Template:Did you know nominations/Iran's 2018 lawsuit at ICJ against United States

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 Flibirigit (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Iran's 2018 lawsuit at ICJ against United States

(

)

~~... that the U.S. was ordered by the World Court to lift Iran "humanitarian goods and civil aviation" sanctions over humanitarian concerns? Aljazeera~~

Reviewed: Ismail Amat

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

New article; created within 7 days before nomination; prose is longer than 1500 characters; supported by inline citations; no copyvios detected; neutrally written; hook verified by English-language source.

I do have a question about the hook: the AJ article states that the order was "interim" and that it was "not binding". So I wonder if the hook may be overstating things. I would appreciate a second opinion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you K.e.coffman for the review. I've noticed your ping and I should thank Serial Number 54129 for his suggestion. I think the following hook would more accurate:

~~ALT1:...that the US was ordered by the World Court to lift some of Iran sanctions related to "humanitarian goods and civil aviation"?~~ NYTimes

How's it? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I'm not a fan of quotations in a DYK; it's unclear if it's coming from the source, or from ICJ. I would go with the version mentioned earlier: "...to lift some sanctions against Iran over humanitarian concerns". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman: Hi, sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. How's this one:

~~ALT2:...that the US was ordered by the World Court to lift some sanctions against Iran over humanitarian concerns?~~ Aljazeera

Feel free to suggest your hook, if you don't find this one suitable. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: ALT2 works well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein and K.e.coffman: The way I'm reading the source is that the US has been told to act in a certain way, but doesn't necessarily need to comply. How about: ALT3: ...that the United States was issued an interim order by the International Court of Justice to lift some sanctions against Iran over humanitarian concerns? This has less unofficial terms, too (World Court → International Court of Justice). Also note that if ALT2 does receive the go-ahead, the bold link should changed from a redirect. Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In my view point, both of the hooks mean "US has been told to act in a certain way" but in contrast to what you said, "the ICJ's rulings are binding" although "it has no power to enforce them."[1]. So, with many thanks to your suggestion, I think ALT2 is proper. However, let's see what K.e.coffman thinks. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I still believe that ALT 2 is a good option. Althought I agree that International Court of Justice should probably be used. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thanks, would you please restore the green check mark along with your final desired hook? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: So, I'm suggesting this one:

ALT3:...that the US was ordered by the International Court of Justice to lift some sanctions against Iran over humanitarian concerns?

Is it OK? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ALT3 is good to go. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)