Talk:Herrera v. Wyoming

A fact from Herrera v. Wyoming appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 August 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in a 2019 court case, the US Supreme Court ruled that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on unoccupied lands?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herrera v. Wyoming.

Wikipedia

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography 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.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America 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.

United States: Government / Wyoming Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herrera v. Wyoming

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... ~~that a Crow won a Supreme Court case against Wyoming?~~ Source: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-532

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Geoff Harvey

Created by DannyS712 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure the pun on an ethnic name is a good idea (esp. for April 1, for which this has been nominated). If it was really, REALLY funny that would be one thing, but it's only very modestly amusing or clever at best. I see trouble ahead. EEng 04:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not here to be PC (as NOTCENSORED is supposed to attest), we are here for AFD to be funny. I see no problem with it. Now for the reivew: Date, length and hook all OK under DYK and AFD rules. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. Well done @DannyS712: on the first approved hook for April Fools Day 2020. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Jesus, this has nothing to do with censorship, nor with the dopey concept of "PC". I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no WP editor more willing than I to find a laugh wherever one is available. The problem is, as I already said, this really isn't funny or clever; it's a lame and obvious pun. At the very least, if we're going to bore our readers with this on AFD, the word crow should be lower-cased, or there's no joke at all. E Eng 22:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @EEng: alt 1 added accordingly --DannyS712 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 1 ... ~~that a crow won a Supreme Court case against Wyoming?~~ Source: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-532
Despite what was said, Crow would need to be uppercase. I would also be wary of the term for nation and people being applied to an individual, which reads to me as "a British won a court case", but I'm applying usage of national and ethnic terms from elsewhere. On the other hand, "an American won court case" would work, but that is just what happened and not funny either. cygnis insignis 23:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say it one more time before unwatching: either phrasing -- a crow or a Crow -- is weakly amusing at the very best, is a bad idea, and has a good chance of ending in tears. E Eng 02:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As we have ample evidence based on a number of his own nominated hooks that The C of E is not a good judge of what is appropriate when it comes to potentially controversial nominations, I am requesting a second opinion review, preferably by someone with experience in judging April Fools' Day hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I have to say NOTCENSORED, but its things like this that make me wonder if we really are. There is no policy based reason to override and furthermore according to WP:DYKAPRIL, it states that capitalisation can be disregarded for AFD. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An unsalvageable attempt at humour. cygnis insignis 06:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: can I do a non april fools hook? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove my objection if an interesting hook for the regular queue was proposed. Excuse the critique as suitable humour for the front page, victimless jokes are difficult to find and I don't think that your intention was anything but an attempt at fun. cygnis insignis 07:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for that. It is wrong to block a hook just because you might not find it funny. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - With no action after a week, I am restoring the tick for my original review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deadline. Three out of four editors commenting here have serious concerns about the hook. E Eng 15:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am putting out the call for a new reviewer to give a second opinion; as EEng points out, only The C of E out of four reviewers has no problems with the hook, and his judgment, as I noted above, has proved faulty with regard to such hooks on numerous occasions. If necessary, this will go to the WT:DYK page for further discussion. (Note to DannyS712: you are most welcome to propose a non-April 1 hook; please feel free to do so.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to that characterisation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the proposed hook is a bad idea. It is offensive to make a play on words regarding a First Nations tribe name. Another hook needs to be proposed here. Flibirigit (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712, The C of E, EEng, Cygnis insignis, BlueMoonset, and Flibirigit: How about:

ALT2 ... that in Herrera v. Wyoming, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on unoccupied lands?

ALT2a ... that in a 2019 court case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on unoccupied lands?

Sounds clear and reflects the wording used in the lede, without being offensive. And The C of E, I strongly advise that you stop insisting on the April Fools wording. I understand that you feel very strongly about using that wording, but consensus is against you at this point, and consensus is how Wikipedia (and by extension DYK) decides on matters. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an ALT2a in case there are concerns about "Wyoming" appearing twice in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks so much. I support these hooks --DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2a is the best option here, with ALT2 as an alternative. I have struck ALT0 and ALT1. The new hooks are neutral, reasonably interesting, mentioned inline and properly cited. The article adheres to all other DYK policies for newness, length, tone, neutrality and sourcing. I detected no copyvio issues, and QPQ requirements are met. Flibirigit (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, I removed my oppose above. cygnis insignis 18:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]