Talk:Sohappy v. Smith

Expansion sources

• Oregon History Project Aboutmovies (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This book, much of which is online in Google Books, has lots of info about this case:

Wilkinson, Charles F. (2005). Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 165. ISBN 0393051498.

-Pete (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deprodded

I removed the proposed deletion tag since the case is borderline notable. Some sources with a good level of focus on it:

• Gartland, John C. (1977). "Sohappy v. Smith: Eight Years of Litigation over Indian Fishing Rights". Oregon Law Review. 56: 680–701.
• Mills, Monte (2020). "Beyond the Belloni Decision: Sohappy v. Smith and the Modern Era of Tribal Treaty Rights". Environmental Law. 50 (2): 387–414.
• Blumm, Michael C.; Baermann, Cari (2020). "The Belloni Decision and Its Legacy: United States v. Oregon and Its Far-Reaching Effects After a Half-Century". Environmental Law. 50 (2).

Urve (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! This is the case in the Salmon Wars. It's hugely important. Yuchitown (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

I worked a bit to expand it, but then realized that this article is entirely redundant of United States v. Washington (a featured article). The cases were combined by the federal court, so as I understand it, the Belloni and Boldt decisions are both as much part of one as the other. So, I think this should be redirected to that article. It's possible some of my additions might be worth merging, but I'd proceed with a lot of caution before expanding a FA. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, and I didn't realize we already covered the case elsewhere. I wouldn't object to merging, unless I'm missing something. Urve (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate on the reader's part? I suppose, and as the person who inadvertently created a redundant article, I hope I didn't inconvenience anyone too much. Not unfortunate on my behalf though, I'd just consider it part of the learning process. Gotta say, I'm kind of surprised this didn't get caught and addressed when US v. WA went through GA and FA noms in 2015.

According to the FA, it seems that maybe the two cases weren't combined (as a less-authoritative source I had found stated) since the Belloni decision was in 1969 and US v. WA was filed in 1970. But they are clearly closely related, and I do think it's better to present Sohappy as a section of US v. WA rather than as a separate article, as it's a more efficient way to help the reader understand the full context. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got myself very confused between US v. OR and US v. WA. Taking a step back to reread a bunch of stuff. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! I'll also take a look within the next few days - obviously I'm not familiar with the case. (If it is duplicated, it's unfortunate that editors can find themselves researching things already written - that's what I mean :) ). Urve (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe just boneheaded on my part :) Having reviewed the text with a clearer mind, I still think a merge is the way to go, but it's not as much of a slam-dunk as I'd thought. I'll propose it under a new header to keep it clean. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose merge

The United States v. Washington article (a featured article since promotion in 2015) already covers Sohappy, as well as the Puyallup cases, in greater depth than we have here, as essential context to that case's ruling (the Boldt Decision, referred to in this article). I propose that it's better for an encyclopedia to discuss related granular items (like specific court cases) in a single article, in order to explore interconnections and context more effectively. The reader is certainly better able to learn about Sohappy from that article than from this one, and I expect that will always be the case. So, I'd propose to merge and redirect this article. It's possible we can find a few nuggets from the sources Urve and I have unearthed, and improve the FA a little, but those are small details vs. this more significant decision, so I thought I'd put the merge up for discussion first. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Peteforsyth. I've been thinking this over (and doing some reading) for the last few days, and I'm sort of torn in the middle, though I think redirecting is probably the right thing to do. This case is notable, but its notability does stem from United States v. Washington. That gives us a good reason to merge and redirect. But at the same time, all of the case's details may make that section a bit unwieldy, and it could stray from the overarching focus of that article. That's usually not a problem, but I do want to be careful with altering text at a featured article. My tentative thoughts are to redirect and merge - but we should keep in mind that there's always a possibility that as we learn more about this case, we could restore this page, and redirecting now doesn't foreclose anything in the future. Urve (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful comment Urve. Bottom line on this is, I'm out of my depth. I'm kind of a monkey with a typewriter when it comes to complex legal cases. I can imagine nicely structured article here that complements the FA nicely (and perhaps some trimming of the FA as that comes together), and I can imagine a merged version with a redirect...I really have no strong preference. But the current state of things seems pretty unhelpful to the reader. (I mean, I had a hard time sorting out how they connect, and I'm guessing other readers might too.)

Maybe this discussion would get better participation at Talk:United States v. Washington, though? I bet those who wrote and shepherded that one through GA and FA would have worthwhile perspectives. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what you're saying. I was going to alert the person who worked on this through its FAC, but they are semi-retired and I don't want to step on their toes. A talk page message would be good, though I'm unsure of how many people still watch it. (And sadly, I just realized that Notecardforfree, who helped work on the FAC, has not edited since 2018. They helped me with my first articles - also court cases - and were very kind.) Urve (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I disfavor a merge. While this case will probably never be a featured article, I think its historic significance warrants a standalone, a bit of a tuneup wouldn’t hurt though. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)