Talk:Smiley v. Holm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Smiley v. Holm article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Smiley v. Holm appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Smiley v. Holm, the 1932 general election ballot in Minnesota contained 30 candidates for Congress?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Smiley v. Holm.

Wikipedia

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that when queried at her confirmation hearing about the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Smiley v. Holm, Justice Amy Coney Barrett replied that she wasn't aware of the decision? Source: Vox: "Indeed, when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked Barrett about Smiley v. Holm, a 1932 Supreme Court decision rejecting the doctrine, during Barrett’s confirmation hearing, the future justice said that she wasn’t even aware of this case"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hierocracy (medieval)

Created by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Self-nominated at 04:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out and is interesting. No textual issues. Looking good. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the main hook (ALT0) to Prep 2 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]