Talk:Oneida Indian Nation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

}}

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Sup. Ct. urging settlement

I did a search of the Sherrill decision and the word settle and its derivations only appear 10 times and nowhere do I see where the court urged the parties to settle. Please explain where in the decision and what phrase you base this assertion on. --Dtwarren (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what scotus is, but I'll find the U.S. Sup. Ct. decision where they discussed settlement. Until then, I took out the statement. After re-reading the Sherrill opinion, I could not find that actual sentence. I know the court has urged settlement as the best way to resolve the issues, I just can't remember the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learntoread (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS is an acronym for Supreme Court of the United States. --Dtwarren (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to USSC? Learntoread (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The term SCOTUS was apparently first used in relation to the court in 1983 according to this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6DC1F3DF931A25753C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

--Dtwarren (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

UCE et al v U.S. et al

Just out of curiosity, is there a conflict of interest for Dave Vickers to be a party and the attorney pursuing this case? Neutralman1024 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There would only be a conflict if his interests diverge from the other plaintiffs which I do not see happening. --Dtwarren (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is. Assuming he's on an hourly fee rate, the longer he drags out the litigation, the larger his bill. In the mean time, a viable solution that is equitable and agreeable to the other party-members could be lost. 12.51.194.130 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An attorney has a duty to communicate all offers of settlement to his/her client and you are assuming that he is being paid and hourly fee.--Dtwarren (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know that just because there is a duty to do something does not always mean that duty is followed. And yes, I believe I did write "assuming he's on an hourly fee rate" so I am pretty sure I was assuming. And since it is not privileged information, how is he being paid? I assume, that you are the Daniel T. Warren named in the suit. 12.51.194.130 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be privileged but this is not the place to discuss it as it is not a messageboard. --Dtwarren (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but this is a discussion page, and we are discussing matters related to the Oneida Indian Nation. Ellipses man (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the UticaOD, the claims argue that the decision violates the New York State constitution. If not, could you please cite to the paragraph(s) in the Complaint that show otherwise? Thank you. Ellipses man (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is in the second claim for relief starting at paragraph 120 of the complaint: http://www.upstate-citizens.org/USDC-UCE-v-US.htm --Dtwarren (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The State makes a similar argument in their complaint http://www.upstate-citizens.org/oneidas_lawsuit.pdf starting in paragraph 93 and the Towns of Vernon and Verona starting at paragraph 62 of their complaint http://www.upstate-citizens.org/oneidas_lawsuit.pdf --Dtwarren (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. I thought it was odd that a lawsuit against a federal agency would be arguing state constitutional violations. Once again, the paper gets it wrong. Ellipses man (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining my question. Neutralman1024 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues of style

Wiikipedia has a Manual of Style that is used to give Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, a consistent style across all articles to the extent possible. This style takes precedence over other styles where there is a conflict. Editors can make better contributions to Wikipedia by familiarizing themselves with the manual, but above all, by not reverting style corrections made by another editor (like me).

Some editors feel that an article to which they have made substantial contributions should follow their own style instead of Wikipedia's. These editors should review WP:OWN.

In this case, I can't believe that someone is making an issue over the spacing of ellipses. At the same time, I am not willing to let an anonymous editor who is unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works get their way when the Wikipedia community has set out its own rules. Ground Zero | t 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a further clean up of this article in accordance with WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. I will continue as time permits.

To the anonymous editor: there is no point telling me to "move along". That won't happen. I have been on Wikipedia for years. It is better for you to learn more about Wikipedia so that you can make more constructive edits. I recommend that you become a registered user. That provides many benefits, including allowing you to be notified when edits are made to articles in which you have an interest. Ground Zero | t 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with t on this issue. My copy of The Irwin Law Office Reference Manual published by the National Association of Legal Secretaries does not specify that a space between the periods in an ellipse is required.--Dtwarren (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And my copies of the Bluebook (produced by Harvard), the New York State Manual of Citation, and the ALWD manual of citation — all recognized as authorities in legal citation, all require a space between the periods. As for the rest of the commentary, I am equally surprised you'd have an issue over the ellipses. Move along if you have nothing of substance to add. 12.51.194.130 (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I agree that the spaced ellipses should be used in publications that follow Bluebook, the NYSM of C and the ALWD M of C. Wikipedia uses the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which is clear on the matter: no spaces. If you disagree with the Wikipedia Manual, you can start a discussion on its talk page to get the manual changed. If you can get consensus to get it changed, then feel free to make changes in accordance with the revised manual. Until then, please accept that it is this manual that is used in Wikipedia.

As far as "It is interesting to note that....", instructional phrases like this are discouraged in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:MOS#Avoid_instructional_and_presumptuous_language. The reader can decide for her/himself whether it is interesting or not.

And with respect to your repeated insistence that "move along", please abide by WP:CIVIL. I will move along when I am satisfied that Wikipedia manuals and policies are being respected, and not until then. I can assure you that what you desire I do will have no impact on my behavior. Ground Zero | t 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And I can assure you that your behavior will have no impact on me either. Enjoy, I will enjoy this stalemate for as long as you wish to continue it. Ellipses man (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Makes me understand why wikipedia is considered a joke and non-authoritative!Ellipses man (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you consider Wikipedia to be a joke because it uses a different style for the one with which you are familiar, then why are you here? I assume you are here because you see its value as an encyclopedia. If so, then I hope that you stay, learn the community's rules and norms of behavior, and continue to contribute. I have left some resources on your talk page that will help you learn about Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to ensure that the anti-OIN message ringing through here is more balanced and demonstrates a lesser baseless rhetoric. I could care less about this "value as an encyclopedia" rhetoric. Anything that can be changed by anyone, without always citing to proper sources, or using differing policies from already acknowledged and authoritative sources canNOT be that reliable or authoritative. And someone more concerned with "style" over the more important substance, well, I'll just leave that at that because it should be obvious what I'm getting at here. My purpose is to make sure that those foolish enough to use wikipedia as their primary source of information receive a more balanced and accurate report. Otherwise, as my professors have said, "Citing to wikipedia as a reliable primary source is like f***ing for virginity and will earn you the easiest F you have ever had." Ellipses man (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And welcome to the stalemate. Ellipses man (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were a professor or a teacher, I would not accept Wikipedia as a source either. And I would not rely on Wikipedia for an information needed for my job. But for learning about subjects in which I have a non-professional, non-academic interest, Wikipedia is an excellent resource. You can be sure that no other encyclopedia in the world has a detailed article on the OIN. I know nothing about the OIN beyond what I have read here, so I can't contribute to the content. I do know a lot about Wikipedia, so I can improve the article by fixing its style, and helping it conform to WP:NPOV. I am glad that you are helping the article become more balanced. It needs it.

Adding {{fact|date}} tags to unreferenced assertions (where "date" is the current month and year) is a useful way of improving an article. If no-one references a claim that has been tagged like this for a month or so, you can feel free to remove the claim.

There are plenty of news articles covering various OIN opponents making this statement, but most are archived and would require many hours of review, unless DTWarren has something extra to add. It's certainly been a theme to argue why the Oneidas should be paying taxes.Neutralman1024 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And it is not a stalemate. There is room to escalate, but I would rather not. I would rather that you accept that this is a Wikipedia article, and that it is to be formatted accordingly. Ground Zero | t 14:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since you two children can't be more mature in this matter, I'm marshaling a compromise. If neither can agree to it, then I'll petition wikipedia to lock the page! Neutralman1024 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted on Talk:Turning Stone Resort & Casino, I object to you calling us "children". Please review WP:CIVIL. "Ellipses man" is clear a new user. I do not think it is a good introduction for him to Wikipedia to start the name-calling.

With respect to your compromise, the purpose of Wikipedia:Manual of Style is to bring a consistent style to all Wikipedia articles to the extent possible, and to provide a place to resolve conflicts like this. I will, however, accept your proposed compromise to bring this to an end. Ground Zero | t 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MichGo case

"She is the only judge among three other circuit courts to opine that the land-into-trust process violates the U.S. Constitution." Please clarify that sentence. Are there three other circuit courts that have held the IRA unconstitutional? If so, which ones? Or were there only three other circuit courts to address the IRA's constitutionality? If so, please provide case names and citations. Neutralman1024 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I added alittle mor history of the constitutional challanges with cites.--Dtwarren (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was confused by the wording of the sentence, so I changed it for clarity. If you think the meaning changed, feel free to correct it. My intent was to make it more clear. I noticed earlier in the paragraph, the Eighth Circuit initially held the IRA unconstitutional. I assume, that on remand the court changed its opinion, considering you noted that it upheld the constitutionality at the end of the section. Neutralman1024 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven months after the Supreme Court's grant, vacate and remand (GVR) the DOI removed the land from trust and in 1997 the Tribe submitted an amended application to the Secretary, requesting that the United States take the land into trust on the Tribe's behalf. The Eighth Circuit reexamined the constitutionality issue.--Dtwarren (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Land claim cases need articles

These land claim cases have been significant and deserve separate articles for Indian law. I've noticed some other articles exclusively on legal cases are prepared according to a legal style manual, which is announced on the Talk page of the article, as for Menominee Tribe v. United States. It carries this announcement:

If such articles are prepared for the land claim cases in which the Oneida have been involved, editors may want to use that style. That may settle some of the discussion above for articles prepared according to those standards, rather than the general WIKI MOS for an article like this one. Parkwells (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Redskins

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/support_builds_in_congress_for_washington_redskins_name_change_as_team_fights_ba.html 96.59.92.70 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)