Template:Did you know nominations/National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra


 * 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) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

 * ... that in the Supreme Court case National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, NIFLA is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom?  Source: "Glessner said he believes NIFLA, which will be represented in court by the Christian non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), is “going to win going away”
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jessie Ace and Margaret Wright (nee Ace)

5x expanded by Lionelt (talk) and Masem (talk). Nominated by Lionelt (talk) at 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Comment: for the record expanded – Lionel(talk) 02:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a review, but I don't think the hook is appropriate. The reason is that this is a very controversial issue (whether US laws on free speech allow anti-abortion groups to masquerade as abortion centers, or whether they can be forced to tell visitors how to find the real abortion centers) but the hook only contains some bland and euphemistic organization names. We should give the readers more of a hint at what issues this case is about and what these groups are fighting for. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "anti-abortion groups to masquerade as abortion centers" Really? Look: I just want to get my 25 DYK Medal. I don't want a hook that is going to trigger a full blown RFC with every pro-life and pro-abortion editor weighing in and delay this 30 days. Thanks but no thanks. – Lionel(talk) 07:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Phrase it however you like, but if you have to hide behind uninformative euphemisms rather than actually giving any hint of what it's about because you're afraid of the controversy that would be kicked up if you actually said what these groups are doing then it's not front-page material. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Compared to most of the hooks that have been on the Main page lately mine is just downright scintillating.– Lionel(talk) 06:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And maybe you should look up the definition of "euphenism" because the names of the two organizations in the hook are accurate and descriptive.– Lionel(talk) 06:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I agree with David Eppstein that this hook really says nothing about the contents of the article. This is also not a full review, but I have given my comment an icon anyway as it fails rule 3a by not being interesting.  Downright boring even. SpinningSpark 23:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well aint this a hoot. Reviewers have been passing boring hooks for years--no make that decades--and all of a sudden my hook gets selected for extreme vetting? What's going on here??? Two weeks ago I hinted--just hinted mind you--that a hook was boring--and it was totally boring--and I was basically told to go screw myself. So I passed it. So why does my hook rate intense scrutiny??? Are we all of a sudden enforcing the "interesting hook" rule and what: noone sent me the memo? I checked my little notifications bell at the top of my browser. Nothing. Nada. – Lionel(talk) 14:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Please assume good faith here, we are trying to help you here and working with you so that this nomination will pass. Regardless of the controversy surrounding the case, I agree with David and Spinningspark that the hook is uninteresting by itself. I've looked at the article and there are some parts of it that could work as hooks: for example, the phrase "Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising" could form the basis of a hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You know, Narutolovehinata5, you make a good point. Let's get to the nitty gritty of this case. And what better source to rely upon than the fair and balanced NY Times.– Lionel(talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, said that a California law was "gerrymandered" in order to discriminate against Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Source: "Justices across the ideological spectrum said they suspected that the law had singled out centers run by opponents of abortion. Justice Elena Kagan said she was concerned that the law had been “gerrymandered” to address only some providers, something she said would pose a serious First Amendment problem." from the fair and balanced NY Times – Lionel(talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The hook seems okay, but I don't think it's necessary to mention in the hook that Kagan is a liberal, only the Supreme Court Justice part is probably necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What! How did "liberal" get in there???
 * ALT2: ... that in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that a California law was "gerrymandered" in order to discriminate against Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Source: "Justices across the ideological spectrum said they suspected that the law had singled out centers run by opponents of abortion. Justice Elena Kagan said she was concerned that the law had been “gerrymandered” to address only some providers, something she said would pose a serious First Amendment problem." from the fair and balanced NY Times – Lionel(talk) 04:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this is a controversial topic, I'll have to ask for opinions from previous reviewers and co-contributor . But I'm willing to do the other checks (like eligibility and so on). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the rephrasing between the Kagan quote and the hook accurate? I.e., when Kagan said "to address only some providers", but we change "address only" to "discriminate against" and change "some providers" to "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", are we sure that's what she intended to mean? Why? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're sure that the paraphrasing in the hook accurately represents her meaning.– Lionel(talk) 05:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any more evidence than your word? Because it does not look like the same meaning to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Any updates? Also  courtesy ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ALT3: ... that in oral arguments for National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had reservations that a California law was "gerrymandered" in order to target pro-life organizations? Source: "Justices across the ideological spectrum said they suspected that the law had singled out centers run by opponents of abortion. Justice Elena Kagan said she was concerned that the law had been “gerrymandered” to address only some providers, something she said would pose a serious First Amendment problem." from the fair and balanced NY Times
 * revised hook. – Lionel(talk) 10:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again with the switch from the source's neutrally worded "some providers" to the much-less-neutral "pro-life". (Even assuming that it's fair to call the anti-abortion movement that. I assume you would object to calling them "forced birthers" so why should it be ok to use the equally propagandistic "pro-life" when the actual name of the linked article is "anti-abortion movement"?) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed the link. It now links to our article United States pro-life movement. Your example of "forced birther" is a red herring since reliable sources frequently use "pro-life." – Lionel(talk) 08:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ready to go. Courtesy ping.– Lionel(talk) 14:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer requested, thanks! – Lionel(talk) 06:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. ALT3 short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. Good to go.-- Laun chba ller 18:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote ALT3. I noticed a paragraph without a cite and tagged it per Rule D2. ALT3 doesn't seem to reflect the source; shouldn't it say crisis pregnancy centers instead of pro-life organizations? Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think using "crisis pregnancy center" is reasonable. However, the more general paraphrasing "pro-life org" was used to encompass all possible meanings by Kagan i.e. cover all bases. Unsourced para fixed. – Lionel(talk) 05:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for the cite, . Let's go with ALT2. Restoring tick per Launchballer's review. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)