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 SL93 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: I'm seeing potential issues with the source used for the hook, as well as sourcing and neutrality. I believe these could be easily rectified by a bit of searching within seven days, so I'm leaving as maybe for now.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Updated, per below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mikehawk10, thanks for the review. I added additional citations to address your sourcing concerns if there are further concerns you'll have to be more specific about what needs a better citation. The hook is supported by a post in EJIL Talk!, which is published by the European Journal of International Law and has an editorial board, which seems like sufficient to qualify as a reliable source for me.
I'm a bit confused by what you want changed in the article. First you state sovereign states and the EU clash all the time on EU court rulings which I'm not sure is true. The article already states that Hungary has not followed all of the CJEU rulings related to pushbacks, so I'm not sure what you're proposing to add? It's true that member states have occasionally disregarded CJEU verdicts, but that's like saying that not all drivers obey the speed limit. It doesn't change the speed limit unless the speeding drivers mobilize to get the speed limit changed, (I guess this would be analogous to abolishing the CJEU or repealing the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) which so far hasn't happened.
As for the forced disappearances and crimes against humanity, the sources describe both rhetorical and legal efforts to apply the latter label. I'm not aware of any successful efforts to charge individuals with crimes against humanity for their role in pushbacks, or I would have mentioned it. I believe this is still in progress. (t · c) buidhe 18:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Sorry for my delay in responding. I'm satisfied with your responses and will approve the DYK. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing potential issues with the source used for the hook, as well as sourcing and neutrality. I believe these could be easily rectified by a bit of searching within seven days, so I'm leaving as maybe for now.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)