Talk:Doe v. Gonzales

	This 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article obviously needs a complete rewrite after the decision here: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTQ5NDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/07-4943-cv_opn.pdf

Merger Proposal

Several issues. First, the lawsuit was renamed several times because of the different Attorney Generals, so there are at least 2 articles about this that I've found. The other article, American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004) looks a bit better with images and sections, but is missing a lot of later information. Once Gonzales took over the DOJ and the case changed it's name, everyone seems to have forgotten the old article. As of the end of last year, the case was once again renamed to Doe v. Mukasey (although this time someone was kind enough to put in a redirect instead of a whole new article.)

The latest news was that the ACLU won the 2nd Circuit appeal, but it could still be appealed to the Supreme Court. I'm fairly certain that that appeal would be called ACLU vs. Holder.

Second, there's been some progress in the case although it's still not fully resolved with a possible Supreme Court review. This ACLU page has most if not all of the documents on the case. I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, but one is required. --AlanK (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i added some sources, and nsl images, still needs a rewrite. the cases seem to be diverging, would a merger title be "nsl letter cases" and add in the Internet Archive case? Accotink2 talk 15:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, most certainly notable topic in its own right. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the revisions, and I was unable to find anything that could possibly be an infringement. In this case, the user appears to have just been fleshing out this article as previously requested. His changes include proper references and are minimal, so I've reverted back to that version. I hope nobody minds. AlanK (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Doe v. Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]