Talk:Kuzych v White

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Kuzych v White appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the 1951 court case Kuzych v White, on appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, five law lords of the British Judicial Committee ruled in favour of a Communist-led trade union?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kuzych v White.

Wikipedia

Canada: British Columbia / Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

Detailed discussion of DYK nomination: March 2022

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) 23:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in the 1951 court case, Kuzych v White, on appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, five law lords of the British Judicial Committee ruled in favour of a Communist-led trade union? Source: Mark Leier, "Dissent, Democracy, and Discipline: The Case of Kuzych v White", p. 131, in Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker, Work on Trial: Canadian Labour Law Struggles (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 2010)
- ALT1: ... that in the Canadian court case, Kuzych v White, Myron Kuzych challenged a Communist-led trade union because it was not radical enough in fighting the employer for the rights of union members? Source: Mark Leier, "Dissent, Democracy, and Discipline: The Case of Kuzych v White", pp. 123, 135, in Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker, Work on Trial: Canadian Labour Law Struggles (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 2010)
- ALT2: ... that in a Canadian court case, Kuzych v White, a trade union argued that its own closed shop policy was in restraint of trade, so it could not be sued for breach of contract by a union member? Source: Mark Leier, "Dissent, Democracy, and Discipline: The Case of Kuzych v White", p. 125-127, in Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker, Work on Trial: Canadian Labour Law Struggles (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 2010)
- Reviewed: Exempt

Created by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Query: do the quote marks for bold and italics count as characters in the character count? They seemed to me to do so, unlike the [[ ]] and pipes, which did not count as characters. Formatting shouldn't count as characters, I would think?
No, because the characters are not counted from the edit box. Open this nomination template and look at the tools in the upper right hand side. Click on "Character Count". Then copy and paste your hook as it looks on the DYK listing, not as it looks in the edit window. The formatting quote marks don't show in that view, so not counted. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I obviously didn't understand how it works. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed. Original hook is 194 prose characters and both ALT hooks are 192. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Am I supposed to do something? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, nothing for you to do. Someone else will come along and review your nomination. I just wanted to be sure that potential reviewers knew that someone was needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. This process is all rather mysterious to me. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to pick this review up as a QPQ for Villa Taylor. Shall complete it today. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Pleased to pass this. Hope I’ve done it right. KJP1 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Article created within 7 days of nomination.
Certainly long enough.
Compliant, well-cited, neutral and comprehensive - and scores just fine on Earwig.

Hook

Meets the criteria. I might slightly shorten to make it a bit punchier - although I acknowledge some of the detail would be lost. Perhaps something like, DYK that “in the 1951 Canadian court case K v W, five British Law Lords ruled in favour of a Communist-led trade union.”

Other

My only concern is the image of Sir John Simon. Is the licensing ok? I’m no expert but it looks a little concerning to me. User:Nikkimaria is my go-to on all matters re. images, but there may well be editors working on DYK who also understand the complexities. It’s certainly widely used on here, including in Simon’s own article.

I wonder when and where the image was first published - the source link indicates it was taken in 1931 and donated in 1974, but it's not clear to me when if ever publication fit into that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the copyright rules are a mystery to me. It's a nice image, but if it's restricted in some way, so be it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I subbed in a caricature to replace the photo. The description of the caricature on the Commons sounds like there's no copyright problem? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No QPQ required.

It’s a very nice article, many congrats., and I support it for DYK. That said, I’m also a novice here, and I shall probably need help before I successfully close this review! KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the compliment! I appreciate the comment that the hook could be punchier. The reason for saying "British Columbia Court of Appeal" rather than "Canadian case" was that there could be direct appeals from the provincial appellate courts to the JCPC, bypassing the Supreme Court of Canada. I thought putting the BCCA in the hook might make some law geeks go "wait, what?" and click on it. But, I defer to the collective judgment here. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Let's leave it for the law geeks. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]