Talk:Juliana v. United States

Infobox

Second opinion please. I had added an infobox to this article because it was listed in the "Category:United States Court of Appeals case articles without infoboxes." The infobox was removed by Masem, a veteran editor: "(Reverted good faith edits by Oceanflynn (talk): Techncially not at Circuit yet. nearly everything is related to proceedings before the district trial is heard."

Please confirm that this U.S. Courts of Appeals case article does not merit an infobox. I am fine with the decision either way. Thanks. Oceanflynn (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

{{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case |Litigants= |Court=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |CourtSeal= |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate= |DecideYear= |FullName= |Docket=18A-410 |Citations= |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |Judges= |Majority= |JoinMajority= |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |LawsApplied= }}

This web page gives the details of the case.

References

The case is still presently awaiting its trial and oral hearings at the District Court. The action at the Circuit Court and Supreme Court are all based on matters of appropriate venue/etc. It should not be treated as a Circuit Court case. --Masem (t) 20:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also to add - I would wait until actual oral arguments are given. If, for some reason, higher courts declare the case null, then there's little value of an infobox (though the article is still important). --Masem (t) 20:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem is completely right. In fact, the Oregon district court has refused to certify the case for interlocutory review, which is an appeal to a higher court regarding a ruling before or during trial (and which could be a circuit court case, because it goes through regular circuit court appeals procedures). Instead, the 9th Circuit action on the case (as well as the Supreme Court action) relates to the government's request for a writ of mandamus, which is a writ issued by a higher governmental body (in this case, the circuit court or the Supreme Court) that instructs a lower government body (in this case, the Oregon district court) to apply the law properly. That's a sure sign that the lower court still has full jurisdiction over the case. -- AyaK (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Masem} and AyaK. That was very helpful.Oceanflynn (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to update this, the Supreme Court turned down the government's request for a writ of mandamus, holding that such a writ could still be issued by the Ninth Circuit and that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule while that was possible. But again, a writ of mandamus is simply an action in which a higher court tells a lower court to apply the law properly, so the case is technically still not a Ninth Circuit case. In its order, though, the Supreme Court was critical of the trial court's refusal to certify the case for interlocutory review, which indicates (in my opinion) that, the Supreme Court majority expects the Ninth Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus. But we'll see! -- AyaK (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

One change made

I just changed the name of one of the individuals listed. I saw this mentioned over at this board, that's what brought me here.

First, the guardian's a tabloid, everyone knows this (on Wikipedia the discussion's still raging on as to whether it's notable or not) . Second, the reference itself is a commentary not an article , so it fails notability guidelines. Second, the individual is known by their birth name, not by their new name, so that too fails notability guidelines. Yes, I'm aware we want to be fair and if someone says they changed their name, use it. However, there's no clause in the notability guidelines for this to occur.

Yes, actors use stage names, and they're known and notable under their name, even then , their birth names are also listed. In this case, the individual is known under their birth name but not under their new name at all, so listing the new name can't be done per notability guidelines.

On top of that, there was no consensus to change the name anyway. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a tabloid by WP's standards, it is an RS. And the commentary is by the individual themselves, meaning it is self-identification, which always holds more weight. --Masem (t) 14:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, it's a commentary piece and the person who is the author, or purports to be (a newspaper wouldn't take the time to verify a commentary piece) identifies themselves as "Vic". There's no mention of the name "Victoria" or "Victor" and since "Vic" can be either, we still have no verification of a new name for this person, not to mention they're not known except under their birth name. Still fails notability. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It is the Guardian, no matter how you feel about it, we can reasonably assure that the person that wrote it is the name in the byline. Now yes, it doesn't explicitly tie the new name to the old, but there's no other person on this lawsuit list with the same surname, and all other facts we know under the old name match up. --Masem (t) 15:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We can also verify that over here [1] (from the organization helping the minors in the lawsuit). --Masem (t) 15:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It is the Guardian, no matter how you feel about it, we can reasonably assure that the person that wrote it is the name in the byline. Now yes, it doesn't explicitly tie the new name to the old, but there's no other person on this lawsuit list with the same surname, and all other facts we know under the old name match up.'

You realize that would be WP:OR right ? (Also, it might fail WP:NEWSORG). As to the second site, not so sure, there's no editorial oversight, and it's self-published so there's that. There's also the issue that this individual's not noteable under their new name as well, if that new name can be reliably sourced. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I find myself in complete agreement with Masem on an issue. The fact that Our Children's Trust, the nonprofit that represents the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, identifies the plaintiff as "Vic" defeats a claim of WP:OR. And while a self-published site such as Our Children's Trust may not be seen as reliable, it supports Vic's self-identification in The Guardian's article -- and The Guardian is clearly RS (the claim that it isn't simply mystifies me; while its print edition moved to a tabloid format in 2018, it's the same paper that's been around since the 1820s). The question of whether the individual plaintiffs are notable enough to be listed in the article at all is a different question, and I don't think this discussion has really addressed it. I actually haven't thought much about that; I'd like to hear what others think. AyaK (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from the dissent

Since the dissent is not controlling law, it doesn't make sense to quote about 60 words from the majority opinion and about 115 words from the dissent. So I cut the quote from the dissent down to the main quotes cited by the AP and by CNN, which is also about 60 words. It seems to me that the discussion now feels more balanced. AyaK (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

AyaK At the peril of indulging in "apocalyptic rhetoric" from the source, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia said, "So for now, all three branches of the federal government are sitting on their hands as the planet burns." You shaved Staton's remarks to 53 words, actually. Her comment that "My colleagues throw up their hands," a sort of remark likely very unusual in decisions, would keep it to 59 with the "and" in the original quote restored and "[but]" deleted. Would that work for you (as a Guardian reader)? Activist (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to be honest; I didn't actually count the words, just estimate the number. All I really wanted was for the length of the quotes from the majority opinion and the dissent to be about the same length, so six more words in the dissent wouldn't change that. But I'm going to rearrange the quote to put it in the same line order as in the dissent when adding these words. AyaK (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I actually went back and counted the words in the previous excerpt -- there were 62. Now there are 68. But adding your requested phrase doesn't throw off the balance, because this wasn't about numerical equivalency, but rather just trying not to present more of one argument than the other. AyaK (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Thanks much for adding back those six words and the Ce! Activist (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Some fossil fuel and industry groups intervened as defendants...

The lede should summarise the article William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)