Template:Did you know nominations/Klayman v. Obama


 * The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Klayman v. Obama, ACLU v. Clapper

 * ... that a US court in Klayman v. Obama ruled that bulk data collection is likely unconstitutional, while another US court in ACLU v. Clapper ruled the program does not violate the constitution?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Third attack on Anzac Cove
 * Comment: Please hold for potential usage on Feb 11, alt text most welcome

Created by HectorMoffet (talk). Self nominated at 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Both articles created on Jan 31, both long enough (over 3200 and 2400 characters). The Klayman article has uncited paragraphs and bare urls. The ACLU article is good. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, aren't the names of court cases supposed to be italicized? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, court cases should be italicized. While we're on the subject, the wording of the hook is "funny". I propose a revision, both to fix the wording that bugged me and to add details about the level of the courts (this may be too long, but there's latitude for dual hooks:
 * ALT1 ... that in Klayman v. Obama a US district court ruled that the government's bulk data collection program is likely unconstitutional, while another district court ruled in ACLU v. Clapper that the program does not violate the US constitution?
 * Here's another idea that's shorter:
 * ALT2 ... that, in the cases of Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper, US district courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of bulk data collection by the US government? --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hector Moffet might be taking a break, but if I could weigh in: I do like Orlady's second suggestion (both are fine), though would add that these two opposing findings happened within a ten day period. Adding this tidbit could make for an interesting DYK, but I'll leave the wording to you.   petrarchan47  t  c   04:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I do like the ALT hooks. Anywho, another editor has dealt with the references, so this is good to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like that and would prefer ALT2, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from MP: ACLU takes material near-verbatim from an external non-free source; both articles take material from elsewhere on Wikipedia without proper attribution per WP:CWW. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. Those are two things I don't always remember to look for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone over ACLU v. Clapper and redone it beginning to end, thus removing any close paraphrasing (which was much of three sentences). Wnt (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good work - well done. It only leaves the question of copying within Wikipedia. Unfortunately Nikki didn't specify where she thought the copying had been done from, so that will be harder to fix. Unless Nikki thought that the two articles took content one from the other - in which case there's no problem since  was the only substantial contributor to each (and that's an obvious exception to WP:CWW because you can't plagiarise yourself). --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I just plain rephrased everything, so I'm not worried about the one I did. The Klayman v. Obama article had a background section with copied bits and pieces from the main article.  Frankly, when a section has the "main" template directly above the copied text, I feel like that ought to count for attribution, but I've added an HTML comment and edit summary.  The remainder of that article is very specific to the case, and the article was begun just for the occasion, so I really doubt it could be copied from anywhere within Wikipedia.  At the moment I haven't looked at issues with external sources, though. Wnt (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Wnt, thanks for taking this on. Your rewording has fixed the most serious problems with these article; looks like there are some minor issues left, like "according to the is its recognition" in Klayman. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed that and tweaked the surrounding wording a wee bit. Hope that helped.   Montanabw (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: struck the original hook due to wording issues raised by Orlady; ALT hooks remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)