Template:Did you know nominations/Chafin v. Chafin


 * 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) 15:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Chafin v. Chafin

 * ... that the United States Supreme Court once got involved in divorce proceedings? Source: business insider: "When Jeffrey and Lynne Chafin got divorced, they probably never imagined their feud would reach the highest court of the United States."
 * Reviewed: Not needed, this will be my 5th DYK
 * Comment: I'd like to run this on April 1st, if possible.

Moved to mainspace by DannyS712 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC).


 * How is this an April Fools? EEng 05:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because divorce proceedings are usually at family court, and the Supreme Court almost never gets involved. From Reuters: "It is not often the high court steps into a child custody battle, but the case turns on an international treaty, joined by more than 80 countries, that protects children from being abducted to other countries." --DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm in an uncharitable mood, but essentially all cases begin in humble district courts, family courts, municipal courts, probate courts, and so on. Wills rarely end up at the Supreme Court, but Howard Hughes' did, and so what? Plessy was about a train ticket. I'm not at all surprised that few divorce proceedings get to the Supreme Court, but I'm sorry, it's not a laugh-getter, certainly not with the hook proposed. And even if there's something amusing about it, it certainly doesn't have the misleading quality that defines an AFD hook. EEng 05:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * then I have a 3-part response. 1 - if you (or someone else) does the review, can you review the article while I work on a funny alt hook? 2 - do you have any funnier suggestions? And 3 - just to confirm, AFD means April fools Day, not WP:AFD, right? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I really tried, but I don't see anything remotely AFD (April Fools Day)-worthy in the article. I suggest you run it as a regular DYK, though honestly I don't know what the hook would be. "Something something retained jurisdiction something habitual residence something something not mooted" doesn't really grab the reader. EEng 14:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This hook is misleading because the Chafin case was not the only, or even the first, case involving a divorce to go to the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Coe v. Coe, 334 U.S. 378 (1948). If this passes, it needs an accurate hook. Neutralitytalk 19:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Mainspaced on 17 March and nominated on the same day, so new enough. Long enough at 5495 bytes prose size. I do not see any policy violations. The hook illustrates a basic fact that can be verified to any source in the article (including the case itself), and is interesting enough, though I agree with EEng that this is not AFD-worthy. It's not anything that is (or seems) unbelievable or confusing to the reader. This would more appropriately be run at the bottom (quirky) slot of a standard DYK set. I don't see Neutrality's concern considering that the hook does not claim that the Chafin case was the only or first case involving a divorce to go to the Supreme Court. "I once did something" is not the same as "I only did this thing once". feminist (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A possible modification to remove the concern would be ... that the United States Supreme Court got involved in divorce proceedings in Chafin v. Chafin? Though this would be even less suited for April Fools, and again is better for the quirky slot of normal DYK sets. Alternatively, just remove "once" if that's the sticking point. feminist (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am okay with using your suggestion (Alt1: that the United States Supreme Court got involved in divorce proceedings in Chafin v. Chafin?) and with not putting it on April 1st. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The key concern for me is removing "once" since the primary definition of the term is "one time and no more" (link). If "once" is removed, I'm OK with it. Neutralitytalk 15:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For an April fool's hook, how about: ALT2: that the United States Supreme Court had a divorce? Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Now we're getting somewhere. EEng</b> 14:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * or, building off of that, Alt3 that the United States Supreme Court had a divorce and the daughter was sent to Scotland? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer ALT2 as I find ALT3 to be a bit of a head-scratcher, but I guess we can leave the choice to the set promoter. Gatoclass (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * so are any of the hooks approved? April fools is in a few days. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

, I consider ALT2 to be verified as it's just a restatement of the original hook. The additional statement in ALT3, about the daughter being sent to Scotland, hasn't been verified so somebody will need to do that if you want that hook to be considered. Gatoclass (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Okay. Since approved the first hook, maybe they can take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT3. The case does not concern whether the child should be returned to Scotland; and that was initially a concern for me. However, it's a case fact that the child was returned to Scotland, so the hook is correct. feminist (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)