Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ex parte Crow Dog/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 GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [1].

Ex parte Crow Dog

edit

Ex parte Crow Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FA criteria. It is currently a GA and just had a peer-review. Please note that this article uses WP:MOSLAW and per that styleguide to use local citation guides, references are in the Bluebook format. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62:

  • The second paragraph of Murder of Spotted Tail should give the reader some indication of whether or not there is any modern academic consensus as to which version of the story is accurate.
  • There is no consensus. There are basically three positions among historians. One block feels that Spotted Tail was a progressive, vision minded leader who was assassinated, one block feels that Crow Dog was standing up for the traditional views of the Lakota people against one who had sold them out, and the final block basically says they don't know, but give both sides of the story. I added a line to the paragraph indicating that there was no consensus. (As a side note, those in the first two blocks are not above taking potshots at the other in some of their articles - almost as if the fight between the two was still going on today). GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust that your evaluation of the sources is correct, but is the lack of consensus explicitly mentioned in a source somewhere? The reader should ideally be be able to verify such a thing for themselves. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reaction of the tribes is still bitter" So a statement by one guy that was made 40 years ago is sufficient evidence that the tribes are still bitter in 2012? I would disagree.
  • I added a statement by Larry EchoHawk from 2000. If you want, I can expand with other references, such as Wub-E-Ke-Niew, We Have the Right to Exist:A Translation of Aboriginal Indigenous Thought : The First Book Ever Published from an Ahnishinahbaeo Jibway Perspective (1996); Stewart Wakeling, et al, Policing on American Indian Reservations (2001); Larry A. Gould, Indigenous People Policing Indigenous People, 39 Soc. Sci. J. 171 (2002); and Ken Peak, Criminal Justice, Law, and Policy in Indian Country, 17 J. Crim. Jus. 393 (2011), just as a start. Just let me know which way we should go with it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the problem is a lack of references. I don't even think the problem is the claim that the tribes were bitter for a long time, which itself is quite understandable. The problem is the phrasing which implies that Ducheneaux's quote directly shows that the tribes are still bitter. This can be resolved by treating the bitterness of the tribes and Ducheneaux as two separate ideas: "Many members of the Indian tribes were bitter with this outcome for decades afterwards. Wayne Ducheneaux, president of the National Congress of American Indians, testified before Congress on the matter in 1968: [quote]" I hope, of course, that I am not misrepresenting anything. You're welcome to tweak the phrasing if I am. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start working on these in the next couple of days. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments after peer review. It's an excellent article. It's well-written and accessible, a rarity among law articles. Just a couple things I noticed on further reading:

  • You might consider linking Indian agent as discussed above, but better would be to both link it and describe the agent's role in text, i.e. "Indian agent, a representative of the U.S. government in Indian affairs." Or something else if that's not accurate. I see that it's linked later in the article; should be linked on first instance, I think.
  • "The treaty also provided that tribal members would stay on the reservation provided" repeats "provided". You might just say "stipulated" on first instance.
  • "the Black Hills Gold Rush brought prospectors into the Black Hills" could perhaps be worded differently to avoid repeating "Black Hills"; the second instance could be "the area" or "the mountain range".
  • It'd be good to elaborate on "mistaking the other man's intentions" if the source material can support it. What were their separate intentions, and how were they mistaken?
  • I'm not sure how to go about elaborating without adding a lot of material to the section. Crow Dog was concerned that Spotted Tail would try to kill him, as he had done to Big Mouth. Spotted Tail feared the same, as Crow Dog had put a rifle to his chest in July. Unfortunately, I haven't found cites that spell that out exactly, and to make it that concise, I would have to synthesize it from multiple sources. Do you have any suggestions? GregJackP Boomer! 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Batard0 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS articles fall under WP:MOSLAW, which states that references should be done in the local style. In the U.S., that is almost always Bluebook (sometimes ALWD, but not very often). Smallcaps are used in Bluebook for authors and titles. It is similar on journal cites - in Bluebook it is Vol# JournalName Page# instead of the more common JournalName Vol#:Page#. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments - the article is on the short end, but what has been written is very good. What follows are just suggestions for improvement. Take with a grain of salt. Savidan 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the U.S. Reports themselves to verify that the reporter gives the case name as "Ex parte Crow Dog." I have also seen this case cited as "Ex parte Kan-gi-shun-ca (Crow Dog)." Either way, the article title should probably stay the same, but if the latter is used in the reporter, perhaps it should be in the intro/infobox.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says that the case is the beginning of the plenary power doctrine, and I think that's at least a common view, but is this absolutely the first case where the Court discussed the power of Congress vis-a-vis tribes? After all this doctrine is only dicta in this case (since Congress hadn't tried to do anything yet). Perhaps similar dicta predate.
Not that I can find. As late as 1865, the court held in dicta that "Congress has never claimed, and cannot lawfully exercise the power of legislating for Indians, except as tribes or quasi domestic nations" in U.S. v Holliday, 70 U.S. 407 (1865). Crow Dog appears to be the first time that they speak of it. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a bit more context on how common "bad men" clauses were in similar treaties. Extra credit if you can nail down a specific time period and region(s) in which these clauses were used.
Done. Added to FN, this was boiler-plate language in 1821-68. All regions, from the northern plains, Indian territory, Arizona, etc. Apparently the Indian Service came up with standard language as Kappler shows 13 separate treaties with that language. GregJackP Boomer! 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See also section link. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the Dakota Territory trial court or supreme court an Article III court? If not, why did the Supreme Court have original habeas jurisdiction?
Fixed. Appellate jurisdiction from territorial court, sitting as a circuit court of the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I re-read the opinion, it is clear that it is an original habeas case. Although the court does not discuss the issue, the clear implication is that, with original habeas, the Supreme Court can be the first Article III court to see the case. It would be nice if there were a source to explain more on this, but perhaps that is asking too much. As for "sitting as a circuit court of the United States," that only means that Congress has authorized the court to hear cases that the Judiciary Act of 1789 requires to be heard by "circuit courts." It does not mean that it is an Article III court. Savidan 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says " first time in the history of the country, [that] an Indian is held for trial for the murder of another Indian." The first time in a federal court? Or the first time in a federal or state court? And, had Indians previously been tried for the murder of non-Indians? Not even a murder committed outside of Indian country? I recall reading about this in some of the sources I cited here. Probably the first two Kawashima sources, the Koehler source, and the Ronda source.
As far as I can tell from the sources, the first time in any court that an Indian was tried for killing another Indian. Prosecutions of Indian crimes against non-Indians go back beyond the start of the United States. Provisions for such trials appeared in a number of U.S. treaties in the early years, such as 1795 treaty with Wyandots, et al., the 1791 treaty with the Cherokees, etc. There was no specific language exempting Indian country for the mixed race trials. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If written at all, was the lower territorial decision reported? If not in a traditional reporter, perhaps in a newspaper or something?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the Major Crimes Act was in response to Crow Dog is certainly the conventional wisdom. But is there any legislative history or similar that makes this connection?
Done. Footnote and ref. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that might be useful in the subsequent developments section is to explain the later developments regarding criminal jurisdiction. I.e. all the permutations of (1) committed in Indian Country/not committed in Indian Country, (2) state court/federal court/tribal court, (3) same-tribe defendant/different-tribe defendant/non-Indian defendant, and (4) same-tribe victim/different-tribe victim/non-Indian victim.
I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably Crow Dog remained the law after the MCA for crimes other than the 15. Has anything since then changed that?
The MCA is still current law, so "Crow Dog" has been superseded by statute as far as the major felony offenses. I'll try to add more as far as laws dealing with tribal courts, etc., when I get a chance. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added material, will continue. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps note the territorial court history as prior history in the infobox.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changes look good. I still support. Savidan 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Images - File:Thomas_Stanley_Matthews_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with proviso that I've not looked at the images. I reviewed this at GA back in 2010. I had a doubt about one of the images then, but wasn't able to reach a conclusion. Hopefully that won't hold up someone more experienced with image review than I :-). My only other query is whether the very last sentence "Congress has subsequently used this power to breach the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa by reducing the size of the Kiowa reservation without their consent" is a bit off topic, as neither that treaty nor that tribe have been mentioned previously in the article. But it is a minor quibble in a fascinating article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - on the Medicine Lodge treaty, it follows from the plenary power first articulated in "Crow Dog" - I'll try and expand and make it clearer to the reader. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 00:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As just a general note, I have gotten kind of busy in real life and don't have as much time for detailed work as I would like. I will respond and continue to clear up any issues in the article, it may just take a little longer period. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - Spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A preview of George Hyde & Harry H. Anderson, Spotted Tail's Folk: a History of the Brulé Sioux is available on Google books. It would help with spot checking if reference 9 was split into separate references that give narrower page ranges. The currently cited page range of 308-340 seems rather broad for the snippets of facts that are sourced to it. For example "the uncle of Oglala Lakota war leader Crazy Horse." Graham Colm (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: A later conflict with the Indian Agent forced the tribal police to disband, and Crow Dog lost his position.[19]
  • Source: Crow Dog had long before lost his position as chief of police,
  • Article: This version makes no mention of another man's wife being the reason for the killing, and states that Crow Dog ambushed Spotted Tail to gain power in the tribe.[20]
  • Source: Henry Lelar, the chief clerk at Rosebud, knew these Indians intimately, and he reported the day after the murder that Crow Dog had deliberately planned the killing with the hope of ultimately succeeding Spotted Tail as chief.
  • Article: He also supervised the tribal police of about 300 men. In contrast, Crow Dog was a "traditionalist"[13]
  • Source: I can't see this information or "traditionalist" in source
  • Article: In another version of the story, Crow Dog was appointed by the tribal council to head the tribal police, which undermined the authority of Spotted Tail. Crow Dog discovered that Spotted Tail was taking money from ranchers for "grazing rights" and he denounced him for it, while Spotted Tail defended the practice.[11][18]
  • Source: ..and at every camp the boss had a receipt, signed by Spotted Tail, for money handed to the chief in payment for grazing rights.
  • Article: as modified by the Assimilative Crimes Act allowed the territorial death penalty to be applied to Crow Dog.[28]
  • Source: No preview available
  • Article: In September 1881, Crow Dog was indicted by a federal grand jury for murder and manslaughter under the laws of the Dakota Territory. In March 1882 the case was heard by Judge G. C. Moody, held at the First Judicial District Court of Dakota, located in Deadwood, South Dakota.[29]
  • Source: ...the case was ultimately headed for the U.S. supreme Court and because Judge G.C. Moody, who had tried Crow Dog, sentenced him to death, and denied the original demurrer on jurisdictional grounds, also heard the appeal in October 1882.
  • Article: Crow Dog had a tremendous impact on tribal sovereignty.[52]
  • Source: In deciding that Alaska was not, Judge McAllister ignored Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthew's expansive definition of Indian country in his Crow Dog opinion...The U.S. Supreme Court's broad definition was a deliberate attempt to curtail the ability of local courts, including federal district courts and territorial courts, to weaken the Crow Dog doctrine by limiting the extent of the Indian country.
  • Just the one issue to resolve. And I suggest a Bibliography section is created to list the multiply used sources. The references can then just use a sort form with page number. The use of supra (as is ibid) is discouraged. Graham Colm (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the tribal police cite and the traditionalist cite by deleting the original cite and putting two new cites in to support the text.
The article uses the Bluebook citation style. This is a legal citation style which does not allow for citing back to a Bibliography section. In addition, after the original citation (what they call the long-form), subsequent citations require either "Id." or "supra", see Bluebook Rule 4.1, however "supra" may not be used on short-form cites for cases, statutes, constitutions, legislative materials, model codes, restatements, or regulations (Rule 4.2). WP:SCOTUS articles generally follow WP:MOSLAW#Citations and referencing, and the Bluebook is the style used at SCOTUS. See also WP:CITE#Citation style, where Bluebook is specifically mentioned as an acceptable citation style. I have tried to go back through and double-check all the citations against my copy of the Bluebook, but it is possible that I missed something. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 11 September 2012 (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/Ex_parte_Crow_Dog/archive1&oldid=511912179"