Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Seling v. Young

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Seling v. Young

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Lord Roem (talk). Self nom at 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  • New enough, long enough, hook is short enough, and article seems within policy (note: all notes seem to be to one legal document, but I presume this is OK for a legal case). However, not being trained in law, how the article supports the fact cited in the hook was not obvious. My best guess is the sentence in the article that states: "Lastly, the Court dismissed the Ex Post Facto challenge to the law on the grounds that the act in question was entirely 'civil'." Is this the same as the hook's claim that "civil commitment laws could not be considered criminal" (emphasis added)? If this is indeed the supporting sentence, please make the support much clearer (and explain why the blanket statement in the hook can be reconciled with the "ex post facto" qualification of the sentence). Please note that the Manual of Style instructs us that "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them accessible to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it" (WP:JARGON). I suggest rewriting the article a bit to follow the MOS in this regard. Then maybe it will be clearer to more of us how the article supports the hook. -- Presearch (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe I have resolved the issue. On re-reading of the decision, the "civil" issue actually applied to all challenges, so the "Ex Post Facto" qualifier is not necessary (and I just removed it). This should clear up the reading and resolve your concerns. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, as a person not legally trained, I still find the article rather jargonny, but I suppose that isn't an impediment for DYK. What still gives me pause and confuses me a bit is that the hook (to my reading) makes it seem that this case was the first one (i.e., was precedent-setting) to decide that "civil commitment laws could not be considered criminal". But in the present wording of the article, that decision is relegated to a final clause in the sentence, after the word "as", which makes it sound as if there was nothing at all new about the idea. So I experience the hook wanting to highlight something that the article itself downplays as uninteresting, and hardly even explicitly states (or maybe just barely). This seems very odd to me, and I suspect that other non-legally trained readers might also be confused. Perhaps an editor with legal training could offer a fresh viewpoint to sort this out? I am not opposed to giving a green light at this point, it's just that I don't feel capable of giving it myself. -- Presearch (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I just can't do any better in clarifying. I desire a focus on other DYKs I'm working on and other article improvement projects. Withdrawn . Lord Roem (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be fine with such a hook. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, to me as a non-legally trained person (which is an important part of the target audience, I presume), I find the alternative hook confusing, because I can't easily reconcile it with what I understand from the article. In the article it seems that the Supremem Court (SC) drew upon the Washington Supreme Court's decision that the law in question was only civil. Therefore the SC rejected the challenge as "full facial". But what if some other state supreme court say, NY -- had made a different ruling about a similar law for NY. Then it seems to me that the SC might have not have felt there was a "full facial challenge", and might have ruled differently. But according to the ALT hook, the SC's reasoning was more sweeping. But I don't read that in the article. So in my opinion the article still needs improvement.
But heck, I'm just one reader. If there are two or three other readers who think my reading is confused, and that the article does make sense, I'm happy to stand aside. I'm just reporting to you my own experience... how it looks to me... Best regards to all -- Presearch (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The alternative hook suggested uses the definition of the term involuntary commitment, to ensure the maximum number of readers can understand it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've spent some "quality time" with the article. I believe that the original hook is valid, but it's confusing, misleading, and unlikely to entice readers. Crisco's suggested hook isn't quite right, as it indicates that the topic was commitment of mentally ill persons, when in fact these are laws allowing the commitment of sexual offenders after they have finished serving their prison sentences. I endorse the following variant hook:
YMMV, but I find that more enticing than the original paradoxical-sounding hook. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Seling_v._Young&oldid=1189646083"