Template:Did you know nominations/Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Orlady (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General edit
- ... that Eng Foong Ho v. AG held that the Singapore Constitution was not breached when a Chinese temple (pictured) was compulsorily acquired and an Indian mission and a Christian church nearby were not?
- Reviewed: Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid
- Comment: This article was created in a sandbox and was moved into the article namespace on 26 October 2011. The hook is referenced by footnotes 38–42. There is a photograph of the Chinese temple which is the subject of the case, but adding the word "(pictured)" would make the hook too long.
Created/expanded by Divya.pradha (talk), Smuconlaw (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Smuconlaw, (pictured) doesn't count as part of the hook, and its characters not counted. You can safely add the picture, if you so desire. Dahn (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Shortened hook and left same meaning Victuallers (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I ran duplication detector against the 2009 court decision, and the report finds several text strings that are copied verbatim. It's hard to describe a legal decision without using some of the court's words, but when that's done it's best to convert the words to direct quotations. I put quotation marks around one statement from the decision and I paraphrased another passage that was too close to the decision, but I'd like the authors of the article to make additional revisions to eliminate inappropriate "borrowing" from the source. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I had a look at the report, and have the following comments about the following phrases which seem to be the main ones that are potentially problematic:
- "... an executive act may be unconstitutional if it amounts to intentional and arbitrary discrimination ..." – I've put part of the phrase in quotation marks.
- "... this had nothing to do with proper land use planning as such ..."; "... declared that the temple property as well as another nearby property ..."; "... the appellants had not alleged any bad faith on the ..."; "... noted that the appellants had not alleged any ..."; "... gazette notification in relation to the acquisition ..." – I've reworded the phrases.
- "... is whether there is a reasonable nexus between the state action ..." – the phrase is already in quotation marks.
- — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm working my way through the article and sources. Something I'm unsure about: Is "Phang J.A." the same person as "Andrew Phang"? Is "Tan J." the same person as "Tan Lee Meng"? If so, the shorthand nomenclature is not one that is widely seen in English. I'm wondering if it would be OK to refer to these people as "Phang" and "Tan." --Orlady (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang and Justice Tan Lee Meng are referred to thus the first time, and thereafter they are abbreviated as "Phang J.A." and "Tan J.". This is the usual way judges are referred to in the common law world. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal brief or a law journal, and the writing style needs to be that of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal lays out some general principles of the writing style for law topics, with a major thrust being "appropriate for a lay audience." For a lay audience, forms like "Tan J." are obfuscatory, and thus undesirable. --Orlady (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- On further reading of the appellate decision, and comparing it with the article, I realized that the article was structured very much like the court decisions. This is not necessarily an effective way to tell the story of the case in the encyclopedia -- and closely following the structure of a source verges on WP:close paraphrasing. One thing that was missing was a clear chronology of the events -- when the authority first undertook to acquire the land, when the trustees appealed, when the lawsuit was filed, and when the two courts issued their decisions. Much of this information is in the discussions of the courts' decisions, but it tends to be buried there. I added a short section called "Lawsuit" between "Facts" and "High Court judgment", to tell when the suit was filed and to say something about its legal basis. It also would be desirable to retitle the "Facts" (a title that comes straight from court documents) to something like "Background" and add dates and similar details of the various events that led up to the filing of the lawsuit.
- As for the copied material, I've added some additional quotation marks. In at least one instance, the words were presented as quotations in the body of the article, but not in the lead. In general, when the court decisions are quoted or paraphrased, it would be desirable to make it clear that the statements are those of the court. Also, I think there are some additional instances where the flowery words of the decisions could be replaced with simpler language -- some examples of potentially replaceable words and phrases are "tendered", "inordinately delayed commencing", "prima facie", "on an obiter basis," and "not necessarily determinative of." --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would not change "prima facie" or "on an obiter basis". These are established legal terms with specific meanings that would be too complex to explain (hence the links to other Wikipedia articles). Evidence is usually "tendered" – I'm not sure it is helpful to try and alter this common English usage. I suppose "not necessarily determinative of" and "inordinate delay" can be reworded, though the latter is also a common legal concept. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
