Talk:Aboriginal title in the Taney Court/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. Please disambiguate Creek. No invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A (prose):
" Because the Senecas relied on state law, and the defendants relied on federal law, the case is essentially the inverse of the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States over the next 150 years.[7]" - expand or spell out

" it included a Fox village which the tribe would have been unlikely to cede[40]" - missing period

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
For the slower reader, could you please explain who won and why in New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble? The state law allowing suits to defend Indian property rights was upheld.

More details on Chouteau v. Molony - what type of mining? Was there fraud?

Did the cases generate political back-lash?

People say that Dread Scott undercut the court's moral authority at the time. Did any of these other cases have a similar effect? Did the result in Dread Scott cause them to compensate with taking an pro-Indian result in Fellows and Dribble? I am not looking for OR, rather what do the scholarly commentaries say?

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
File:Lee County Half-Breed.png - Expiration template needed. How do we know that it was a government map?

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author, but is far from GA standards. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. I think I have remedied some of your comments with my recent edits. I will address the others here. (1) ~~"Do you have sources independent of Providence College, particularly for the history section?" This appears to be copy-and-pasted from a different review.~~ (2) Fraud in Chouteau. There were some vague references to fraud in the oral argument, but not in the opinion. Because it is so far removed from the reasons given in the court's opinion, particularly the portions relevant here, I have decided not to include it.

That is your call. However, I point out that your summary of Chouteau is the shortest of the batch, and I would like to coax an additional sentence from you to expand it in a meaningful way.

(3) Political backlash/moral authority/compensation for Dred Scott. You've said you don't want OR and I don't have any sources to cite in response to these queries. If you can suggest some, I will gladly take a look. (4) The image. It just so happens I am familiar with the source of the image: [1]. It's from the Charles Royce book (which I have read and cited in other articles). He died in 1923, and anything published before 1923 would be in the public domain even if it were not a government publication, which this map clearly was. Savidan 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you edit the image page to include the source as the Royce book which was published before 1923. Absent that, it might get deleted some day.

We are very close to finished. However, I suggest that you expand Chouteau and add a statement explaining that the Taney Court moved aboriginal title litigation from a point where American settlers expected to always win to a point that placed the emphasis on the factual record to determine the outcome. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see the purpose of your remaining suggestions. I don't see Chouteau as a particularly important case, other than for the reasons I have already mentioned. I also think the fraud aspect is too tangentially-related and speculative to be of much use to the reader. Is there anything else relevant about this case you think I've left out [I assume you can find the text by googling it]? As to the image, the name of the book and a link to its precise location is already included on the image page. I am hesitant to add Royce's name because I don't know if he can be specifically credited with the images (as opposed to just the text). As for "moved aboriginal title litigation from a point where American settlers expected to always win to a point that placed the emphasis on the factual record to determine the outcome," I simply don't agree with that and think it constitutes OR. Savidan 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re image: You do not need to attribute this map to Royce. You just need to add something about the map also appearing in the Royce book that was published on X date. Otherwise, we don't know that the map was published before 1923. Have you searched the law reviews and scholarly literature regarding the impact of the Taney Court on aboriginal claims? Racepacket (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a cite to Royce as you wish. I have searched, in fact I would suggest that I've read just about everything there is to read about aboriginal title in the U.S., regardless of the time period. Savidan 02:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Chouteau case and question whether it is an aboriginal title case. It seems to me that it is a Spanish claim case as it turns on what the plantiff was granted by the Spanish governor rather than what aboriginal claims pre-existed the European/American settlement. How sure are we that this is really an aboriginal claim? Racepacket (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an aboriginal claim. That's why I put it in the "dicta in cases involving non-Indians" section. Like all the other cases in this section, the interpretation of the (formerly existing) aboriginal title was relevant to the question of which of the non-Indians' titles was currently valid. As you note, the rest of the case is not relevant to this article. Savidan 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your response was to my request that you clarify Dibble. You have "to remove trespassers from Indian lands" but it may not be clear to the reader that the state law authorized the local district attorneys to defend the Indians' land claims by filing lawsuits to remove trespassers from Indian lands. (Rather than suing Indians for trespass to remove them from Indian lands.) Racepacket (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have clarified "non-Indian trespassers." Savidan 04:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]