Template:Did you know nominations/Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean
[edit]... that regarding Bolivia v. Chile, Pope Francis said, "Dialogue is indispensable. Instead of raising walls, we need to be building bridges."?Source: ""I'm thinking about the sea here," said the pope, referring to the ongoing dispute between the two countries which is set to be ruled upon by the International Court of Justice by the end of the year. "Dialogue is indispensable. Instead of raising walls, we need to be building bridges."" [1]ALT1:... that Catholic bishops in Chile and Bolivia asked their congregants to accept the decision in Bolivia v. Chile?Source: "In an indication of the significance of the decision for both counties, Catholic bishops in Bolivia and Chile on Sunday called on their congregations to accept the court’s ruling “with faith, peace and good sense.”" [2]ALT2:... that Bolivians gathered in public spaces across the country to watch the decision in Bolivia v. Chile be read out on large screens?"Back at home, people waved blue flags that symbolize the country’s demand for access to the ocean, as they watched the ruling on giant screens in squares and public areas." [3]
- Reviewed: 5th DYK nom, QPQ not needed
Created/expanded by StudiesWorld (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC).
@StudiesWorld: Good job! New and long enough, within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, this is the last DYK nom that will not require a QPQ. The hooks provide no context; it might be more interesting to include that Bolivia sued Chile in 2013 for territory it lost in 1884. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Antony-22, thanks for the review. How about?:
- ALT3:... that Bolivia sued Chile in the International Court of Justice, claiming that it had an Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean?
- ALT4:... that Bolivia sued Chile in 2013 to reclaim land lost in 1884 during the War of the Pacific? StudiesWorld (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: - Could you take a look at these new hooks? Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Both ALT3 and ALT4 look good. They could also be combined in the following way; I'll leave the choice up to the promoter. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- ALT3/4:... that Bolivia sued Chile in 2013 to regain land lost in 1884, claiming it had an Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean?
- @Antony-22: - Could you take a look at these new hooks? Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
