Talk:Begum v Home Secretary

A fact from Begum v Home Secretary appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Begum v Home Secretary, Lord Reed quoted from Eleanor Roosevelt: "justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Begum v Home Secretary.

Wikipedia

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Did you know? nomination

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 Mx. Granger (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in the Supreme Court case of Begum v Home Secretary, Lord Reed quoted from Eleanor Roosevelt "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both"?
Source: Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7, reported 26 February 2021, para 90
- ALT1:... that after the judgement in the case of Begum v Home Secretary, The Washington Post said Shamima Begum's was the citizenship revocation with the highest profile and that the case had divided the British on matters of extremism and human rights?
  Source: Adam Taylor, "Europe: U.K. Supreme Court rules woman who joined Islamic State as teen cannot return to Britain", The Washington Post, 26 February 2021, accessed 26 February 2021
- ALT2:... that after judgement was handed down in the case of Begum v Home Secretary, IS bride Shamima Begum was reported to be "angry, upset and crying"?
  Source: "Shamima Begum: IS bride 'angry, upset and crying' after court rules she can't return to UK", Sky.com, 26 February 2021
Note Earwig will find a lot of text copied and closely paraphrased from the Supreme Court decision here which is heavily relied on as a source, but such judgements are public documents and there is no copyright on them. There is no way to avoid this, and most of the media articles cited in the “Reactions” section also quote long passages from this source. Moonraker (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 18:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and any of the hooks could be used. The article is neutral. As you say, Earwig does not like the article at all, but I find the precise wording used in the non-copyright sources is necessary when covering such topics dealing with legal matters. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]