- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Shadow docket
Nixon announcing the invasion of Cambodia
Fighter jet used by U.S. Air Force in Cambodia
Aerial view of bomb craters in Cambodia
... that the shadow docket stopped Nixon bombing Cambodia (pictured)?Source: "A few important orders are sprinkled through Supreme Court history: a (brief) execution reprieve for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg came on the orders list in 1953, as did a halt to the bombing in Cambodia in 1973." Many of the Supreme Court's decisions are reached with no hearings or explanation- ALT0a:... that the shadow docket ordered Nixon to stop bombing Cambodia (pictured)?
- ALT0b:... that a shadow docket decision ordered Nixon to stop bombing Cambodia (pictured)?
- ALT1:... that the shadow docket usually does not reveal which justices voted which way or why? Source: "Indeed, unlike merits cases, we usually don’t even know how the justices voted on the shadow docket—unless four justices publicly note their dissent (or three, if it’s an order granting review)." The Supreme Court's Most Partisan Decisions Are Flying Under the Radar
- ALT2:... that there was a 20-fold increase in shadow docket applications by the government during the Trump administration? Source: "But the number of substantive shadow docket decisions rose dramatically during the Trump administration. In those four years, the government filed shadow docket applications at 20 times the rate of each of the two previous eight-year administrations." The 'shadow docket': How the U.S. Supreme Court quietly dispatches key rulings
- ALT2a:... that under Trump shadow docket requests by the government increased 20-fold?
- ALT2b:... that Trump won 28 times more shadow docket requests than Bush and Obama? Source: "The Trump administration won shadow docket requests in 28 of 41 cases during his term ... Just eight were filed in 16 years by the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, four of which were granted." The 'shadow docket': How the U.S. Supreme Court quietly dispatches key rulings
- ALT2c:... that Trump won 28 times more shadow docket requests than Bush and Obama per year?
- ALT2d:... that under Trump shadow docket requests by the government per year increased 20-fold?
ALT3:... that the shadow docket gives the Supreme Court "no limit to what they can do"? Source: "'If (the justices) can make significant decisions without giving any reasons, then there’s really no limit to what they can do,' said David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union." The 'shadow docket': How the U.S. Supreme Court quietly dispatches key rulingsALT4:... that the shadow docket shows a "deficit of transparency and accountability"? Source: "But outcomes aside, the spike in shadow-docket cases involving issues of national importance—including battles over election rules and public-health measures to fight covid-19—highlights a deficit of transparency and accountability." Many of the Supreme Court's decisions are reached with no hearings or explanationALT5:... that shadow docket orders are "just acts of will, of power" and "not even pretending to be legal decisions"? Source: "'This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,' said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard. 'If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power. They’re not even pretending to be legal decisions.'" Missing From Supreme Court's Election Cases: Reasons for Its RulingsALT6:... that despite shadow docket orders being unsigned and unexplained, they are being increasingly used as precedent? Source: "Not only are these orders directly affecting millions of lives, but they’re also starting to be cited as precedent by lower-court judges—even though the justices themselves have long insisted that they lack precedential value." The Supreme Court's Most Partisan Decisions Are Flying Under the Radar- ALT6a:... that despite shadow docket orders usually being unsigned and unexplained, they are being increasingly used as precedent? Source: "Not only are these orders directly affecting millions of lives, but they’re also starting to be cited as precedent by lower-court judges—even though the justices themselves have long insisted that they lack precedential value." The Supreme Court's Most Partisan Decisions Are Flying Under the Radar
- ALT6b:... that despite shadow docket orders usually being unsigned and one sentence long, they are being increasingly used as precedent? Source: "In contrast, the 'shadow docket' consists almost entirely of summary orders, usually only one sentence long. ... Indeed, unlike merits cases, we usually don't even know how the justices voted on the shadow docket—unless four justices publicly note their dissent (or three, if it's an order granting review)." The Supreme Court's Most Partisan Decisions Are Flying Under the Radar
- Comment: This page was first moved to the mainspace on 26 August, and stayed there for three minutes before being moved back to draftspace. A page on the same topic was created in the mainspace on 1 September. A history merge of both pages was performed by Mz7, with an explanation found here. I assert that this page is still eligible for DYK despite the two different move/creation dates.
Moved to mainspace by Sdrqaz (talk) and Jaydavidmartin (talk). Nominated by Sdrqaz (talk) at 15:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
- I've added two images for the Nixon hook, meaning I've had to swap that from ALT1 to the main hook. I'm currently undecided as to which image would be better, so would welcome comments from others. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Changed to three images, unfortunately. I've swapped out the bomber images (too low-resolution for the Main Page, I think) and added what I think would be quite a good Nixon image, where he points out Cambodian _targets. I would probably prefer the original hook with the Nixon image: it's quite short and snappy. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: It's a little hard to tell in the page history, but this article was indeed created in mainspace at 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC). All of the revisions before that time existed in draft space and were history-merged by me after the content of the draft and the article were merged (see also Talk:Shadow docket#History merge notes). Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've added two images for the Nixon hook, meaning I've had to swap that from ALT1 to the main hook. I'm currently undecided as to which image would be better, so would welcome comments from others. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
The article is new and long. Even if the article was moved to the mainspace on 26 August, it still qualifies as this is exactly 7 days, so I'm OK with that. The article is reasonably sourced, and the extensive criticism section has been, in my view, properly handled (adequate attribution, diversity of authors, etc.). Earwig was spewing plagiarism alerts, but since the hits concerned quotes only, I have no problems with that. The pictures used are all right.
As for the hooks, using school marks, it's an A for ALT0 (hooky and even somewhat sensationalist, but true - exactly what is needed here), C for ALT1 (I don't find it "hooky"), A for ALT2 (also a good one); F for ALT3-ALT5 (we don't include opinions as DYK hooks unless specifically referring to them as such); D for ALT6 (The opinion of SCOTUS on Texas abortion law, which makes quite a lot of news, does have an explanation of sorts, it's just two-three paragraphs long; moreover, they are usually, not always, unsigned; but if this is fixed, it can be an interesting one). Therefore, as it stands, I have no particular preference to whether it's ALT0 or ALT2, so I leave this to the closer's discretion.
Pictures are all fine. QPQ not needed, as this is the first nomination. Overall, I see no reasons for the article not to pass DYK. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Szmenderowiecki. I've added ALT6a, which should take into account your concerns (good catch!). For what it's worth, ALT4 was written in The Economist's voice, so I think it's fine for stating something in Wikipedia's voice. As for ALT3 and ALT5, I thought it'd be more hooky instead of attributing the quote to obscure academics, but that's fair enough. All that said, I still prefer ALT0 with the photo of Nixon with the map, so (in a way) I'm not too bothered about the other hooks' success. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- As for ALT6a, I still can't accept it, because all decisions have an explanation. EVERY one. The hook simply does not support the "unexplained" notion. Unsigned, sure. Not intended to be used as precedent - absolutely. But not "unexplained". Regards ALT4, this sentence is certainly an opinion sentence, not an assertion of fact. Even though I have high regard for the Economist and peruse it sometimes, they do blend in their opinions in the articles and do not explicitly make a division between opinion pieces and regular reporting. So not, ALT4 is also out of question as presented here.
- However, since you insist on ALT0 with Nixon and the Cambodian map, I have no reasons to deny that request.
ALT0 with photo of Nixon pointing to Cambodia approved.see belowSzmenderowiecki (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)- In light of your comments, I've struck ALTs three through five. I'm still not convinced that all shadow docket orders are explained, though, unless you count the reasoning behind a dissent as being part of that (an inferred explanation, if you will). This death penalty order, for example, makes no mention of the majority's reasoning. But thank you for approving ALT0. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK, that means not every such decision is with a comment [1], so well, you proved me wrong (dissents do not normally influence the decision, unless of course that's a full-fetched opinion, when judges can address each other's grievances). I still don't see the support in the source, though. The best shot at this claim is this sentence (from Slate):
In contrast, the “shadow docket” consists almost entirely of summary orders, usually only one sentence long
but that doesn't exactly mean no explanation whatsoever. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)- I've provided ALT6b, but I guess it doesn't really matter since we're not going with it anyway. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just passing by – the Nixon hook isn't really accurate. As our article on the case, Schlesinger v. Holtzman, correctly explains, the order was ignored by the military and promptly reversed by an 8–1 full Court six hours later. (Back in the day, it was common for an individual Justice, in this case Douglas, to issue "shadow-docket" rulings in chambers. Such orders could be overturned by the full Court, as happened in this case.) It's thus not quite right to say that the order "stopped Nixon bombing Cambodia": Nixon kept bombing, and the order was quickly vacated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like that hook was too good to be true. I've added ALT0a for review in its stead. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. The source did not provide the info behind that order, so thank you for the correction. ALT0a isn't really gramatically correct. The shadow docket stopped could go, in my opinion, but "shadow docket ordered"... not quite. In that case, I'd rather stick to ALT2. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The grammar's been changed; see ALT0b. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's better, but it lost that hookiness en route. I'd recommend ALT2, rather than ALT0b, still ALT0b is not that bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szmenderowiecki (talk • contribs) 06:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- The grammar's been changed; see ALT0b. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. The source did not provide the info behind that order, so thank you for the correction. ALT0a isn't really gramatically correct. The shadow docket stopped could go, in my opinion, but "shadow docket ordered"... not quite. In that case, I'd rather stick to ALT2. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like that hook was too good to be true. I've added ALT0a for review in its stead. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just passing by – the Nixon hook isn't really accurate. As our article on the case, Schlesinger v. Holtzman, correctly explains, the order was ignored by the military and promptly reversed by an 8–1 full Court six hours later. (Back in the day, it was common for an individual Justice, in this case Douglas, to issue "shadow-docket" rulings in chambers. Such orders could be overturned by the full Court, as happened in this case.) It's thus not quite right to say that the order "stopped Nixon bombing Cambodia": Nixon kept bombing, and the order was quickly vacated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've provided ALT6b, but I guess it doesn't really matter since we're not going with it anyway. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK, that means not every such decision is with a comment [1], so well, you proved me wrong (dissents do not normally influence the decision, unless of course that's a full-fetched opinion, when judges can address each other's grievances). I still don't see the support in the source, though. The best shot at this claim is this sentence (from Slate):
- In light of your comments, I've struck ALTs three through five. I'm still not convinced that all shadow docket orders are explained, though, unless you count the reasoning behind a dissent as being part of that (an inferred explanation, if you will). This death penalty order, for example, makes no mention of the majority's reasoning. But thank you for approving ALT0. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Since it's shorter than ALT2, I would've thought it was hookier. Any suggestions, Extraordinary Writ? Sdrqaz (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not having any sudden bursts of inspiration either. I agree that ALT2 is probably the best option: it's hard to say why, but ALT0b just doesn't seem as hooky. Sorry I can't be of more help. (There's always "... that the U.S. Supreme Court can use the shadow docket to issue an extraordinary writ?" [2], but I fear I might have just a bit of a conflict of interest on that one.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're making me wish I chose a cleverer username. Is the grammar in ALT0a really that bad? Inanimate objects can order people to do something, like when a billboard orders you to buy the best toothpaste in town because eight out of ten dentists recommend it or whatever. That'd be hookier than ALT0b. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz and Szmenderowiecki: I think striking ALT0a for being grammatically incorrect is a bit too harsh. I think it's the hookier option, and "shadow docket ordered" sounds fine to me—interesting and mysterious. In any case, I'd much rather promote ALT0a than ALT2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think there is a fine line between an omission of one word which makes the sentence mysterious and yet easily understandable and something which doesn't make sense because it doesn't. At least "the docket stopped" makes more sense to me than "the docket ordered". But that's my personal perception of that. Let's ask Extraordinary Writ for ALT0a, and if they agree, I will change it to ALT0a. For now, ALT2 sounds a better option for me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with Szmenderowiecki regarding ALT0a. "The shadow docket ordered..." just strikes me as confusing, since it attributes intent to something inanimate. While I suppose one could argue that it's metonymy, it still just doesn't seem right. Perhaps it's because no one has ever used the phrase before. I'd still recommend going with ALT2, which is a perfectly good hook. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Argh. Since the winds are blowing away from the Nixon picture hook and towards the Trump one, I've added ALTs 2a and 2b. 2a is effectively a better copyedit of ALT2, with a snappier formulation, and 2b is a better all-round hook, given I doubt people care that much about applications – they want to know about the wins, and there's a larger multiplier there (and maybe some more context). Of course, at risk of beating a dead horse, ALT0b is still available. If one of the ALT2s are to be chosen, I'd prefer ALT2b. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, according to the source cited, {{The Trump administration won shadow docket requests in 28 of 41 cases during his term ...Just eight were filed in 16 years by the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, four of which were granted}}, which means that 28 won cases under Trump divided by 4 won cases during Bush and Obama gives us 7x, not 28x (but the per annum rate of winning requests was indeed x28 under Trump, compared to Obama and Bush 43 combined); and, reading deeper, in ALT2, it's the rate that increased, not the absolute number. I corrected both hooks to reflect that. Other than that, any of ALT2 to ALT2b are very good, and if you prefer ALT2b, I will grant it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't change hooks like that; introduce alternatives under. The "hookiness" changes drastically when you change 28 to seven. Added ALTs 2c and 2d. I don't think it's necessary to state it's the federal government either; the link to Trump is evidence enough that it's the federal one. Prefer ALT2c. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I know that, but the hook must be both hooky and true, which is why ALT0 fell apart upon closer examination.
ALT2c approved.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I know that, but the hook must be both hooky and true, which is why ALT0 fell apart upon closer examination.
- Please don't change hooks like that; introduce alternatives under. The "hookiness" changes drastically when you change 28 to seven. Added ALTs 2c and 2d. I don't think it's necessary to state it's the federal government either; the link to Trump is evidence enough that it's the federal one. Prefer ALT2c. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, according to the source cited, {{The Trump administration won shadow docket requests in 28 of 41 cases during his term ...Just eight were filed in 16 years by the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, four of which were granted}}, which means that 28 won cases under Trump divided by 4 won cases during Bush and Obama gives us 7x, not 28x (but the per annum rate of winning requests was indeed x28 under Trump, compared to Obama and Bush 43 combined); and, reading deeper, in ALT2, it's the rate that increased, not the absolute number. I corrected both hooks to reflect that. Other than that, any of ALT2 to ALT2b are very good, and if you prefer ALT2b, I will grant it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Argh. Since the winds are blowing away from the Nixon picture hook and towards the Trump one, I've added ALTs 2a and 2b. 2a is effectively a better copyedit of ALT2, with a snappier formulation, and 2b is a better all-round hook, given I doubt people care that much about applications – they want to know about the wins, and there's a larger multiplier there (and maybe some more context). Of course, at risk of beating a dead horse, ALT0b is still available. If one of the ALT2s are to be chosen, I'd prefer ALT2b. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with Szmenderowiecki regarding ALT0a. "The shadow docket ordered..." just strikes me as confusing, since it attributes intent to something inanimate. While I suppose one could argue that it's metonymy, it still just doesn't seem right. Perhaps it's because no one has ever used the phrase before. I'd still recommend going with ALT2, which is a perfectly good hook. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think there is a fine line between an omission of one word which makes the sentence mysterious and yet easily understandable and something which doesn't make sense because it doesn't. At least "the docket stopped" makes more sense to me than "the docket ordered". But that's my personal perception of that. Let's ask Extraordinary Writ for ALT0a, and if they agree, I will change it to ALT0a. For now, ALT2 sounds a better option for me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz and Szmenderowiecki: I think striking ALT0a for being grammatically incorrect is a bit too harsh. I think it's the hookier option, and "shadow docket ordered" sounds fine to me—interesting and mysterious. In any case, I'd much rather promote ALT0a than ALT2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're making me wish I chose a cleverer username. Is the grammar in ALT0a really that bad? Inanimate objects can order people to do something, like when a billboard orders you to buy the best toothpaste in town because eight out of ten dentists recommend it or whatever. That'd be hookier than ALT0b. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I'm not seeing how 28/41 is 28 times more than 4/16? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: 28÷4=7 and 4÷16=0.25, so 7÷0.25=28. It's the successful requests per year as a raw number, disregarding how many requests there actually are. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: ah, gotcha. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)