Talk:Menominee Tribe v. United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleMenominee Tribe v. United States 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 May 27, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 9, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
July 14, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 3, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconWisconsin Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Baffle gab1978, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC).Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles[reply
]

GA Review

This review is
transcluded from Talk:Menominee Tribe v. United States/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is too short, and does not adequately summarize the article. See
    WP:LEAD
    .
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief look, it appears the article is generally good and I expect we'll eventually pass it, but I may notice some problems when I do a more detailed review later. Ucucha 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under "State enforcement actions", the use of the {{cite court}} template results in a period placed randomly within a sentence. This issue recurs under "Federal court of claims".
That is a template problem - it is omitting "(Wis., 1963)" from the first citation and "(Ct.Cl., 1941)" in the second. Would you rather I enter it manually or try to get someone to fix the template? As an interim measure, I will do it manually, until I hear back. GregJackP Boomer! 19:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a template is emitting the wrong results, I don't think you should use it. Ucucha 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it was working fine when I put it in the article. Probably one of those evil WikiKnights... :) GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything to say on the arguments made before the Supreme Court?
✗ Not done - I'll see what I can find, but it is a 1968 case, so I'm not sure what I can find. In any event, I'll let you know. I've check all the Lexis law review articles, Oyez, Google, GBooks/Scholar, etc, and the case is just too old. All I can find is the blurb that I mentioned. GregJackP Boomer! 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really an issue if you prefer to keep it as is, but the layout of the "Notes" is odd, with the numbers at a different font size than the notes themselves. I'd recommend getting rid of the "small" tags.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 19:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Done-t}}, replaced with other images from WikiCommons. GregJackP Boomer! 19:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one for Stewart is good, but the one for Douglas (File:Justice_William_O_Douglas.jpg) has baseless licensing: it claims PD on the grounds that the author has been dead for 70 years, but doesn't actually specify the author. Ucucha 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll look tomorrow for another one (maybe at Lib of Congress - I already checked SCOTUS, without success). GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Uploaded a file from Library of Congress in PD to WikiCommons, replaced image in article with that one. It should now have all of the needed tags. GregJackP Boomer! 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I am now passing the article as a GA. Ucucha 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of deletion

I reverted a deletion of part of the article. It was claimed that the matter was OpEd, while in fact it was part of the facts of the case. I'll post more in just a few minutes. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material that was deleted from the lead is as follows:

In 1963, three members of the tribe were charged with violating Wisconsin's hunting and fishing laws on what had formerly been reservation land for over 100 years. The tribal members were acquitted, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Menominee tribe no longer had hunting and fishing rights due to the termination action by Congress. The tribe then sued the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Claims, which ruled that tribal members still had hunting and fishing rights and that Congress had not abrogated those rights. The opposite rulings by the state and federal courts brought the issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the tribe retained its hunting and fishing rights under the treaties involved and the rights were not lost after federal recognition was ended by the Menominee Termination Act without a clear and unequivocal statement removing those rights by Congress.

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article (see

WP:LEAD). The removed text is directly relevant to the case. See State enforcement actions section, where the three members of the tribe were charged for hunting violations, and the material was properly cited. The rest of the deleted material was likewise present in the body of the article, and properly cited throughout. The material is not OpEd in any way, form, or manner. GregJackP Boomer! 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

GregJack, you were way too hasty in reading the changes and in reverting the whole article. If you look more closely at the article history, you will see I did not delete all that material as you claim, but simply the word "even", together with making minor style changes. I made two paragraphs from the first paragraph of the Lead and some minor editing. There were no substantive changes. My second paragraph read:

In 1963, three members of the tribe were charged with violating

U.S. Court of Claims, which ruled that tribal members still had hunting and fishing rights and that Congress had not abrogated those rights. The opposite rulings by the state and federal courts brought the issue to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the tribe retained its hunting and fishing rights under the historical treaties and did not lose those rights after federal recognition was ended by the Menominee Termination Act, as Congress
had not made a clear and unequivocal statement removing those rights. by .

Yes, there's a typo - the "by" at the end should be deleted.Parkwells (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an encyclopedia article rather than a legal brief, I added material on changes in federal policies - for instance, the shift toward termination, as well as the shift away from it (the latter under Nixon) and made other additions. I also did much editing for style and clarity.Parkwells (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015

missing preposition in the second line of the "Federal Court of Claims" section; currently says "arising out the Wolf River Treaty," and should say "arising out of the Wolf River Treaty." Scottjaeschke (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Menominee Tribe v. United States. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menominee Tribe v. United States. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menominee_Tribe_v._United_States&oldid=1207554426"