lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Duncan II of Scotland

message: All of the following name changes are being discussed at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland#Requested move:
* Cináed I of Scotland → Kenneth I of Scotland
* Cináed II of Scotland → Kenneth II of Scotland
* Cináed III of Scotland → Kenneth III of Scotland
* Domnall I of Scotland → Donald I of Scotland
* Domnall II of Scotland → Donald II of Scotland
* Domnall III of Scotland → Donald III of Scotland
* Donnchad I of Scotland → Duncan I of Scotland
* Donnchad II of Scotland → Duncan II of Scotland
* Máel Coluim I of Scotland → Malcolm I of Scotland
* Máel Coluim II of Scotland → Malcolm II of Scotland
* Máel Coluim III of Scotland → Malcolm III of Scotland
An  approval poll is in-process, as of August 28.  All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I came here because I am looking at pages that use the website http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm. I am introducing a new template to such articles that warns the reader that this is a self published site, and a better source is needed (see , RS Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. See also WT:PEER: Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages, Template talk:Rayment#Reliability and ).
While going through the citations on this page I came across a few problems with linking the short and long citations:
*Duncan (currently footnotes 3 and 15) could refer to one of two books (now in further reading) the date of publication is needed to identify the correct volume.
*The curernt footnote 16 cites MacDonald but the author of the volume now in further reading is called McDonald. I presume that one is a mistype, but that needs conformation.
-- PBS (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on citations
Talk:Edgar, King of Scotland

message: The reference to William Rufus is confusing, and oddly anglocentric.
Since this is an article about potential heirs to the Scottish throne, it should not be left to a following, subordinate clause to specify that the first medieval king mentioned in passing is not a king of Scotland but the king of a different country. 
It's especially confusing because a Scottish king William is known as William "garbh", ie "rough".  I suggest using. William ii of England (William "Rufus")86.187.169.125 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Rufus - confusing phrasing
Talk:Alexander I of Scotland

message: Is it known where and when he was crowned? Name of the presiding cleric? Any other significant events surrounding the coronation?
I ask because all pre-David I monarchs are missing from this list:
* List_of_coronations_of_British_monarchs#Kings_and_Queens_of_Scotland_to_1651
--Mais oui! (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location and date of coronation? 

message: The article contains little of interest that could be summarised in the lede. Even Alexander's connection with Scone lacks much substance. Perhaps it is the article that ought to be shortened instead. Valetude (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a substantial problem here either.  I'll remove the tag.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Lede too short
Talk:Thompson v. Oklahoma

message: This article has been greatly expanded, with much more detail, than when it was originally assessed. In my opinion, it should be erased as Start class. Bruin2 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also marked the article as Low Importance for WP:Oklahoma, because it merely upheld a previous ruling. Bruin2 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article assessment
Talk:Lauro Lines v. Chasser

message: This page indicates what the Supreme Court ruled regarding a particular motion.  But what was the eventual result of the underlying case?  Did it ever make it to trial?  Was it settled?  Was a judgment ever rendered, and if it was against the defendants, did the defendants _then_ appeal based upon the forum selection clause?  All of this information should be included here.  John Darrow (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlying case
Talk:United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

message: The article says the court failed to reach a single majority opinion.  I think this statement is incorrect.  The heading to the first opinion says:  "REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined."  That's five justices in all, which (as far as I'm aware) would make it a majority opinion.  Justice Kennedy did, to be sure, file a separate concurring opinion, but he said he was also joining in the majority opinion.  Richwales (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority opinion? 

message: Both the external link to the full text of the case, and a cite to specific language in the opinion, are currently showing up as reference #1 ([1]).  What is the preferred way to fix this?  Richwales (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote problem 

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is a United States Supreme Court case. Enough said. --bd2412 T 17:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion
Talk:Malcolm IV of Scotland

message: Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the ODNB, birthdates given, he was 24 at death. Other than that, couldn't comment. Maybe other sources disagree with Scott's birthdate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: From internet baby websites I gather that Malcolm means "follower of the dove" and by extension refers to a servant or follower of St.Columba - the prolog/leader gives the translation of Malcolm into Gaelic and Old Gaelic but not the English meaning ... I think this would be useful to know. Perhaps it's too trivial? I'm sure a Gaelic speaker or student of Old Gaelic could provide some illumination here. See eg Index of Names in Irish Annals: Máel Coluim / Maol Choluim. Pbhj (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of name Malcolm 

message: This title means nothing to me nor provides insight into what is contained in the section. If you would like to make it more approachable for others, could someone who knows the subject change the title to this section? SADADS (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A Google search for "rex designatus" gives this page! I assume it means something like "designated king." Robertcornell68 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, yes. But doesn't it find Earl Henry as well? Whatever the reason I picked that originally, and I have no idea what it might have been, it would be best to change it to something less cryptic now. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Heir Apparent? SADADS (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex designatus ? 

message: I think I fixed the ambiguous David in the first section can someone check it. Thanks SADADS (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  David?
Talk:Harmelin v. Michigan

message: English is not my native language, but isn't this a "run-on sentence"?
'White also argues that Scalia's arguments against the proportionality requirement turn the foundations of the Court's capital punishment jurisprudence would rest on "quicksand."'
If so, please fix it. -- 77.7.148.119 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run-on sentence? 

message: Where does all the material for this article come from? Is all this from the decision opinions? I, personally, find it hard to believe that in so much analysis comes only from the words of the justices, and not the words of the Wikipedia editors. What say you all? Int21h (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the  times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Source --Fb8cont (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s stance towards [[originalism]]
Talk:Alexander II of Scotland

message: In the main text it says: "Diplomacy further strengthened the reconciliation by the marriage of Alexander to Henry's sister Joan of England on June 18 or June 25, 1221."
Then in the section titled Consorts it says: "She and Alexander II married on June 21, 1221"
So which was it?
81.159.98.164 (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage Date

message: My reading of the Treaty of York is that it did NOT define, or redefine, the Scots English boundary as stated. Though I rather suspect that some subsequent and unscrupulous Scottish king claimed it had.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.12 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of York 

message: There are no citations given in these two sections.  This is my first time using the Talk Page so I don't know how relevant the lack of citations may be.  Perhaps this is considered common knowledge...?
Justaguy74 (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Early Life 

message: There is no citation re Alexander's second marriage to Marie de Coucy or that she gave birth to Alexander III, who would rule after his father. Because this involves the line of succession, this would seem to warrant a citation.
This section ends (seems to end) by introducing the dispute with the Norwegians. Actually, the last sentence makes reference to King John but there is no context.  The Norwegian king was King Hakon and the earlier reference to an English king was King Henry.  It is not clear who King John refers to or whether it is connected to the dispute with Norway.  Regardless, there is no mention of the land and sea battles with Norway in October of 1263, the death of King Hakon or of the Scottish victory, which gave Scotland control of the Hebrides.  
Justaguy74 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Scots
Talk:Lee v. Weisman

message: The Weismans did win the case in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Their motion for a temporary injunction, filed 4 days before the graduation ceremony, was denied; but the District Court entered its final decree in favour of the Weismans in the form of a declaratory judgment. The article does not accurately reflect those rulings. LunaticLarry (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proceedings in District Court
Talk:Nixon v. United States

message: This is very badly written.  I can't follow it.  Do it over.--149.152.34.113 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

message: I flagged the section because I don't recall ever hearing that he had resigned prior to the impeachment. In fact, had he resigned, wouldn't the impeachment be dismissed as moot? Also, anons had added text that suggest he wasn't impeached. If he wasn't impeached, how could he have been constitutionally "tried?" I believe that the facts contain purposeful errors as it currently stands.Ngchen (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter Nixon resigned?
Talk:Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

message: Expertise.  I'm rewriting the article to meet the general style requirements of other Wikipedia articles on Supreme Court decisions and to add an expert's guidance here.  In the process of editing, I might also move the content of the Daubert standard article into this one, or I might move the content of this article to that one.  I haven't thought it through yet.  ---Axios023 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all right, as long as that expert guidance has been reliably tested, peer reviewed, has a known error rate, and is generally accepted by the relevant community. 24.5.193.228 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

message: The correct caption for this case, as reported in the United States Reports, is: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
--- Will someone please change the title of this article to reflect the appropriate caption?  Thank you. Supervox2113 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title needs to be fixed 
Talk:Nikolaas Tinbergen

message: There are many occurrences on the net recording Tinbergen's nationality as Danish.  His own autobiography on the Nobel Prize site claims he's Dutch, so I'm not arguing!  Does anyone have any idea of where the Danish rumour arises?--King Hildebrand 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: The panel says that he is "known for" the hawk/goose effect, yet this is not even mentioned in the article. Anyone care to add something about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.231.226.207 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawk/Goose effect 
Talk:Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

message: I'm looking at doing a rewrite of this article with a view at bringing it to a featured article status, but if I do, I'll want to switch the citation system from the current system to Bluebook. I'm inviting any interested editors to comment before I start. GregJackP Boomer!  18:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite
Talk:Jaffee v. Redmond

message: The details cited on Wikipedia are incorrect on several counts.
correct version:-
Jaffe v. Redmond
518 U.S. 1 (1996)
Redmond was a police officer who shot and killed Allen during a confrontation. 
That administrator of Allen's estate (Jaffe) sued Redmond for using excessive force. 
At trial, Jaffe attempted to introduce testimony and notes from a social worker, Beyer, who counseled Redmond after the incident. 
Redmond objected on the grounds that they were protected from involuntary disclosure by a psychotherapist-patient privilege. 
Beyer refused to turn over her notes and refused to answer questions during a deposition. 
At the end of the trial, the judge told the jury that Beyer's refusal had no "legal justification," and that the jury could therefore presume that the contents of the notes would have been unfavorable to Redmond. 
The Trial Court found for Jaffe and awarded $545k in damages.  Redmond appealed. 
The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.  Jaffe appealed. 
The Appellate Court looked to FRE 501 and found that it compelled the recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege. 
"Reason tells us that psychotherapists and patients share a unique relationship, in which the ability to communicate freely without fear of public disclosure is the key to successful treatment." 
FRE 501 says that the privileges of witnesses should be governed by the principles of the common law and interpreted in the light of reason and experience. 
The US Supreme Court affirmed. 
The US Supreme Court agreed that under FRE 501 and common-law principles, the law favors compelling witnesses to give whatever evidence they can, unless there is some other "public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." 
The Court found that it was in society's best interest for people to seek treatment for mental health problems. 
The Court also noted that in a draft of the FRE, Congress had listed psychotherapist-patient privilege as one of nine privileges, but in the end decided that the determination of privilege should be left up to the courts. 
The Court suggested that if there was no psychotherapist-patient privilege then most people wouldn't talk to psychotherapists and the evidence wouldn't exist anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.184.170 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

message: The plaintiff comes first in the title of a supreme court case. Therefore, I propose the title of this article be changed to reflect the nature of the case. ---130.191.195.195 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The court report at FindLaw lists it as Reno v. ACLU, as does virtually every other reference to it on the Internet. I think what happened is this: in the District Court the case was presumably ACLU v. Reno, because as you point out the original plaintiff was the ACLU. But when the federal government appealed to the SC for expedited review, they became the plaintiff in the appeal case, because technically they were asking the SC to overturn an injunction from a lower court. - htonl (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever appealed the case to the Supremes always comes first. The party on the left is "petitioner"; on the right is "respondent" regardless of who started the case. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This article is lacking in references. The one for firstamendementcenter.org is broken and no longer links to an article. I propose it should be removed but it would be ideal for there to be new reference material for this article. Maybe the following link would be good? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html Swat510 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.

message: Another example of a Wikipedia page link with a (non-standard) period (".") at the end of its URL that won't post properly, or at all, on Facebook timelines. 50.54.231.229 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  URLs ending with a period 

message: The "external link" is pretty worthless & out of date, and should be dropped.
72.75.78.227 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Hunt v. Cromartie

message: Some of the information in this article is incorrect. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent. Plus, the precedent case was shaw v. reno rather than shaw v hunt. thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.112.40 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Hunt v. Cromartie (1999), with Breyer concurring as shown. (The entire court agreed that summary judgment was improvidently granted initially, but Breyer indicated that he would have accepted the 12th district already.) Then the case was sent back down for a full trial, and it came back up as Hunt v. Cromartie II, which became Easley v. Cromartie after Mike Easley became governor instead of Jim Hunt. In Easley v. Cromartie, O'Connor switched sides from Shaw v. Reno, satisfied with the new map, and so Breyer wrote. This despite O'Connor not joining Breyer's concurrence in 1999.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Thacker (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alden v. Maine

message: this page doesn't actually say anything about the facts in the case, it's kind of an oversight. what was the plaintiff trying to sue the state for initially? Without knowing what they are, I have a funny feeling the answer to that question may say something about the split of the judges, but even if it doesn't it's still info that belongs here. 152.91.9.115 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The chemerinsky link at the bottom of the page does not link to where it says it does.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.63 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Links
Talk:Jim Connors (DJ)

message: References:
TV Radio Talk September 1975 (55856-0) pg 12, 58.
Chicago Tribune, Friday, February 22, 1974 Section 2 - “'WOLD' tells disk jockey's station in life” by “Gary Deeb”.
Buffalo Evening News, February 15, 1974, Radio-Television, Page 34, Section III - “Connors Was The Model For 'WOLD'“ by “Hal Crowther”.
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle (D&C) Television Editor “Betty Utterback” - “TV Personalities Man Picket Line”.
United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy
WMEX 1510 Music surveys
1973 Recorded Historical Audio Interview - Jim Connors & Harry Chapin - https://jimconnors.net/interesting-things-with-jc/2023/1/1/509-harry-chapin-and-jim-connors?rq=Chapin
Have you ever heard the song that inspired WKRP in Cincinnati? August 10, 2018, 5:22PM By MeTV Staff - https://www.metv.com/stories/have-you-ever-heard-the-song-that-inspired-wkrp-in-cincinnati  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B120:6DB6:0:17:8CE6:B01 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Connors (DJ) references 

message: References:
TV Radio Talk September 1975 (55856-0) pg 12, 58.
Chicago Tribune, Friday, February 22, 1974 Section 2 - “'WOLD' tells disk jockey's station in life” by “Gary Deeb”.
Buffalo Evening News, February 15, 1974, Radio-Television, Page 34, Section III - “Connors Was The Model For 'WOLD'“ by “Hal Crowther”.
D&C Television Editor “Betty Utterback” - “TV Personalities Man Picket Line”.
United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy
WMEX 1510 Music surveys 2600:1017:B10D:C9AE:0:54:1A72:4B01 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Connors References 

message: All the other :Category:American radio DJs have (DJ) dab suffix not (disc jockey). Rob Kam (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for move
Talk:A Groovy Kind of Love

message: My Father wote this song in 1965 at a airport in san fancisco, after he meet my mom! I have the napkin so carole King is a liar and I know for a fact that this is true! This person that says she wrote is a frad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have no idea what you are talking about.  Carole King is not one of the listed co-writers of the song.  12.162.122.6 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

message: There's at least one more version by Hortense Ellis.
Studio 1 Classics - Lovers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.54.121 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions 

message: Thie melody of this song and the principal theme of Muzio Clementi's Opus 36, number 5, 3rd movement Rondo are the same.  I feel there has to be a connection. This is not too far fetched a notion, Clementi was pretty standard fare for anyone taking piano lessons, so it. Ight be quite possible that one or both of the writers were familiar with the piece. Of course, this is all OR, so I am posting it here, in hopes someone might have some better source than my speculations. But almost certainly, if Clementi's work was still under copyright these guys would be facing the possibility of legal action. Wschart (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for this song 

message: The intro paragraph refers to the Turtles (in addition to Phil Collins) as having covered this song. I see them credited on YouTube, etc--and maybe they performed it live--but I don't see the song included in any of their albums. Gettiton (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the Turtles actually record a version of this song? 

message: Shouldn't/Couldn't there be a section for this added to the article, for the song in general? We know it was used in an episode of the show New Girl. But I am like 99% certain it was also used in the hit show Friends, in the season 7 finale episode where the characters Monica & Chandler get married. It can be heard near the end of the episode, being played by the small orchestra in the background, specifically on a violin. 70.168.88.163 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in Popular Culture
Talk:Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.

message: The last paragraph, which gives the details of the final vote, is the only one referred to by the citation. So I put a citation needed at the end of the previous text. References should be added by somebody with better knowledge of the case. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations