Talk:United States v. Rahimi

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 BorgQueen (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that ?
  • ALT1: ... that a 2023 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidates a law preventing people from owning firearms while under restraining orders for domestic abuse?
  • ALT2: ... that in United States v. Rahimi, a federal appeals court ruled that a law banning gun possession by domestic abusers subject to restraining orders was unconstitutional?
  • Reviewed: Luke Kunin
  • Comment: saving my spot here, as it's already a little past 7 days, but this article isn't ready for review yet. Hopefully will fix up in the next day or two. Update: Article will need to be updated when the Supreme Court decides on whether to hear the case, but the hooks are not contingent on that decision. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk) and Cielquiparle (talk). Self-nominated at 12:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/United States v. Rahimi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• For a second I thought " ... that ?" was another unconventional hook of yours. BorgQueen (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • yeah, well, no repeats :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Erm... not ready yet? BorgQueen (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Leeky, I have to mark it ineligible. I was certainly willing to wait for a day or two, as you said "Hopefully will fix up in the next day or two" but zero update yet—and keeping your spot empty, without even any hook, for this long is a clear violation of our rules. Next time, I suggest, you write in draftspace first. BorgQueen (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
    • My apologies, BorgQueen, I must've missed the last message – I've been checking my pings, but i think my watchlist is getting a little clogged.
      i do get that rules are rules (guidelines, really), but also, I must say that I don't think it's necessary that the hammer be wheeled down here. For starters, you and I both know that the nomination-to-main-page process takes three weeks, more or less, and nominators can get months of inactivity and poking and prodding to be forced to pull their noms past the finish line. I could just as easily write a hook, have a reviewer say "new enough and long enough, but missing key details", and then claim another spate of time to fix it. I've been on vacation this past week, haven't really had time for much of the 'pedia – might I have another 48 hours to finish up? I'd be happy to withdraw this nom myself, now or if I don't get it ready in time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm aware that we have a magic card called IAR. Yay!!! Seriously though, I'll let another reviewer take a look and decide. Are you willing, @Aoidh:? BorgQueen (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Given that (at the moment) it's just the two of us moving things to queue I want to avoid reviewing things that you also commented on/reviewed just to avoid any appearance of me moving to queue things I reviewed. I'd be happy to defer to @Bruxton and Cielquiparle: and let them decide how best to handle it, they have more experience with this side of it and I'm happy to accept whatever they decide. - Aoidh (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
          • the promoters will decide my fate. :P theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• If it pleases the powers that be, I've finished up (with the help of Cielquiparle) the article, added a hook, and provided a QPQ. Article is ready for re-review or withdrawal. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Full review required by new reviewer, for full QPQ credit. Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This review is for ALT1 (both hooks are acceptable, ALT1 is just my preference):

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Not nominated in time, and no hooks provided in time. But I am willing to let this slide...

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article new enough and long enough after 7 days. It was not nominated in time, but I am willing to give some leeway because of the good quality of the article (but why not work on the article offline or in draft space to avoid all the time pressures???). Earwig's Copyvio Detector score is a bit high, but this can be attributed to direct quotes. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, P199! To answer, t'was my mistake – I thought this would be an easier swing, and that I'd have more energy for it. Turned out not to be the case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The federal law which enforced Rahimi's restraining order was in fact the Violence Against Women Act

QMother Jones addressed this matter and specifically mentioned the order being enforced by the Violence Against Women Act.[1]. CNN described it as the "1994 law,"[2] while the Associated Press referred to it as the "1994 ban."[3] Speakfor23 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)