Template:Did you know nominations/2019 British prorogation controversy

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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ineligible

2019 British prorogation controversy

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that the 2019 prorogation of the British Parliament was found unlawful by Scotland's highest civil court? Source: Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.
- ALT1:... that John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, criticised the 2019 prorogation of Parliament as an "act of executive fiat"? Source: (Bercow) continued: “It’s one of the longest for decades and it represents an act of executive fiat.”
- ALT2:... that two of the Lords Commissioners boycotted the ceremony proroguing the British Parliament in September 2019? Source: The opposition benches in the House of Lords were empty as both Labour and Liberal Democrat peers boycotted the ceremony in protest at the suspension of parliament. It was left to (Baroness Evans, Lord Fowler, and Lord Hope) to formally receive the Commons Speaker and MPs.
- ALT3:... that the 2019 prorogation of the British Parliament is the longest suspension of the legislature for over 40 years? Source: In the last 40 years Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks: in most cases it has been prorogued for only a week or less.
ALT0a: ... that the 2019 prorogation of the British Parliament was found unlawful and voided by the country's Supreme Court in the cases R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland? Source: Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled … Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.

Reviewed: Jeannette Guyot
Comment: Another Brexit new article. The main hook might be dated come Tuesday, but even if prorogation is found lawful, it's interesting enough for a hook.

Created by Sceptre (talk). Self-nominated at 22:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC).

Date and length fine. I am striking ALT0 as the case is still ongoing and may be overruled. Also ALT1 is stricken for NPOV violations. I am more inclined to favour ALT3. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. However @Sceptre: I would hold this until the Supreme Court make their decision, hence why I am not approving it at this time. When the Court has made their decision, I will pass it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E: In the words of David Allen Green: Well. I've done an "ALT0a", which is just ALT0 but with UKSC substituting CSIH. This is the preferred one, given that it would be an elusive double-hook, but I'm okay with doing another nomination if you think that might be better (as an aside: do I need to do a second QPQ?). Sceptre (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually am wondering how this going into WP:ITN will affect this DYK. You probably should do a second QPQ, though. Raymie (t • c) 05:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Good to go, but @Sceptre: you'll have to get it promoted quick as once it goes on ITN it becomes ineligible but doesn't work the other way round. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Both articles were eligible for DYK before they hit ITN (i.e. the first was eligible on the day of nomination, and the second about twelve hours before it was added to ITN); I can't really be blamed for them hitting ITN when they did, I'm not an admin! I'll find another QPQ to do for the sake of safety... Sceptre (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Second review: KNGN. Sceptre (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @BlueMoonset: for guidance here: The article appeared in a bold link on ITN on September 24. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Sceptre, but the articles—both of those in ALT0a—are currently on the main page (ITN) with bold links and have been since yesterday, apparently—they're getting a good run. Once that main page appearance happens, a DYK for an article, in process and even if far enough along to be approved, loses its eligibility per the rules: Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. The idea here is that once an article has appeared on the main page, it is no longer eligible to appear in the DYK section. (This has happened in the past, and in-process nominations have been closed.) If this nomination had been further along, promoted to prep or queue, it would have had to be removed. (I don't know what would happen if an article was already posted on the main page in DYK when it was suddenly added to ITN. Should that ever happen, we'll probably have to deal with it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)