2884:"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.
1592:
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.
1955:. 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 Knowledge article the better.
272:"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?
138:"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?
1842:, 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. --
1177:, 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.
2857:" 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.
1822:, "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 Knowledge 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.
1776:"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,
1893:
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
Knowledge 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?
378:"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
151:"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
1951:
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
1872:
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.
1550:
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, --
1591:
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
1950:
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
1618:
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,
1447:
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
1439:
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
1318:
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
813:
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
1921:
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
1871:
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
1705:
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
1609:
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 Knowledge 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
1215:
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
1288:
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
1746:
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 Knowledge article but not within the term "Boldt decision"? See 520 F.2d at 693. If so, then I question whether
1892:
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.
1357:
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
1549:
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
779:"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?
349:"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.
148:"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.
102:
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.
2605:
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
1804:, 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." --
1496:
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
1925:
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
1619:
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, --
411:"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."
158:"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."
1651:
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 --
1611:
1856:
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
1157:
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:
1929:
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.
1573:, 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).
958:"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?
580:"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..."
180:"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..."
1396:
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
193:"...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.
1568:
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
662:"...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.
1466:
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, --
1922:
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.
1254:
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.
886:, 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.
2007:
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
1035:
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!
2052:
2682:
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
3104:
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.--
2828:
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.
2598:
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
3072:"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?
2108:
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,
2083:
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.
2661:
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.
2393:
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
2280:
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
3231:- 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,
1747:"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.
498:"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."
167:"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."
2764:
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.
3202:, 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
243:
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.
135:
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.
1907:
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.
532:"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".
177:"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".
2584:
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
2315:
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
3198:. 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
1706:
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, --
1173:, 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
440:"These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
161:"These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
1762:
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.:
40:
539:
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.
2585:
2316:
2796:"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"
2051:
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
882:"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
3283:
3242:
3223:
3184:
3158:
3139:
3113:
3092:
3060:
3028:
2999:
2970:
2933:
2904:
2875:
2848:
2816:
2784:
2755:
2704:
2673:
2650:
2625:
2575:
2543:
2511:
2479:
2447:
2415:
2383:
2351:
2261:
2232:
2215:
2188:
2170:
2143:
2123:
2101:
2064:
2039:
2017:
2000:
1964:
1943:
1916:
1902:
1885:
1866:
1851:
1834:
1813:
1756:
1715:
1696:
1678:
1661:
1646:
1628:
1586:
1559:
1536:
1517:
1476:
1461:
1421:
1378:
1339:
1298:
1283:
1236:
1197:
1143:
1102:
1073:
1049:
1012:
978:
944:
910:
868:
834:
799:
768:
745:
725:
699:
682:
648:
617:
600:
569:
552:
518:
489:
460:
431:
402:
369:
331:
313:
292:
263:
227:
209:
116:
94:
3253:
30:
17:
1263:
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.
3264:
992:"but within ten years (1984)" -- I think this is unneededly repetitive. I think either: "but by 1984" or "but within ten years" should do.
924:
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.
1261:"Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable."
1136:
3040:
Can it be explained briefly what were the disputed points that the witnesses were testifying about? That Boldt found more credible.
2077:
The article is well on its way to meeting FA criteria with the adjustments mentioned above and a few more tweaks here and there.
1669:, I added a summary of the Ninth Circuit opinion (for the direct appeal) on this talk page. Let me know what you think. Best, --
628:"Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
183:"Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
814:
basin is estimated" -- "is estimated" or "was estimated"; "not only provided" -- "provided" or "provides"? See if I missed any.
2111:. There were seasonal closures and prohibitions for fishing gear that obstructed the upstream spawning migration of salmon.
712:, I think that addresses all of your issues. Thank you for reviewing the article and let me know if I missed something.
72:
1787:"The famous 'Boldt Decision' of 1974, was a major victory for the treaty tribes of Washington state" Matthew Deisen,
1825:
Reliable sources often refer to "Kepler's Second Law" but there is not a separate Knowledge article on that subject.
1216:
through private property . . . .” or “cases provided the Indians a right of access through private property . . . .”
3219:
2835:
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, all the canneries show is the growth of commercial fishing by whites.
2060:
2013:
1960:
1912:
1898:
1862:
1847:
1830:
1809:
1752:
1711:
1674:
1657:
1624:
1555:
1532:
1472:
1294:
164:
As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
469:
As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
1952:
197:
I don't see any further issues; this, despite being a subject I know very little about, was very interesting.
2338:
Done, verbiage changed to right of access (per comments above) and easement linked at (now) only occurrence.
3279:
3180:
1128:
2691:, but until then I use Bluebook. Thank you for reviewing this and your support—I really appreciate it.
1027:
would love to support this once the above are addressed. This should make a fine FA. One thing though,
848:"Frank Taylor" -- who is Frank Taylor? Preferably, something more than just "plaintiff" or "defendant".
2979:
You might want to use a footnote to explain why the US Attorney is always suing people in these cases.
3215:
2056:
2023:
2009:
1956:
1908:
1894:
1858:
1843:
1839:
1826:
1805:
1765:"The tribes were not players until the Boldt decision, and the decisions that followed in its wake."
1748:
1707:
1670:
1653:
1620:
1551:
1528:
1468:
1290:
1060:, I think everything has been addressed. Let me know if I missed something. I appreciate the review.
3126:. Let me know if I need to add more or do something else. I appreciate your review on this article.
3008:"Continuing jurisdiction" is going to need an explanation in some way, and we don't have an article.
3175:- I think this is ready to close. Is everyone happy with the rather odd-looking source formatting?
3133:
3086:
3054:
3022:
2993:
2964:
2927:
2898:
2869:
2842:
2810:
2778:
2749:
2698:
2668:
2644:
2619:
2569:
2537:
2505:
2473:
2441:
2409:
2377:
2345:
2256:
2209:
2182:
2137:
2095:
2033:
1994:
1937:
1879:
1690:
1640:
1580:
1511:
1455:
1415:
1372:
1333:
1277:
1230:
1191:
1067:
1006:
972:
938:
904:
862:
828:
793:
741:
719:
695:
676:
642:
613:
594:
565:
546:
512:
483:
454:
425:
396:
363:
325:
309:
286:
257:
223:
205:
110:
88:
1800:
The Ninth Circuit also mentioned that the case is "commonly referred to as the "Boldt" decision."
3275:
3176:
1633:
OK, I'll do some on it later, and I would really appreciate any help, such as you offered above.
733:
nomination to FA. Counter arguments are satisfactory and not enough to oppose. A nice article.
53:
3195:
3154:
3109:
2607:
2109:
1096:
1043:
1032:
894:
883:
762:
587:
Not done. "Opinion" is a term of art, meaning the opinion of the Court as a whole. Clarified.
3257:
2594:
I went back through the refs to double check, all of the book authors are in smallcaps, per
2562:
Can you clarify? I think that this may have been changed before I got to your comment here.
2055:." At least the wikilink is redundant, and maybe other parts of that sentence too. Thanks.
1114:
61:
2913:"After being remanded to determine if the regulations were not discriminatory" strike "not"
2688:
1819:
1527:
Let me know if you have any questions or if any of my comments don't make sense. Best, --
2637:, with the exception of the one question, I think I have addressed all of your concerns.
1113:
Same thing as Ceradon, but hopefully, I should be able to review this starting tomorrow.
3256:
has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
279:
Done. Reworded, but take a look please, sometimes I don't get it right on reworking it.
3128:
3081:
3049:
3017:
2988:
2959:
2922:
2893:
2864:
2837:
2805:
2773:
2744:
2693:
2684:
2662:
2639:
2634:
2614:
2564:
2532:
2500:
2468:
2436:
2404:
2372:
2340:
2250:
2204:
2177:
2132:
2090:
2028:
1989:
1932:
1874:
1767:
You Win Some, You Lose Some: The Costs and Benefits of Litigation in Fishery Management
1685:
1666:
1635:
1575:
1506:
1450:
1410:
1367:
1328:
1272:
1225:
1186:
1086:
1062:
1022:
1001:
967:
933:
899:
857:
823:
788:
736:
714:
709:
690:
671:
637:
608:
589:
560:
541:
507:
478:
449:
420:
391:
358:
320:
304:
281:
252:
218:
200:
105:
83:
2600:
1504:
Done, reworded to "one member of the Coast Guard. . ." Fixed typo, moved sentences.
3150:
3123:
3105:
1091:
1057:
1038:
1028:
757:
3271:
786:
Done, wikilinked collateral attack, explanatory footnote added, reworded prose.
57:
3236:
2226:
2199:
2164:
2117:
1256:
3122:
I think I've clarified this area, as well as addressing all of the concerns,
1440:
will likely be surprised to see the tribes didn’t receive 50% of the harvest.
2085:
What was the decision? What was a collateral attack and on what decision?
1401:), I added a few details about why the case came about in the first place.
3191:
2595:
2489:
on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose
2298:
on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose
2395:—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
2282:—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
2156:
but with the ever increasing movement of white settlers into the area
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
2053:
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
2112:
1789:
State v. Jim: A New Era in Washington's Treatment of the Tribes?
2986:
Done. Included statute and Handbook for Fed Indian law cites.
2862:
Done, reworded from the states to read Washington Territory.
2363:—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
2276:—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
2150:
Another suggestion - maybe it's just me, but the terminology
2088:
Done. Explanatory footnote added, wikilinked, and reworded.
2946:
Possibly designate in parens following the case name which
2612:
Do you have any footnotes that I can address specifically?
2361:
half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language
2274:
half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language
126:
Drip fed and at a snail's pace I'm afraid because of RL.
3015:
Done. Added explanatory fn with definition from Black's.
2427:—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
2288:—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
2160:
as the numbers of white settlers increased exponentially
2115:
which were customarily used by Indians were banned. --
1399:
Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington
3232:
2152:
but as more and more white settlers came into the area,
1085:
promotion. My concerns have been addressed. Good work,
669:
No, the states being Oregon and Washington. Clarified.
298:
65:
1778:
At a Complex Crossroads: Animal Law in Indian Country
755:
I'll review this, but likely not before tomorrow. --
3291:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
1544:Addendum -- Coverage of the Ninth Circuit Opinion
893:Done. Wikilinked to tenancy in common section of
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
2425:In one of the first of these enforcement cases
2286:In one of the first of these enforcement cases
2026:, let me know if I need to do something more.
1701:The article looks fantastic! You have my full
3297:No further edits should be made to this page.
3270:template in place on the talk page until the
2081:The 3rd para in the lead is a bit confusing:
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
1987:OK, I'll add some more info on it later.
527:State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
356:Done. Added parenthetical quote to cite.
301:which, I hope you agree, reads better. --
172:State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
1614:, where the Ninth Circuit's opinion was
2604:
2521:the states continued to arrest Indians
2304:the states continued to arrest Indians
1260:
2724:leaning support, the usual nitpicks:
2154:just doesn't seem as encyclopedic as
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
2603:, next to last bullet, which states
1434:U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
897:article, added explanatory footnote.
657:U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
188:U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
299:but I removed the definite articles
2950:this is, rather than the footnote.
1683:Done. Let me know what you think.
635:Clarified as the Court's opinion.
24:
605:Clarification is better, thanks.
2735:Can the first sentence be split?
2249:Fine article, but some nitpicks
382:said this or who we are quoting?
155:said this or who we are quoting?
3284:20:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3243:19:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3224:19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3185:19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3159:22:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
3140:22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
3093:21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
3061:17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3029:16:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3000:16:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2971:02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2905:02:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2876:01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2491:—replace second "state" by"it"
2300:—replace second "state" by"it"
2065:20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
1169:Starting with the section for
1:
3114:19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2934:21:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2849:21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2817:21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2785:21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2756:21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2705:16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2674:06:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2651:04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2626:03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2576:04:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2544:04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2512:04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2480:04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2448:04:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2416:04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2384:04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2352:04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2233:06:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2216:04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2189:03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2144:03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2102:03:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2040:21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2018:19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2001:16:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1965:15:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1944:04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1917:03:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1903:03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1886:03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1716:16:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
1697:04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
1679:19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1662:17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1647:16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1629:16:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1587:03:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1518:21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1477:00:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1462:21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1422:21:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1299:00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
1284:21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1237:21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1198:20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1103:22:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1074:18:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
1050:02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1013:18:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
979:18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
945:18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
911:18:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
869:18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
835:18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
800:18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
746:16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
726:15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
700:16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
683:15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
649:15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
618:16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
601:15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
570:16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
553:15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
210:18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
3194:is perfectly acceptable per
2202:, I think I got everything.
3265:featured article candidates
3212:United States v. Washington
3208:United States v. Washington
3204:United States v. Washington
3200:United States v. Washington
2459:—"including", not "such as"
2294:—"including", not "such as"
2262:07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
2171:13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
2124:04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
1867:23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1852:22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1835:21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1814:20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1757:19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1571:United States v. Washington
1560:22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1537:19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1379:22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1340:22:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1144:03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
769:20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
519:19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
490:19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
461:19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
432:19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
403:19:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
370:18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
332:18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
314:18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
293:18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
264:18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
228:18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
117:17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
95:17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
73:United States v. Washington
64:) 20:37, 26 September 2015
31:featured article nomination
3314:
1270:Done. Increased to 300px.
1448:footnote on the formula.
1289:involved in the case. --
1109:Comments from Sportsguy17
808:History of tribal fishing
238:History of tribal fishing
130:History of tribal fishing
3294:Please do not modify it.
2331:—link at first occurence
2270:—link at first occurence
1771:Ocean & Coastal L.J.
36:Please do not modify it.
2224:Well done, GregJackP.
1175:United States v. Winans
1164:Citations to Case Names
843:United States v. Taylor
122:Comments from Cassianto
3210:(W.D. Wash. 1974), or
1610:that comes to mind is
821:Done, fixed, I think.
2717:Comments from Wehwalt
1795:101, 120 (2013-2014).
751:Comments from Ceradon
233:Response to Cassianto
3214:(9th Cir. 1975). --
2457:such as Sam Williams
2292:such as Sam Williams
1742:from Anythingyouwant
1153:from Notecardforfree
1352:Tulee v. Washington
1313:Post-treaty history
1171:Tulee v. Washington
987:Tribal developments
344:Post-treaty history
143:Post-treaty history
1793:Am. Indian L. Rev.
1391:The Puyallup cases
3206:(9th Cir. Case),
3149:all looks good.--
3099:Court supervision
3079:Done. Clarified.
2329:right of easement
2268:right of easement
1802:Anderson v. Evans
1491:Court Supervision
1142:
1033:logical quotation
895:Concurrent estate
884:appositive phrase
98:
3305:
3296:
3269:
3263:
3260:, and leave the
3241:
3239:
3138:
3136:
3131:
3091:
3089:
3084:
3059:
3057:
3052:
3027:
3025:
3020:
2998:
2996:
2991:
2969:
2967:
2962:
2932:
2930:
2925:
2903:
2901:
2896:
2874:
2872:
2867:
2847:
2845:
2840:
2815:
2813:
2808:
2783:
2781:
2776:
2754:
2752:
2747:
2703:
2701:
2696:
2689:less information
2671:
2649:
2647:
2642:
2624:
2622:
2617:
2574:
2572:
2567:
2542:
2540:
2535:
2510:
2508:
2503:
2478:
2476:
2471:
2446:
2444:
2439:
2414:
2412:
2407:
2382:
2380:
2375:
2350:
2348:
2343:
2259:
2231:
2229:
2214:
2212:
2207:
2187:
2185:
2180:
2169:
2167:
2142:
2140:
2135:
2122:
2120:
2100:
2098:
2093:
2038:
2036:
2031:
1999:
1997:
1992:
1942:
1940:
1935:
1884:
1882:
1877:
1794:
1784:109, 122 (2007).
1783:
1772:
1695:
1693:
1688:
1645:
1643:
1638:
1585:
1583:
1578:
1516:
1514:
1509:
1460:
1458:
1453:
1420:
1418:
1413:
1377:
1375:
1370:
1338:
1336:
1331:
1282:
1280:
1275:
1235:
1233:
1228:
1196:
1194:
1189:
1139:
1133:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1099:
1072:
1070:
1065:
1046:
1026:
1011:
1009:
1004:
977:
975:
970:
943:
941:
936:
909:
907:
902:
867:
865:
860:
833:
831:
826:
798:
796:
791:
765:
743:
739:
724:
722:
717:
697:
693:
681:
679:
674:
647:
645:
640:
615:
611:
599:
597:
592:
567:
563:
551:
549:
544:
517:
515:
510:
488:
486:
481:
459:
457:
452:
430:
428:
423:
401:
399:
394:
368:
366:
361:
330:
328:
323:
311:
307:
291:
289:
284:
262:
260:
255:
225:
221:
215:More soonest...
207:
203:
115:
113:
108:
93:
91:
86:
79:
48:The article was
38:
3313:
3312:
3308:
3307:
3306:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3292:
3267:
3261:
3237:
3235:
3216:Notecardforfree
3134:
3129:
3127:
3087:
3082:
3080:
3055:
3050:
3048:
3023:
3018:
3016:
2994:
2989:
2987:
2965:
2960:
2958:
2928:
2923:
2921:
2899:
2894:
2892:
2870:
2865:
2863:
2843:
2838:
2836:
2811:
2806:
2804:
2779:
2774:
2772:
2750:
2745:
2743:
2719:
2699:
2694:
2692:
2669:
2645:
2640:
2638:
2620:
2615:
2613:
2570:
2565:
2563:
2538:
2533:
2531:
2506:
2501:
2499:
2474:
2469:
2467:
2442:
2437:
2435:
2410:
2405:
2403:
2378:
2373:
2371:
2346:
2341:
2339:
2257:
2247:
2227:
2225:
2210:
2205:
2203:
2183:
2178:
2176:
2165:
2163:
2138:
2133:
2131:
2118:
2116:
2096:
2091:
2089:
2075:
2057:Anythingyouwant
2034:
2029:
2027:
2024:Anythingyouwant
2010:Anythingyouwant
1995:
1990:
1988:
1957:Anythingyouwant
1938:
1933:
1931:
1909:Anythingyouwant
1895:Anythingyouwant
1880:
1875:
1873:
1859:Anythingyouwant
1844:Notecardforfree
1840:Anythingyouwant
1827:Anythingyouwant
1806:Notecardforfree
1792:
1781:
1770:
1749:Anythingyouwant
1744:
1708:Notecardforfree
1691:
1686:
1684:
1671:Notecardforfree
1654:Notecardforfree
1641:
1636:
1634:
1621:Notecardforfree
1581:
1576:
1574:
1552:Notecardforfree
1529:Notecardforfree
1512:
1507:
1505:
1469:Notecardforfree
1456:
1451:
1449:
1416:
1411:
1409:
1373:
1368:
1366:
1334:
1329:
1327:
1319:native tribes.”
1291:Notecardforfree
1278:
1273:
1271:
1231:
1226:
1224:
1192:
1187:
1185:
1155:
1137:
1129:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1097:
1068:
1063:
1061:
1044:
1020:
1007:
1002:
1000:
973:
968:
966:
953:Public response
939:
934:
932:
905:
900:
898:
863:
858:
856:
829:
824:
822:
794:
789:
787:
763:
753:
737:
735:
720:
715:
713:
691:
689:
677:
672:
670:
643:
638:
636:
609:
607:
595:
590:
588:
561:
559:
547:
542:
540:
513:
508:
506:
484:
479:
477:
455:
450:
448:
426:
421:
419:
397:
392:
390:
364:
359:
357:
326:
321:
319:
305:
303:
287:
282:
280:
258:
253:
251:
235:
219:
217:
201:
199:
124:
111:
106:
104:
89:
84:
82:
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3311:
3309:
3300:
3299:
3287:
3286:
3274:goes through.
3246:
3245:
3226:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3164:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3117:
3116:
3101:
3100:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3074:
3073:
3069:
3068:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3042:
3041:
3037:
3036:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3010:
3009:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2981:
2980:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2952:
2951:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2915:
2914:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2886:
2885:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2830:
2829:
2826:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2798:
2797:
2793:
2792:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2766:
2765:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2737:
2736:
2732:
2731:
2718:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2677:
2676:
2654:
2653:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2589:
2588:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2557:
2556:
2555:—"Gillnetters"
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2525:
2524:
2523:—which states?
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2493:
2492:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2461:
2460:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2429:
2428:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2397:
2396:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2365:
2364:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2333:
2332:
2325:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2313:
2312:—"Gillnetters"
2307:
2306:—which states?
2301:
2295:
2289:
2283:
2277:
2271:
2246:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2219:
2218:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2158:, or possibly
2148:
2147:
2146:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2074:
2067:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1927:
1923:
1905:
1823:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1785:
1774:
1743:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1612:LACFCD v. NRDC
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1563:
1562:
1546:
1545:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1499:
1498:
1493:
1492:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1435:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1403:
1402:
1393:
1392:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1360:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1321:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1265:
1264:
1251:
1250:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1218:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1179:
1178:
1166:
1165:
1154:
1147:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
994:
993:
989:
988:
984:
983:
982:
981:
960:
959:
955:
954:
950:
949:
948:
947:
926:
925:
921:
920:
919:Direct appeals
916:
915:
914:
913:
888:
887:
879:
878:
874:
873:
872:
871:
850:
849:
845:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
816:
815:
810:
809:
805:
804:
803:
802:
781:
780:
776:
775:
752:
749:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
664:
663:
659:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
630:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
582:
581:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
534:
533:
529:
528:
524:
523:
522:
521:
500:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
471:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
442:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
413:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
384:
383:
375:
374:
373:
372:
351:
350:
346:
345:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
318:Works for me.
274:
273:
269:
268:
267:
266:
245:
244:
240:
239:
234:
231:
214:
195:
194:
190:
189:
185:
184:
181:
178:
174:
173:
169:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
149:
145:
144:
140:
139:
136:
132:
131:
123:
120:
100:
99:
81:Nominator(s):
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3310:
3298:
3295:
3289:
3288:
3285:
3281:
3277:
3276:Graham Beards
3273:
3266:
3259:
3255:
3251:
3248:
3247:
3244:
3240:
3233:
3230:
3227:
3225:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3177:Graham Beards
3174:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3145:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3137:
3132:
3125:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3103:
3102:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3085:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3071:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3053:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3039:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3021:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3007:
3006:
3001:
2997:
2992:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2978:
2977:
2972:
2968:
2963:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2949:
2945:
2941:
2940:
2935:
2931:
2926:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2912:
2911:
2906:
2902:
2897:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2887:
2883:
2882:
2877:
2873:
2868:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2856:
2850:
2846:
2841:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2831:
2827:
2824:
2823:
2818:
2814:
2809:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2795:
2794:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2777:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2763:
2762:
2757:
2753:
2748:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2734:
2733:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2723:
2716:
2706:
2702:
2697:
2690:
2686:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2675:
2672:
2666:
2665:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2652:
2648:
2643:
2636:
2633:
2632:
2627:
2623:
2618:
2611:
2609:
2602:
2601:MOS:SMALLCAPS
2597:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2587:
2583:
2582:
2577:
2573:
2568:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2554:
2551:
2550:
2545:
2541:
2536:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2522:
2519:
2518:
2513:
2509:
2504:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2490:
2487:
2486:
2481:
2477:
2472:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2458:
2455:
2454:
2449:
2445:
2440:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2426:
2423:
2422:
2417:
2413:
2408:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2394:
2391:
2390:
2385:
2381:
2376:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2362:
2359:
2358:
2353:
2349:
2344:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2330:
2327:
2326:
2322:
2321:
2318:
2314:
2311:
2308:
2305:
2302:
2299:
2296:
2293:
2290:
2287:
2284:
2281:
2278:
2275:
2272:
2269:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2260:
2254:
2253:
2244:
2240:
2234:
2230:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2217:
2213:
2208:
2201:
2198:
2197:
2190:
2186:
2181:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2136:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2121:
2114:
2110:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2094:
2087:
2086:
2084:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2072:
2068:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2041:
2037:
2032:
2025:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1993:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1936:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1878:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1790:
1786:
1779:
1775:
1773:5, 33 (2001).
1768:
1764:
1763:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1741:
1737:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1689:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1380:
1376:
1371:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1148:
1146:
1145:
1140:
1134:
1132:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1034:
1030:
1024:
1014:
1010:
1005:
998:
997:
996:
995:
991:
990:
986:
985:
980:
976:
971:
964:
963:
962:
961:
957:
956:
952:
951:
946:
942:
937:
930:
929:
928:
927:
923:
922:
918:
917:
912:
908:
903:
896:
892:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
880:
876:
875:
870:
866:
861:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
846:
842:
841:
836:
832:
827:
820:
819:
818:
817:
812:
811:
807:
806:
801:
797:
792:
785:
784:
783:
782:
778:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
767:
766:
761:
760:
750:
748:
747:
744:
742:
740:
732:
728:
727:
723:
718:
711:
701:
698:
696:
694:
686:
685:
684:
680:
675:
668:
667:
666:
665:
661:
660:
656:
655:
650:
646:
641:
634:
633:
632:
631:
627:
626:
619:
616:
614:
612:
604:
603:
602:
598:
593:
586:
585:
584:
583:
579:
578:
571:
568:
566:
564:
556:
555:
554:
550:
545:
538:
537:
536:
535:
531:
530:
526:
525:
520:
516:
511:
504:
503:
502:
501:
497:
496:
491:
487:
482:
475:
474:
473:
472:
468:
467:
462:
458:
453:
446:
445:
444:
443:
439:
438:
433:
429:
424:
417:
416:
415:
414:
410:
409:
404:
400:
395:
388:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
376:
371:
367:
362:
355:
354:
353:
352:
348:
347:
343:
342:
333:
329:
324:
317:
316:
315:
312:
310:
308:
300:
297:Much better,
296:
295:
294:
290:
285:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
270:
265:
261:
256:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
241:
237:
236:
232:
230:
229:
226:
224:
222:
212:
211:
208:
206:
204:
192:
191:
187:
186:
182:
179:
176:
175:
171:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
146:
142:
141:
137:
134:
133:
129:
128:
127:
121:
119:
118:
114:
109:
97:
96:
92:
87:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
54:Graham Beards
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3293:
3290:
3250:Closing note
3249:
3228:
3211:
3207:
3203:
3199:
3172:
3171:
3146:
2947:
2943:
2721:
2720:
2685:Judge Posner
2663:
2552:
2520:
2488:
2456:
2424:
2392:
2360:
2328:
2309:
2303:
2297:
2291:
2285:
2279:
2273:
2267:
2251:
2248:
2242:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2082:
2076:
2070:
2048:
1801:
1788:
1777:
1766:
1745:
1739:
1702:
1615:
1570:
1526:
1398:
1174:
1170:
1156:
1150:
1130:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1092:
1090:
1082:
1039:
1037:
1019:
931:OK with me.
758:
756:
754:
734:
730:
729:
708:
688:
606:
558:
379:
302:
216:
213:
198:
196:
152:
125:
101:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
2825:Post-treaty
2670:talk to me?
2258:talk to me?
557:Ah, I see.
3196:WP:CITEVAR
3067:Subsequent
2944:Puyallup I
2791:Background
2608:WP:CITEVAR
2553:Gillneters
2310:Gillneters
2073:from Atsme
1497:response.”
1259:says that
1257:MOS:IMAGES
3258:WP:FAC/ar
3254:candidate
3130:GregJackP
3083:GregJackP
3051:GregJackP
3019:GregJackP
2990:GregJackP
2961:GregJackP
2924:GregJackP
2895:GregJackP
2866:GregJackP
2839:GregJackP
2807:GregJackP
2775:GregJackP
2746:GregJackP
2695:GregJackP
2664:Jimfbleak
2641:GregJackP
2635:Jimfbleak
2616:GregJackP
2566:GregJackP
2534:GregJackP
2502:GregJackP
2470:GregJackP
2438:GregJackP
2406:GregJackP
2374:GregJackP
2342:GregJackP
2252:Jimfbleak
2206:GregJackP
2179:GregJackP
2134:GregJackP
2092:GregJackP
2030:GregJackP
1991:GregJackP
1953:this link
1934:GregJackP
1876:GregJackP
1782:Animal L.
1687:GregJackP
1667:GregJackP
1637:GregJackP
1577:GregJackP
1508:GregJackP
1452:GregJackP
1412:GregJackP
1369:GregJackP
1358:remedies.
1330:GregJackP
1274:GregJackP
1227:GregJackP
1188:GregJackP
1087:Cassianto
1064:GregJackP
1031:requires
1023:GregJackP
1003:GregJackP
969:GregJackP
935:GregJackP
901:GregJackP
859:GregJackP
825:GregJackP
790:GregJackP
738:Cassianto
716:GregJackP
710:Cassianto
692:Cassianto
673:GregJackP
639:GregJackP
610:Cassianto
591:GregJackP
562:Cassianto
543:GregJackP
509:GregJackP
480:GregJackP
451:GregJackP
422:GregJackP
393:GregJackP
360:GregJackP
322:GregJackP
306:Cassianto
283:GregJackP
254:GregJackP
220:Cassianto
202:Cassianto
107:GregJackP
85:GregJackP
3252:: This
3192:Bluebook
2948:Puyallup
2722:Comments
2596:Bluebook
2323:Response
2245:from Jim
2243:Comments
2071:Comments
2069:Support
1820:WP:Scope
1740:Comments
1738:Support
1151:Comments
1149:Support
50:promoted
3173:Comment
3151:Wehwalt
3147:Support
3135:Boomer!
3124:Wehwalt
3106:Wehwalt
3088:Boomer!
3056:Boomer!
3024:Boomer!
2995:Boomer!
2966:Boomer!
2929:Boomer!
2900:Boomer!
2871:Boomer!
2844:Boomer!
2812:Boomer!
2780:Boomer!
2751:Boomer!
2700:Boomer!
2687:) even
2646:Boomer!
2621:Boomer!
2571:Boomer!
2539:Boomer!
2507:Boomer!
2475:Boomer!
2443:Boomer!
2411:Boomer!
2379:Boomer!
2347:Boomer!
2241:Support
2211:Boomer!
2184:Boomer!
2139:Boomer!
2097:Boomer!
2049:Support
2035:Boomer!
1996:Boomer!
1939:Boomer!
1881:Boomer!
1703:support
1692:Boomer!
1642:Boomer!
1582:Boomer!
1513:Boomer!
1457:Boomer!
1417:Boomer!
1374:Boomer!
1335:Boomer!
1279:Boomer!
1232:Boomer!
1193:Boomer!
1083:Support
1069:Boomer!
1058:Ceradon
1029:the MOS
1008:Boomer!
974:Boomer!
940:Boomer!
906:Boomer!
877:Holding
864:Boomer!
830:Boomer!
795:Boomer!
731:Support
721:Boomer!
678:Boomer!
644:Boomer!
596:Boomer!
548:Boomer!
514:Boomer!
485:Boomer!
456:Boomer!
427:Boomer!
398:Boomer!
365:Boomer!
327:Boomer!
288:Boomer!
259:Boomer!
112:Boomer!
90:Boomer!
3047:Done.
2957:Done.
2920:Done.
2891:Done.
2803:Done.
2771:Done.
2742:Done.
2530:Done.
2498:Done.
2466:Done.
2434:Done.
2402:Done.
2370:Done.
2175:Done.
2130:Done.
2022:Done.
1857:court.
1408:Done.
1365:Done.
1326:Done.
1249:Images
1223:Done.
1184:Done.
1117:Sports
999:Done.
965:Done.
855:Done.
505:Done.
476:Done.
447:Done.
418:Done.
389:Done.
250:Done.
58:FACBot
3238:Atsme
3190:Yes,
3035:Boldt
2228:Atsme
2200:Atsme
2166:Atsme
2119:Atsme
2113:Weirs
2008:here.
1926:case.
1791:, 38
1780:, 14
1121:guy17
16:<
3280:talk
3220:talk
3181:talk
3155:talk
3110:talk
2730:Lede
2061:talk
2014:talk
1961:talk
1913:talk
1899:talk
1863:talk
1848:talk
1831:talk
1818:Per
1810:talk
1769:, 7
1753:talk
1712:talk
1675:talk
1658:talk
1625:talk
1616:much
1556:talk
1533:talk
1473:talk
1295:talk
1210:Lead
1093:cera
1089:. --
1040:cera
774:Lead
759:cera
687:Ok.
62:talk
56:via
3272:bot
3229:Yes
2586:MOS
2317:MOS
2162:.
1098:don
1045:don
764:don
380:who
153:who
52:by
3282:)
3268:}}
3262:{{
3234:.
3222:)
3183:)
3157:)
3112:)
2667:-
2255:-
2063:)
2016:)
1963:)
1915:)
1901:)
1865:)
1850:)
1833:)
1812:)
1755:)
1714:)
1677:)
1660:)
1627:)
1558:)
1535:)
1475:)
1297:)
1135:•
1036:--
67:.
33:.
3278:(
3218:(
3179:(
3153:(
3108:(
2942:"
2610:.
2059:(
2012:(
1959:(
1911:(
1897:(
1861:(
1846:(
1829:(
1808:(
1751:(
1710:(
1673:(
1656:(
1623:(
1569:(
1554:(
1531:(
1471:(
1397:(
1293:(
1141:)
1138:C
1131:T
1127:(
1025::
1021:@
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.