Talk:Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Philippine government and a class of human rights victims of the Marcos regime have been fighting for some of the late Marcos' disputed assets in American courts for more than twenty years? Source: 553 U.S. 851 (Syllabus)—first case in US courts was in 1995 (In re: Estate of Marcos HRL), as of 2020 it's ongoing (District Attorney of New York County v. Republic of the Philippines) despite SC ruling my article is primarily about
- ALT1:... that after over twenty years of litigation, in 2019 human rights lawyers distributed some funds originally held by the estate of Ferdinand Marcos to some of his victims—over the unanimous objection of the Philippines? Source: Buan, Lian, Rappler, OSG: Martial law compensation from paintings 'disadvantageous' to govt "“To finally settle the issue, on March 11, 2019, a case conference was held attended by lawyers from DOJ, PCGG and OSG. The three (3) agencies unanimously agreed that, in the best interest of the Republic, it will no longer enter into the settlement agreement,” the OSG said."

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Hern Fossett & Template:Did you know nominations/George Washington's reception at Trenton

Created by Psiĥedelisto (talk). Self-nominated at 02:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This Indian litigation started in 1878 and was ongoing in 2013; the slow pace of litigation in India is very well known around the world so I'm not convinced people will be excited by the "twenty years" in the hooks. Is there a more human angle to the story? --kingboyk (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Philippines is not India. (2) This case has primarily taken so long in American courts. (3) The distribution of funds to elderly victims of martial law in the Philippines is not human? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be frank, since you asked, but this is just my opinion, I may well be in a minority of one, and I mean no offence:

(1) Am aware, have visited both countries.

(2) Wikipedia is global. Your hooks are fixated on "20 years of litigation" and I'm saying that does not give them (to me) any "wow" factor. Hooks should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". These hooks don't draw me in.

(3) I've no idea about the human story from reading your article. The article only uses the word "human" 4 times and "victim" 4 times, and that's including the footnotes. It tells me nothing about the plight of the victims at all, nor what the crimes were (that word is used once; "elderly" does not appear at all). You have a Background section, why not put a few details about the crimes and the victims in there? Also, was there no reaction to the payout from victim groups? As it stands, the article is a good but dry report of a legal case; I don't see it fascinating the average reader. The fascinating "human angle" material is in the linked article People Power Revolution, which is not new. --kingboyk (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to Human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship to the hook without it. The article I wrote is about the litigation. Could any litigation interest you? I think the litigation is very interesting and shows that even American courts can be very slow, and it's also interesting that a SCOTUS decision didn't settle the matter, which most people think always happens. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed, including a second opinion on whether the hooks are sufficiently interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that neither hook will be interesting to a broad audience. ALT2 is also too long. The article also has several aparagraphs without citations. A full review is still needed along with new hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- , reiterating my above comment that a full review is still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: @BlueMoonset: I am satisfied by multiple comments that what I wrote is not interesting to a large audience, so am withdrawing my own nomination. Given how poor a judge I was of the likelihood of my chosen hooks interesting others, I doubt I could write a hook for this article that would do so. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]