lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Dickerson v. United States

message: So pretty good article till I get to the last line: 
"Basicly Dickerson won in the Supreme Court, because the statements he made to the FBI when they interrogated him were done without reading his Miranda rights and they obtained a search warrant from that which they found tons of evidence in his house."
"Basically" is spelled wrong and "tons" of evidence? Whoa, I say. 72.145.146.20 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa!  

message: This article is missing context of "turf war" between the Congress and the Supreme Court that led to the decision.  It could go under a heading of "Constitutional Politics" or some such thing.  Rehnquist didn't want to sanction Congress's ability to preempt the Court's ruling and thus preempt the Court's status as Constitutional arbiter to have sole review of its own decisions.  I'll try to do some research and come up with something. Ryanluck (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing context
Talk:Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

message: Jim, you have just reverted every single edit that I made today, without the slightest explanation.  Here are your edits.  They seem to simply restore the page to how you edited it yesterday.  See here.  Do you think that's really a helpful way to proceed?Ferrylodge 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate edits

message: It's unclear to me why the "Aftermath" section should be included.  The cases cited concerned section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, passed pursuant to the Spending Clause.  While Garrett figured in the courts' analysis of whether states validly waived their sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds, the cases were really about the Rehabilitation Act and the Spending Clause, not the ADA or the Fourteenth Amendment.  Unless someone can provide a justification for the "Aftermath" section, I think it should be eliminated.  Respectfully, Hydriotaphia (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Aftermath" section
Talk:Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

message: This article gives short shrift to the fact that the woman was putting her children in danger (and had been observed by the same officer doing the same thing) by not buckling them up. Not only is this a clear violation of the law, but would convert even a minor traffic accident into two toddler deaths. Since the article harps incessantly on the officer's behavior, it might be NPOV either to include the facts I've mentioned or merely to tone down the language - it reads like it was written by the woman herself! 74.225.130.13 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: A check of the Texas Medical Board files appears to show that Dr. Haas' credentials are now in good order. knoodelhed (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: I tried to use the two journal articles I could find to add some citations to the analysis section, but it was basically impossible. The facts are now about 70% cited, which is a start, but the rest of this article could really use some help. Whoever wrote the analysis: It would be great if you could share your sources with the class, or delete the uncited material. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis section quality 
Talk:James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland

message: There is a discussion going on about moving the James Stewart dab page to James Stewart (disambiguation) to make room for moving James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart on the basis that the American actor is the primary meaning of "James Stewart".  
That would mean anyone looking for the topic of this article (or any other "James Stewart") by searching for "James Stewart" would get sent to the article about the American actor rather than to the dab page.
The discussion is here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the American actor the primary use of the name, "James Stewart"?  

message: Suggestion of Birth c1260 and Mother as Jean McRory would mean birth of Jean Mcrory shown as c1208 would be off as the difference is 52 Years,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.173.243 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth & Mother Issue 

message: This is what the text says now:
"Sir John Stewart (before 1268 – 1318), killed 14 October 1318 at the Battle of Dundalk.[5] He followed his father as a signatory of the Turnberry Band on 20 September 1286, so may be his son by Cecilia since her father and brother were also signatories."
This is simply not true. The Turnberry Band has its own Wikipedia page which has the whole text. It is clear that the Sir John who follows on is the BROTHER - NOT the son of the Steward. So I am altering the text to read
"Sir John Stewart, killed 14 October 1318 at the Battle of Dundalk.[5]"Freuchie (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage and issue
Talk:Atkins v. Virginia

message: The Supreme Court released its decision in Hall v Florida, invalidating Florida's scheme for identifying mentally retarded defendants. A notation should probably be added to this article accordingly and I have added the "update" tag to the article. Safiel (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update in light of result of Hall v Florida 

message: There's no sources cited in the case section. Quite a lot of it is verifiable but there's parts of it (such as Atkins having a prior string of violent crimes) that I can't source. I don't know if there's a reason for that (e.g. such sections on Wikipedia are considered common knowledge). However, it may be prudent to add a warning about a lack of citations at the top of the page. Wanted to throw this in the talk page before I did it myself. Just about nothing (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it looks like most of the facts cited in the case section come from the court decision itself. i don't know if that should be cited throughout the section or not Just about nothing (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the Case Section 

message: In the first paragraph theres a slur that needs to be changed. "Mentally retarded" is politically incorrect and needs to be changed. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quote. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit was   Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change "mentally retarded" to "offenders with a disability.
Talk:Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

message: Very far off from Wikipedia's nominal tone. 'Facts' makes the section appear a bit biased, etc, etc. OC39648 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs serious rework. 

message: The comment that this relies too heavily on primary sources is odd.  In law, the primary source is everything.
Avocats (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Legal Decisions
Talk:Röstigraben

message: Nice and informative article. Regarding barriers along the language borders, I once encountered the word 'Polentagraben' to describe the rift between the Italian speaking part and the rest of Switzerland (particularly the German speaking majority). The google count is pretty unimpressive (339 counts). Does anyone know where this word was coined and how commonly it's used? Signed: [sluzzelin]
:I'm Swiss. In my experience, Polentagraben is rather uncommon and I don't know where the word was coined; anyway, the expression Graben (rift), whilst alluding to the actual geographical Saane rift in Röstigraben, seems strangely out of place in Polentagraben, for the border between the Italian speaking part of Switzerland and the rest is formed by the opposite - high mountains. Gestumblindi 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term polentagraben has be created by imitation of the more common term röstigraben. It refers not only to the canton ticino, but all the italian speaking region (south of the alps).(2A02:120B:2C17:5550:3C8E:1121:7C51:DD75 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Polentagraben''

message: "Rösti rift" is perhaps not the best translation, "Graben" corresponds to more than one English word, Rift in English implies something geological. I suggest:
* Rösti trench (as in a Military trench).
* Rösti ditch.
* Rösti moat.
TiffaF 09:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that "rift" is quite the right translation here - that it "implies something geological" is in my opinion appropriate, for the expression plays on the actual, geological Saane rift, and "rift" may be used in a metaphorical way in English, too. A "moat" (a trench used as means of defense, encircling e.g. a castle or city) seems to be unfitting to me - it would evocate people isolating themselves from the outside world which isn't what "Röstigraben" is about. For similar reasons, "trench" and "ditch" seem to be too specific and not really fit to express the perceived cultural and political rift between German-speaking and French-speaking Switzerland. Gestumblindi 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: *RÖSTIGRABEN–MYTH OR REALITY? CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM IN SWITZERLAND
--Stone (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm not sure it's correct to say that in recent years differences have tended to fade in political matters. During the last 3-4 years there has been marked differences in results of referendums particularly on social issues and issues of state expenditures, etc. This year, the cultural divide between the Suisse romande and the Suisse alémanique has never been so obvious as with the now famous referendum on mass immigration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_2014
--Lubiesque (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Röstigraben fading? No
Talk:Republic of Austria v. Altmann

message: This article deserves expansion of the Austrian government's position for the sake of legal clarity. It seems very biased in that it barely even discusses the Austrian position. Yes, the government did lose, but a good encyclopedia article should still address the losing side.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.174.174.7 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:New Zealand Centennial Exhibition

message: I have photos from my Grandfathers visit to the exhibition, I will gladly upload them here sometime when i get back to scanning my collection.moza 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug them out last night, the real thing and no copyright issues, yeah enzed history revived.moza 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tenet v. Doe

message: Two quick questions.  One, the article says that 'Doe' was Russian but the Supreme Court oral argument and opinion are very careful to avoid listing any country of origin calling him only a Cold War spy.  Is there a reliable source that states Russia to be his country of origin?  Two, the article says that the CIA provided no avenue for an appeal of their decision, whereas the Court's opinion discusses two appeals (both denied) that the Doe's found wanting.  Am I misunderstanding either the article or the opinion?  Eluchil404 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

message: How much did the guy get, while he was being resettled?
Was he getting a monthly stipend, until such a time that he found employment?   
Was the discontinuation of benefits gradual, or sort of sudden?
What was the extent of his loss, if anything?
This whole thing sounds a lot like a pig in a poke.   The spy was getting something for nothing.   How long could he possibly expect to get it, especially after the benefits of his new job were so great as to outweigh the CIA benefits that were trickling in.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nature of the benefits had, and subsequently lost
Talk:Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States

message: From my readings on the subject, I have been unable to find a specific example where AA partners instructed their employees to "delete Enron-related documents". The Enron engagement partner instructed his staff to "comply with the firm's document retention policy" and this was later reaffirmed by counsel. The instruction was vague enough to potentially imply that employees should shred documents in line with the policy of reducing the bulk of documents retained.
Can someone clarify if this was SCOTUS's findings of the facts in this case?
Matt.hatton 06:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Destruction of Documents
Talk:William Fraser (bishop of St Andrews)

message: Can this page please be fully completed, I have upcoming History exams and it would be very helpful.  Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.18.240 (talk • contribs) 
:LOL. There are plenty of other more reliable and less biased sources out there. Wikipedia is probably the last place you want to go for this sort of information. --RucasHost 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, after your course is finished you could use what you've learned to improve this article. --RucasHost 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:FM4

message: To mention, that FM4 can be received in Germany via Cable "Kabel Deutschland".
I like this station but can anyone explain the concept to me? The presenters in the morning ( and the news ) are in English but the adds are all in German. I assume it is aimed at the young/student population practising ENglish rather than the expat community but that is speculation. 86.32.232.99 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:The Contender season 2

message: PLEEEEASE add airdates for each episode description. Otherwise it's impossible to tell, because of preemptions, special-night airings,etc., when a particular episode runs. Thanks! -- Tenebrae 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the best! Thanks! --Tenebrae 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airdates

message: Do we want spoilers posted?  222.124.44.125 has put up some that cover the rest of the quarterfinal bouts; they've since been taken down by 24.189.160.101.  I'm inclined to leave spoilers in place -- there's a warning, after all, and if the information is verifiable (read: cite your sources!), it's just an early version of what the page will be by the 26th anyhow.  If they're junk, we can throw them out in the edit after the episode in question is aired.  Anyone else have an opinion on it?  --Tthaas 10:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: In the episode aired on 9/19/06 in the match between Norberto Bravo and Grady Brewer one of the judges had Brewer 49-46.  However Bravo knocked Brewer down in the first round, so that is 10-8 round.  And as a result Brewer cannot get 49 points the most get could get is 48, so obviously that judge did not know what he was doing and cost Bravo the fight, or it was rigged.
69.234.66.23
:I thought that too, but then realized, since the show is exhibiting 5-round bouts (much shorter than the bouts that the competitors normally compete in; most of them do 8- and 10-rounders), they may have changed the scoring away from the standard, and allow a 10-9 for a knockdown.  I agree with your opinion; Norberto scored a 10-8 on my card for the first round, however, it's not proof that the show is rigged.  Boxing scoring is almost always a subject of controversy, especially in close fights; the only way for a bout to have a clear-cut winner in almost everyone's eyes is a win by KO.  --Tthaas 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Show is Rigged
Talk:Alice Hegan Rice

message: This is not an edit, but a observation from the copy of Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch. My copy of Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch, has the year its copyright 1901, by The Century Co, The front page reads in all caps "PUBLISHED BY THE CENTURY CO. NEW YORK . .MCMII"  the Roman Numerals denotes the year it was published was 1902. Still below the copyright, the 2nd page has a list of the months and year it was printed as: "July, October, November, and December, 1901,". Then the dates that followed was: "January (twice), February (Twice), March, April, June, July (twice), August(twice),September, October, November, 1902." I may be in error to take this to mean that it was printed, as in a magazine, rather than in a publish book form. Also, much further down it has "The De Vinne Press." The latter was in upper case, but its font looks like 8pt. Well, I just thought that the above discovery was needed, just in case there's a controversy as to when Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch was published/printed????? (see history for who wrote this) ..... it wasn't Victuallers (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment that was on the page...
Talk:Donnchadh IV, Earl of Fife

message: The text says "He was present at the negotiations which led to the Treaty of Edinburgh, and a signatory to the Declaration of Arbroath."
Who wrote this rubbish? The Treaty of Edinburgh, to which this links, is dated 1560, the Declaration of Arbroath was 1320. Did this man REALLY live to be over 275 years old???? 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Anachronism
Talk:National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services

message: Not nearly enough of the information in this section is sourced to anywhere. In particular, this statement:
:When Cable and Telephone operators wished to have themselves exempted from the competitive requirements of the Telecommunications Act, which broke up AT&T, they pressured the FCC to declare that Internet was not a telecommunications service.
Is made without citation or a means to determine when or if that actually happened (it is not explicitly said that the FCC gave in to the pressure, although the article continues as if that were understood to have happened). Lacking this information gives impression that the FCC was directly involved in the case that is the topic of the article, compounded by the following statement, also unsourced:
:The FCC lost in the three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, which held that prior precedent of the Ninth Circuit interpreting the sections in questions bound it.
This is regarding the case Brand X Internet Services v. FCC from 2003.
Some of those sources regarding the FCC's decision to classify (cable) Internet service as an "information service" as opposed to a "telecommunications service":
FCC Announces it's intention to reclassify cable internet service as an "information service"
https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circut Court vacates the decision in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC (2003) that cable internet service is an information service, affirms that it is not a cable service, and remands the case for further action.
http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/fcc/brandx100603opn.pdf
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts2003/brandx/20031006.pdf (same as above)
I'll try to work these into the article logically... John Oliver was right, this topic is fatally boring.220.108.152.121 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section lacks references, missing critical information.
Talk:Van Orden v. Perry

message: The plurality opinion section doesn't seem to give any real information about the opinion.  For instance, the reasoning behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.160.216 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THIS. The plurality opinion states no opinions. TehAnonymous (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plurality 

message: The first point in Breyer's concurrence according to this article is: "The monument's 40-year history on the Texas state grounds indicates that nonreligious aspects of the tablets' message have been predominate." If that's what Breyer actually wrote, than a [sic] needs to be placed at the end of it, since the final word should be "predominant". Tim Ross (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: It should be fairly obvious even to the most casual observer that an undue amount of attention in this article is given to Breyer's concurrence. You might as well copy and paste the entire concurrence. Judging from the initial attempt to mislead those not familiar with the law with the statement that "no majority opinion resulted" - which, although technically correct, tends to obscure the more fundamental fact that 5 Justices concurred in the overall judgment (and at any rate, is more accurately stated as "a plurality opinion resulted") - this should come as no surprise. A strong argument could be made that this section is not warranted at all; however, it is undeniable that it should drastically be reduced.65.247.226.108 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Emphasis on Breyer's Concurrence 

message: That "Perry" is the governor of the same name seems implicit but needs to be made clear, Perry is a fairly common name. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of both litigants 

message: To date I've seen no mention that this monument contains 12 commandments. They've split the "covet" commandment into two. The "graven image" commandment is in the bible but does not appear on the original. Here's a link to an image with the original Hebrew briefly translated:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iPHmSpoN8o4/TFpdml1mknI/AAAAAAAAALs/w220-eRnHAQ/s1600/ten-commandments-400%5B1%5D.gif
The monument is a falsification, no matter of whose original rewording. Thus it violates its own "graven image" clause. 
Rather GNUish of them. Perhaps adding to the monument "Thou shalt not reword or renumber the Commandments and thereby increase the number of instances of 'Thou Shalt Not'" would make the point clear.
Drmcclainphd (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 12 Commandments
Talk:Boston, Louisville

message: Google Maps has a location on US-60 (Shelbyville Road) just east of Long Run. At one time there was a store there, but the building appears to be abandoned. There are a few houses scattered along the south side of US-60, which are surrounded by the Arlington Meadows subdivision. The entire area along US-60 from Beckley Creek Park to Arlington Meadows is simply called Eastwood or Eastwood Village. There are no signs or indications of a neighborhood named Boston anywhere around there, which makes this stub misleading at best. Google Maps is relying on it and shows a pin for Boston, when in fact there is no such neighborhood there.  Strongly suggest deleting this stub. 216.253.111.152 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the Google photo entered for the "Boston" location, you will see it is in Locust Park subdivision, whose residents almost certainly have no idea that Wikipedia and Google Maps think they live in Boston. 216.253.111.152 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no Boston KY
Template talk:Politics of Greece

message: Region is no longer an administrative division of Greece. Regions are now only geographical divisions. Periphery is the administrative division. Damac correctly removed the regions from the template, but another user reverted this edit. Well, Damac was right and this other user wrong. I'll remove once again the regions. They shouldn't be in the template.--Yannismarou 11:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

message: This version contains all the elements and colours of the Coat of Arms of the Hellenic Republic. So it is more representative for this template. --IM-yb (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms