User:Bearkl/sandbox

Final Draft of contributions to Wikipedia article on Treaty Rights
This is a brand new section in article:

Treaty Rights in the United States
Between the years 1778 and 1868, there were 373 treaties between the United States government and various Native American groups, including peace settlements and land exchanges. Over the years, many of these treaties would go to court and help define the term treaty rights. In more recent years, the United States Senate has attempted to clarify the rights granted to Native Americans living on reservations. The field remains complex.

The central underpinning of treaty rights is that Native Americans are sovereign people living under their own laws, which exist alongside current United States law. It is the balance between these two systems of law that create issues and require frequent interpretation by the United States court system.

One such case is the Crow Dog criminal case. In this case, Crow Dog, a Native American, shot and killed another Native American on a reservation. The reservation police turned him over to the army, who tried him in Dakota Territorial Court. The court sentenced him to death for the murder. Crow Dog appealed the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States. He argued that because he committed the crime on a reservation, and his family had made amends for his crime in accordance with tribal law and custom, the United States had no right to try him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crow Dog, stating that the district court could not impose a punishment on a Native American for a crime committed on a reservation against another Native American.

As Native Americans became a more integrated into American culture, more non-Native Americans began working and living on the reservations. This gave rise to the question of whether or not tribes had the legal authority over non-Native Americans who commit crimes on their land. In 1959, a case surrounding the rights of a tribe to regulate the civil activities within their reservation went to the Supreme Court. In Williams v. Lee, a non-Native American merchant, who owned a general store on a reservation, sued some of his Native American customers in Arizona State Courts. The Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona court system did not have legal authority over reservations. Stating that the tribes had legal jurisdiction over both criminal and civil cases. Including those between non-Native Americans and Native Americans on the reservation.

However, this ruling did not last long. The Supreme Court Case Olyphant v. Suquamish attempted to settle this issue once and for all. This case centered around the question of if Native American law applied to non-Native Americans living on reservations. The Supreme Court ruled that non-Native Americans living on reservations were not subject to the rulings of the tribal courts.

Bibliography of sources for editing Treaty Rights article

 * 1) Some of these are going to be used to source other parts of the article that are currently unsourced.
 * 2) Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 997 (Supreme Court of the United States December 17, 1883, Decided ). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-HV10-003B-H365-00000-00&context=1516831 . Accessed November 15, 2019.
 * 3) Harring, Sidney L. "Indian Law, Sovereignty, and State Law: Native People and the Law." Blackwell Companions to American History: A Companion to American Indian History, edited by Philip Deloria, and Neal Salisbury, Blackwell Publishers, 1st edition, 2001. Credo Reference, https://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/bkaih/indian_law_sovereignty_and_state_law_native_people_and_the_law/0?institutionId=702 . Accessed 15 Nov. 2019.
 * 4) United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1939 (Supreme Court of the United States May 10, 1886, Decided ). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-HCD0-003B-H285-00000-00&context=1516831 . Accessed November 14, 2019.
 * 5) WILLIAMS v. LEE, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S. Ct. 269, 3 L. Ed. 2d 251, 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1656 (Supreme Court of the United States January 12, 1959, Decided ). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-J170-003B-S412-00000-00&context=1516831 . Accessed November 14, 2019.
 * 6) Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S. Ct. 1011, 55 L. Ed. 2d 209, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 66 (Supreme Court of the United States March 6, 1978 ; ). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-90C0-003B-S370-00000-00&context=1516831 . Accessed November 14, 2019.
 * 7) Llewellyn, Karl N. (Karl Nickerson), and Hoebel, E. Adamson . The Cheyenne Way. University of Oklahoma press, 1941.
 * 8) Michelucci, Alessandro. "Treaty Rights Struggle." Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice, Gary L. Anderson, Sage Publications, 1st edition, 2007. Credo Reference, https://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageact/treaty_rights_struggle/0?institutionId=702 . Accessed 15 Nov. 2019.
 * 9) Cheyfitz, Eric. "Sovereignty, Native American." Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Richard T. Schaefer, Sage Publications, 1st edition, 2008. Credo Reference, https://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sagerace/sovereignty_native_american/0?institutionId=702 . Accessed 15 Nov. 2019.

Evaluation of Fun Home
The lead of this article is strong as it includes all of the major parts of the book, including publication. However, the paragraph about the musical adaptation is far too long, it should be at most a sentence. I think that this article is far better than almost any other article we have looked at. It includes a detailed section on each of the necessary parts of a wikipedia article on a book. They include a very informative section about the reception of the book which is very important

Fun hume is a far better wikipedia page than Handmaid's Tale. It at least includes all parts of a good wikipedia article, whereas Handmaid's Tale does not include a section on publication.

Lead Section
The lead is complete, except it does not include any mention of the conflict people have with the book. For example, it does not talk about the book being one of the most banned books.

Background
The historical section talks about why Atwood writes the piece, talking about Puritans and the religious right movement in the United States in the 1980s. However, the article does not talk about where in her career Atwood was when she wrote this book.

Summary
The summary is as complete as it can be given the constraints of Wikipedia.

Genre
The genre is speculative fiction, and the Wikipedia article does a good job pointing this out.

Analysis
The Wikipedia article notes the critical reception the book has received from critics stating that they take issue with the lack of racial diversity. There is remarkably little on the white-washed nature of the book, and this is where I would place the Rule and Merriman article. These articles would help fill in the lack of information in this section.

Under the race section of this article, I would add a small bit about the white-washed nature:

Critics such as Ben Merriman, from the University of Kansas, have argued that by dismissing the inherent connection between the world she presents and that of African slaves, Atwood white-washes the feminist struggle.

For Rule, I would place a sentence about the control of female bodies in the sub-section on feminism.

Publication
There is not a section on publications leaving the article to lack information about current editions, covers, and copyright information. This needs to be fixed as the only information on publishers seems to come from the description box under the original cover.

=
*General Observation = The article on The Handmaid's Tale only mentions publication twice in the entire article. Thus it does not fully explain when the book was first published, who published it, if it was translated, and later editions. They mention the first publishing house and date, but wikipedia requests more information on how the book was first received, as well as information on any awards the book received. ======

Reception
This section is left up to the analysis section. Many people have talked about the parallels between current US politics and the world of the book. This section is missing how incredibly popular this book, and subsequent tv series, have been in America.

Infobox
The infobox provides the necessary information.

Other
They include some information on a sequel, the tv series, and other uses in academia. This section is complete.

Evaluating content
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes

Is there anything that distracted you? The lack of refrences was a bit distracting.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps. There is almost nothing written about the content of the piece. There are only four refrences.

What else could be improved? Refrences.

Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and

summarizes the entire article? It provides basic information, but also talks about why he wrote a journal which is not covered in the article.

Evaluating tone
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular

position? Very neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would say that because this article is so short, his journal is not fully explained.

Evaluating sources
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The sources work, but unfortunately some are biased. Someone has used a radom Russian blog as a source.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come

from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? For example, does the writer use

signal phrases to clearly identify the source of the information? No signal phrases used, but generally speaking the facts are cited. However, many of the facts are cited from the same source.

Checking the talk page
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this

topic? No conversations are being had.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C-Class. It is within the WikiProject History.