech cases, and his dissents presaging Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (e.g., Black and White Taxicab Co. v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Co. and Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen) deserve the same level in the hierarchy as Buck. I understand that they're subsumed into other section headings and so don't require separate treatment, but it's a bit tendentious to put Buck front-and-center in this way. Glancing at the Contents box, it makes Buck appear equal in importance to Holmes's time on the SJC and to the rest of his career on the Supreme Court. Ethan826 ( talk) 06:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Buck v. Bell really an exception to his progressivism? Eugenics was, in the 1920s, seen as a progressive philosophy (its primary opponents at that point was organized religion at that), unifying science with policy and all of that. Anyway I won't change it but I'm not sure Buck v. Bell was an exception to progressivism in Holmes' day, though it clearly is to a modern (post-WWII) sense of the term. -- Fastfission 16:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is Darwinism really an accurate term to describe Holmes' judicial philosophy, or his opinion in Buck v. Bell? Social Darwinist, maybe, if someone can provide some sort of evidence to that point, but the Darwinism article linked to here mentions only biological evolution.
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange, indeed, if it could not call upon those who already sapped the strength of the state for these lesser scarifies in order to prevent our being swamped by incompetents. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent their propagation by medical means in the first place. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Rklawton 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
On List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, it says retirement. On this page, it only says "step down". Better do something about it. -- Toytoy July 2, 2005 03:34 (UTC)
This phrase is used in the 2nd paragraph. What does it mean? Was Holmes a Hindu?
I added a references to Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001), which devotes a lengthy chapter to Holmes and his background. There certainly is significantly more.
The URL for this page unfortunately ends in a full-stop (period). Consequently, many mail agents misinterpret the full-stop as sentence punctuation, thereby truncating the URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes%2C_Jr
But clicking on this link leads only to the polite wikipedia version of a "page not found". It is therefore quite difficult to include this link in an email. The only way I can see around that is to use the following form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes%2C_Jr%2E
Suggestion: change the URL from: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes%2C_Jr." to: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes%2C_Jr" yoyo 15:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for the statement that Holmes wrote more opinions than any other justice or judge of courts of last resort? I'm skeptical that anyone has validated this, but it's important if true, so a reference would be good. Newyorkbrad 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, statement made on my authority, based on work for forthcoming final volumes of Holmes's Collected Works. But you are right that hard to demonstrate, and anyway maybe not needed. I will delete. Sheldon Novick 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I think you had a good point. Holmes was nowhere near a record number of opinions for US Supreme Court, easy to verify because all are in Lexis and Westlaw databases; his record, if it is one, rests on my own database of his Mass SJC opinions (commercial databases start at 1890 for state courts). I am reasonably confident of number of Holmes opinions - the problem is in knowing what other state court justices might have done. I was silently comparing with known claims, but it is not really possible to tell. And the number of Holmes opinions alone is not very interesting. So maybe best left off? I have had the thought for some time to make my database accessible online, but don't really have the knowledge or tools. But that would be the place to make the point, if it can be made. . . Anybody out there want to help turn an ancient WordPerfect CD into an online database? Sheldon Novick 13:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this is, or why it is important to include in Holmes's undergraduate career? Sheldon Novick 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, I see that it is one of the dining clubs. But Holmes was in Porcellian, not A.D. Sheldon Novick 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
According to here, he was VP of AD.-- 2601:191:C001:238E:48AB:BB1B:C5BB:DA77 ( talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Gray resigned from Court in July, after long decline into illness; Holmes had already been chosen for seat and Roosevelt sent his name up promptly on Aug. 11. See Friedman and Israel, The Justices etc. vol 2, p. 1388, my Honorable Justice p. 236. Sheldon Novick 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This story is a meme that I have deleted before. There is some authority for its truth. It has its origin in Lincoln's amused account to his secretary, John Hay, of an incident that occurred on July 11, 1864, when Lincoln visited Fort Stevens in a Maryland suburb of Washington and observed the preparations for Jubal Early's assault, when an unnamed soldier shouted at him. Holmes most likely did not arrive at the fort until July 12, when Lincoln returned with a large entourage to observe the battle. Sixty years later, when Holmes had become a famous man, the story was attached to him, and it was repeatedly published; Holmes himself then claimed it, although his biographers think he most likely was stretching the truth. See Mark DeWolfe Howe, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: The Shaping Years: 1841-1870. Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 171-175; Sheldon M. Novick, Honorable Justice: The Life of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989, pp. 88, 422n. As the story is contested, and of no particular importance in Holmes's life, I think it best to omit. It might be added to the "quotations" list if someone thinks it worth the trouble; many of these are apocryphal. Sheldon Novick 14:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
From this article, under the Supreme Court section: "This remains the test applied by the Supreme Court in cases where an application of an otherwise valid law, is in question."
From the Brandenburg v. Ohio article: "The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Court had adopted a "clear and present danger" test that Whitney v. California had expanded to a bad tendency test: if speech has a "tendency" to cause sedition or lawlessness, it may constitutionally be prohibited. Dennis v. United States, a case dealing with prosecution of alleged Communists under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the government, used the clear and present danger test while still upholding the defendants' convictions for acts that could not possibly have led to a speedy overthrow of the government. Brandenburg explicitly overruled the bad tendency test and made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
I thought Brandenburg v. Ohio narrowed the "Clear and Present Danger" Test. -- Db099221 12:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added to the discussion of Schenck a statement that it affirmed prison sentences of Yiddish-speakng socialists. That was actually the Abrams case, in which Holmes dissented on behalf of the defendants (and in Holmes's view they did not object to U.S. participation in World War, only to intervention against Russian revolution). Sheldon Novick 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Did Holmes enlist in the army, or was he commissioned into the army? It seems to me that he must have commissioned into the army, since he left the army as a captain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.63.50 ( talk) 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement "Holmes was promoted to colonel, but never returned to the 20th Massachusetts because the unit had been decimated." seems alarming. I understood that decimation was an historical punishment by which one man in ten would be taken and killed 'pour encourager les autres'. Is there a source, please? Geoffrey BH 11:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH ( talk • contribs)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was a family tree of Holmes, as I am related to him, but am not sure exactly how. Roxy 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence is so confusing that I can't unravel it. The sentence has either got redundancies in it or it is way too contorted for my little brain! Here it is:
However, Holmes wrote the opinion of the Court in the Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon case which inaugurated regulatory takings jurisprudence in holding a Pennsylvania regulatory statute constituted a taking of private property.
Can the original writer unravel this, please? Mschneblin ( talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This sentence about Holmes' The Common Law is very judgemental and highly suspect:
"This remains the only important work of American jurisprudence written by a practicing attorney."
The book was written in 1881. It may be the best, or most influential work of American Jurisprudence written by a practicing attorney, but surely not the ONLY important work written by a practicing authority. What is the source/authority for this statement?
Ergonaut2001 ( talk) 14:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Are these two fictional characters relevant to this article? The other works listed in this section actually purport to portray Justice Holmes, but in the case of Douglas and Jones, the only connection is a similar name. Peter Chastain ( talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
From the article: "Holmes emerged from the war convinced that government and laws were founded on violence, a belief that he later developed into a positivist view of law and a rejection of romanticism and natural rights theory."
However after clicking on the legal positivism page, the article claims that Holmes was not a positivist but rather a realist: "Legal positivism should be distinguished from legal realism and such legal realists as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr."
I am editing the page to correct this difference (particularly when it appears to be not important to the general scope of the page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper Man ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some discussion before we make a radical shift in the tone of the lead as has been attempted. The eugenics quote simply doesn't belong there, in my opinion. If you want to include it, feel free to make your case here. The other part about the Kritocracy is less important to me, but if anyone has strong feelings one way or the other, feel free to say so here. Recognizance ( talk) 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the user in question left a message at User talk:TomasBat#O. W. Holmes Jr. - not sure why he/she left it there instead of here. In any case, it's become readily apparent that they don't intend to cooperate and will probably have to be blocked. Recognizance ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with User:Recognizance. The kritocracy argument is not, as far as I can tell, a part of contemporary mainstream thought. If the user doesn't wish to add his criticism to the criticism section, instead of substansively subverting the article, further action should be taken. 159.105.77.45 ( talk) 14:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article currently says that Holmes was wounded in three Civil War battles: Ball's Bluff, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. However, most online sources give the three battles as Ball's Bluff, Antietam, and Chancellorsville. Indeed, the Fredericksburg sites seem to point back to Wikipedia. I do not have a book or biography on Holmes, but perhaps editors can find a way to determine the third battle he was wounded in? 16 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.32.214 ( talk) 02:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
An article section and a list with appropriate links of published works would be a good addition. List of works Just a thought. This is more or less common in Wikipedia articles. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Holmes argued that the evolving common law standard was that liability would fall upon a person whose conduct reflected prudence of a "reasonable man."
Should this be didn't reflect prudence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Warren Buffett ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In fn. 48, I can't figure out how to get rid of the quotation marks around the book title (which I put in italics). I also can't figure out how to get rid of the date retrieved, which hardly seems necessary. I clicked on the link today, so should I update the date retrieved? That would seem silly. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 11:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The section, Reputation as a Dissenter states, "Although Holmes did not dissent frequently — during his 29 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, he wrote only 72 separate opinions, whereas he penned 852 majority opinions." A separate opinion may be a concurrence or a dissent, so this sentence should indicate the number of dissents Holmes wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 14:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
My edit of 01:40, 13 May 2022 provided a requested citation, with a link. I was unable to place brackets anywhere because it moved the link symbol (the box with the arrow) to the wrong place. I tried to change the first word, "the" to "[T]he" and to place double brackets around "Frankfurter" to change it to " Frankfurter" and to place double brackets around "Nardone v. United States." Maurice Magnus ( talk) 01:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Citation 10 links to a book by Lewis W Townsend about the 'poetry' of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The source, however, talks about Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., who was in fact a poet, and not Jr. The wording (at least) of the sentence makes it seem as though Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a poet. But there does not seem to be any mention of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. as a poet in this source or indeed any other. This appears to be a misattribution of information, and should be corrected if this information is indeed false. GrexJr ( talk) 01:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)