Talk:Johnson v. McIntosh

message: (S. Ct. Mcintosh)  Comapred to Johnson v. Mcintosh.  (Different Cases)
I think this article is a nice glimpse of the Johnson v. M'Intosh case.  There were a couple of  things that were not mentioned in the article that might be worth adding.  One is that not only did the Johnson's purchase the land from the Piankeshaw nations but the Illinois Indian nations were involved in the sale as well. Also the defendant, M'Intosh claimed that the earlier title that Johnson had to the land was not valid because it was obtained after the British Proclamation of 1763 which prohibited British colonists form buying Indian land. Then have the British Proclamation of 1763 linked to the article of the same on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanishadk (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. This article is way above the level of the average reader, employing much legal jargon. It completely misses the point of the case: the entire case was fixed. Second, it still violates the rights of Native Americans by employing a racist doctrine of "discovery" giving some people the "right" to other peoples land. That's because it relies on the texts in law schools and ignores well respected human rights scholarship.Ebanony (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *Keep Mr. M'Intosh was a important historical figure and to understand the background to the Supreme Court case it is essential he have a seperate page.  Additionally, it is documented that he was involved in the Madoc tradition and his statements were recorded by Thomas S. Hinde.  Further, many of his letters and correspondence are located in among the Lyman Draper collection and if allowed to stay much more information could be added. Lawman4312 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[William M'Intosh (fur trader)]] 

message: Why isn't this called Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh? -- ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The very belated answer is that cases in the United States are customarily called "[first plaintiff] v. [first defendant]" or (in the case of the Supreme Court) "[first petitioner] v. [first respondent]". (There are some exceptions, such as for stuff like Ex parte Quirin, In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, or where there is a more common nickname, such as the Civil Rights Cases.) Contrast R v Dudley and Stephens, a famous criminal case from England. SilverLocust 💬 14:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: The text suggests that the name M'Intosh was pronounced as McIntosh. Is there a source for this? Hack (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of M'Intosh 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for 7 days. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 15:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnson v. M'Intosh →  – This would bring the title in line with (1) the rest of the article, (2) the spelling of McCulloch v. Maryland (which, like McIntosh, was originally printed as "M‘Culloch"), (3) the modern spelling used by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985) (citing "McIntosh"), (4) William McIntosh's own , (5) the spelling used by the Library of Congress, Justia, and sometimes Oyez. The contrary style, using a turned comma (M‘Intosh), was the printed approximation used by early volumes of the United States Reports to represent a superscript c in "Mc-" names on a printing press without superscript letters. (Michael G. Collins, M‘Culloch and the Turned Comma, 12 Greenbag 2d 265 (2009).) SilverLocust (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 April 2023