Talk:Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance 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. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tennessee Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is the subject of an

.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an

.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

external links switched to references

The sentence "The plaintiffs in the case were Hill, Plater, and Donald Cohen." links the name Donald Cohen to an archived page ( https://web.archive.org/web/20131103171959/http://www.gth-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1224159.html ) which is fine as far as I know, but there is an updated page on the same site at http://www.gth-law.com/attorneys/cohen which is in the external links section at the bottom of the page, which could also be archived and then added as the external link directly from the name, (perhaps both could remain as references rather than an external link? although as reference I'm not sure that they quite back up what the wiki sentence is saying rather than just being a resume' of the person.) 176.62.39.68 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the US Constitution with the Endangered Species Act in the "Laws applied" section of the fact box. The case did not so much address any significant constitutional issues as decide how the Endangered Species Act should be interpreted (i.e. is ESA retroactive or not). Splat (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not the slightest bit objective in tone. Regardless of whether you agree with the case or not (and yes, it IS an absurd case), the summary shouldn't be biased one way or the other. Bangdrum (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to work on expanding this page and revising, as appropriate, with references as part of a class project on Environmental Law with Aaron Frank at University of San Francisco. If it is possible, it would be great to have the opportunity to work on this between March and April, 2011, as part of Wikipedia's Public Policy Initiative. Read about WikiProject US Public Policy and see what other Universities are involved in the project. Justintaplin (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Details on our class project available here[reply]

As part of an environmental law class project for the University of San Francisco Environmental Management program travismn and myself have been working on expanding the article. You can view the class course description and assignment here. Please help us with feedback on how we can improve our article.

Cheers, Totranm (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Feedback

I linked the following on your page so far. Please feel free to unlink them if you feel it's interfering with the body of work on the page.

• United States Supreme Court
• snail darter
• Little Tennessee River

They are all in your lead section, so I felt that would be the most important place to link subjects mentioned in the case.

Also, I forgot to mention what the minor edits were when I made them. So when you view your edit history and see my name without any explanation, it was these links that I added. Sorry about that.

Jpparrish (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I notice the article uses both the written words "Section" and the symbol "§" when referring to sections of the Endangered Species Act. You might want to stick with one or the other for consistency's sake.

Jpparrish (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totranm and Travismn,

Please take a look at the edit history on your article's page to see some minor edits I made. Also, with regards to the following sentence located under your Arguments section, I'm not sure if the second "they" in the sentence is referring to the dam, or to the TVA. If it's referring to the dam, it should be changed to "it."

"They argued for an exception to be made in this case since the dam was started prior to the Endangered Species Act being passed and claimed they should be grandfathered in."

Otherwise, great job so far!

Jpparrish (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feed back Jpparrish. I've changed the use of the section symbol to just "sections", I think I caught all of them. Travismn has clarified the "they"/"it" situation.

Totranm (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is looking great! I especially like how you have several photos and background information on the ESA. I just have a few minor suggestions: federal environmental law shouldn't be capitalized. Sometimes you use the term TVA and other times "Tennessee Valley Authority". Try to be consistent in your terminology. I also suggest that you clearly state who the plaintiff and respondent is in the "Parties" section. Nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adawg03 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final page is shaping up nicely since the last review by James and myself (Annie)! Suggested inconsitencies have been changed to help the article flow better (e.g.: use of TVA and the Section v. §). Of all of the articles done for the class, this is one of the best executed! Excellent use of relevent pictures and captioning. I like that the article is straight to the point and goes into the necessary details without being to drawn out and boring. It is intruiging, well written, and conveys all of the neccessary information in a clear and concise manner. I have gone in and fixed a few grammar issues, so hopefully I got Aaron's "brown M & M" for you. All of the edits were minor changes and are revisable in the edits section. Good work guys! you look all finished to me!!! Lawlovesscalia (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawlovesscalia (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT FINISHED PRODUCT! Go check out the number of hits you guys have under view history...it's pretty impressive! A job well done, a beautiful page, and creating lots of interest already! So who's ready to party tomorrow night!? Lawlovesscalia (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see general comments by

]

Nice work so far. The article is very informative. Giving enough detail without giving too much. It has nice organization and is easily followed. The writing needs to be cleaned up a bit. Here are some specific comments. These do not represent the totality of my comments but some things that jumped out at me.

Lead Section: Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: [section] and for an even more thorough treatment see:

]

These two sentences seem contradictory: Judge Taylor presided over the case and on May 25, 1976 he refused to enjoin completion of the Tellico Dam. On January 31, 1977 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Taylor's decision and issued an injunction forbidding the completion of the dam.

"refusing to enjoin completion of the dam" sounds like refusing to issue an injection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarf613 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Framing the issues. These issues can be written more clearly. Either you should frame them as separate questions with a question mark at the end of each, or make them as stand alone statements beginning with the word "whether." (But don't write "or not" after whether, its implied).

For instance The two issues of the case were as follows: (1) Whether completion of the Tellico Dam by the Tennessee Valley Authority would violate the Endangered Species act. And, if so (2) Whether an injunction is required to halt construction of the dam.

Great work so far, keep it up!

Aarf613 (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase in the lead needs work: "a lawsuit was filed against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in violation of the Endangered Species Act". Was the lawsuit "alleging" or "claiming that"? As written, it seems that the lawsuit itself violated the Endangered Species Act.

First mention of a person should give the complete name: Warren E. Burger. Subsequent mentions should use just the surname.

Wikilink to

.

Please explain or delete mention of Hiram Hill's "suspension" from the University of Tennessee. If not directly relevant to the case, mentioning it may be considered a violation of

.

You mention "Joseph Congleton (who led the citizen's initiative)". Am I missing the part where you described this "citizen's initiative"?

What is "canon of construction"?

You write "created in 1933 after the Great Depression". Certainly, the Great Depression went on much longer than 1933.

You write "it would not make economical sense to stop the project". I suspect that you mean "economic sense".

You write "joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall and Stevens". Please give full names at first mention, and Wikilink. Also Rehnquist and Blackmun.

Please Wikilink "Senators Howard Baker and John Culver".

Is "God committee" a notable term? If so, reference it. If not, delete it. Right now, it redirects to Death panel. Surely, that isn't what you had in mind. See instead Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978.

Careful proofreading and copy editing are in order. I would recast "Though that population of the snail darter did not survive they were later on found in other streams" as "Although that population of the snail darter did not survive, they were later on found in other streams", and I would mention and Wikilink the other streams.

I hope that my observations are helpful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TN and TM

There are so many pages out there that should be linking people back to your page. Don't hide your light under a Bushel! I started to do this here and there. There is the

section or a section on the ESA and the Supreme Court on the ESA page. But of course, that is going beyond the scope of this assignment.

And you should go to the snail darter section here on the ESA Amendments page, and name TVA v. HIll and link it back. I put in one link to your page.

The Tennessee Valley Authority article mentions the case

but links to the snail darter controversy page. It should link to this one.

You should list this page in the see also section on the Tellico Dam page.

You should link the God Committee from your page to here. Aarf613 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've referenced

]

Don't merge!

While this case is obviously related to the overall snail darter controversy, an article about a specific Supreme Court case and holding generally should NOT be merged into a general article about the topic. Baker v. Carr should NOT be merged into the article on redistricting, nor should these articles be merged. This is the purpose of a wikilink! The Supreme Court case article includes specifics, like which justices were on which side and who wrote the opinions, that really have no place in the general article on the topic. 2600:1004:B14F:C56D:E44C:1AF5:E7CF:2C77 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]