Template:Did you know nominations/Doe v. Shurtleff
- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Doe v. Shurtleff
[edit]- ... that in Doe v. Shurtleff, an Oregon law requiring registered sex offenders to provide to the state all of their internet identifiers was ruled constitutional?
Created/expanded by Radolfo (talk). Nominated by Xxiao ucb (talk) at 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not eligible for March (article was started on February 22). I can't find a source for the hook. Nominators notified. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think this should still be eligible because while created on 2/22 it has been expanded five-fold since 2/29. Brianwc (User talk:Brianwclatalk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? It about doubled since then. Please explain. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry not doubled, but this doesn't add up since 2/29. If what you say is true, the article would be 23935 characters. I count 19870. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was significantly expanded on 2/29. I put the nomination under 3/2 because that was when the article moved to its final article page (it was in a user sandbox before), but perhaps it should go under 2/29. -xxiao_ucb
- All right. I can see it moved in the edit history so we can leave it here. I can see Mr. Rotenberg's opinion, but no source for this hook. Can you help find it? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The source for the hook comes from the court opinion for the case, which was linked to in the infobox but wasn't explicitly cited as a reference. I've added it as a reference now. -Xxiao ucb (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Unfortunately I don't understand, "Therefore, for these and the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's ruling vacating its earlier orders enjoining enforcement of the statute." but I'm working on it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The source for the hook comes from the court opinion for the case, which was linked to in the infobox but wasn't explicitly cited as a reference. I've added it as a reference now. -Xxiao ucb (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- All right. I can see it moved in the edit history so we can leave it here. I can see Mr. Rotenberg's opinion, but no source for this hook. Can you help find it? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was significantly expanded on 2/29. I put the nomination under 3/2 because that was when the article moved to its final article page (it was in a user sandbox before), but perhaps it should go under 2/29. -xxiao_ucb
- Sorry not doubled, but this doesn't add up since 2/29. If what you say is true, the article would be 23935 characters. I count 19870. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? It about doubled since then. Please explain. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
So this court decided the other court was correct when they (the first court) voided their order to "enjoin enforcement". And "enjoin" means "a court to order that someone either do a specific act, cease a course of conduct, or be prohibited from committing a certain act" which could mean anything. Still working on it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Worthy article. Hook, source and date check out. Ready to go! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
