Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton

[edit]
A Tyrannosaurus
A Tyrannosaurus
(
)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

  • Approved for April Fool's pool holding Oh wow, that hook and article are amazing. Bravo, good sir, bravo. The article was created yesterday (today), so newness is apparent. It is more than double long enough at 3000 characters plus. The article is written neutrally, has proper inline citations, and i'm not seeing any issues with close paraphrasing or copyvios. The hook is short enough and hilarious. And I guess cited in-line, for the off-kilter funny post for April Fool's that it is. The QPQ is done and no image is proposed. All good. SilverserenC 07:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I know that we are supposed to permit a significant degree of leeway for April Fool's Day hooks, but the current hook is technically incorrect. In civil forfeiture cases, the property that is seized is not actually a party to the case, and it is therefore incorrect to say that the property is being "sued." Cases styled "United States v. Property A" or "The People v. Property B" or "State v. Property C" arise when individuals sue to recover property that was seized in connection with alleged criminal activity (for an explanation of how this works, see this article at p. 312). Therefore, the litigants in cases like this are (1) the government that does the seizing and (2) the party from whom the property is seized. I therefore propose we use the following alternate hook:
Thanks in advance for your understanding. I just want to make sure that we don't give readers the false impression that the seized property is a party to the suit, even though it is in the title of the case. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. We already have precedence for this sort of hook running on April Fools Day with Batman v. Commissioner and United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls with a similar title to the original hook. Personally I think you are thinking too much into this for what is meant to be something funny. IF it was trying to be a straight serious hook then your alt would be fine but it seems too tame for AFD which is why I think the original is better. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: As the original reviewer, I disagree with your assessment. The original hook is perfectly in line with the kind of hooks that we run on April Fool's. They are meant to be misleading, that's the entire point. Per the nominator and my review, I once again approve the original hook. SilverserenC 19:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Silver seren and The C of E: with all due respect, the purpose of April Fool's Day hooks is to "to confuse and mislead Wikipedians and visitors, not lie to them" (see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know). Although editors may modify capitalization and formatting, core policies (such as WP:V) are still applicable and hooks are supposed to be "completely truthful." The fact of the matter is that the Tyranosaurus skeleton was never a party to the suit. Therefore, the original hook is not truthful. My underlying concern is that hooks like this will give readers a false impression about how civil forfeiture cases work (at least in federal courts in the United States); even after reading the article, readers will likely think that the United States actually filed a lawsuit against the skeleton. I appreciate the fact that similar hooks have been approved in the past, but that should not guide our decision in this matter. Indeed, there is so much good material for other hooks. You can say something about the Tyranosaurus being involved in black market smuggling, or you could say that a man sued to get his dinosaur back. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

While I haven't examined the legal nuances in dispute above, it does bother me a bit that the hook says the fossil was sued "as an illegal immigrant" when the article says it was sued as an illegal import. I like the original hook, but am inclined to agree with Notecard that such statements cross the line between innocuously misleading and outright false. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What if we reword:
ALT2: "... that the United States sued a Tyrannosaurus for entering the country illegally?" Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: the problem with ALT2, like the original hook, is that it simply is incorrect.The Tyrannosaurus was never sued; the person from whom it was seized sued to get it back. How about this instead:
ALT3: "... that the United States seized a Tyrannosaurus for entering the country illegally?"
Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I still think the original is the best (particularly given usually in legal cases the usual title is "Plaintiff vs Defendant" hence why the hook works) but I would consider ALT2 to be acceptable as it is along the same lines. alt3 seems a bit too serious for April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's wrong to say the tyrannosaurus was sued. I am not a lawyer, but it does seem to me that it's not unreasonable to interpret jurisdiction in rem as meaning the object rather than the person is sued. That certainly seems to be the gist of the wikipedia article devoted to the topic. Notecardforfree, what makes you think otherwise? Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

+1 to this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass and Daniel Case: the characterization of these cases as "in rem" refers to the power of the federal government to initiate proceedings to seize property, but the actual litigants in a civil forfeiture case will be the government and the person who has made a claim to recover their property. Here's how the process works in federal civil forfeiture cases in the United States:
  • Step 1: The government procures a "seizure warrant" from a magistrate to obtain the property (see this Justice Department guidebook at pp. 13-14). I should note, however, that there are some exceptions to the warrant requirement, such that the government can seize property without a warrant in some circumstances.
  • Step 2: The government actually seizes the aforementioned property. For the purposes of the forfeiture proceedings, the seized property is sometimes referred to as the "defendant property" even though it is not a litigant.
  • Step 3: The government gives notice that the property has been seized.
  • Step 4: The person from whom the property is seized files a claim for that property. If the government does not return the property, the government must then initiate civil proceedings in court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) to adjudicate ownership of the property. Although the property is listed as the "defendant" in the caption of the case, the litigants are actually the government and the claimant.
For a quick overview of how this works, see this article at pp. 13-14. The procedures for these cases are rather complex and they are certainly poorly understood by many. I am concerned a hook that says the T-Rex was "sued" will confuse readers and obfuscate the fact that the government and the claimant are the real litigants in civil forfeiture cases. If a consensus of editors still wants to use the word "sued" in the hook, then I will defer to the consensus, but I hope you all understand that the litigants are actually the government and the claimant, and not the property itself. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we don't have to use a word with legal connotations. When I sort of got this element of our April Fool's page started back in 2012 with United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, the hook was "... that the United States once fought 32 tons of shark fins, and the fins won?". Can we think along those lines? Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Or soften it:
ALT4': ... "... that the United States once took a dinosaur to court for entering the country illegally?"
I think ALT4 is an excellent compromise. Nice work! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'm still attached the original. I think that alt4 takes the sting out of the hook. The thing is that we have had "United States sued XYZ" hooks before and this is no different in a way that it is intended to be amusing and not taken too seriously which seems to be where this is heading. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
That's similar to the last one and for the same reasons I still support the original. Let the promoter decide please instead of just sticking new hooks in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's not strike out any hooks, so that whomever promotes this can choose between all options. I still think that using the word "sued" in the hook is misleading because these cases arise when a claimant goes to court to reclaim property that was seized, and the property is never a litigant. However, I think we should ultimately let a neutral, third party decide which hook to use. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
And I still state that we have had "US sued object" hooks before on the main page and this is no different, especially since Silver seren, Gatoclass and Daniel Case have agreed with the original hook. Hence why I implore the promoter to please continue the April Fools Day tradition of funny legal cases continuing the usual style of the original or ALT2. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
It isn't correct to say I "agreed" with the original hook. I had a different issue with it, namely that it says the dinosaur was sued "as an illegal immigrant", which I felt was a bit of a stretch. I think Daniel Case's hook was a good compromise, I attempted to make it a little more like the original hook by substituting "Tyrannosaurus" for "dinosaur". I have tried to stay out of further commenting on this thread because I've had a say on many of the other nominations and I'd been hoping we'd get some wider input on some of them, but I don't want to see my position misstated. That said, as I stated earlier I have put my reservations aside on this one and will accept the choice of the set builder. Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OK apologies. However we still have three people who support using the original hook and the fact that the re-review was not overridden despite all the alts means I believe that consensus has it that the original is fine for AFD. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • On another note, we might be short of images for April Fools sets so an image of a Tyrannosaurus could be used for this one. Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well there are two in the article. Do you want to use the one of it in the museum or the one of it in the dock? (ha ha) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Hadn't seen the proposed image, I like it. I think that is an excellent idea Gato as long as AFD allows us to IAR and suspend the "image has to be in the article rule". Potentially we'll have John Cena followed by a Tyrannosaurus who just lost a court case! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine to waive a requirement like that for April Fools. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I basically agree with Notecardforfree. How about
Not hooky enough IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Gato. I stand by that either the original' or ALT2 given the original review was not overridden. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • But we've established that the dinosaur itself was not sued, so the original or ALT2 are inaccurate. How about:
  • ALT7: ... that the United States seized a Tyrannosaurus that entered the country illegally? Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT7 approved for promotion (and the only one I'm approving here): the hook facts check out, and it is interesting and retains the AFD flavor. Assuming this is for the lead hook, we cannot use "pictured" in it because it isn't the seized Tyrannosaur, but I don't see any issue with using the image above with its caption. I've struck a number of hooks that indicated that the Tyrannousaurus itself was sued; in my opinion, as well as that of some others here, that just isn't accurate enough. (I prefer the wording of ALT7 to that of ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/United_States_v._One_Tyrannosaurus_Bataar_Skeleton&oldid=879795136"