Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Kagama/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 [1].

United States v. Kagama edit

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the development of the Congressional plenary power doctrine over Indian tribes, and the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act in the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: nominated too early, withdrawn, renominated on 9 August 2015

Procedural note: Greg, have you read the instruction at the top of the FAC page about not nominating or co-nominating any article for two weeks after your previous nom has been archived? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had misread it as not re-nominating the article that failed. Can I get leave for this one to stay or do I need to withdraw it? GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for not returning earlier. The intent of this instruction was to ensure nominators took the time to resolve any issues with archived articles before nominating the same article again, or any other (that might have similar issues). The coords can and do give exceptions when an article has had little or no feedback but in your case three people stopped by (though admittedly none conducted a comprehensive review), and the fact that you weren't renominating the same article suggested to me an acknowledgement that it did need work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't understand what I should do with this one. Leave it here or pull it? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't think this really meets the guideline for an exception so will remove from the list but you can bring it back (or nominate another article) in two weeks, starting from when the last one was archived. I won't archive this as our discussion has just been a procedural one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Looking nearly exclusively at references and reference formatting.

  • First off, reference formatting. We're encouraged to accept more or less any reference style that is vaguely compatible with the MOS, but I'm still not convinced that the format used here is compliant with the FA criteria. I'd be interested to see an FA-class article with this use of small-caps. In particular, I think the fact that it renders titles in small caps instead of quotes (for article titles) or italics (for books and the like) is problematic with regard to the MOs. And even if it is deemed acceptable, it doesn't seem consistently applied; I'm a loss for why authors like Weiner and Wilkins are given in small caps, but Matal and Harring are not.
  • I think a lot of these are book sources. I know for certain that Americans Without Law: The Racial Boundaries of Citizenship is a book. I believe Wilkins, Williams, Vinzant, and several others are as well. These lack sufficient bibliographical information irrespective of citation format. Book sources general require publishers and ISBNs (where available).
  • And actually, the book listed in Further Reading is the Weiner source used as a reference, there cited in an enitrely different format (albeit one I prefer), and with more complete information. To be pedantic, ISBNs should be given as properly-hyphenated IsBN-13s at this point.
  • It is my understanding that abbreviated periodical sources (U. Pa. L. Rev. for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review) is discouraged by the MOS.
  • Image review: Mostly good. I'm not entirely convinced by the licensing of File:Crow Dog.jpg, however. Commons accepted the PD-USGOV claim, and its entirely possible that such claim is correct. But I don't see any documentation of that in the image information, and the link provided as the original sources no longer seems to lead directly to a page where this image is presented. Other PD options almost certainly apply here, however, so the impact is somewhat trivial.
  • Upon further consideration, I think the image captions are also uniformly short to the point of excess for the FA level; they provide insufficient context, especially lacking dates for the historical photos. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done no prose review. However, the "Trial of Kagama" section is uncited except via the footnote.

Oppose at this time, on reference formatting grounds, especially the lack of essential bibliographical information and the nonstandard small caps use. No opinion on prose at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to comments
  • Bluebook is specifically allowed per WP:CITESTYLE.
  • Smallcaps is allowed per WP:SMALLCAPS (an MOS page) at the next to last bullet, which states Certain citation styles (e.g. that of the Linguistic Society of America or Bluebook) require that certain parts of the citation, such as author names in alphabetical reference sections be written in small caps. If an editor has chosen this style, it should be respected per WP:CITEVAR.
  • Weiner (n.1) and Wilkins (n.7) are book authors and are in smallcaps per B1 and R2, Bluebook. Basically the rule is that "authors and titles of books, including institutional authors" and "titles of periodicals" are in smallcaps. Matal (n.2) and Harring (n.4) are not in all caps because they did not author a book. If you have questions on specific citations, I would be happy to point you to the rule for that case, and correct the citation if needed.
  • As noted, book titles are correctly shown in allcaps. Bluebook does not use publishers unless necessary to distinguish between different versions (e.g., the Penguin Books version of Dickens Bleak House), where it would be included as a parenthetical. See R15.4., Bluebook. ISBN is neither required, desirable, nor allowed in Bluebook cites.
  • Good catch on the "Further Reading" section. I've removed it since it was already listed in the "Notes" section.
  • I don't believe that the MOS discourages the proper use of a citation style. A number of FA use the ISO4 abbreviation style for journals, the Bluebook abbreviations are required by rule, see R6, and Tables 5-16 (T13 specifically for periodical abbreviations).
  • I'll look into the Crow Dog image licensing to correct it if necessary, or to replace the image.
  • Do you have any suggestions on the captions? I'm happy to correct them as needed.
  • I'll look at the sources for the "Trial of Kagama" section and improve those.
  • I would request that you look at my explanation on the referencing style and the actual policies. Both the bibliographical information and the smallcaps are properly used according to the style used. The Bluebook style provides sufficient information to locate the reference used and has long been used in legal academic writing. Indeed, MOS:LAW recognizes this, and the use of Bluebook has gone through numerous community discussions, all of them resulting in consensus to allow its use. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With my apologies, I'm withdrawing from this review. I am unable to resolve the conflict between content guidelines that require publishers for books and ID numbers or links to confirm the availability of offline sources while simultaneously approving a citation system that not only does not require such information, but forbids it. Especially dealing with serially-reprinted sources like Shuck (I presume you used an online archive of the 1889 edition, but there's no way to tell in this style). Regardless, this is apparently deemed acceptable, and since I'm unable to evaluate it fairly, I'll leave it to others to do so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see you withdraw, I think that your input would be very valuable. I disagree with your reading of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers, however. The first policy does not mandate the name of the publisher, it states that it is "typically" included, and the ISBN is clearly identified as optional. ID numbers or links is compatible with Bluebook, if a link is available it is typically included in the title, see e.g. n.45, n.46, and n.47, all of which link to the article cited. Anyway, if you reconsider, I would love to have your evaluation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Linked Shuck to online version of text. GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Montanabw edit

  • Reviewing: Montanabw(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting: Bluebook small caps are acceptable, the article conforms to Bluebook style, per WP:LEGAL and WP:CITE, so long as the citation style used is consistent and correct, it's fine. That said, it's a little hard to read. I wonder if you could create a "Sources" section where you can list the works cited at full size so as to be more readable, and then just the pinpoint cites in the footnotes. Also, I tend to favor adding URLs to link to the actual cases or law reviews where such exist. Montanabw(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer not to create a separate "Sources" section and would rather stay with a more traditional academic Bluebook style. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness: I'm not a fan of all the short subsections of one paragraph each, they make an article appear incomplete; I'd favor either expanding them or combining them; the sections on Crow Dog and the Major Crimes act could be consolidated. I'd make "the crime" and "path to the Supreme Court" into one consolidated new main section, not sure of a title, but "Murder of Iyouse and lower court cases" or something... also wonder if there is any more context to add- be nice to expand that bit. Ditto the "subsequent developments" section - the subheadings of one paragrpah each look like the section lacks comprehensiveness, I'd both expand the bit on the trial of Kagama and the consequences sections, if possible. In the criticism section, have you done any work on if the decision is still viewed as "good law" or if it has been refined or reviewed by later courts? That would be good info to have. Montanabw(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I corrected the subsection issues. I could not do anything on the actual trial, but will try to expand that. I'll also work on the good law aspect (it is, the Court still follows the plenary power doctrine). I'll post more when I'm done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reviewer above, though ISBNs are optiona, I'd suggest adding them where they exist. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mixed feelings on that. Must think it over a bit. I'll check my copy at the office tomorrow, perhaps...Montanabw(talk) 09:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live without the ISBNs, I suppose, but is there some way to put a url link into the cases and law reviews, even if just to an abstract? I really favor some way a person can just click to verify when possible, Findlaw has all the big cases online and some of the law reviews do have at least an abstract or TOC on their websites. I think the Bluebook is silent on that, and if you can link to a listing in Worldcat or Google books, I think that would enhance the usability of the refs. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start looking for open access links. I use WL and Lexis, which aren't feasible to link here, but I'll see what I can find. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the books are now linked to WorldCat, with one exception that is linked to a digital full copy. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to see the cases linked to FindLaw or somewhere too... saves a lot of time to click and go... Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the cases, with the exception of NLRB v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't, which was decided in June 2015, were already linked to justia.com copy of the opinion. The statutes are similarly linked to either cornell or legslink.org, based on what the template does. GregJackP Boomer! 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per comments below, some thoughts:
  1. I added back in the removed phrase, "From the time the crime occurred to the Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed." In light of today's glacial pace, that was quite fast. Do we know if that was the typical time span then for an interlocutory appeal, or was it fast even back in the day? If it was typical, or if you just added it for the sake of timeline, it can go, but if the speed was an unusual element, it should be noted (and sourced) Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "discussing the origins and formation of reservations" - that's pretty dang complicated and probably beyond the scope of this article, but might be useful to just have a few more links, the stuff added on Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and such was helpful. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There might be room to add a little bit on the issue of tribal sovereignty and why state law does not govern in these cases. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
  • Covered the 11 months in an explanatory note.
  • See comment below.
  • I'll see if I can get something in there - I was of the opinion that Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act covered it, but I'll expand it some. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I linked all of the law review articles to something too, normally the paywall for Lexis. GregJackP Boomer! 06:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My issues have been addressed and the bluebook citation style has adequate support for me as well. Adding appropriate links helped ease my primary concerns. Nicely done! Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

Looks good to me, just a few minor points before I support

  • I made some tweaks, please check
  • Should be Indian-on-Indian, you have both hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions
  • Montanabw has made reasonable suggestions for listing the sources and adding ISBNs where they exist which appear to aid reviewers and improve verifiability. I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that approach. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, your tweaks have improved the article. Thank you.
  • Indian-on-Indian, done.
  • I'm sorry, but Montanabw is incorrect here. The Bluebook citation style provides that a cite to a book include the following, in this order:
1. Volume number Rule 15.1.
2. Author, Rule 15.1, smallcaps.
3. Title of Book, Rule 15.3, smallcaps.
4. Page, Rule 15. (see also Rules 3.2, 3.3).
5. Editor or translator, Rule 15.2, normal case in parenthetical.
6. Edition, Rule 15.4, identify in parenthetical.
7. Publisher, Rule 15.4, indicate in parenthetical only if not the original publisher, e.g., a reprint, etc., with a second parenthetical showing the original date of publication.
8. Date, Rule 15.4, in parenthetical.
Example: 4 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 15 (G.P. Goold ed., H. Rackham Trans., Harvard Univ. Press rev. ed. 1934) (c. 384 B.C.E.).
  • ISBN is neither desirable nor authorized in a Bluebook citation. I could add a "Table of Authorities" section and remain compliant with Bluebook, but that is actually used in a practitioner's brief (as in a court filing) instead of in legal academic (law review style) writing. In either case, ISBN would not be used. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with that assessment, but see above. I'm thinking in terms of layperson reader-friendliness, in part. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are not bound by Bluebook here, and I agree with Montanabw's views on user-friendliness. That's not grounds ofr opposing an otherwise excellent article, so supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Notecardforfree edit

This is an excellent article about a fascinating case. I made some minor copy edits to the article, but overall, I think this is well on its way to being a Featured Article; the existing content is fantastic. The comments I provide below focus primarily on prose and style, with some rather arcane comments about word-choice. As with any legal topic, you can always go into further depth about the history, issues, or jurisprudential foundations of a case. However, I think this article does a good job of not going too far afield with issues that may not be directly related to the case.

  • As a preliminary matter, I am a HUGE supporter of using Bluebook style citations, and I urge you to ignore reviewers who urge you to deviate from Bluebook conventions.
  • If it is possible, you may want to add a paragraph or two discussing the origins and formation of reservations. This article touches upon some fascinating jurisprudential issues relating to sovereignty, the right to be governed, and autonomy. Consequently, it might be helpful for readers to know a little more about the manner in which the United States government took land from First Nations and “gave” them reservations on which to live. I also noticed that many scholars mention Kagama when discussing “fictional notion of the ‘consent of the governed’” with regard to tribal sovereignty. See, e.g., Matthew L.M. Fletcher, The Supreme Court’s Legal Culture War Against Tribal Law, 2 Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 93 (2007).
  • In the section about the Hoopa Valley Reservation, you include two sentences about traditional property rights among tribes living along the Klamath River. Can you provide a source to support the assertion about the existence of longstanding property rights? The Harring source may say something. I did a quick search but I couldn’t find any law review articles on the subject of traditional property rights in the Klamath River Basin.
  • In the section about the path to the Supreme Court, you write, “Circuit Judge Lorenzo Sawyer and District Court Judge George Sabin heard the challenge but disagreed on the law.” Could you say a little more about their disagreement? The Supreme Court opinion made it seem like these courts simply reached different results. You also mention this is an interlocutory appeal – did they offer conflict rulings on a motion challenging SMJ? If that is the case, then perhaps you should say the courts reached different results. It is hypothetically possible for two judges to “disagree on the law” and reach the same result, so I would clarify this language. I couldn’t find copies of the lower court opinions, but maybe the Harring source says more?
    • (Lurking) This FAC reviewer agrees that this would help! (Montanabw)
  • Overall, the article is very well written. You have a clear, precise writing style that I am sure serves you well in your work as an attorney. I have only a few very minor copyediting suggestions:
  1. This is an exceedingly nitpicky point, and please feel free to ignore this comment if you think it is too arcane or esoteric. You say that the Supreme Court issued an opinion “on Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883.” Don’t we usually say that the Court issues an opinion “in” a case? See, e.g., Richard Lazarus’ recent article at p. 542, where he says “The Court’s opinion in Brown.” I know that you begin the sentence with the word “in,” so perhaps it would make sense to say something like “Justice Stanley Thomas Matthews’ wrote the majority opinion in Ex Parte Crow Dog, where the Supreme Court held . . .” or something like that. It just seems a little odd to read that the Court issued an opinion “on” (rather than “in”) a case.
  2. You write, “if an Indian committed a crime he should be treated like a criminal and tried under the laws of the land.” Maybe you should clarify that by “law of the land,” you mean the laws of the United States? To me, I have always used “law of the land” as local laws and customs of the jurisdiction in which a crime was committed, which could mean tribal law in this case.
  3. In the final sentence of the Hoopa Valley Reservation section, you write, “Shortly before the murder, Kagama requested a title to the land upon which he built his home.” I think it is proper to say “requested title” rather than “requested a title.”
  4. Instead of saying “On the day of June 24, 1885,” why not just say “On June 24, 1985 . . .” ?
  5. You write, “The defendant was represented by twenty-seven-year-old Joseph D. Redding and the United States by Solicitor General George A. Jenks.” I would say “. . . and the United States was represented by George A. Jenks.” As it is written, the sentence is a little ambiguous. An uninitiated reader may think Kagama was represented by the United States. Also, I wouldn’t refer to Kagama as “the defendant.” It seems rather impersonal, so I would use his name instead.
  6. Instead of saying “Jenks argued the language from Crow Dog . . .” I think you should say something like “Jenks urged the court to apply its earlier ruling in Crow Dog, where the Court held that . . .”
  7. You write, “All told, from the perpetration of the crime to the Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed.” I would consider deleting this sentence, because you explained in the previous paragraph that the Court’s opinion was issued in May of 1886. If you do delete that sentence, I would move the sentence about Justice Miller’s ideology to the preceding paragraph.
  8. You mention the “San Francisco Circuit Court.” I’m not familiar with the old Circuit Court system, but wasn’t this an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of California?
  9. Instead of saying “Various law reviews have also been critical of the decision . . .” I would instead say “Various law review articles,” and identify the authors or articles as the source of criticism rather than the journal itself.

If you have any questions about any of my comments, or if anything is unclear, please let me know. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses
First, thanks for reviewing this. I really appreciate it.
  • Bluebook. I intend to use Bluebook style in the article. Thanks for supporting that.
  • I'll see what I can find on the reservation system. Fletcher is a great source for that type of info.
Not done, Notecardforfree. I've looked at how to expand the article to include this, but it is so complex, especially in California with the efforts to exterminate the tribes just 30 years prior, that I believe that it would detract from the article. I'll add it if I absolutely have to, but I would recommend against it. I believe that Montanabw holds the same view, that it's too complex. If both of you could comment or otherwise let me know which way I should go, it would be helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after thinking about this more I agree with you that it is too complex of an issue to discuss in this article. I understand that the history of persecution of First Nations in Northern California is particularly complex, and I hope readers of this article will be inspired to learn more about this important chapter of California's sordid past. In any case, I think the section about criticism of the case helps readers understand how this case has broader implications with regard to taking rights away from Native Americans. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto on Hoopa rez property rights.
Done. Note added. (04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC))
  • I'll clarify on the certificate of division issue. It's not really two courts disagreeing, but an old, no longer used procedure. I'll add an explanatory footnote to see if I can fix this.
Done. (04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC))
  • Copyedits (none are nitpicking, I appreciate your points on these):
  1. “on Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883.” Done, per suggestion.
  2. "laws of the land." Done.
  3. "Title." Done.
  4. "June 24." Done.
  5. Representation. Done, but you may want to look at it.
  6. "Jenks." Done. Look at this too.
  7. Eleven months. Done. Not done, see Montanabw's comments above. I'll see what I can find. (01:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC))
  8. San Francisco Circuit. I'll research and fix.
    Done. (01:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC))
  9. Law reviews. I'll fix this.
    Done. (05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC))
  • Thanks for being willing to accommodate my earlier suggestions -- all the changes you have made look good to me, including the language about representation, the language about the Circuit Court, and the language about Jenks asking the court to apply the Crow Dog dicta. I did, however, make a few minor copy edits, and I added that Jenks was Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Interior at the time the case reached the Supreme Court. Apparently, Jenks resigned his position two weeks after oral arguments to become an attorney for a lumber company.
  • I am also fine leaving in the language about the decision coming eleven months after the crime, per Montanabw's suggestion. Even though the length of time is somewhat self evident, I would still add a reference at the end of the sentence in which you mention the eleven month time frame (either to the opinion itself or to Harring).
  • Apparently, in the 1880's, there was an average of a three year delay between granting cert. and scheduling oral argument at the Supreme Court. One article I found says,

In the decade leading up to the enactment of the legislation that virtually eliminated the Justices' circuit-riding duties, the Court's flow of decisions was absolutely incredible by modern standards, ranging from a low of 242 signed opinions during the 1888 Term to a high of 298 in the 1886 Term. [Footnote] What once had been extreme bursts of spasmodic activity had become the indispensable norm. [Footnote] Nonetheless, the Court's backlog continued to mount even under its staggering workload; it now was running about three years behind in hearing oral argument after a case had been docketed. [Footnote] In the wake of a steady litigation boom in the lower courts, the Supreme Court's backlog had grown to "the absurd total of 1800" cases - more than six times the Court's annual output of signed opinions and "a load which made speedy and effective judicial administration impossible," despite the arrival of the first law clerks. [Footnote]

  • The quotation above is from Margaret Meriwether Cordray & Richard Cordray, The Calendar of the Justices: How the Supreme Court's Timing Affects Its Decisionmaking, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 183, 192 (2004). It might be worth adding a footnote to explain the unusual speed of the case.
  • Upon further reflection, I think a section about the history of reservations may be a little beyond this article's scope, but I would still consider adding another sentence or two about the history of forming reservations in the Klamath River Basin (if sources exist on the subject -- they may not).
  • Overall though, this article looks fantastic! Strong work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One additional point about criticism in law reviews: I would combine the brief paragraph about law reviews with the previous paragraph about criticism. Be sure to frame the criticism according to the name of the author, rather than the name of the journal or law review. Some of the criticism you mention in the previous paragraph was published in law reviews, so it should be no problem to extend the previous paragraph with another sentence or two that mentions the authors. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the Cordray source (although it almost started me on a rabbit trail, dealing with the establishment of the Second Monday as the start of the term (Cordray, at 190-92). Anyway, there's an explanatory footnote now. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I combined the paragraphs as you requested too. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making these changes. Once again, everything is looking very good! With regard to the law review articles, I think you should delete the sentence that says "law reviews have been critical." It isn't the journals, per se, that were critical. Instead, it is the authors of the articles who were critical (I understand the UPenn article doesn't have an author name, so I think you can leave that one as-is). Otherwise, the section about criticism offers an important perspective on the broader implications of this case. Good work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to change that - it now reads that the authors in law reviews criticized . . . Let me know if I need to tweak it some more. GregJackP Boomer! 08:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the change -- nice work! However, I would suggest placing the sentence that says "Various authors . . . ." before the two preceding sentences aout Clinton and Rotenberg, because they also published their criticisms in law reviews. Also, double check consistency with ellipses. In the criticism section, you have one ellipse with no spaces between periods, and one ellipse with spaces between periods. Overall though, this article is fantastic. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the ellipses, on the sentence about law reviews I reworded it again. Clinton and Rotenberg is/was noted law professors in the American Indian field and fit more clearly with Wilkins and Frickey. Let me know if the latest version is OK. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see -- it didn't occur to me until just now that you were distinguishing between professors and other law review authors. The way it is written now looks great. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I also want to write that I formally support promotion to FA. This is an excellent article and you have done a wonderful job responding to comments and suggestions during the review process. Hopefully this article will inspire readers to learn more about Native American history. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Comment dipping my toe in the water towards support, but a few concerns.

Lede
  • Paragraph breaks are your friends.
  • "Congressional Act", "Act" "Act" I believe should be lower case as not a proper noun.
  • Is the passage as a rider (legislation) so important it should be mentioned in the lede?
  • "plenary power over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes" a bit repetitive.
Crow Dog
  • "Crow Dog was detained and tried for the murder." I might strike "the". After all, he was not ultimately convicted of murder (after appeals).
  • " Thomas Stanley Matthews" I've never seen his real first name used. Generally, I've seen him referred to as "Stanley Matthews" (just like the other one).
  • " they must pass an explicit law-granting jurisdiction to the federal courts" what's up with the dash?
  • "anywhere in the land" maybe "anywhere in the nation"
Hoopa
  • "repository for other tribes" I've never seen repository used for groups of people before. Possibly another term. "home"?
  • "de facto" italics? Also, not sure about the "the" preceding"
Supreme Court
  • How did Kagama obtain counsel?
  • "Arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on May 2, 1886, only five months after the circuit court delivered a split opinion on the matter of jurisdiction. Both briefs remain in the public record" I would note that this was short for the time. And why is it necessary to say the briefs are in the public record? They usually are, aren't they?
  • "Redding argued that Congress lacked the authority to exert power over sovereign people that reserved certain rights by ceding large amounts of land to the federal government in treaties" Maybe "Redding argued that Congress could not assert power over sovereign people who, when making treaties to cede land, reserved certain rights to themselves." Something like that.
  • "He never argued" maybe "He did not argue"
  • I wonder if the last two paragraphs are neutrally stated? "Claimed" is a word I try not to use, when "contended" or similar is more neutral. ("Objection, argumentive")
  • You've said the Major Crimes Act allowed for federal jurisdiction over Indians who committed the listed crimes anywhere in the US. How then was it an element of the offense that the crime be committed on a reservation, as apparently was the ground for the directed verdict?
  • Would a state retrial have violated the double jeopardy clause?
  • I wonder if the word "murder" is appropriate (throughout) as no one was convicted. "killing" might be more appropriate except where murder is being referred to, as in the list of crimes subject to federal jurisdiction. Similar "victim".
  • I'm not sure how evenly stated the "consequences and criticism" section is. Have there been no law review articles that discuss the reasons why the federal courts continue to assert the jurisdiction granted by the Major Crimes Act? If the reasoning in Kagama is so faulty, why hasn't it been overturned? Surely the jurisdiction granted by the MCA has been contested by the accused in subsequent cases? What have those courts said about it? There is a bit of a feeling of "This case was snuck through in the bad old days based on faulty and racist reasoning and now we can't get rid of it."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
  • Lede
  • Paragraph breaks are your friends.
Done.
If I may offer my perspective here, I would suggest merging the last two paragraphs in the lede. Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, one-sentence paragraps are discouraged, and I think the lede would read more smoothly by combining the two paragraphs. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, I combined them myself, but please feel free to revert if you disagree. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congressional Act", "Act" "Act" I believe should be lower case as not a proper noun.
Done.
Done. Removed.
  • "plenary power over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes" a bit repetitive.
Done. Reworded. Let me know if I need to change it further. GregJackP Boomer! 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crow Dog
  • "Crow Dog was detained and tried for the murder." I might strike "the". After all, he was not ultimately convicted of murder (after appeals).
Done.
  • " Thomas Stanley Matthews" I've never seen his real first name used. Generally, I've seen him referred to as "Stanley Matthews" (just like the other one).
Done.
  • " they must pass an explicit law-granting jurisdiction to the federal courts" what's up with the dash?
Done, removed.
  • "anywhere in the land" maybe "anywhere in the nation"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed somewhat with footnote added, see comment below. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoopa
  • "repository for other tribes" I've never seen repository used for groups of people before. Possibly another term. "home"?
Done.
  • "de facto" italics? Also, not sure about the "the" preceding"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supreme Court
  • How did Kagama obtain counsel?
This was addressed in fn.7, Redding was appointed by Judge Sawyer.
  • "Arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on May 2, 1886, only five months after the circuit court delivered a split opinion on the matter of jurisdiction. Both briefs remain in the public record" I would note that this was short for the time. And why is it necessary to say the briefs are in the public record? They usually are, aren't they?
Done. Footnoted the time, removed comment on briefs.
  • "Redding argued that Congress lacked the authority to exert power over sovereign people that reserved certain rights by ceding large amounts of land to the federal government in treaties" Maybe "Redding argued that Congress could not assert power over sovereign people who, when making treaties to cede land, reserved certain rights to themselves." Something like that.
Done.
  • "He never argued" maybe "He did not argue"
Done.
  • I wonder if the last two paragraphs are neutrally stated? "Claimed" is a word I try not to use, when "contended" or similar is more neutral. ("Objection, argumentive")
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other
  • You've said the Major Crimes Act allowed for federal jurisdiction over Indians who committed the listed crimes anywhere in the US. How then was it an element of the offense that the crime be committed on a reservation, as apparently was the ground for the directed verdict?
Done, reworded jurisdictional sentence in Crow Dog section, added explanatory footnote. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a state retrial have violated the double jeopardy clause? I know it likely would today.
No, it would not, and would not violate it today. An Indian can conceivably be tried three times for one act, once by the feds, once by the state, and once by the tribe. See United States v. Lara. It really gets complicated.
  • I wonder if the word "murder" is appropriate (throughout) as no one was convicted. "killing" might be more appropriate except where murder is being referred to, as in the list of crimes subject to federal jurisdiction. Similar "victim".
Those were the terms that most of the sources used. Ike was in fact murdered, there just wasn't a conviction.
  • I'm not sure how evenly stated the "consequences and criticism" section is. Have there been no law review articles that discuss the reasons why the federal courts continue to assert the jurisdiction granted by the Major Crimes Act? If the reasoning in Kagama is so faulty, why hasn't it been overturned? Surely the jurisdiction granted by the MCA has been contested by the accused in subsequent cases? What have those courts said about it? There is a bit of a feeling of "This case was snuck through in the bad old days based on faulty and racist reasoning and now we can't get rid of it."
  • There has been no law review article or scholarly work that I've been able to find that supports the reasoning in the decision.
  • The MCA has been repeatedly cited and contested, but not overturned (or rather, when overturned, reversed by a higher court). 18 USC 1153 alone has 485 decisions listed in WL, with over 6,800 cites to the statute. The Court doesn't want to overturn it, because it opens up all sorts of other issues. If Congress does not have plenary power, there is an argument that the cessation of Indian treaties in 1871 is a problem, the various laws taking away Indian land was illegal (see Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock), etc. It calls into question the whole property title by conquest theory, and would basically stand Indian law on its head.
  • The Court is aware of it, Justice Thomas from time to time has dicta criticizing the idea of plenary power in this area. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, thanks for reviewing this, let me know what else I need to do and I'll be happy to do it. GregJackP Boomer! 21:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support If the sources are that way, the best you can do is complile them. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceradon edit

Lead
  • "Supreme Court case that upheld" -- you state in the second paragraph that it was upheld, which is a bit repetitive. Perhaps just: "Supreme Court case that tests"
  • "This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation." -- maybe you should make this the second sentence, so the current second sentence becomes the third.
Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act of 1885
  • "if an Indian committed a crime he should be treated like a criminal" -- I think this comes as a give. Perhaps just: "if an Indian committed a crime he could be tried under the laws of the United States."
  • "Indian Country ... Indian country" - the capitalization alternates in several places. Is this intentional?
Hoopa Valley Reservation
  • "Lower Klamath ... upper Klamath" -- capitalization alternates. Intentional?
  • "Porter took it upon himself to allot small parcels of land to the local people, thus upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." -- Perhaps just: "Porter allotted small parcels of land to the local people, upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." And, could you clarify if it was Indian local people?
Arguments
  • "twenty-seven-year-old" -- sure you don't just want to say "27-year-old"?
  • "The prosecution's "contention is that Congress may regulate intercourse with the Indians in whatever way it may deem wise and prudent." -- I think this can be paraphrased. Perhaps: "The prosecution held the Congress had the absolute authority to regulate Indians and their affairs."
Consequences and criticism of the decision
  • "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture." -- while I can believe that American lawmakers could do the former and believe the latter, this is not neutrally worded. Perhaps: "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were perceived by Native Americans as attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture."?
  • In a Comment" -- why is comment capitalized?
  • "depotism" (in the blockquote) -- if that's how Echo-Hawk spells it, it should have a "[sic]" next to it. If not, you can just correct it to "despotism".

Despite the quibbles above, I support promotion. Good work, GregJackP. I do find the topic of American Indians to be intriguing, though I find pretty much anything intriguing. Do ping me if you need another FAC review on such a topic. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Lead
  • "Supreme Court case that upheld" -- you state in the second paragraph that it was upheld, which is a bit repetitive. Perhaps just: "Supreme Court case that tests"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation." -- maybe you should make this the second sentence, so the current second sentence becomes the third.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act of 1885
  • "if an Indian committed a crime he should be treated like a criminal" -- I think this comes as a give. Perhaps just: "if an Indian committed a crime he could be tried under the laws of the United States."
Done.GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indian Country ... Indian country" - the capitalization alternates in several places. Is this intentional?
Done, lower cased all. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoopa Valley Reservation
  • "Lower Klamath ... upper Klamath" -- capitalization alternates. Intentional?
Done, upper case. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Porter took it upon himself to allot small parcels of land to the local people, thus upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." -- Perhaps just: "Porter allotted small parcels of land to the local people, upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." And, could you clarify if it was Indian local people?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments
  • "twenty-seven-year-old" -- sure you don't just want to say "27-year-old"?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prosecution's "contention is that Congress may regulate intercourse with the Indians in whatever way it may deem wise and prudent." -- I think this can be paraphrased. Perhaps: "The prosecution held the Congress had the absolute authority to regulate Indians and their affairs."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consequences and criticism of the decision
  • "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture." -- while I can believe that American lawmakers could do the former and believe the latter, this is not neutrally worded. Perhaps: "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were perceived by Native Americans as attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture."?
Not done. The current government policy and scholarship recognizes that the laws were an attempt to destroy the tribal culture and force the assimilation into white society. The motto of the Indian Boarding Schools was "Kill the Indian, Save the Man." See this (Assimilation of the Indians and the destruction of their reservations became the new federal goal), as an example of the scholarship on the issue. See also the United Nations report, it's also fairly clear that the effort was to destroy the culture of the tribes. It's not included in more detail here because it would bog down the article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That title, "Kill the Indian, Save the Man." made me cringe. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that was the viewpoint back then. A cousin of my grandfather escaped from the Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania and walked back to the reservation in Wisconsin. My grandfather and his brother were sent to the Haskell Indian School in Kansas. They didn't much care for it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a Comment" -- why is comment capitalized?
A "Comment" in a Law Review article is a term of art that identifies it as being written by a student member of the law review staff instead of an academic author or a practitioner. "Note" is synonymous with Comment. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depotism" (in the blockquote) -- if that's how Echo-Hawk spells it, it should have a "[sic]" next to it. If not, you can just correct it to "despotism".
Done, fixed typo. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this, I appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States_v._Kagama/archive1&oldid=1138474783"