Jump to content

Talk:Haaland v. Brackeen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updating

[edit]

I'm updating the article to bring it up to date, adding both 5th Circuit opinions and the appeal to SCOTUS. GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s important to include a section on reactions and/or potential consequences as outlined in reputable sources, for example, from historian Nick Estes (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/why-is-the-right-suddenly-interested-in-native-american-adoption-law) and Rebecca Nagle (https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/). That is, what have these reputable sources said about who is funding and representing the Brackeens, and what do experts in Indian Law say about this funding and representation? These reactions are represented across a variety of reputable sources, so they should be included in said encyclopedic article about the case. —Hobomok (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I believe that would be more appropriate after SCOTUS hears arguments and issues its opinion. I'm probably going to try and take this to Featured Article, so if you see anything, please let me know (or add it). GregJackP Boomer! 01:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how the case has been covered widely by secondary sources (two main ones above) it is only appropriate to detail what outside experts have said about the case from those sources. Much has been said about this case in reliable secondary publications and should be included. -Hobomok (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, the sources you mention are on the lower court rulings, and not on the SCOTUS ruling, and are not even close to the best secondary sources on the material. General media and layperson friendly sources will be added when it is appropriate. Second, nothing is stopping you from editing the article. If you decide to do so, please review MOS:LAW on the primacy of sources in legal articles, which 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. Also, the article uses the Bluebook citation style, so you'll need to comply with that when adding sources. As far as my editing, when the SCOTUS opinion is released, and I expand to Featured Article status, I'll add additional secondary sources. This isn't my first rodeo. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 01:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me apologize for the tone of my response to you, because it feels like this is beginning to get unnecessarily contentious: I apologize. I thought I had edited my previous response and to soften my tone, and in that edit that didn’t save I said, “I’ll do some digging in the coming weeks for other sources and add the relevant information.” So, that is what I intend to do to over the next couple of weeks: find secondary lay sources to make the case information more accessible to a general audience based on Indian Law experts and Native reporting on the matter. Nagle’s work provides both and is well-known, which is why I linked to it.
I understand that I can edit the article. I will do that once I’ve done the relevant research for secondary sources beyond Estes and Nagle. Nagle’s research and reporting on the case, I think, is important to include. I came here from Wikiproject Indigenous People’s of North America to make suggestions following your post on the talk page there asking for input.
My purpose here is to make suggestions for additions on the talk page and then go make those additions, leaving reasoning for making those additions and making you aware of them since you’re working on making this into a GA and eventually FA. I appreciate the work you’re doing here, and I appreciate the important work you’ve done across Wikipedia to date. I apologize if it seemed otherwise based on my clumsy response. —Hobomok (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to have the help, and my apologies for taking it the wrong way. Talking in text is always more difficult than in person. GregJackP Boomer! 05:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of GA nomination

[edit]

Hi there. I saw that this article has been nominated for GA status. Does anyone know when this case will be decided by the Supreme Court? I know that the more contentious decisions come out in June, which is this month. I wonder if it makes more sense for the GA nomination to wait until the decision is finalized. Edge3 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This case is in the Oct 2022 term of the Court, and won't be heard until that term starts on the first Monday in October. It is not yet scheduled for oral argument. There is no bar to taking it to GA at this point, and then to FA after the decision comes out. GregJackP Boomer! 13:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Haaland v. Brackeen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 06:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will start reading this article and will post a review shortly.VR talk 06:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing that is missing right off the back is the public debate regarding the ICWA and the views of the various stakeholders: tribal advocates and (mainly white) prospective adoption parents. With that, there should also be a brief history of legislation that forced assimilation of Indians in the US (see for example Roe_v._Wade#Background) that would give context. Some of this is covered in this POLITICO article.VR talk 07:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll look at it, but I'm moving this week, so it may be slow. I added a sentence, with reference and footnote to the Brackeen adoption section, this will be more thoroughly covered in the arguments section of the case, at least based on my skimming the filed briefs. In any event, this shouldn't be a disqualifier, as it has "broad coverage" of the material and doesn't need the comprehensive approach of a featured article.GregJackP Boomer! 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, the outcome of this review will either be "pass" or "on hold", not "fail". And in case of "on hold" I'll give you lots of time to fix issues. So don't worry about addressing concerns ASAP and good luck with your move!VR talk 17:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great and nearly a GA. A few comments:

  • The two "according two" in this sentence make things unclear, please fix: "This approach, according to tribal sovereignty advocates, would "completely erase[] tribal sovereignty" according to Lauren van Schilfgaarde."
  • "by the Minnesota court." When you say "the", you're referring to something particular, so which court is it referring to? The paragraph refers to a Nevada court, not a Minnesota one. Alternatively, you can change the "the" to "a".
  • I would organize the "US District Court" as such:
    • an introductory sentence like "The Brackeens' lawsuit was filed in the federal District Court in Fort Worth in October 2017, and assigned to Judge Reed O'Connor.[26] The Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians intervened in the case." Without this introductory sentence the reader is left wondering how did things go from the Texas court to the federal district court.
    • Then the plaintiffs and defendents sections, maybe merge the two into one section?
    • Then the judgement section.
  • What is it meant by "all sides" in "all sides appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."? If it includes the non-Indian parents (Brackeens, Librettis etc) why did they appeal, it seems the judgement was in their favor?
  • "it was a politically based law" should this be "politics based law"?
  • The lead points out that 4 cases consolidated into one, this should also be mentioned in the body.
  • The lead also says "but that the parts of the law that required state agencies to perform certain acts" - what are these "certain acts"? Please expand on that.
    • It's already in the article, for example at The court held "that ICWA's "active efforts," § 1912(d), expert witness, § 1912(e) and (f), and recordkeeping requirements, § 1915(e), unconstitutionally commandeer state actors" in the En banc subsection of the Court of Appeals section. GregJackP Boomer! 22:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In news sources there is some discussion on how this law relates to the "Indian Commerce Clause" and "Interstate Commerce Clause"[1]. Can you expand on this in the article?

Thanks.VR talk 08:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the formal review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article is well written. A few organization issues are pointed out above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The references' style is different than what I've seen on other wikipedia articles. But its consistent, and therefore ok. The sources look reliable. I've read a few sources and this article seems veririfable. No OR. Earwig says "violation unlikely".
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Some content issues are pointed out above, where more information is needed about certain parts of the article.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I have researched this issue myself and find this article to uphold NPOV's core value: that all significant viewpoints are presented in due proportion.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The images of the courthouses are fine, but also the least relevant. The most relevant image is that of the Indian children in the background section. A more meaningful caption should be given. What exactly is the image showing us? It would also be great if we could have more relevant images, such as those of either the judges, or the parties involved.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Review on hold pending resolution of issues mentioned above.VR talk 14:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will get on this, sorry that RL had slowed down my response. GregJackP Boomer! 15:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me take another look at the article.VR talk 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by GregJackP (talk). Self-nominated at 10:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oral argument information

[edit]

I removed the following from the Oral argument section, it's not relevant to that section but would probably be useful as the article is expanded.

Legal analysts have pointed out that a decision in favor of the Brackeens, in eroding Native American tribal sovereignty, could enable private corporations to encroach upon Native lands.[1][2][3]

GregJackP Boomer! 09:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Gibson Dunn Pro Bono Case Draws Ire of Some Native Americans". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 2022-11-09.
  2. ^ "Why is the right suddenly interested in Native American adoption law? | Nick Estes". the Guardian. 2021-08-23. Retrieved 2022-11-09.
  3. ^ "The Supreme Court will decide the future of the Indian Child Welfare Act". NPR.org. Retrieved 2022-11-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haaland_v._Brackeen&oldid=1207633370"