Talk:United States v. Lara

Listed as a Good Article

Further to the GA candidacy submitted by User:GregJackP, I am happy to say that I have listed this article as a good article. Comments are at /GA1. Good work! AGK 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just WTF "excreta" means here? (Law Review section) No, it's not vandalism - inserted by main author [1]. East of Borschov (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Typo (well, actually spell checker error) - fixed. GregJackP (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought U.S. law went medical again. BTW, does it (the law) still use Indian, rather than its PC alternatives? East of Borschov (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• It uses both Native American and Indian, but the later is probably more common. GregJackP (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

copyedit

Per request, copyedited this. Feedback encouraged! Commments:

• Overall, looks good.

• Footnote style is unlike other WP articles I have edited. Consider using templates such as {{rp} and/or {{harv...}} instead, with normal capitalization.

• As a complete non-SME in this area, I would have appreciated a word about the extent of Indian sovereignty in current law. Is it defined by race, membership or geography or an incoherent mishmash of all three and other stuff thrown in, as this article makes it seem?

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing a copyedit of the article.

• The footnote style is Bluebook, which is the predominant legal citation style used in the U.S., and is the style required by WP:MOSLAW ("Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions."). WP:CITE allows the use of differing citation styles, so long as it is consistent throughout the article, and specifically mentions the Bluebook style. In addition, the draft styleguide for WP:SCOTUS articles looks like it will recommend the Bluebook format.
• I'll try to add something about Indian sovereignty, but it is a moving target, that is based on a mismash of race, tribal membership, geography, and a multitude of court decisions that have no central theme. It is probably the defining issue of tribal-federal-state relations.

Again, thanks for the help. GregJackP Boomer! 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian v. Native American

I reverted someone who came through and changed every instance of "Indian" to "Native American." In a couple of places, this would mis-identify statutes and constitutional clauses, and it changes the language that SCOTUS used in their opinion. For example, 18 USC 1153 defines the term "Indian country", not the term "Native American country." It's the same thing with the Indian Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution - it is not the "Native American" commerce clause. This article just went through a featured article candidacy and was promoted, without any comments from experienced editors about the use of the term.

Furthermore according to several studies, most American Indians prefer the term American Indian over the supposedly PC term of Native American, and there is a large number of Indians that actively dislike the term Native American. GregJackP Boomer! 05:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was certain that the term was offensive to both American and Asian Indians. I made a great deal of effort to try not to replace "every instance" of the term, and it's clear in the article history that I didn't, but I admit at least three out of dozens of them were wrong.

It is extraordinarily difficult to discern from Native American name controversy exactly what the preferred term is. Josh Joaquin (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States v. Lara. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170216012514/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/03-107.pdf to https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/03-107.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)