Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 valereee (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others‎

edit
(
)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Came to promote, but I think this hook needs work: "if they profoundly disagree with it in the United Kingdom." They're Christian bakers in the UK, not people disagreeing in the UK. Also "profoundly disagree with it" just feels odd; I wondered if we really meant "profoundly disapproved of" but when I go to the article I see it's a free speech issue. The courts are saying they aren't required to promote a message with which they profoundly disagree. I think we need a recasting of this hook or a new hook. --valereee (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Valereee: I have amended the hook slightly, I included in the UK to clarify which country this is because there was a similar case in the US (which is mentioned in the article). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
That just makes it under the 200 and is perhaps clearer? It misses the "Christian" part, but the court was clear that it wasn't just Christians this protected, that it protected anyone from being forced to express an opinion with which they disagree, so I'm not sure the Christian part is crucial to the hook. Also just to confirm: "British" is correct? I'm in the US so assessing that nuance is beyond me lol --valereee (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I think I'll use nominators privilege and stick with the original thank you. Christians is important to the hook as that was the main reason for the case. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, one of my primary concerns is the wording "if they profoundly disagree with the message of [a cake]" which just seems muddy. It's the message on the cake they're disagreeing with, not the message of the cake. Would this work for you:

ALT0a: ... that Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others‎ held that British Christian bakers can refuse to make a cake supporting gay marriage if they profoundly disagree with the message on it?

--valereee (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with that @Valereee:, I just hope we can get it promoted soon as it has been about a month. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

approval needed for ALT0a. --valereee (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think the again symbol is needed for such a tiny little change. Nevertheless I will ask @Piotrus: if he can restore the green tick please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Piotrus:, I think it will need the green tick icon added beneath that again symbol to override the old symbol. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this and think ALT1 is much clearer; in ALT0, the ending seems like it's saying "the message of the cake", which doesn't make much sense. Since the description of the case is more important than the name of the case, can we write it this way?
  • ALT1a: ... that a 2018 UK Supreme Court decision held that British Christian bakers cannot be forced to decorate a cake to read "Support Gay Marriage" if they profoundly disagree with the message? Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No prob. Restoring tick per Piotrus' review. Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Returned from prep. The hook that was promoted was been discussed extensively at WT:DYK#prep 4 cont and a new hook substituted in prep. However, the nominator has twice edited the hook in prep, which is strongly discouraged per WP:DYKSG and ignores the consensus reached at WT:DYK. Returning to WP:DYKNA so any revisions can be commented on by interested parties and then approved by an independent reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely no policy based reason for this action. There was nothing wrong with the hook according to policy. It seemed to just be someone's opinion thinking it should be changed when @Piotrus: clearly passed it according to policy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is. When a hook in the prep set is brought up for re-review at WT:DYK, consensus dictates the direction of the hook. Numerous editors provided different hook options and this one was approved:
  • ALT3: ... that a 2018 UK Supreme Court decision held that British bakers cannot be forced to decorate a cake with a message that they disagree with?
  • If you don't like it, please state your reasons why and come up with a different hook. And please don't use the word "profoundly". The original hook is no longer an option. Pinging other editors who contributed to the WT:DYK discussion: @Valereee: @Black Kite: @Lee Vilenski: @Maile66: @Piotrus: Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee has also proposed another hook (which I'm listing below as ALT4), which is a little long as they admit, though consensus will determine if it will be a better option than ALT3:
ALT4: ... that in a case concerning Christian bakers asked to decorate a cake in support of gay marriage, British courts ruled that no one could be forced to produce a message with which they disagree?
Personally I still think ALT3 is still interesting even without the mention of Christian bakers, and if anything is closer to the spirit of the ruling, although I would not be opposed to ALT4 if consensus determines that it will be the hook moving forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think both ALT3 and ALT4 are ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 is the best. It's plenty interesting enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with ALT4, I am going to veto ALT3 because it just ruins the hook by removing all the hooky sections of the original. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm unstriking ALT3, consensus among other editors has said that it is a good option too. Let another editor choose between ALT3 or ALT4. Besides, something tells me it's not even the case itself you want to highlight, but the Christians and gays part, a part that other editors have expressed reservations about. I really hate to bring this up, but considering the apparent insistence on highlighting the Christians/gays part, I cannot help but feel that the main reason for this nomination was because of the Christians/gay part, and had the case been under different circumstances, this might not have been brought up for DYK in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Nominator's choice, especially when I have already agreed to the compromise of ALT4 as it maintains the hookiness and integrity of the original hook. Besides I find it rather rude that you wish to cast insinuations about me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Then can you please explain exactly why ALT3 is not good enough for you? Do you not like it simply because it does not mention the Christians and gay wording? Consensus thus far appears to be leaning towards ALT3 and you have thus far been unable to give a valid reason other than basically "I don't like it". I know that in many cases DYK tries to respect the wishes of the nominator, but things don't always go that way if consensus decides that the nominator's wishes go against readers' interest. I suggest you do not strike ALT3 again; let a neutral editor decide, and if they say that ALT4 is the better option, so be it. But you are the nominator, not the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 is far too vague and excludes the key details thus making it less hooky which is a violation of WP:DYKHOOK, hence why I am not prepared to allow my name to be put to it. If it's just a mundane court case (as ALT3 makes it out to be) people are less likely to click it whereas if you actually include the reasons it is more likely to hook people in which is what the original or ALT4 does. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you implying that the key detail is that involved Christian bakers and gays? If, to paraphrase the WT:DYK discussion, that the case was instead about a Manchester United fan who refused to decorate a cake with "Liverpool are the greatest team ever", would you still be inclined to include the "key details"? In my personal opinion, there is nothing wrong with ALT3: it's hooky by itself, even without the mention of the context, and other editors have also expressed their approval. As I said, I am not against ALT4 (if I were I'd probably have struck it or suggested that it be done), only that it would be a better option to let another editor (i.e. not you, not me) decide between ALT3 and ALT4. Stop striking hooks just because you don't agree with them: your disapproval has been made clear and I'm sure the reviewer will take it into account when deciding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT4 could be pared down this way:
  • ALT4a: ... that after British Christian bakers refused to decorate a cake in support of gay marriage, the UK Supreme Court ruled that no one could be forced to produce a message with which they disagree? Yoninah (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lee_v_Ashers_Baking_Company_Ltd_and_others&oldid=946909713"