Battle of Old Fort Wayne

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Birds Low‑importance Eagle feather law is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Although the Eagle feather law article uses the generic term "eagle" throughout, just a quick look at the summaries of the laws refered to suggests that it is only feathers of bald eagles and golden eagles, which is restricted - not feathers of the other species of eagles which is restricted. Does anyone happen to know if there are restrictions on possession of the feathers of other species of eagles, and if so what the source of that restriction is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.62.4 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 October 2006

Yes. Accoring to 50 CFR 22, a permit is required for any migratory bird. Similarly, all migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This goes for bald as well as golden eagles. Per international treaties it is also extended to eagles from other countries, which are, by these treaties, forbidden from import. Additionally, per 50 CFR 22, a permit is required for non-eagle migratory birds, such as hawks, falcons, owls, evn geese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.91.229 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 February 2007

Also, don't forget that even non-migratory birds are redefined as migratory so they can be covered under this all-encompassing law. Permits are seldom given. If you live in the US, the only wild birds / bird parts you may legally possess under most circumstances are non-native birds, which essentially means European starlings, house sparrows, and pigeons. EthanL (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So one is forbidden to bring an eagle or even a goose feather from abroad into the US? Regards, AB, Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.55.2 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One interpretation of the Biblical statement that "Where the Eagles gather, there the Body will be" is that location of a gathering of Eagles is the location of the 2nd Coming of Christ. Ref. Mathew 24: 38 & Luke 17: 37

Can citizens possess eagle feathers obtained at this most HOLY location ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.112 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 December 2006

No. Anyone who wishes to possess eagle feathers must obtain a permit. This is according to 50 CFR 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.91.229 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 February 2007

I doubt it would matter in this situation! But what does that have to do with possession of eagle feathers? The Bible says nothing about feathers or their possession in that verse. EthanL (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is made: "The eagle feather may play a comparable role to Native American religions as the crucifix plays to the Christian religion or the Koran to the Islamic religion."

Unfortunately, this is not totally accurate. Catholics hold the crucifix as significant, but many other Christians, such as Protestants, would reject such a blanket statement. The reverance toward the Koran in Islam is mentioned, but not the similar reverance toward the Bible by Christians. Comparing a book with a feather is not too helpful. Eliminating this statement. EthanL (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the statement that the feathers play a comparable role may not be accurate, the author might have been getting at something more general that is accurate, namely that eagle feathers have been compared to christian objects like the bible and crucifix. The comparison is not made in reference to their role (e.g. one does not literally "read" an eagle feather), but rather the centrality and importance of the feathers within indigenous customs and ways of life.

Many Native American people would and have compared eagle feathers with the Bible and crucifix. It is great to speak to other Native people to confirm this, but for online references of eagle feathers being compared to christian religious objects, see following articles for quick examples:

http://www.newschannel5.tv/2006/3/30/7039/Eagle-feathers-confiscated-

http://www.stevenbodzin.com/shtml/clips/eagle.shtml

http://www.main.nc.us/wncceib/ACT111498.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.84.192 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 May 2007

I understand the reasoning behind the statement. However, the examples used were less than helpful. The religious significance of eagle feathers is quite well stated in the article, even without the comparison. Feel free to contribute a better example. EthanL (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article has a lot of internal redundancy. Everything should be condensed and reorganized into separate coherent arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.67.132 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will post a template regarding this issue. (I am not particularly knowledgable about the content of this article, so it would be better if another editor worked on fixing that problem.) Thanks. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)---Nevermind... someone already has posted a cleanup template. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(References for this section include: 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60) The preceding references, should provide a format as inline citations as well a provide an internal link to the references section. There are other references, that need to be fixed as well. I'd do it, myself, but I don't know how.Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a Talk page: Questions: 1)Eagles moult their feathers as do other birds. If you find a moulted eagle feather on the ground in the woods, are you supposed to leave it there to decompose, turn it in to Native American authorities, or can you keep it? 2)If you find a large feather and you did not know that it was an eagle feather so you kept it, are you still prosecuted? 3)There are eagle species in the world other than Bald eagles and American Golden eagles. If you have a feather of an African or European bird, does it fall under the same law?

I did not write this... these were questions presented by someone else on the article itself. I am merely moving them here. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the introduction. It had way too many details such as:

- what documents you needed to have in order to be a verified Native American - where to go to get verified - blood quantum % needed - specific law references - couple more

The introduction repeated itself several times as well. Making it rather hard and annoying to read :). I then proceeded to deleting the whole "Constitutionality" section because Native Americans have many legal exceptions. Such as not having to pay taxes, having their own criminal court, special laws apply to their land, special rights, and many more. This, the eagle feather law, is amongst the exceptions that they, you could say, "enjoy". It's just the way it is. They have been on this land, North America, thousands of years before any of us immigrants were.

I also deleted the "References" section simply because it looked messy and took up about half of the page. It can still be found, should there be any need. To properly "ref" something, you do <re >url< /rf>--Rmhs15 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eagle feather law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150611051415/http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2003/04/25/mitakuye-oyasin-a-response-to-the-looking-horse-proclamation-88708 to http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2003/04/25/mitakuye-oyasin-a-response-to-the-looking-horse-proclamation-88708

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]