Template:Did you know nominations/Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the High Court ruled that Londonderry is the official name of Northern Ireland's second largest city, which can only be changed by The Monarch or Parliament? Source: Bailii

• Reviewed: Strong and stable

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

• I'm not going to review this, but just to say that in the light of these events, putting such a politically explosive hook on Wikipedia's main page is just a really bad idea, and I can't possibly see how on earth this hook could ever be seen to be neutral. So I'm going to boldly suggest giving this up as a bad job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

While I don't find the hook wording itself problematic, the circumstances behind it do seem to give me pause in this being allowed for DYK. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry. I've tried to think up a more neutral hook, but I doubt it would solve the underline issues. The wording I had in mind was something along the lines of:

ALT1 ... that the High Court of Northern Ireland ruled that the official name of the country's second largest city can only be changed by the Monarch via a Royal Prerogative?

In this case, I tried to avoid using the name of the city entirely, but I really doubt that it would solve the POV issue. Honestly I can't think of any possible alternative (even mentioning the aftermath might not be enough). So Ritchie333, if you don't agree with this then I think closing this would be the ultimate option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n (The cited reliable source makes it clear that the city's name could be changed either by an act or by a royal decree, furthermore a king could also change the name.)
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a possible violation at 44,4%, but this is the result of the use of specific terms - like "the city of Londonderry", "The Honourable the Irish Society." - and some quotations. Ritchie333 writes above that the hook is not neutral, but I think it contains a fact. If we said that a hook about a judgment is not neutral, because the judgment was made in favor of a certain PoV, we could not present judgments at all in WP. Ritchie333 also refers to recent political events, but I think political events should not influence our decisions about hooks. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: You may be interested in reading the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the discussion and it did not change my mind. I think politics and sensitivities should not influence our decisions about hooks. If a hook is fully in line with the relevant policies, it could be presented on the main page. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Thank you for the review, I have amended the original hook to say the monarch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E:, but the hook still contradicts the reliable source, because the monarch cannot change the name alone. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I have added Parliament to the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• In any case, regardless of article quality, I recommend that this nomination not be given an approval tick until the discussion at WT:DYK concludes. Even if the reviewer decides to approve it, it is very likely that there would be objections, if not at WT:DYK then at WP:ERRORS. It would be best to wait it out and see if some form of compromise can be reached on this matter. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• A fair proposal. So I surely will not approve the hook until the discussion is closed. On the other hand, I think that the hook could be modified. The new text does not present what is written in the reliable sources properly. As far as I can remember, neither the Queen, nor the Parliament can change the name independently of other actors. The Queen does not apply her royal prerogatives alone and the Parliament cannot make law without royal assent. Borsoka (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Borsoka, I don't think "royal assent" means what you think it means. It's a term of art for a bill passing into law in Commonwealth countries; it doesn't mean the Queen personally sits on a throne approving renovation works to Macclesfield train station or changes to the Yukon income tax rate. In this case, changed by the Monarch via a Royal Prerogative means that any change would need to be made by the Crown in Parliament, i.e. the government, and can't be made unilaterally without government approval ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

. The DYK discussion indicates this is already contentious, if not disruptive (it is), consider me triggered. The community is working to patch the shortcomings of an overtly pov user whose own signature disrupts discussion, and plays beautifully to a wish to repeat their messaging. The article is a footnote on steroids, the mock-title itself suggests the banality of any notable facts of that particular application. Feck away from DYK? cygnis insignis 06:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)