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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:33, 26 September 2010 [1].

Menominee Tribe v. United States[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GregJackP (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article, as I believe that it meets the criteria. It is currently a good article, is stable, and is written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW and WP:SCOTUS criteria, especially in regards to the Bluebook reference style (which is slightly different from other reference styles). The case is a leading case in Native American (Indian) law as regards treaty rights. GregJackP Boomer! 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PUNC deals with whether the punctuation is part of the original quote and should be included inside or outside of the quotation marks ... it can be tricky, and often requires access to the sources ... if you still don't understand it after reading that page, don't sweat it, as it is not something that will hold up a FAC, but something you should attempt to understand. By the way CJLippert (talk · contribs) is an editor you might want to ping for review of this article (just keep the request neutral to avoid WP:CANVASS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the articles and found several problems (some are problems with the article, others are link (or lack there of)). So, here are my beefs with the current article or the current links
  1. The 1831 treaty preserved usufruct, not granted because the right was not taken away and then given back.
  2. The tribe was located in both Michigan and Wisconsin since time immemorial, though the current tribe is found only in Wisconsin. Some of the Menomini bands of the past were absorbed by the neighbouring Ojibwe while other bands were amalgamated into a single band that forms the current Menomini tribe.
  3. Since there were three different Treaties of Washington plus a Supplement, all in 1831, and through Treaty of Washington (1831) article was created, but focusing only on the Menomini Treaty and its Supplement, it and other treaties, if there were multiple ones signed in the same year by a tribe or tribes, placing a clarifier by citing the US Statutes at Large would greatly help. In the case of the Menomini Treaty and its Supplement, the citations would be 7 Stat. 342 and 7 Stat. 346, respectively. Similarly, as some of the links to the treaties are currently still a "red link", the in-line US Statutes at Large link would help the reader go directly to the source.N.B.: there is the template ((USStat|V|P)) that would make this a breeze.
  4. With the Treaty of Washington (1831) article, I wonder if it should be renamed as Treaty of Washington, with the Menominee (1831)? Or else, if one is really careful, the non-Menomini treaties could be inserted and appropriate section breaks would be needed. In that treaty article, showing Royce Areas 158~162 in eastern Wisconsin would be helpful.
  5. Minnesota is pretty big. Clarifying the location of Royce Area 269/321 would help. BTW, there is an appropriate image already available currently found in the Treaty of Fond du Lac, under the 1847 Treaty of Fond du Lac, showing the location of the Royce Area 269 that the Pillager Chippewa ceded to the US for the purposes of establishing a Menomini Indian Reservation. There isn't an image currently available on Wikipedia showing the same area as Royce Area 321 as Menomini land cession.
  6. On Dakota/Ojibwe with the notes: the specific parties involved were the Santee (Dakota Sioux) and the Pillagers (Ojibwe/Chippewa). The term "Dakota" can be used instead of "Sioux" but the converse does not hold, just as "Santee" can be used for "Dakota" but the converse does not hold. The reason is that there are "two" very different "Dakota" (Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonai)(and if you want to really split hairs, the "two" becomes six), and together with the Lakota, they collectively form "Sioux". In addition, through "Ojibwe" and "Chippewa" are interchangeable terms, both the Ho-chunks and the Menomini didn't have problems with the Mississippi Chippewa but with the Pillager Chippewa. If you're going to bother putting in notes, the notes should be concise and serve to clarify this without rambling (like the way I am at the moment).
  7. The transition from the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century is a bit too abrupt. Not sure how to bridge it, especially when the pertinent facts-at-hand occur in these two periods as well.
  8. Link to the Indian termination policy, may be valuable as there is a section in that article already regarding the Menomini. This should also clarify it was the mid- to late-1940s, and not just the 1940s. In addition, House concurrent resolution 108 of 1953 should be mentioned regarding the termination policy.
As for the last half of the article covering the Opinion of the Court and Subsequent developments, I don't see any problems there. CJLippert (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and addressing your points:
  1. Done - changed to "retained" hunting and fishing rights.
  2. Done - reworked. I knew better, part of my family went with the Menominee, the other part are with the Grand Traverse Band.
  3. Comment/Question - The USStat template is used in the references, are you recommending that I add an in-line one also? I'm more than willing to do so, but am curious if that wouldn't be redundant.
  4. Done - renamed to Treaty of Washington, with Menominee (1831).
  5. Done - added image.
  6. Question - I am familiar with the Sioux, their divisions and bands (not so much for the Ojibwe), but wasn't sure how much detail I should go into. I didn't feel that it was really that relevant to the article, but am willing to add more.
  7. Comment - I don't know if the intervening period is that relevant to the case - the treaties were included due to the treaty interpretation present in the case. I'm open to adding it though.
  8. Comment - not clear on what you are asking/saying. It is already wikilinked at the start of the Tribal termination section.
Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responses-
3. The USStat ref, in line, only if 1) article doesn't exist yet, or 2) if multiple treaties go by the same name, then to clarify which one. I don't know if we really need an inline link to each and every one of them, but that legal clarifier should be included inline first time the treaty is mentioned.
6. Maybe instead of "Santee and Ojibwe", you should say "Sioux and the Anishinaabe" (very general, and probably too general to be meaningful), "Dakota and Ojibwe" (general and meaningful) or "Santee and Pillagers" (specific); basically, to match parties involved in the conflict at the same organisational level.
7. Nevermind. Looking at the article, I see that I missed the transitional phrase "From that date forward for 100 years, ...."
8. I think the problem I have is just with Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the "Tribal Termination" section, as it wasn't in the mid- to late-1940s Menomini were identified for termination, but rather during that time they were part of the survey by the BIA to determine the condition of the tribe as so many weren't fairing well at all. It was only from 1950 onward that Menomini were identified when the poorest and the richest tribes were identified for termination because it was thought the richest (like the Menomini) could survive without being encumbered by the gross mismanagement of the BIA, while the poorest were identified for termination as it was thought their lives would drastically improve if managed by the states instead of by the BIA. Both assumptions proved disastrously wrong. Rewording the first sentence of that section to reflect this would be helpful. What would be even more helpful would be if the Indian termination policy article itself were edited to clearly iterate this point. Oh, in that termination section, have you considered using [[Indian_termination_policy#Menominee_Termination_Act|Menominee Indian Termination Act]] to remove that red link since there is a small blurb already in existence?
Thank you for such a wonderful article and hard work! CJLippert (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Done - inline cites added. 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Done - changed to Dakota/Ojibwe, edited fn to match, made sure ref was still valid. 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Moot.
8. Done
8a. Done - reworked sentence. 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
8b. Done - Wikilink replaced. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing:
9. "Crow Wing area" currently links to Crow Wing County, Minnesota. This link would be incorrect as the "Crow Wing area" refers to the Crow Wing River basin, so my first inclination was to recommend changing that to Crow Wing River, but as that really don't focus on the area of interest, maybe having a link instead go to the Long Prairie River—as this tributary of the Crow Wing River served as the dividing line between Royce Areas 268/361 of the Ho-chunks and 269/321 of the Menomini—would be more appropriate. The Royce Area 268/321 is bounded by the Leaf and Long Prairie Rivers on the north and southeast (both tributaries of the Crow Wing River), and by the Prairie du Chien Line on the west. Royce Area 268/321 covers significant portions of Wadena, Otter Tail, Douglas and Todd counties and very small portions of Cass and Morrison Counties... all west and south of Crow Wing County.
CJLippert (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Done - linked to Long Prairie River. GregJackP Boomer! 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks. That takes care of all the issues I've seen. So, no-caveat Support. CJLippert (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with suggestions:

Fixed. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kablammo (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Question - I tried to write the lede from a perspective of the layperson, but I'm open to suggestions. Where can we get someone to look at that aspect? GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - referenced to LexisNexis list of law review articles citing case. Note that this is behind a paywall. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions I have a non-US background which gives me familiarity with iwi vs the Crown situations, so I'll give the lead review a go.
  • Is it normal to have the first sentence of case articles be a statement of the holding? It immediately made it very hard to follow. Would "...was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the tribal hunting and fishing rights under treaty of the Menominee Indian Tribe" be sufficient? The rest of the lead lays out the situation much more clearly.
  • "terminated the tribe's federal recognition" - I'd appreciate clarification here that the primary effect is (I think) that it terminated federal funding to the tribe.
  • "Members of the tribe were charged with" - could use a mention of when this happened; ie. the subsequent year, and also that they were hunting/fishing on the land on which they had been resident, by treaty, before the legislation change, for 100+ years.
  • Also note from body of article: "lived in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan since time immemorial." Beautiful phrasing, but wouldn't archaeology place it at <20k years?
  • "On termination, the Menominee went from being one of the wealthiest tribes to one of the poorest." I would have appreciated mention of why the Federal process thought that termination was a good idea at all if this was the immediate outcome.
Iridia (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although these were suggestions and not an oppose, I believe all of Iridia's suggestions have been addressed. Iridia was notified and asked to reconsider here and has not commented further on the FAC nomination, although Iridia has been on-Wiki and her talk page subsequent to the notice (see here). GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a friendly note on expectations: quickly checking one's talk page on a weekend is a lot less onerous than doing a detailed read-through for checking against FAC standards. :) Iridia (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. I did not mean that you should have immediately returned here, and I'm sorry if I left that impression. SG told me that reviewers are often busy, and can't return right away - I was just trying to convey that I believed you would have seen the message and would return when you could. I'll try to use better phrasing in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'll get on these in the morning. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 07:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This now has more material than is in the text body - the two must be kept consistent. Also, how can "police and fire protection" be ended - if the tribe is "assimilated", wouldn't they receive normal county &etc. coverage? Iridia (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reservation was formed into a brand new county - since the tribe were the only residents, they had to pay for police and fire protection themselves, without any industrial tax base to support it. The same applied to all other services. GregJackP Boomer! 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear goodness. *is aghast* This is the kind of thing that is completely unfamiliar and has to be mentioned for those of us who are more used to, say, one police force that covers the entire country. I just learned there are twenty thousand such U.S. agencies... Iridia (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also do agree with Tony that the body prose needs further smoothing out: WP:MOSLAW says "Aim to provide an overview to an international lay audience", and between that and 1a, it just needs polishing. The content is clearly adequate. But as I only gave a lead review, I will limit my involvement to resolving my previous comments. Iridia (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too many problems in the prose.

  • Comment - I believe all of Tony1's objections have been addressed save one, as noted below. The one that is not addressed is due to a convert template in order to show both U.S. and metric measurements per WP:MOS. Tony1 was notified that the objections have been addressed and asked to reconsider here and has not commented further on the FAC nomination, although he has been on-Wiki and his talk page subsequent to the notice (see here). GregJackP Boomer! 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Not until 1871 would Indian Tribes officially become Domestic Dependencies, so the use of "the federal government" would not be appropriate and the "the United States" would be. Any land cessions after 1871, "the federal government" wording would be appropriate as it is assumed we are speaking of the federal government of the United States. Minor point, and it is legalese. CJLippert (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern: I think the licensing/copyrights for the images are pretty fine, except for perhaps File:US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart - 1976 official portrait.jpg. Robert Stanley Oakes was never a government employee; he was employed at National Geographic since 1960.[2] He may have been contracted to be an official photographer for government officials but under US law, copyright transfer to an employer (for work for hire) requires documentation. Otherwise, the copyright remains with the photographer. What I fear here from reading the LoC's page is that Oakes might have given permission/rights to the Supreme Court for unlimited reproduction, but might not have surrendered his copyright on derivatives (another essential component of Wikipedia's "free" policy). Could the LoC or the Supreme Court be contacted to clarify this? Even if clarified, the copyright tag on the image would likely need to be corrected (since Oakes was not a government employee). Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the LOC "No known restrictions on publication. Verified with the Supreme Court, 2004." located at [3]. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says "on publication", not "on publication and derivative uses" or "for all uses"; please read my concern again. Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it is not a freely available image. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your interpretation. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not so keen on "then" at the opening of a section. The back-reference has to climb over quite a boundary. And the very next para starts with "then" as well. And the third para. Just bin the word. Can you audit out "then" in sequential narrative where possible?
  2. "The court first made clear that the Menominee Termination Act did not actually abolish the tribe or its membership, it merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe." Would this be better? "The court first clarified that the Menominee Termination Act did not abolish the tribe or its membership, but merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe."
  3. "albeit not one under" ... "albeit" is a bit old-fashioned legalistic. I've been criticised for using it. "although not under"? Is "federal" not with a lower-case f? MoS says when in doubt, use lower case.
  4. Dash, not comma? "Court—that the"
  5. Surely "the Court had noted" with C, since it's titular, not generic.
  6. Mood tension: "If it had, the tribe had a valid claim for compensation but if not, then there would be no compensation." Surely, "If it had, the tribe would have had a valid claim for compensation; but if not, then there would be no compensation." Can you think carefully about the use of semicolons and colons; these boundaries are important in presenting involved, technical information.
  7. Noted ... noted ... note.
  8. "that stated that". (solved by accounting for the fact that the first refers to people, not things.).
  9. Try to minimise "that" where possible: "the court took note that Congress also amended Public Law 280 to state that in Wisconsin, Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected." -> "the court observed that Congress had amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected in Wisconsin."
  10. Do readers have to divert to the link to learn what "certiorari" means? Perhaps a phrase in parentheses after the item to gloss it (or is that clunky?).

You know, we'd love to get WP's legal articles on a better footing. Can you establish collaborations with copy-editors who are interested in / have worked on this area? I suggest withdrawal and the building of a team to transform legal articles, which in the short-term might re-nominate this one. I am picking up that a little library of words/expressions/constructions is required in this genre to avoid close repetitions of the clunky "note that", "stated that". You might consider starting a little copy-edit resource with advice specific to writing about this subject (buzz me if you prepare a draft); I see the film people have a very good tutorial page, although I'm not suggesting you go that far quite yet. Tony (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done
  1. Done - Not so keen on "then" at the opening of a section. The back-reference has to climb over quite a boundary. And the very next para starts with "then" as well. And the third para. Just bin the word. Can you audit out "then" in sequential narrative where possible? GregJackP Boomer! 11:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done - "The court first made clear that the Menominee Termination Act did not actually abolish the tribe or its membership, it merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe." Would this be better? "The court first clarified that the Menominee Termination Act did not abolish the tribe or its membership, but merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe." GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done - "albeit not one under" ... "albeit" is a bit old-fashioned legalistic. I've been criticised for using it. "although not under"? Is "federal" not with a lower-case f? MoS says when in doubt, use lower case. Changed to "although" and l/c. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Done - Dash, not comma? "Court—that the" GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done - Surely "the Court had noted" with C, since it's titular, not generic. I actually agree, on another article, I was told to change it during a GAN. Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done - Mood tension: "If it had, the tribe had a valid claim for compensation but if not, then there would be no compensation." Surely, "If it had, the tribe would have had a valid claim for compensation; but if not, then there would be no compensation." Can you think carefully about the use of semicolons and colons; these boundaries are important in presenting involved, technical information. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Done - Noted ... noted ... note. GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Done - "that stated that". (solved by accounting for the fact that the first refers to people, not things.). Now "who stated that" GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Done - Try to minimise "that" where possible: "the court took note that Congress also amended Public Law 280 to state that in Wisconsin, Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected." -> "the court observed that Congress had amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected in Wisconsin."
  10. Done - Do readers have to divert to the link to learn what "certiorari" means? Perhaps a phrase in parentheses after the item to gloss it (or is that clunky?). Not sure - I added a short explanation, what do you think? GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you pinged Tony1 for a revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, regretfully - you've put in some good work during this FAC, but there are still too many problems for me to accept this as FA-status. I would suggest finding a copy-editor or two to give this a good work-through before renominating; the below should not be considered a complete list of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article but dont think it is quite FA ready. Will post more extensive comments when I have a chance. Savidan 06:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have a particular issue that concerns how articles are written in the field of law, particularly case law. It is one which I have raised in some previous contexts, and I reproduce here (with original datestamp) the point with which I kicked off discussion on one of those previous occasions:

"There is a problem across a large number of WP pages that relate to legal topics, in particular which involve case law.

(a) to cite cases, including Wikilinks if available, in order to inform the reader of the cases, dates etc at which certain legal events took place;
(b) to cite or quote judgments to the extent that the article is describing what the judges said; BUT
(c) to cite other sources, that are not the judgments themselves, in describing the effects those judgments have.
Here is an example that used to be in Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (the article has changed somewhat since then). The article stated:

...the Supreme Court, since Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), has also interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats on a "one-person, one-vote" basis.

This sentence reports how two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted a clause of a constitutional amendment. This statement cannot rely on the citations of the cases themselves, which are primary sources. It is not reasonable to suggest that on the strength of two case citations, "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" could readily verify the claim made in the WP article regarding what was the effect of those judgments. The understanding of the effect of those two judgments must be based on a secondary source. This is a problem which plagues many articles in the field of law. I think it stems from this case citation approach being the prevailing style in the writing of scholarly papers in the field. However, it is not valid to transfer this use of primary sources in creating works in the secondary literature into the WP domain, which must rely on secondary sources in creating a tertiary literature. I encourage all the law students, law professionals, journalists and others who contribute to these articles to just pull out your case law handbooks and textbooks - it doesn't have to be anything as fancy as the Harvard Law Review - and provide secondary sources to ensure verifiability of these articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific examples where this is happening in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of the early treaties addressed hunting and fishing rights" is cited only to the treaty texts themselves - primary sources.
  • Much of the text around these early points (in "Early treaties") is cited jointly to the primary documents and to the the court case Menominee Tribe of Indians et al. v. United States. I am presuming the case is being treated here as a secondary source. If that's consistent with MOSLAW, then fine, but I would have expected a scholarly article about the treaties here.
  • "In 1954, Congress terminated the federally recognized status of the Menominee in Menominee Indian Termination Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 891–902" - this appears cited only to the statute. It seems unlikely to me that "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" would be able to readily work out that this was the effect of the statute, but that may depend where one thinks one should 'set the bar' for a reasonable educated person.
  • My main concerns are probably with sections "State enforcement actions" and "Federal Court of Claims" where I think the majority of cites are to case law. The cases are cited to support lines such as "Since the Menominee was still a tribe, although not one under federal trusteeship, the tribe had a right to assert a claim arising out the Wolf River Treaty in accordance with the Indian Claims Commission Act and the Tucker Act". If other editors believe that this is information that a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge would be able to reach these conclusions with only the case law before them, then I'm happy for my oppose to be disregarded. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamiltonstone. Per WP:MOSLAW, Referencing section (at the bottom of the page), it states:
"Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." (emphasis added)
Given that this a legal article, it was written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW, which is part of the overall WP:MOS. It is the consensus of the WP community. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <scratches head> Thanks - I'm not seeing anything at MOSLAW that speaks to my argument, but I may be missing something. I work with the law a lot, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be reading things in the same way as others including yourself. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More