Template:Did you know nominations/Hale v. Henkel

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 Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hale v. Henkel[edit]

(

)

... ~~that no Supreme Court case in United States history has been cited more than Hale v. Henkel?~~
ALT1... that in Hale v. Henkel the Supreme Court ruled that the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to corporations?
ALT2... that Hale v. Henkel established the "Collective Entity Rule" which treats corporations differently than individuals in regards to the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause?
ALT3... that Hale v. Henkel ruled that the Fifth Amendment “protects individual civil liberties, not economic business interests”?
ALT4... that Hale v. Henkel precludes corporations from exercising the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, but still allows them freedom of speech and religion?

QPQ:Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Hermine

Created by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

Comment: the high Copyvio percentage comes from the quotes I used for the "Key Excerpts" section. Ignoring those, there's no Copyvio issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The freedom.com website is absolutely not an RS. ALT0 depended on it -- didn't check the others. E Eng 07:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Found replacement sources for all sections. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the one you found for ALT0 is another crackpot antigovernment website. E Eng 19:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the other sources and I'm afraid I've had to remove one or two more on the same basis. I'm really sorry for this, and hope you can find replacement sources. I'm not even sure that unsigned articles on the law360 site can be considered reliable for anything but routine background. E Eng 21:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Full review needed, which should include making sure all sources are reliable. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough. I believe the sources cited are sufficiently reliable for the purposes they are used. Approving ALT1 which is the simplest and most straightforward of the proposed hooks. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: I am striking ALT4 because Hale did not discuss free speech or religious freedoms. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)