Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Menominee Tribe v. United States[edit]

Menominee Tribe v. United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria for FA. It has been peer reviewed and had a GOCE completed. Please note that it uses the Bluebook citation style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1825_Prairie_du_Chien_Line.jpg: what sources were used to create this work?
  • File:ChiefOshkosh.jpg: notes indicate that a copy was published before 2003. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For 1825_Prairie_du_Chien_Line.jpg, with all due respect, how would I have a clue on what sources CJLippert used to create the image and how is it relevant? The image is properly labeled as CC-BY-SA, which is what is required for FA. I fixed the copyright tag on the ChiefOshkosh.jpg to PD-US-1923 per the notes. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As he's still active, you could ask. It's relevant because a) if he used a base map to create the image (as many people do), that should be identified, and b) the factual content should be verifiable using reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an image issue, not an article issue. The image is properly labeled as CC-BY-SA, which is what is required under the FA criteria. I AGF that CJL created and labeled the image appropriately. I'm not going to do research on the issue, but if you have a question on the image, feel free to raise it on the image page. GregJackP Boomer! 20:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if you're choosing to include the image in the article, it becomes an article issue. We need to be able to verify that the boundaries shown are correctly placed and supported by reliable sources on the subject. Also, if a pre-existing base map was used in creating the image, it needs to be identified so its licensing can be verified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That not what the criteria states. The criteria states "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." The image has both caption and alt text, and an acceptable copyright status. The image, as far as I can tell, follows the image use policy. It is not a "non-free" content, so that doesn't apply. If you have questions of the image creator, feel free to ask him, but I'm not going to do so. The image is properly labeled and licensed, which is all that is required. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't tell whether the image follows the image use policy unless you know its basis. The criteria also states that specific attributes are "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles", which includes WP:V. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Jim The FAC instructions say Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. The nominator has been asked to clarify the status of an image he/she has chosen to use in this article, which to me is the same as justifying a text source or web page as RS. The nominator could take one or more of the following actions

  • Contact the (still active) creator of the image to establish the sourcing
  • Withdraw the image (I've just had to do the same for an image which is probably OK but it can't be verified if the creator actually took the picture)
  • Replace the image with one of his/her own creation with appropriate base map and data sources

After 12 days there has been no sign that the nominator intends to respond constructively to Nikkimaria, and I think that will deter others from reviewing the article (as it did for me). I'm opposing on the basis that the nominator is unwilling to address concerns as required by the instructions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above is BS, but I have removed the image. The image requirements Nikkimaria has imposed are not in the FA requirements. I cited the policy and stated I disagreed with the interpretation. No one else commented on the interpretation, until today. In other words, I responded to her criticism and made efforts to address her objections. Responding positively does not mean that the nominator has to agree with all criticism nor take a single reviewers position as consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose. I think Nikkimaria is not alone in expecting maps at FAC to be sourced appropriately. I always make mine on the basis that they will be challenged if lacking data sources or base maps. Anyway, I'll look at the article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

I find it surprising that Americans can have different levels of citizenship, but that's not really relevant. OK, first pass Jimfbleak - talk to me?

  • Native American—link in lead?
  • 10 million acres.—conversion needed
  • President of the United States surveyed and sold the land—I'm sure this isn't to be taken literally, but neither do I understand what it means
  • current map breaks heading, looks bad.
  • complete acquiescence of Wisconsin—active or passive? Did they just overlook the situation or support the tribal actions?
  • single or double space between full stop and next sentence. Former is better, but you have both
  • tax liens—What is a lien? I have no idea what this means
  • US$300,000—not a big deal, but do you really need US in an article about, well, the US?
  • lobbied for a delay the termination until 1961,—missing word?
  • non-Indians—Since this doesn't seem to be a quote, shouldn't it be native Americans? To me, a non-Indian is someone who doesn't come from Delhi or Hyderabad.
  • to transfer to the state general criminal and civil—missing word(s)?
  • Claiborne also argued that whatever regulatory rights held by the federal government were transferred to the state of Wisconsin—" missing word(s)?
  • I'm not sure caps in refs are mos, although I can see why you have used them. It's not a helpful style of referencing (I had to search the text to find the Huhti that ref 2 referred to). However, I don't expect you to change this.
  • I've not checked the refs, and I want to have another read through. May be a couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me? ~

Addressing:

  • Native American—link in lead?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 million acres.—conversion needed
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, but I preferred the original "millions" style to the strings of zeroes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • President of the United States surveyed and sold the land—I'm sure this isn't to be taken literally, but neither do I understand what it means
Done. Reworded. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added "sold to settlers" - the tribe could hunt on the land until it was settled by farmers, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • current map breaks heading, looks bad.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • complete acquiescence of Wisconsin—active or passive? Did they just overlook the situation or support the tribal actions?
The state recognized the hunting and fishing rights of the tribe under the treaty and federal law, so did not interfere. It was also on reservation land, where the state did not have jurisdiction until the passage of Public Law 280, in 1953. GregJackP Boomer! 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • single or double space between full stop and next sentence. Former is better, but you have both
I don't understand this comment. GregJackP Boomer! 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you had a double space between the end of one sentence and the next, sometimes single. I've fixed these all to single now, which seemed to be in the majority and is also the preferred style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • tax liens—What is a lien? I have no idea what this means
Fixed, wikilinked. GregJackP Boomer! 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • US$300,000—not a big deal, but do you really need US in an article about, well, the US?
I didn't think so, but got dinged on it in another article. Just let me know which way to go. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, not a big deal, but I'd drop it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • lobbied for a delay the termination until 1961,—missing word?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-Indians—Since this doesn't seem to be a quote, shouldn't it be native Americans? To me, a non-Indian is someone who doesn't come from Delhi or Hyderabad.
The phrase "non-Indian" is widely used in federal Indian law (which, BTW, still uses the terms "Indian", "Indian country", etc.). See also Native American name controversy - a majority of Indians prefer the term "American Indian" over "Native American." I personally prefer Indian, but I am not going to get bent out of shape over it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • to transfer to the state general criminal and civil—missing word(s)?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiborne also argued that whatever regulatory rights held by the federal government were transferred to the state of Wisconsin—" missing word(s)?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure caps in refs are mos, although I can see why you have used them. It's not a helpful style of referencing (I had to search the text to find the Huhti that ref 2 referred to). However, I don't expect you to change this.
The style used is Bluebook, which has specific typeface requirements. For example, small caps are used for books, journal titles, and book authors. Italics are used for case names, chapter names, and article titles. Specific abbreviations are used, such as "N.Y. Times" for "The New York Times." Bluebook is pretty much standard for legal work, and is allowed by the MOS. (PS, I get this on a lot of reviews, not many are familiar with the style. If there are any specific questions on cites, I will be happy to answer them). GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not checked the refs, and I want to have another read through. May be a couple of days

I'll mark these off as I get them done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "different levels of citizenship". Your surprise is not abnormal. Indians were not taxed (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3) and not U.S. citizens until 1924. Even then, they are citizens by statute (Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253), not by right. Indians did not have the right to vote in many states until the 1960s, and are still widely discriminated against. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest we have here is equal status and additional support (like a TV station) for the Celtic languages in Wales and the Scottish island (although they were actively suppressed in the past), but they weren't the original inhabitants either... I've got to go and try to get a visa for India today, so further comments will be delayed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a few and fixed the space. My trip to Birmingham took up most of the day so rest of review still to follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more point The Menominee Indian Tribe lived in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan for at least 10,000 years.[1][Note 1... "Anthropologists have surmised that the Menominee, an Algonquian-speaking tribe, may have been in the Wisconsin territory as far back as 10,000 years ago — How do they know what language was spoken in a pre-literate society? Only the Maya had writing in pre-Columbian America, and even that didn't go anything like so far back (I don't think that any language did). I also find it improbable that any cultural group stayed as an coherent single entity for ten millennia, especially when most of the time was before settled farming in most of the Old World, let alone the Americas. It's obviously likely that the area was inhabited by native Americans at that time, but it seems inherently improbable that a group of hunter gatherers (+seasonal farming?) would stay in the same place, with the same culture and known language for 10 millennia while the rest of the world moved on around them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are misreading the quote. The Menominee (which is presently an Algonquian-speaking tribe) may have been.... That's how I interpreted the sentence, not that they were saying that they knew what language family the tribe spoke 10,000 years ago. BTW, Algonquian is comparable to Germanic language family, of which English is a sub-group. There is no "Algonquian" language per se. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll buy that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and ref 1 seems to be just a myth, with no more credibility than the stories of Adam and Eve or Beowulf. I can't see how this can possibly be an RS source for the statement when it quotes no anthropological sources whatsoever. It's pov, unsourced and improbable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the tribe's website? Or the other two works in Ref 1? Those both mention that anthropologists put the Menominee in Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan for 10,000 years, or from the end of the last ice age. "The Menominee are arguably the longest continuous residents of Wisconsin. According to the historian David Beck (2002), there is evidence of Menominee presence for at least several thousand years." Norbert Ross, Doug Medin, & Doug Cox, Epistemological Models and Culture Conflict: Menominee and Euro-American Hunters in Wisconsin 35 Ethos 478, 481 (2008); "The Menominee represent Wisconsin’s earliest residents, having occupied the area for more than 10,000 years.", Gary Sandefur, Miguel Ceballos, & Susan Mannon, Land and Population on the Indian Reservation of Wisconsin: Past, Present, and Future, Land Tenure Center, Univ. Wisconsin—Madison, Sept. 2000; John-Brian Paprock & Teresa Peneguy Paprock, Sacred Sites of Wisconsin 77 (2001). I could go on, it is really very well established. Let me know if I should change refs or rephrase, but the material is accurate. GregJackP Boomer! 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the text, you state their 10,000 yr existence in the area as a bald, unqualified fact. That's how it's presented in ref 1, but that ref is clearly not RS (might be better as an EL rather than a ref), and all you can say from that is that the tribe believes this, rather than it's provably true. I can't access the other refs, but your note 1 says Anthropologists have surmised, which falls some way short of the certainty implied by your sentence. Similarly The Menominee are arguably. I would suggest that you tweak the wording to make it clear it's a belief and/or possibility. Alternatively, if you stick with your text, give us a sentence or two to explain on what basis we know this as a fact. Sorry to get bogged down on one sentence, but this is FAC, and I need to get this clear in my mind. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to read: "The Menominee Indian Tribe may have lived in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan for the last 10,000 years." GregJackP Boomer! 14:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we got off to a shaky start, but I'm happy with the text as it stands. I still think that ref 1 may run into trouble if it's taken to be referencing a fact rather than a belief, but I'll leave that to others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this. I appreciate your effort. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

  • Support Comment-leaning support. Just a few things:
Tribal termination:
  • "The state of Wisconsin was concerned that with no industry for the tribe to tax, it would be responsible" it is not clear to me to whom "it" refers
  • The Sanapaw case: I do not find all of what is attributed to footnote 31 present in the source (which I've reviewed on FastCase, the legal research site the Virginia State Bar uses and I have access through them). Specifically, I do not find evidence of an acquittal. The case is fairly opaque on lower court history … can you provide an additional source on this?
Federal Court of Claims
  • "the current reservation" Not current any more, I'm gathering. Rephrase, perhaps?
  • I think you should insert dates for the Court of Claims decision, and the decision to grant certiorari.
Argument
  • "Charles A. Hobbs" if nothing else can be said about him, at least list his location, which should be after the syllabus.
  • The date the case was initially argued should be included.
  • Somewhere along the time, Marshall's recusal should be mentioned and, if possible, explained. I imagine it was because he was solicitor general before Johnson appointed him, and the case had been bouncing around long enough he had a conflict of interest.
Subsequent developments
  • "It has been used in college courses to explain tribal sovereignty rights, even if the tribe has been terminated—as the Menominee tribe was" I'm with you up to the comma, then the sentence seems to go astray.
  • "The opinion has been noted as a leading case in holding that under normal trustee rules, the Federal government acted as a trustee" Presumably in safeguarding Indian property (ha!) but the sentence needs a bit more.
Law reviews
  • "over 200" can this be updated to 2013, since a Lexis/Nexis search is involved?
Restoration
  • Why is the cited act italicized when previous acts mention have not been?
Well done. Once these are taken care of I will almost certainly support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

Tribal termination:
  • "The state of Wisconsin was concerned that with no industry for the tribe to tax, it would be responsible" it is not clear to me to whom "it" refers
Done. Changed "it" to "the state." GregJackP Boomer! 02:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sanapaw case: I do not find all of what is attributed to footnote 31 present in the source (which I've reviewed on FastCase, the legal research site the Virginia State Bar uses and I have access through them). Specifically, I do not find evidence of an acquittal. The case is fairly opaque on lower court history … can you provide an additional source on this?
"The court, however, found defendants not guilty because they were enrolled members of the Menominee Indian Tribe and the state had no jurisdiction to enforce its hunting and fishing regulations against them." State v. Sanapaw, 21 Wis. 2d 377, 378-79, 124 N.W.2d 41, 42 (1963) disapproved of by Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S. Ct. 1705, 20 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1968). From both Westlaw and Lexis, in the syllabus section of the opinion, immediately after the headnotes. The state was given leave to pursue a writ of error following the acquittal. I don't have access to FastCase. GregJackP Boomer! 02:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(not an actionable comment) What interested me is any proceeding happening after the acquittal! Wisconsin must have odd laws.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Federal Court of Claims
  • "the current reservation" Not current any more, I'm gathering. Rephrase, perhaps?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should insert dates for the Court of Claims decision, and the decision to grant certiorari.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argument
  • "Charles A. Hobbs" if nothing else can be said about him, at least list his location, which should be after the syllabus.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date the case was initially argued should be included.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere along the time, Marshall's recusal should be mentioned and, if possible, explained. I imagine it was because he was solicitor general before Johnson appointed him, and the case had been bouncing around long enough he had a conflict of interest.
Done. Good point - he recused from 98 of the 171 cases the court heard that year, for the reason you noted. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent developments
  • "It has been used in college courses to explain tribal sovereignty rights, even if the tribe has been terminated—as the Menominee tribe was" I'm with you up to the comma, then the sentence seems to go astray.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opinion has been noted as a leading case in holding that under normal trustee rules, the Federal government acted as a trustee" Presumably in safeguarding Indian property (ha!) but the sentence needs a bit more.
Removed. I can't remember what I was getting at, and the reference didn't help either. So I figure if I don't know, it probably doesn't belong in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Law reviews
  • "over 200" can this be updated to 2013, since a Lexis/Nexis search is involved?
Done. Over 300, Westlaw. GregJackP Boomer! 03:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration
  • Why is the cited act italicized when previous acts mention have not been?
It apparently was done during the copy edit, and I didn't catch it, probably because everything else he fixed was great work. Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 03:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this - I really appreciate it! GregJackP Boomer! 03:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I had been eying it as a Supreme Court case that I should probably do because of Bakke but between a busy travel schedule the past month and spending a lot of time writing an article, it sort of slipped through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • "During this period, the Menominee enjoyed complete freedom to regulate hunting and fishing on the reservation, with the complete acquiescence of Wisconsin". Can this be copyedited to avoid the repetition of "complete"?
  • "...for two reasons. The tribe was opposed to termination for a number of reasons" - repetitive, and judging by the subsequent list, is it not two, but "a number of" (which most readers i think would think meant more than two).
  • I had trouble following the paragraph that begins "The Court of Claims had to determine whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right." I think this is at least in part because of the different terms used to refer to the same legal questions, ie "whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right", then "denied the claim" then "had not been abrogated". Then I was a little confused by this: "two witnesses who stated that the law would not affect hunting and fishing rights acquired by treaty, but would abrogate any such rights acquired by statute" What is meant by "the law" - do you mean "the Act"? Finally, have i correctly understood this court decision: the court denied compensation because, it argued, hunting and fishing rights had not been taken away? In other words, the decision amounted to a contradition (but not an over-ruling) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision? If so, maybe need to spell that out to more explcitly set the scene for the case going to a higher court.
  • "...as he had been the Solicitor General the previous year and had participated in the government's preparation of the case". I'm guessing that an American might know that there is only one Solicitor General, and that it is a federal office (yes?), but since the rest of the para is about what the Wisconsin government was asked to do, this particular sentence should specify which government's preparation of the case (I'm assuming federal). Otherwise, ignorant people like me who surmise that each state has a Solicitor General could then conclude it is a reference to the preparation of the Wisconsin state's brief.
  • "reargument". Wikilink? It appears to have some particular procedural meaning.
  • Is there a suitable wikilink available for "reserved tribal rights"?
  • "The Act signaled the end of the termination era". Minor tweak and consistency question. An earlier sentence in this para refers to "the termination act" (all lower case). I suggest this later sentence should read "The Restoration Act", since both acts are mentioned in the para, but can you also look at the use of capitalisation of the word "act"?

Great article in general. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

  • "During this period, the Menominee enjoyed complete freedom to regulate hunting and fishing on the reservation, with the complete acquiescence of Wisconsin". Can this be copyedited to avoid the repetition of "complete"?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...for two reasons. The tribe was opposed to termination for a number of reasons" - repetitive, and judging by the subsequent list, is it not two, but "a number of" (which most readers i think would think meant more than two).
Done., removed "for two reasons." GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had trouble following the paragraph that begins "The Court of Claims had to determine whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right." I think this is at least in part because of the different terms used to refer to the same legal questions, ie "whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right", then "denied the claim" then "had not been abrogated". Then I was a little confused by this: "two witnesses who stated that the law would not affect hunting and fishing rights acquired by treaty, but would abrogate any such rights acquired by statute" What is meant by "the law" - do you mean "the Act"? Finally, have i correctly understood this court decision: the court denied compensation because, it argued, hunting and fishing rights had not been taken away? In other words, the decision amounted to a contradition (but not an over-ruling) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision? If so, maybe need to spell that out to more explcitly set the scene for the case going to a higher court.
Done., tried to clarify it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...as he had been the Solicitor General the previous year and had participated in the government's preparation of the case". I'm guessing that an American might know that there is only one Solicitor General, and that it is a federal office (yes?), but since the rest of the para is about what the Wisconsin government was asked to do, this particular sentence should specify which government's preparation of the case (I'm assuming federal). Otherwise, ignorant people like me who surmise that each state has a Solicitor General could then conclude it is a reference to the preparation of the Wisconsin state's brief.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reargument". Wikilink? It appears to have some particular procedural meaning.
Done.. Linked as "See also" to Oral argument in the United States. GregJackP Boomer! 19:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable wikilink available for "reserved tribal rights"?
I'm not aware of any link that would be appropriate. There are 91 instances of "tribal rights" on WP, none of which are an article about the concept. GregJackP Boomer! 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Act signaled the end of the termination era". Minor tweak and consistency question. An earlier sentence in this para refers to "the termination act" (all lower case). I suggest this later sentence should read "The Restoration Act", since both acts are mentioned in the para, but can you also look at the use of capitalisation of the word "act"?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these as soon as I can. GregJackP Boomer! 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment and source check:

  • I began by thinking that the article was a bit light on subsequent developments / significance / analysis, and thought i would try to add some in regards to Australia. I have in front of me Dorsett and Godden's A Guide to Overseas Precedents of Relevance to Native Title, which is cited in the article in support of the sentence "The case has been discussed internationally, for example in Australia regarding the relevance of indigenous or aboriginal title". However, the citation in the WP article is wrong (there is no reference to the matter on page 40 of the book) and furthermore the book makes no direct reference to this case. The only time the Menominee Tribe case is mentioned is where it apepars within quotes of other United States cases. That is, Dorsett and Godden make no reference to the case. I think this sentence should be deleted, but it does raise a small question mark for me about other sources, suggesting a source check is required. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that page error got in there, but I'm looking at the pages where the case is mentioned. On p. 64 (hunting and fishing rights as pre-existing rights), Dorsett & Godden directly reference the case in the section on hunting and fishing rights, and it is not within a quote on another case. On p. 177 (hunting and fishing rights need not be explicitly mentioned in treaty), and p. 178 (treaty abrogation should be explicit), it is contained within a quote of another case (United States v. Dion). I've corrected the reference. GregJackP Boomer! 03:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that. Oddly the case is not listed in the book's index (others are), and I spent a while searching, but didn't read every page - sorry i missed p.64. OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. GregJackP Boomer! 11:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (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/Menominee_Tribe_v._United_States/archive3&oldid=1046368949"