Talk:Butler v. Michigan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the phrase "burn the house to roast the pig" comes from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter's majority opinion in Butler v. Michigan?

• Source: "The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the general welfare. Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig."

• • ALT1: ... that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter coined the phrase "burn the house to roast the pig" to protest literary censorship as part of his majority opinion in Butler v. Michigan? Source:
  • Reviewed: Volcano Pizzeria
  • Comment: Open to clarity/length suggestions. ALT0 is more succinct but I tried to make ALT1 a bit more enticing. I tried to avoid too much legal jargon.

Created by Etzedek24 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC).

I will review this. BD2412 T 23:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The citation cited for this DYK is the primary source; a secondary source for the same proposition is in the Garfield article already cited, available through the Wikipedia Library via HeinOnline. I prefer ALT1, but that's just a matter of opinion. Both are equally correct rewordings of the key point. If it were me, I might also note that this was Frankfurter's 1957 majority opinion, to give a sense of time. BD2412 T 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

BD2412: In that vein I've struck the first hook and edited the second one slightly to reflect your comment. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: I would still say "as part of his 1957 majority opinion" (or "as part of his majority opinion in the 1957 case of", though that is wordier), because the protest was not against 1957 censorship specifically. Again, that's just my opinion. BD2412 T 03:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412: The way I see it, the DYK will point them to the article, where they'll see the year of the case. So maybe we'll agree to disagree. Thanks for the review. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That is a reasonable view. BD2412 T 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Concurrence "in the result"

Thanks for writing this article. Is it right to say "Frankfurter, joined by unanimous"? I take "Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result" to mean not joining the majority opinion. Or maybe I'm not familiar enough with the conventions of the time period – it's not the most explicit about who joins the majority. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is right. He didn't join the majority opinion. lethargilistic (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:A concurrence is still counted as joining the majority, at least as far as I can tell. The language "joined by unanimous" is per the WP:Supreme Court Cases style guide. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I see now after checking a different case that I do have it listed wrong. The majority should be listed specifically and exclude Black, though the decision was still overall unanimous. Thanks much for the correction. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)