Template:Did you know nominations/Begum v Home Secretary
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Begum v Home Secretary
- ... 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
- 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?
- 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)
Created/expanded by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 18:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC).
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)
