Talk:Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Slovenia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia 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.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl)
Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations
Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle
Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308
Expand: Education in Slovenia
Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska
NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band)
Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
Help assess the quality of 37 unassessed articles
Take/Add requested photographs

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Disability

Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

A fact from Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 November 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia—initiated by two disabled voters over polling place access in a gay marriage referendum—the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referendums?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia.

Wikipedia

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in the judgement in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia on voters' rights for the disabled in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights for the first time extended its jurisdiction to referendums? Source: The court ruled today (26 October) that Slovenia had discriminated against two wheelchair users with muscular dystrophy in a 2015 referendum on gay marriage, because the country’s courts had not allowed them to request accessible polling places ahead of the vote./This case was the first in which the ECHR extended its jurisdiction to referendums https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/10-october/echr-ruling-has-europe-wide-implications-on-disability
ALT0 ... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia on voters' rights for the disabled in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights for the first time extended its jurisdiction to referndums? same as above

Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Hathaway Hewitt
Comment: hook could be adapted as it is a bit long, but in my opinion it would be fair to find a wording which includes both the gay and the disabled

Created by 2004ana (talk). Nominated by Paradise Chronicle (talk) at 10:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Alternative hook if you'd like:

ALT2: ... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia, initiated by two disabled voters who said they were discriminated against in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referenda?

Right at 200 characters and has both elements that you'd like to keep. Others are possible but tricky to figure out. Referendums/referenda are interchangeable. Urve (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3:... that in the judgement of Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia on voters' rights for the disabled in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referendums? same as above

ALT2 is the best IMO. It humanizes the facts in a way that the other hooks do not. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gatoclassThen let's go with ALT2.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, I edited ALT2 for accuracy, please check that the change is acceptable to you, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an uncited paragraph in "The court's decision" section. Gatoclass (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck ALT2 as I've realized it's problematic. Instead proposing the following:

ALT4 ... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia, initiated by two disabled voters over access rights to a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referenda? Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with your proposition. And I have sourced the uncited paragraph.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed that there's another unsourced sentence at the top of the "Background" section, could you fix that too please? Gatoclass (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed on article and ALT4. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass I have sourced the phrase in the background sections.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PC. Please note that I have verified all aspects of this nomination, but can't verify ALT4 as I supplied it, so we just need somebody to verify ALT4, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ALT4 is really good except for the phrase "access rights". Access rights does not mean anything. I suggest replacing the access rights with a different phrase. This text would be accurate:

ALT5... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia, initiated by two disabled voters over access to polling places in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referenda?

Topjur01 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that ALT5 was longer than 200 characters, so here is the 200 chars version:

ALT6... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia, initiated by two disabled voters over polling place access in a gay marriage referendum, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referenda?

Topjur01 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point that with the 200 characters as well, but it seems it has been taken care of.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the proposed alt is no longer mine, I can now complete this review. Article is new and long enough, neutrally written and passed a WP:PARAPHRASE check. The hook is cited and interesting, the only issue being that it is slightly over the 200 char limit at 201 chars, but given the difficulty we have had in getting it under the limit I don't think it possible to do any better. The important thing is that the hook doesn't read as excessively long. QPQ is done, nomination verified. Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6 to T:DYK/P3