Talk:Rice v. Cayetano

Untitled
Starting a new version of the article on the temp page. KeithH 08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Temp page moved to main article. RedWolf 04:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word Indian
The article uses words such as "Indian" and "American Indian" in the history, petitioner's case, respondent's case, the majority and dissenting opinions, and the reaction to the opinions. Are those really the words used by the petitioner, respondent, justices, and people who are reacting in a legal fashion to this case? JohnWycliff (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on Petitioner's Argument
The article also comments on the Petitioner's Argument while discussing it; in particular to clarify its implicit intent. For instance, analogies to Nuremberg laws may evoke anti-Nazi sentiments but these may not have been the Petitioner's intent-- indeed, the intent may be simply to show that similar laws were not enacted in the United States, and the only popularly known Laws that did so were those by the Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.91.105 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Relations?
The article implies (without citations!) that the plaintiff was related to William Harrison Rice which would of course need to be verified. But there are a couple articles on them now. W Nowicki (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Massively biased and poorly sourced
Come on, guys. A whole paragraph claiming to explain Hawaiian history without a single source? What is this? Sparksflame (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)