Talk:United States v. Ramsey (1926)

United States v. Ramsey (1926) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
May 24, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
July 24, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 15, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in United States v. Ramsey, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. could try a white for murdering an Indian on former reservation land?
Current status: Good article

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 June 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Oklahoma High‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States v. Ramsey (1926)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

What an interesting article! My thanks to the authors for creating it in a topic area where many people are confused and could benefit from it. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a court case which which decided which situations invoked federal court jurisdiction. After it gets to covering that, there is a statement "In 1890, this law was amended to give the federal courts in western Arkansas and eastern Texas jurisdiction over the Indian Territory...." This is unclear, but more importantly the way that it is unclear is by being a "blanket" statement, such overgeneralization being in direct conflict with what this article is about. Could you clarify? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added material just before the sentence that should clarify. Let me know if more is needed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Still a bit hard to understand/follow but I think good enough. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to questions about inclusion of images, I'm generally on the "include" side. But the FBI badge seems pretty unrelated. First, as the article itself states, the FBI didn't even exist at that time......the precursor agency was involved. That combined with the indirectness of relation to the topic of the article. What do you think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed badge. GregJackP Boomer! 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is the US Supreme Court case, yet the coverage of the Supreme court case is only a few sentences, about 5% of the article. I think that the other 95% is also good material for the article, but IMHO, expansion of coverage of the Supreme court case itself is also needed, given that it is the subject of the article. Sincerely,, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a whole lot to the SCOTUS decision. In the Supreme Court Reporter version, it is less than two pages. The key point was that if the crime was committed on trust land or allotted land (as this was), it could still fall under federal jurisdiction under the statute's definition of "Indian country." As soon as the simple jurisdictional issue was handled, it went back for trial, which is the main story. Most of the resources discussing the matter handle it the same way. I don't know how much more I can add, just because of the type of decision that was made. GregJackP Boomer! 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. After your response I read through it and see your point. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that while the title is that of the Scotus case, that the article is about the event that it was part of. IMO that is fine, and a good way to name it.North8000 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 5 images, no non-free images, so no article-specific use-rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Interesting topic, and nice work! North8000 (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

(this is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations; nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States v. Ramsey (1926). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nom The creation of an article on the other case renders my proposal moot * Pppery * _{has returned} 11:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Ramsey (1926) → United States v. Ramsey – Only "United States v. Ramsey" with an article (move over dab page listing this case and a redlink) * Pppery * _{has returned} 02:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: But United States v. Ramsey (1977), 431 U.S. 606 (1977) also happened (see [1]), even though it does not have an article here, and the reader would prefer to know at the start which of these 2 law cases is being described. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose @Pppery: I have created United States v. Ramsey (1977) --DannyS712 (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wanted to "strong oppose" a proposal, and this seemed like the best way to do it - writing an article. I've nominated it for DYK too! --DannyS712 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.