Talk:Ex parte Crow Dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEx parte Crow Dog is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2013.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 6, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 11, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 25, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled that an Indian could not be tried for killing another Indian in Ex parte Crow Dog, resulting in the passage of the Major Crimes Act?
Current status: Featured article

Comments[edit]

Please let us know how to improve the article. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling - and quotes[edit]

Hi, GJP. Have been slowly reading article between other tasks. "Accommodationist" is spelled with two m's. Also, I'm not sure I'd put it and "traditionalist" in quotes. I'd just leave the quotes off, or link to Wiktionary. Lightbreather (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 16:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte[edit]

I didn't know what Ex parte meant when I saw the article on the main page, it may be helpful to link this somewhere. I see no obvious place though, WP:BOLDTITLE discourages linking parts of the bolded page title, and "Ex parte Crow Dog is an ex parte decision […]" is pretty much the best I can do myself. :)
Amalthea 10:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came here with the same complaint and idea; I think this would be a valuable explanation for those of us who are unfamiliar with Latin legal terms. I presume the case was ex parte because one of the parties was deceased; if so, maybe it's also worth explaining that as well. Brad Baker (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What does it mean? Even linking to the Wikipedia article does not help much. Is it ex parte because he was dead? Bad omission for a FA! --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I can add some information to the article, but in the four previous reviews that the article has had, no one picked up on that. It was ex parte for the reasons stated in the article on ex parte:


I'll add a footnote. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Even ex parte wasn't linked, though. I also think the term is technical enough that some reviewer should have brought it up. This is a general encyclopedia, not a law site. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Chart[edit]

The chart under "tribal sovereignty" should be checked by someone who knows what's accurate or not. A row was deleted and one of the remaining columns was changed by User:Y around noon on Oct. 8. Woodshed (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I checked and it is accurate. GregJackP Boomer! 03:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ex parte Crow Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ex parte Crow Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Reading this through I'm left with the impression that Spotted tail was a thoroughly 'bad hat' (stealing a crippled man's wife, extorting ranchers, shooting a man while his cronies held him down) and therefore Crow Dog did the world a favour by shooting him. Or is the article (or the sources it draws on) lacking a bit in neutrality? I'm just asking... Moonraker12 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]