Talk:Held v. Montana

Did you know nomination

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 Edge3 (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 16 Montana youths are plaintiffs in the lawsuit Held v. Montana, the first constitutional climate change lawsuit to go to trial in the United States? Source: Noor, Dharna (June 12, 2023). "Young Montana residents bring climate change case to court for first time ever". The Guardian. . . . . . .Gelles, David (March 24, 2023). "In Montana, It's Youth vs. the State in a Landmark Climate Case". The New York Times.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: FYI: This is a current event, with the trial apparently concluding on June 20, 2023.

5x expanded by RCraig09 (talk), Oltrepier (talk), and Czar (talk). Nominated by RCraig09 (talk) at 20:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Held v. Montana; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Peaceray (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing process

@Oltrepier: Your 2000-byte edit was not "few further adjustments". Please make edits incrementally, rather than making large numbers of mutually unrelated edits, so that changes are easier for other editors to review. Usually, add content from one reference at a time, and separate formal/wording changes in their own edits, maybe separately for each section of an article. (I realize I myself made some major edits on 21 June, but they all related to a single issue raised at DYK.) Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

... and as a practical matter, long edits take a long time, making an WP:Edit conflict more likely, necessitating some hairy sorting out by at least one of the editors involved. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@RCraig09 You're right, sorry about that... I promise I'll pay more attention from now on; the same goes for archived links to the sources.

About Nikki Held, I actually added information about her just to add some more context about the cited plaintiff herself (as previously done for court cases such as Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Brown v. Board of Education), but I get your objection.

By the way, can you give me advice on formatting references in blocks, as you did on this article, please? Indeed, it seems very helpful when you need to save time and space, but I suppose I can only do it via the source editor, can't I? Oltrepier (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by formatting references "in blocks". But yes, the source editor lets you move the full-length citation into the /*References*/ section and leave <ref name=xxx/> in the wikitext (must include the slash "/"). More generally, in the source editor: above the big edit box, there are a few choices ">Advanced >Specialcharacters >Help >Cite". Be sure ">Cite" is chosen, and then click on "Templates" at the left and choose from the drop-down list. When the window appears, click "Show/hide extra fields", which will allow you to add archive links. Archive links are formed in the Wayback Machine at archive.org (paste the URL of the news or magazine article there to find an existing archive link, or form a new archive link if needed). Including archive links avoids WP:Link rot. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@RCraig09 Ok, I'll give it a try soon. Thank you for your advice! Oltrepier (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured in "Did you know..."

The hook for this court case is featured in the Did you know... section of Wikipedia's splash page as of this date and time. The nominating process is recorded at Template:Did you know nominations/Held v. Montana. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

MEPA: Montana Environmental Policy Act vs Montana Energy Policy Act

At the start of the article, we note the MEPA acronym for Montana Environmental Policy Act. Then later we use the MEPA acronym for Montana Energy Policy Act.

I thought this might be a simple mistake of the editor but the cited reference says Montana Energy Policy Act. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/montana-youth-climate-plaintiffs-get-historic-win-in-state-case

Sorry I am relatively new to Wikipedia. What do we do here? I don't see any existence of a Montana Energy Policy Act so I am assuming the cited source made a typo. YordleSquire (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

https://aboutblaw.com/9X8

Taking a look at a document the cited references links to.

See second page: it seems like there is a Montana State Energy Policy Act which is something different from Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). YordleSquire (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Or rather the State Energy Policy Act is a provision of the broader act MEPA? YordleSquire (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the language is a bit confusing.

And I'm trying not to delve into original research. YordleSquire (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I streamlined that section and sidestepped this issue... YordleSquire (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking things out on Talk Page (often a good idea). Since the Montana Environmental Policy Act doesn't have its own Wikipedia article (yet), I've removed the square brackets to avoid a "red link". Also, "enshrined" is a non-neutral term that I replaced with the more objective legal term, recited. I hope you enjoy editing. There's a lot to learn, and it's best to proceed incrementally, as you have done here. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree enshrined is not a neutral term. I used it as that was the language from the cited source. YordleSquire (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Contents of the August 14, 2023 court decision

• PROCEDURAL HISTORY p. 1

• FINDINGS OF FACT p. 9

I. PARTIES p. 9

A. Plaintiffs p. 9

B. Defendants p. 11

II. CLIMATE SCIENCE AND PROJECTIONS. p. 17

A. Climate Science p. 17

B. Climate Change Projections. p. 24

III. CLIMATE CHANGE HARMS CHILDREN AND SPECIFICALLY THE YOUTH PLAINTIFFS. p. 26

IV. CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALREADY ADVERSELY AFFECTING MONTANA'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. p. 35

V. CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALREADY HARMING PLAINTIFFS p. 46

VI. DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND HARM PLAINTIFFS. p. 65

VII. THE MEPA LIMITATION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION. p. 70

VIII. THE MEPA LIMITATION PREVENTS FULL REVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY IN MONTANA. p. 80

IX. THE 1972 MONTANA CONSTITUTION. p 84

• CONCLUSIONS OF LAW p. 86

I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE PROVEN STANDING. p. 86

A. Plaintiffs Have Proven Injury. p. 86

B. Plaintiffs Have Proven Causation at Trial. p. 87

C. Plaintiffs Have Proven Redressability at Trial. p. 88

II. MONT. CODE ANN. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(i) IS NOT A BARRIER TO REDRESSABILITY BECAUSE IT IS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER PARK COUNTY. p. 91

III. ALL PLAINTIFFS' CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ARE PREDICATED ON DEGRADATION OF MONTANA'S CLEAN AND HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT. p. 92

IV. DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AT ISSUE ARE SELF-EXECUTING is UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THIS CONTROVERSY. p. 93

V. THE MEPA LIMITATION IS SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY. p. 94

VI. THE MEPA LIMITATION VIOLATES THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION. p. 94

A. MEPA Limitation violates Plaintiffs' Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment - Mont. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3, 15; Art. IX, Sec. 1. p. 94

B.The MEPA Limitation Does Not Pass Strict Scrutiny. p. 100

• ORDER p. 101

(Presented here, to make further study easier.) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC))