Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2015 [1].

United States v. Washington edit

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the U.S. District Court decision on American Indian treaty fishing rights in the state of Washington. Although a lower court decision, it is a landmark case that has been litigated for decades. I think that the article has been improved to feature status. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

Drip fed and at a snail's pace I'm afraid because of RL.

History of tribal fishing
  • There seems to be a bit of over linking with Great Britain and New York. I would think it reasonable to assume most people visiting the page would've heard of these.
  • "Other treaties with area tribes included the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Treaty of Neah Bay, and the Treaty of Point No Point. All of the treaties had similar language on the rights of the Indians to fish outside of the reservation. While the tribes were willing to part with their land, but all of the tribes insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." -- Wow, that's a lot of use of the word "treaty". Would it not be better to pipe the links which would make for some smoother reading?
Post-treaty history
  • "The whites also began to use new techniques that prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas." -- we use "majority" which would suggest we would know to the dot how many fish there were; do we? If not, maybe use "a lot" or an intensifier of some kind.
  • "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state, the legislature began to pass "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." -- we wrap the "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries" in inverted commas, but omit to say who said this or who we are quoting?
  • "Within ten years, another case arose, this one dealing with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location." → "Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location."
  • "These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
  • As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
  • "The local U.S. Attorney then filed suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe." → "The local U.S. Attorney then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe."
State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
  • "The United States immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus" → We've said it was the Supreme Court now, so I'd stick to that rather than use "Untied States".
  • "Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion which said that the treaty did not prevent state..." If it's "the opinion", whose opinion was it? I'd say: "Justice William Douglas delivered his opinion that the treaty did not prevent state..."
  • "Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • "...the states continued to arrest Indians for violations of state law... ." The states being United States? I would think a capitalisation is needed here if so. Also, seeing as it is a new section, I'd give the full name of the country.

I don't see any further issues; this, despite being a subject I know very little about, was very interesting. CassiantoTalk 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


More soonest... CassiantoTalk 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cassianto edit
History of tribal fishing
  • There seems to be a bit of over linking with Great Britain and New York. I would think it reasonable to assume most people visiting the page would've heard of these.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other treaties with area tribes included the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Treaty of Neah Bay, and the Treaty of Point No Point. All of the treaties had similar language on the rights of the Indians to fish outside of the reservation. While the tribes were willing to part with their land, but all of the tribes insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." -- Wow, that's a lot of use of the word "treaty". Would it not be better to pipe the links which would make for some smoother reading?
Done. Reworded, but take a look please, sometimes I don't get it right on reworking it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but I removed the definite articles which, I hope you agree, reads better. --CassiantoTalk 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-treaty history
  • "The whites also began to use new techniques that prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas." -- we use "majority" which would suggest we would know to the dot how many fish there were; do we? If not, maybe use "a lot" or an intensifier of some kind.
Done. Added parenthetical quote to cite. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state, the legislature began to pass "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." -- we wrap the "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries" in inverted commas, but omit to say who said this or who we are quoting?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within ten years, another case arose, this one dealing with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location." → "Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The local U.S. Attorney then filed suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe." → "The local U.S. Attorney then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
  • "The United States immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus" → We've said it was the Supreme Court now, so I'd stick to that rather than use "Untied States".
Not done. The United States government, as a party to the litigation, filed for the habeas. Clarified the language some, but left it as United States. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion which said that the treaty did not prevent state..." If it's "the opinion", whose opinion was it? I'd say: "Justice William Douglas delivered his opinion that the treaty did not prevent state..."
Not done. "Opinion" is a term of art, meaning the opinion of the Court as a whole. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification is better, thanks. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
Clarified as the Court's opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • "...the states continued to arrest Indians for violations of state law... ." The states being United States? I would think a capitalisation is needed here if so. Also, seeing as it is a new section, I'd give the full name of the country.
No, the states being Oregon and Washington. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, I think that addresses all of your issues. Thank you for reviewing the article and let me know if I missed something. GregJackP Boomer! 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination to FA. Counter arguments are satisfactory and not enough to oppose. A nice article. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceradon edit

I'll review this, but likely not before tomorrow. --ceradon 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely endorsed the decision in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, which was a collateral attack on the decision." -- I have no idea what this is meant to say. It seems a bit contradictory. Could you clarify please?
Done, wikilinked collateral attack, explanatory footnote added, reworded prose. GregJackP Boomer! 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History of tribal fishing
  • The tensage in this section alternates quite freely. "The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended" -- "have" or "had"; "which allowed" -- "allowed" or "allows" (if it is "allows" the rest of the sentence would also need tweaking); "The salmon harvest for the Columbia River basin is estimated" -- "is estimated" or "was estimated"; "not only provided" -- "provided" or "provides"? See if I missed any.
Done, fixed, I think. GregJackP Boomer! 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United States v. Taylor
  • "Frank Taylor" -- who is Frank Taylor? Preferably, something more than just "plaintiff" or "defendant".
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holding
  • "in common with" as the United States described it to the Tribes" -- I don't quite understand this. If "as the United States described it" is an appositive phrase, than I should be able to remove in with the remaining parts of the sentence making sense, but: "in common with" to the Tribes" makes no sense. Am I missing an important legal term or am I just way off. Please clarify.
Done. Wikilinked to tenancy in common section of Concurrent estate article, added explanatory footnote.GregJackP Boomer! 18:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Direct appeals
  • I moved fn 76 to the end of the sentence rather than leave it mid-sentence, with no cite at the end of the sentence. See if this is okay.
OK with me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Public response
  • "The decision caused an immediate reaction from the public." -- this is quite vague and could be tidied up, methinks. Was the immediate reaction positive or negative? Does "the public" constitute only citizens of Washington, or the entire country?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal developments
  • "but within ten years (1984)" -- I think this is unneededly repetitive. I think either: "but by 1984" or "but within ten years" should do.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: would love to support this once the above are addressed. This should make a fine FA. One thing though, the MOS requires logical quotation punctuation, rather than American or British punctuation, to be used, in quotes. I corrected a few instances, but I think another search for ," and ." should be done to make sure none have slipped through. Cheers! --ceradon 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceradon, I think everything has been addressed. Let me know if I missed something. I appreciate the review. GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion. My concerns have been addressed. Good work, Cassianto. --ceradon 22:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsguy17 edit

Same thing as Ceradon, but hopefully, I should be able to review this starting tomorrow. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Notecardforfree edit

Overall, this is an excellent article! I have no doubt that it is well on its way to achieving FA status. I went ahead and made a few copy edits to the article, and I have included some comments and suggestions here, most of which are fairly minor:

Citations to Case Names
  • Starting with the section for Tulee v. Washington, you include a footnote after the first mention of a case’s name in the article text. However, you don’t do this earlier in the article. In the section for United States v. Winans, for example, you write “another case arose, which dealt with . . .” and you don’t include a full citation after the comma. I would be consistent and always include a full citation to the case after the first mention of it in the article, even if you just call the case “another case” or if you write “the United States sued again.” I believe the Bluebook convention is to always include a full citation to a case name after it is first mentioned, so I would be sure to do that here as well.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • You write, “cases provided the Indians a right of easement through private property . . . .” In property law, we usually just say “provided an easement” rather than “provided a right of easement.” Therefore, I would change the sentence to say something like: “cases provided the Indians an easement through private property . . . .” or “cases provided the Indians a right of access through private property . . . .”
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • I would increase the size of images in this article (it looks like they are all set as “thumbs” right now). It is particularly difficult to discern the detail in the map of Washington State in the beginning of the article. MOS:IMAGES says that "Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable." Some of the other images (e.g. the picture of the fish wheel) have details that could be identified more easily if the pictures were larger.
Done. Increased to 300px. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – the pictures look great! How would you feel about making the map of Washington a little bigger? I don't have the best eyesight, but it's hard for me to make out the details in the map. But you have definitely done a great job finding images that give the reader a good feel for the issued involved in the case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-treaty history
  • You write, “as more and more white settlers came into the area, things began to change.” The phrase “things began to change” strikes me as a bit vague. Maybe you can say something like: “as more and more white settlers came into the area, the settlers began to infringe upon the fishing rights of the native tribes.”
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 22:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tulee v. Washington
  • When discussing the writ of habeas corpus, you said it was denied “on procedural grounds until Tulee had been tried in state court and exhausted his appeals.” However, I think it would be more accurate to say the writ was denied “because” (rather than “until”) he did not exhaust his state court remedies.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Puyallup cases
  • When you write out the case names in the text of the article, you need to spell out “department” in the case titles. Per BB R10.2, you only use T6 abbreviations in citation sentences or footnotes. Also, for your discussion of the third case (Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington), I added a few details about why the case came about in the first place.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • You say the court heard “about fifty witnesses.” Do we know exactly how many? Also, in the section about the holding, can you include one more sentence that describes the formula Judge Boldt used to allocate 43% of the harvest (the “equitable adjustment”)? A reader who is unfamiliar with the opinion will likely be surprised to see the tribes didn’t receive 50% of the harvest.
I don't know exactly how many witnesses were heard and could not find any source that stated the number, other than the vague "about fifty" comment. I could probably find out if I did research on the records, but I'm not really inclined to do so due to time and costs involved. I added an explanatory footnote on the formula. GregJackP Boomer! 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. My hope was that the information would be easily accessible, but it's not worth going through so much trouble to find the answer to such an esoteric question. It's fine as it is written now. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Court Supervision
  • You write, “at least one Coast Guardsman was shot.” Should “Coast Guardsman” be capitalized? You also mention the “Boalt decision.” Do you mean the “Boldt” decision? I would also suggest moving the sentences about scholarly reaction to the following section about “public response.”
Done, reworded to "one member of the Coast Guard. . ." Fixed typo, moved sentences. GregJackP Boomer! 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions or if any of my comments don't make sense. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum -- Coverage of the Ninth Circuit Opinion
  • As other editors have stated, I think this article should include a section about the Ninth Circuit's opinion. At the moment, you mention in the "subsequent developments" section that there was a direct appeal. However, I think that this article should include an additional section devoted to discussing the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I would also recommend changing the infobox at the top of the article to the infobox for Ninth Circuit opinion, because that was the highest court to rule in this case. If you would like help adding a summary of of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, I am happy to offer assistance. Let me know what I can do! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree on the COA infobox. J. Choy's opinion was important, but the important issues were all decided at the district court level, and the case continued to have the district court to issue orders, as late as May 29th (United States v. Washington, No. C70-9213, Subproceding 89-3-09, 2015 WL 3451316 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2015). The key in this case was the initial decision by J. Boldt, IMO. I'm willing to go with consensus of course. (I've put a copy of the COA infobox on the talkpage here). GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this case is one of those rare examples where the District Court opinion seems to be the focus of scholarship. I think the article makes that very clear by devoting almost all of the discussion to developments in the District Court. Nevertheless, I still think that the article should devote a paragraph or two to the direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it is probably worth mentioning that the case continues to be litigated forty years later. The Ninth Circuit decision gave the case circuit-wide precedential effect, and the Ninth Circuit also did some not-insignificant fine-tuning of Judge Boldt's decision. For example, the Ninth Circuit clarified that equitable adjustment "should not take account of fish caught by non-Washington citizens outside the state's jurisdiction." 520 F.2d 676, 693 (9th Cir. 1975). I would be happy to write a paragraph or two about the Ninth Circuit's decision if that would be helpful or useful.
I also think that you should use the Ninth Circuit infobox that is currently on the talk page. It seems to be standard practice at Wikipedia to use the infobox of the highest court to consider a case, even if a lower court decision was more "significant" or "important" in the long term. One example that comes to mind is LACFCD v. NRDC, where the Ninth Circuit's opinion was much more important than the SCOTUS decision. Also, if you kept the District Court infobox, casual readers may incorrectly assume that the case only has precedential value in the Western District of Washington, when in reality the Ninth Circuit held the case has circuit-wide precedential effect. However, I definitely think you should leave the description of the case as the "Boldt decision" (in bold) in the lead, because that seems to be a common term that scholars use to describe the case. In any event, let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do some on it later, and I would really appreciate any help, such as you offered above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your flexibility with this. I will go ahead and type up a summary of the Ninth Circuit's opinion (in the direct appeal) and place it on the talk page of this FA review -- feel free to include or discard what you think may be useful. Best -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, I added a summary of the Ninth Circuit opinion (for the direct appeal) on this talk page. Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know what you think. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fantastic! You have my full support for promotion to FA status. Once again, you have helped improve our collective knowledge and understanding of an important moment in American legal history. If I could still change one thing, I still think you may want to experiment with picture size a bit. You may want to make the 300px pictures a little smaller and then make the map of Washington a little bigger. However, this is a very minor point for what is otherwise an excellent article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Anythingyouwant edit

I cannot recall offhand any other court decision that is named after the judge (as in "Boldt decision"). Does the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case fall within the title of this Wikipedia article but not within the term "Boldt decision"? See 520 F.2d at 693. If so, then I question whether "Boldt decision" should be in bold. If not, then I question whether it might be better for this article to be about the whole case rather than just the initial trial-stage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search of law review articles that cite to this case, and it looks like many scholars refer to the case as "the Boldt decision." See, e.g.:
  • "The tribes were not players until the Boldt decision, and the decisions that followed in its wake." You Win Some, You Lose Some: The Costs and Benefits of Litigation in Fishery Management, 7 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 5, 33 (2001).
  • "In the well known fishing rights litigation commonly known as the 'Boldt decision' (after the U.S. District Judge issuing the initial decision), the District Court for the Western District of Washington held that usual and accustomed fishing places of the tribes signing treaties with the United States in the 1850s were fishing locations where the tribes reserved, and their members currently possessed, the right to take fish." Rob Roy Smith, At a Complex Crossroads: Animal Law in Indian Country, 14 Animal L. 109, 122 (2007).
  • "The famous 'Boldt Decision' of 1974, was a major victory for the treaty tribes of Washington state" Matthew Deisen, State v. Jim: A New Era in Washington's Treatment of the Tribes?, 38 Am. Indian L. Rev. 101, 120 (2013-2014).
The Ninth Circuit also mentioned that the case is "commonly referred to as the "Boldt" decision." Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 499 (9th Cir. 2004). I do think, however, that the article should focus more on the appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Also, it might be worth including a reference in the lead to some of the sources that "commonly refer" to the case as the "Boldt decision." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Scope, "limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided." So I think this article should be about the whole case, not just the lowest court decision in the case. The cite to the Ninth Circuit decision ought to be right up there in the lead sentence.
Reliable sources often refer to "Kepler's Second Law" but there is not a separate Wikipedia article on that subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I agree that the Ninth Circuit's opinion deserves a more prominent place in this article. In fact, in my most recent comments (above), I suggested changing the infobox to the Ninth Circuit's infobox. Nevertheless, it appears that scholars refer to case (and it's subsequent appeal) as the "Boldt decision." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the the Ninth Circuit affirmed the "Boldt decision," but I don't there is anything wrong with referring to the case as the "Boldt decision" in the lead. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to saying in the lead that the trial court decision is often called the "Boldt decision". But I don't think it should be in bold, because the article ought to be about the whole case, not just about the part of the case at the trial court.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason it is bolded is that the article focuses on primarily on the trial level decision, which is where the landmark part of the matter lies. As of Sept. 4, 2015, Westlaw shows a history of 143 decisions in this case, the latest on May 29, 2015. Almost all of those were at the district court level. Almost none of the law reviews focus on the appellate decisions, while they all mention those, they inevitably focus on the actions in J. Boldt's court. This is one of the very few decisions where the district court ruling was much more important than the appellate court rulings, IMO. I will, of course, go with what the consensus decides. GregJackP Boomer! 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Westlaw shows a history of 143 decisions in this case". You mean that the district court decision was cited in over a hundred other cases? That would not change the fact that this case included both a district court decision and an appeals court decision. Having the scope of this article cover both does not imply that one was more important than the other. Instead, it simply ensures that this Wikipedia article has a broad scope rather than a narrow scope. Feel free to say in the lead that other court cases have cited the district court decision in this case more than the appeals court decision in this case, if in fact that is true and supported by reliable sources. Is it true?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support changing the infobox at the top of the article to the infobox for Ninth Circuit opinion, because that was the highest court to rule in this case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 143 reported decisions in this one case, according to Westlaw. The original case (384 F.Supp. 312) has been cited by other cases, journals, etc., 979 times. The 143 reported decisions in this one matter is due to the on-going nature of the dispute and the fact that the state of Washington has not been able or willing to fully comply with the court's orders. It is sort of like how the desegregation cases in the south have lasted for decades. The latest decision, on clams, still uses the original cause number.
I'm very aware that the Ninth Circuit was the highest court to rule on this on direct appeal, but their opinion is not cited as often as the district court decision (only 804 times), and is almost always cited as a sidenote, like the SCOTUS declination of cert. in the case.
The notability, where the attention of the sources focus is on the District Court decision, not the COA. Like I said, I'll go with consensus, but this is really the exception to the rule that the important decision is at the COA, not the Dist. Ct. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need a section on the Ninth Circuit decision. All you say is, "On June 4, 1975, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Boldt's decision and remanded it to his court for continuing jurisdiction." You don't say who wrote the opinion, who the other judges were, whether the decision was unanimous, whether the rationale was the same as the district court's, et cetera. Such information is absolutely needed. Moreover, making this article's scope about both the district court decision and the appeals court decision says absolutely nothing about which is more important; it simply broadens the scope. So, you need to put the appeals court cite in the opening sentence along with the district court cite. I also recommend this link. Here's a quote: "Although the tribes and the state developed a working relationship and cooperated on many aspects of fisheries management, salmon populations continued to decline in the 1990s. The primary reason for this, habitat degradation, had been addressed by Phase II of U.S. v. Washington, when Judge William H. Orrick, Jr. (1915-2003), ruled in 1980 that the treaty rights include the right to protect fisheries habitat." So how about a cite to Phase II, and a mention for Judge Orrick? The broader the scope of this Wikipedia article the better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll add some more info on it later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very close to supporting. But see section I in the article by Blumm and Swift. The whole section is about "Phase II" of this case, decided by Judge Orrick. So, I think Phase II ought to be mentioned somewhere here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Anythingyouwant, let me know if I need to do something more. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent article, thanks for the edits. But please take another look at this sentence in the lead: "The case was decided by Judge Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington." At least the wikilink is redundant, and maybe other parts of that sentence too. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Atsme edit

The article is well on its way to meeting FA criteria with the adjustments mentioned above and a few more tweaks here and there.

The 3rd para in the lead is a bit confusing: On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely endorsed the decision in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, which was a collateral attack on the decision. What was the decision? What was a collateral attack and on what decision?
Done. Explanatory footnote added, wikilinked, and reworded. GregJackP Boomer! 03:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the post treaty history could use a bit more information. There actually were conservation efforts in place by the late 1870s prior to Washington achieving statehood. See pg 415, [2]. There were seasonal closures and prohibitions for fishing gear that obstructed the upstream spawning migration of salmon. Weirs which were customarily used by Indians were banned. -- Atsme📞📧 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion - maybe it's just me, but the terminology but as more and more white settlers came into the area, just doesn't seem as encyclopedic as but with the ever increasing movement of white settlers into the area, or possibly as the numbers of white settlers increased exponentially. Atsme📞📧 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, GregJackP. Atsme📞📧 06:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Jim edit

Fine article, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • right of easement—link at first occurence
  • half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
  • The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource which allowed these tribes to become the wealthiest North American tribes—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
  • In one of the first of these enforcement cases—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
  • such as Sam Williams—"including", not "such as"
  • on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose —replace second "state" by"it"
  • the states continued to arrest Indians—which states?
  • Gillneters—"Gillnetters"
  • Some, but not all, of your references have the author or title or both in small caps. I don't think this is consistent in your references or in accordance with MOS
Response
  • right of easement—link at first occurence
Done, verbiage changed to right of access (per comments above) and easement linked at (now) only occurrence. GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource which allowed these tribes to become the wealthiest North American tribes—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one of the first of these enforcement cases—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as Sam Williams—"including", not "such as"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose —replace second "state" by"it"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the states continued to arrest Indians—which states?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gillneters—"Gillnetters"
Can you clarify? I think that this may have been changed before I got to your comment here. GregJackP Boomer! 04:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some, but not all, of your references have the author or title or both in small caps. I don't think this is consistent in your references or in accordance with MOS
I went back through the refs to double check, all of the book authors are in smallcaps, per Bluebook B1 and R2.1. The authors of journal articles are in normal case, per the same rules. Book titles are smallcaps, as are periodical titles. Article titles are italicized. Smallcaps are allowed per the MOS, see MOS:SMALLCAPS, next to last bullet, which states Certain citation styles (e.g. that of the Linguistic Society of America or Bluebook) require that certain parts of the citation, such as author names in alphabetical reference sections be written in small caps. If an editor has chosen this style, it should be respected per WP:CITEVAR. Do you have any footnotes that I can address specifically? GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimfbleak, with the exception of the one question, I think I have addressed all of your concerns. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think Bluebook style is an abomination, but I understand that it is a US legal standard, so I'm happy to endorse this interesting article, changed to support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get no argument from me that Bluebook is an abomination, nor, for that matter, will most lawyers disagree. The problem I have is that I like Chicago and the rest even less. I would prefer (somewhat like Judge Posner) even less information, but until then I use Bluebook. Thank you for reviewing this and your support—I really appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt edit

Comments leaning support, the usual nitpicks:

Lede
  • Can the first sentence be split?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may do well to combine the mentions of Boldt and Boldt decision in some way. Thus known as, or similar. I understand if this would move bold text too far down for you.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "While the tribes were willing to part with their land" Hmm. Were they actually willing? Maybe "While the tribes agreed to part with their land"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-treaty
  • How did the canneries infringe their fishing rights beyond what is later stated, preventing the catch from reaching them? The treaty said the tribes have the right to take fish, but so do non-Indian citizens.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, all the canneries show is the growth of commercial fishing by whites. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" they insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." time for me to be real picky here. At the time all these treaties were signed, neither Washington nor Oregon existed. In fact, both Washington Territory and Oregon Territory were at that time larger than the present-day states (I checked the relevant articles). So the link's a bit awkward. All four treaties mentioned involve Washington Territory. See comment below.
Done, reworded from the states to read Washington Territory. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obtained licenses from the state " I gather that at that location there are two. I'm not just being picky here, the whole subsection doesn't make it clear if it's Washington or Oregon, and you talked about protection of fishing rights before, so it's plausible it could be Oregon. The next section should also be clearer as to which court they sued in, as this happens in Oregon. Did the Washington treaties cover Oregon, or were there Oregon treaties at issue that you haven't mentioned? The bare mention in a footnote that the Oregon territorial governor negotiated treaties, and the Washington/Oregon matter mentioned above, might cause the reader to conclude there were analogous Oregon treaties. Maybe.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being remanded to determine if the regulations were not discriminatory" strike "not"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puyallup I Possibly designate in parens following the case name which Puyallup this is, rather than the footnote.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to use a footnote to explain why the US Attorney is always suing people in these cases.
Done. Included statute and Handbook for Fed Indian law cites. GregJackP Boomer! 16:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Continuing jurisdiction" is going to need an explanation in some way, and we don't have an article.
Done. Added explanatory fn with definition from Black's. GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boldt
  • Can it be explained briefly what were the disputed points that the witnesses were testifying about? That Boldt found more credible.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent
  • "Washington Attorney General Slade Gorton supported the position of the private concerns and opposed the position of the United States and the tribes" Do you mean he was their legal representative in court?
Done. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Court supervision
  • The only court order you've spoken of has no provisions cited that private persons could break. It's not clear what is causing all the ruckus. It is not clear what provisions are being so strongly enforced.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've clarified this area, as well as addressing all of the concerns, Wehwalt. Let me know if I need to add more or do something else. I appreciate your review on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is ready to close. Is everyone happy with the rather odd-looking source formatting? Graham Beards (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bluebook is perfectly acceptable per WP:CITEVAR. In fact, it is the preferred citation style among legal scholars. One thing I recently discovered is that there is a United States Supreme Court case called United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977). At the moment, no article exists for the 1977 SCOTUS case, but we may want to rename this article (at some time in the future) to something like United States v. Washington (9th Cir. Case), United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash. 1974), or United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1975). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - see the following diff. It's a response from Nikkimaria to my question about this particular source formatting. Nikkimaria is one of WP's highly respected citation experts, [3]. Atsme📞📧 19:24, 26 September 2015 (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/United_States_v._Washington/archive1&oldid=1146574240"