Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Lovett

United States v. Lovett

 * ... that Robert M. Lovett did not receive back pay for an unconstitutional firing for many years after the United States Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to it?
 * Reviewed: Dr. Hun Houses
 * Comment: I know it's not the greatest article I have ever written, and it's not a particularly fascinating hook. Comments and advice would be much appreciated.  NW  ( Talk ) 04:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Created by NuclearWarfare (talk). Self nominated at 04:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New Enough, long enough. QPQ done. Article is within policy (although I'd prefer more secondary sources such as [here (PDF)], but article does have some secondary sources supporting) I don't understand what this sentence is saying: "Two judges would have ruled against the three claimants, but the ultimate decision of the Court of Claims was in favor of the claimants."  Checked close paraphrasing on Gunther article, obituary, and majority decision and found no hits.  So, now onto the Hook, some problems.  1. The relevant passage in the WP article is not supported by the source.  Source says that Lovett got his money eventually, but does not say that "Congress appropriated the $1,996" (having been in a public worker's union with required back pay, the legislature never appropriated the money, it just appropriated money to "settle their court losses"--regardless, I think it is possible Congress did not appropriate money but that Lovett got the money anyway which is all the source leads us to believe). But Hook is actually more in line with the source, so fix the wikipedia article to be more in-line with source. 2. Is "Fired" the right word?  It isn't in the Wikipedia article and may veer too far from source or what actually happened.  Maybe just "...back pay for many years...".  3. You are right about the hook's Hookiness, but I'm not sure I got any great improvements. Some Alt hook proposals, maybe they help: AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt1: ... that the United States Supreme Court can find that when Congress denies back pay it is unconstitutional, but it may take many years to get it?
 * Alt2: ... that Robert M. Lovett was denied his pay by Congress, he sued to get this pay, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that denying him pay was unconstitutional?


 * Hi AbstractIllusions, thanks for the review. As far as the points you raise, I would have to disagree slightly. The NYT obituary says "Congress failed to appropriate the money for many years, but Dr. Lovett's relatives say he eventually got the $1,996 owed to him." I think it's reasonable to conclude without it being original research from the "many years" clause that while Congress failed to appropriate it for some time, they eventually did. And fired I think is an adequate way to describe forbidding an employer to pay one for their work. Perhaps a third alternative would allow us to sidestep the issue altogether –
 * *Alt3: ... that the United States Congress failed to appropriate money for Robert M. Lovett's back pay for many years after the Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to it?
 * I don't know, I still prefer the original to the three alternatives so far. Thanks for the law review article by the way; I will try to incorporate it into the article soon.  NW  ( Talk ) 04:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working with some hooks, edits are great (the compromise wording on the "appropriation" question seems right on). Seeing if I can figure something out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear: Article checks out fine, only problem is the hook at this point. So, the original hook seems to be the best there is. But I'm still wary about "unconstitutional firing" as the phrasing. From the majority opinion (page 307): "The Court of Claims entered judgments in favor of respondents. Some of the judges were of the opinion that § 304, properly interpreted, did not terminate respondents' employment, but only prohibited payment of compensation out of funds generally appropriated, and that, consequently, the continued employment of respondents was valid, and justified their bringing actions for pay in the Court of Claims. Other members of the Court thought § 304 unconstitutional and void, either as a bill of attainder, an encroachment on exclusive executive authority, or a denial of due process." But from page 316 expressing the majority's opinion: "No one would think that Congress could have passed a valid law stating that, after investigation, it had found Lovett, Dodd, and Watson "guilty" of the crime of engaging in "subversive activities," defined that term for the first time, and sentenced them to perpetual exclusion from any government employment. Section 304, while it does not use that language, accomplishes that result."  I'm just wary of unconstitutional firing as being the issue.  If there were a version of the original hook (a new Alt) without "unconstitutional firing" in it, I'll probably approve that hook. If you think firing is the right wording, just tell me why you think that, and I'm sure we can figure it out.  Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Firing is probably the most succinct way to put it, but I wouldn't want sacrifice accuracy for succinctness. What do you think of Alt3 then? Also, I realize I never addressed your point about the Court of Claims; I'll go back and fix that in the article.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article good, Alt3 is good hook. I edited NW's comment above to make the Alt more visible for promoter, hope that doesn't cross anyone the wrong way. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  NW  ( Talk ) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry, but I think I've discovered that the hook is factually inaccurate. New York Times, April 2 1947 (so the session right after the Supreme Court ruling) writes: "Added by amendment were amounts of $350,000,000 for veternas benefits, $8,000,000 for additional support for the Federally financed school lunch program, $25,480 for the District of Colombia's recreation department and $2,158 in compensation for three former Federal employees whose claims for back pay had been approved by the Supreme Court." Washington post same day titled "House Restores Pay Funds for Ousted Trio": "The House yesterday reversed its Appropriations Committee to tack on in the 2,827,528,286 Deficiency bill an amendment to pay $2138 in back salaries to three ousted Federal employees....The Appropriations Committee of the present House reported the Deficiency Appropriation Bill without a provision for carrying out the Court ruling." So 1. My objections to appropriation were incorrect and 2. the hook that it took many years to get back pay while verified in the NY Times obituary, doesn't appear to be correct.  Sorry to raise the late objection, but got any other ideas for hooks from the Article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you email me the articles ? I would like to investigate this issue further though that would involve diving into the text of the Appropriations Act. It may be that the House Amendment never passed for whatever reason.  NW  ( Talk ) 01:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done- feel free to change the edits on the Article as you see fit. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. It looks like this article was far more publicly contentious than I imagined it to be. I was thinking it to be something more like Sekhar v. United States – liable to get noticed by other lawyers but not really very much by the public. I had originally planned to write this only as a DYK, but I might try to expand it out further to a GA. Anyway, as far as hooks go: Alt4: ... that even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Congress unconstitutionally withheld Robert M. Lovett's salary, the House Appropriations Committee did not appropriate funds to pay him?  NW  ( Talk ) 12:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Alt4 looks good to me for sure (and expansion and GA seems like a good strategy). Although because I added some of the info to the article, I think it might be questionable for me to approve the hook. So I'm asking for another reviewer to approve the hook. Article is new enough, long enough, QPQ, within policy, just the hook that needs approval. Best. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Comment. Previous issues have been addressed. ALT4 is a interesting read. Promoting before the entry goes stale. Alex ShihTalk 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)