A fact from Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 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 is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. 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 articles
In the full case citation in the infobox to the right, Day is clearly identified as Postmaster General. Many cases where the federal government is sued do not list the agency being sued (e.g., United States Postal Department) but rather the individual heading up that department (in this case, Mr. Day). It is uncommon to have to identify the individual, when the agency is identified. - Tim196518:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little bit buried over there, and in quite small font, and the comma after Day could mean "and the" rather than "who is the". Also, this just replaces one question with another - who or what is the Postmaster General? And of course, infoboxes are supposed to contain summaries of key facts, not act as a replacement for article content written in prose. Some extra detail would be very helpful. SP-KP18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's clearer now. I think it may have been obivous to U.S. readers, but less so to international readers such as myself who aren't familiar with the U.S. courts system. SP-KP06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a casual reader, I wonder how this ruling is related what is actually being enforced today. I would like some mention of what the mail carriers today define as non-mailable. For instance, adult novelty toys may be viewed as obscene by some people. However, these items are routinely ordered online and shipped by mail. I am curious, as a layman, about more recent court cases related to this one.--Chibibrain (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is beyond the scope of this article. If you are curious, you should consult articles on Obscenity, and what defines obscenity in the U.S. and other countries The key American case is Miller v. California. Personally, I love adult toys and love that they are being shipped through the mail. I believe almost nothing is obscene. But this is not a discussion page, this is a page for talking about issues with this article. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
