![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State 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. | |||||||||
|
I've tagged the article with {{ refimprove}} because the only linked reference does not confirm any details except that the final decision was 5:4 in favour to the Oneida Nation. Presumable the details of the case have been published somewhere, in which cas {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}}. {{ cite newspaper}} or {{ cite book}} should be used. Mjroots ( talk) 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
To me, there is something inherently perverse about the view that a citation that tells the reader the exact volume and the exact page number of the official reporter in which the cited material can be found is unverifiable, but conversely, a link any of the 1000s of fly-by-night web pages that copy and paste the public domain texts of decisions, often without incorporating page numbers, is verifiable. If you have no objection to the fact that a reference is offline, then you can only be objecting to the formatting of references. I don't think it is that hard to understand. The use of [volume #] [abbreviated source title] [page number] is common not only to legal citation, but to most scholarly systems of citations. If you wish to develop your own system of legal citation that makes more sense to you, please do so elsewhere, and submit it for public comment in a centralized discussion location, rather than singling out one of the tens of thousands of law articles on Wikipedia. Savidan 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what citation conventions make sense for those areas of content. For law, there are two value that are paramount: (1) the use of standardized legal citation style (i.e. the Bluebook for U.S. legal scholarship). Different citation systems seem intuitive to different people. It is apparent this this one is not intuitive to you. However, it is far preferable to use the one that is standard in court opinions, law reviews, legal news, and legal books, than to use some Wikipedia-specific template with no known community consensus behind it (in case it isn't obvious, I dislike the choices these templates make); (2) in the online context, neutrality between available systems of retrieving case opinions online. The citations I have provided can by copied and pasted into any of them. External links (most especially when included in every single footnote rather than once) show undue preference to one site. There are numerous ancillary problems to this, not the least of which are that Wikipedia is by design not capable of vouching for the accuracy of any given repository and that many of them contain ads or other monetization features that make linking to them inappropriate. An additional issue is that you seem to be assuming that Wikipedia is only an online encyclopedia. In fact, an important part of our mission is to enhance the reusability of our content in any medium, many of which are not online. The more external links outside of the external links sections of articles, the more hurdles have been created for the reuse of our content. Savidan 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I dislike repetition, but to recap, here's why the "equal coverage" doesn't work: external links outside of the EL section are disfavored (reusability, etc.), Wikipedia cannot vouch for the reliability of any of these sites (much less all of them!), and the values of these sites are antithetical enough to Wikipedia's such that they do not deserve to be plugged in each and every footnote.
As for the lay-reader, I suppose your argument has become: they won't understand the citation style, but at least they understand external links. The EL will teach them nothing about the citation style, but merely remind them that the case itself is being cited, something already quite obvious (just as obvious as the fact that the book itself is being cited in the section titled "plot"). I wonder what you find so helpful to the lay reader in the citation style for books or scholarly journals. Do you imagine that the city of publication will help them book a plane ticket to check it out for themselves? I suppose each footnote could say: "The case itself is being cited. Case opinions are published in reporters. This case is in reporter XXX. Reporters have volumes. This case is in volume XXX. Volumes have pages. This case is on page XXX. Some cases span multiple pages. The specific content is on page XXX. Because cases are also in the public domain [this concept left unexplained], if you don't want to take my word for it, you can go to any of these sites, which appear to have copy-and-pasted the decision, but I'm not making any promises that the site is accurate or safe to visit." I'm not saying this is not useful information to communicate, but to over-communicate it in every footnote trades off with the usefulness of the article in other obvious ways. My points about the reusability of Wikipedia and the reliability of these sites apply to this issue too, of course.
I'm apologize if you've found me unreasonable in our interactions, but you appear to have struck upon several of my pet peeves at once: (1) an obsession with external linking at every opportunity; (2) the view that if things aren't online they don't exist (or are "unverifiable"); (3) the view that every reference needs to be force-fed into a non-WYSIWYG template; and (4) the view that the [citation] style unanimous accepted in the [legal] real world must be crap, and should be replaced with something invented on Wikipedia that is meaningless everywhere else. If someone like me--an administrator, author of 5 featured articles, editing for 5 years--can be driven to distraction over this, it helps explain why more lawyers and legal academics do not contribute.
Savidan
20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Michaelzeng7 ( talk · contribs) 17:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Back to review another article! Please wait as I read the entire article to justify its good article nomination.
- Michaelzeng7 ( talk - contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think thats it. I find this topic interesting. It's sourced amply, but most of them refer to primary sources. Any third party sources? It also seems to rely on 470 US all the time. Try and fix this, but I can understand it may be hard to fix, fix everything else and at least make attempts to third-party sources and that issue shouldn't be something that would hold back Good Article status. -- Michaelzeng7 ( talk - contribs) 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State 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. | |||||||||
|
I've tagged the article with {{ refimprove}} because the only linked reference does not confirm any details except that the final decision was 5:4 in favour to the Oneida Nation. Presumable the details of the case have been published somewhere, in which cas {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}}. {{ cite newspaper}} or {{ cite book}} should be used. Mjroots ( talk) 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
To me, there is something inherently perverse about the view that a citation that tells the reader the exact volume and the exact page number of the official reporter in which the cited material can be found is unverifiable, but conversely, a link any of the 1000s of fly-by-night web pages that copy and paste the public domain texts of decisions, often without incorporating page numbers, is verifiable. If you have no objection to the fact that a reference is offline, then you can only be objecting to the formatting of references. I don't think it is that hard to understand. The use of [volume #] [abbreviated source title] [page number] is common not only to legal citation, but to most scholarly systems of citations. If you wish to develop your own system of legal citation that makes more sense to you, please do so elsewhere, and submit it for public comment in a centralized discussion location, rather than singling out one of the tens of thousands of law articles on Wikipedia. Savidan 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what citation conventions make sense for those areas of content. For law, there are two value that are paramount: (1) the use of standardized legal citation style (i.e. the Bluebook for U.S. legal scholarship). Different citation systems seem intuitive to different people. It is apparent this this one is not intuitive to you. However, it is far preferable to use the one that is standard in court opinions, law reviews, legal news, and legal books, than to use some Wikipedia-specific template with no known community consensus behind it (in case it isn't obvious, I dislike the choices these templates make); (2) in the online context, neutrality between available systems of retrieving case opinions online. The citations I have provided can by copied and pasted into any of them. External links (most especially when included in every single footnote rather than once) show undue preference to one site. There are numerous ancillary problems to this, not the least of which are that Wikipedia is by design not capable of vouching for the accuracy of any given repository and that many of them contain ads or other monetization features that make linking to them inappropriate. An additional issue is that you seem to be assuming that Wikipedia is only an online encyclopedia. In fact, an important part of our mission is to enhance the reusability of our content in any medium, many of which are not online. The more external links outside of the external links sections of articles, the more hurdles have been created for the reuse of our content. Savidan 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I dislike repetition, but to recap, here's why the "equal coverage" doesn't work: external links outside of the EL section are disfavored (reusability, etc.), Wikipedia cannot vouch for the reliability of any of these sites (much less all of them!), and the values of these sites are antithetical enough to Wikipedia's such that they do not deserve to be plugged in each and every footnote.
As for the lay-reader, I suppose your argument has become: they won't understand the citation style, but at least they understand external links. The EL will teach them nothing about the citation style, but merely remind them that the case itself is being cited, something already quite obvious (just as obvious as the fact that the book itself is being cited in the section titled "plot"). I wonder what you find so helpful to the lay reader in the citation style for books or scholarly journals. Do you imagine that the city of publication will help them book a plane ticket to check it out for themselves? I suppose each footnote could say: "The case itself is being cited. Case opinions are published in reporters. This case is in reporter XXX. Reporters have volumes. This case is in volume XXX. Volumes have pages. This case is on page XXX. Some cases span multiple pages. The specific content is on page XXX. Because cases are also in the public domain [this concept left unexplained], if you don't want to take my word for it, you can go to any of these sites, which appear to have copy-and-pasted the decision, but I'm not making any promises that the site is accurate or safe to visit." I'm not saying this is not useful information to communicate, but to over-communicate it in every footnote trades off with the usefulness of the article in other obvious ways. My points about the reusability of Wikipedia and the reliability of these sites apply to this issue too, of course.
I'm apologize if you've found me unreasonable in our interactions, but you appear to have struck upon several of my pet peeves at once: (1) an obsession with external linking at every opportunity; (2) the view that if things aren't online they don't exist (or are "unverifiable"); (3) the view that every reference needs to be force-fed into a non-WYSIWYG template; and (4) the view that the [citation] style unanimous accepted in the [legal] real world must be crap, and should be replaced with something invented on Wikipedia that is meaningless everywhere else. If someone like me--an administrator, author of 5 featured articles, editing for 5 years--can be driven to distraction over this, it helps explain why more lawyers and legal academics do not contribute.
Savidan
20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Michaelzeng7 ( talk · contribs) 17:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Back to review another article! Please wait as I read the entire article to justify its good article nomination.
- Michaelzeng7 ( talk - contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think thats it. I find this topic interesting. It's sourced amply, but most of them refer to primary sources. Any third party sources? It also seems to rely on 470 US all the time. Try and fix this, but I can understand it may be hard to fix, fix everything else and at least make attempts to third-party sources and that issue shouldn't be something that would hold back Good Article status. -- Michaelzeng7 ( talk - contribs) 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)