lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fruit of the poisonous tree

message: The Miranda example in the previous version isn't correct.  US v. Pantane, 124 S.Ct. 2620 (2004), allows the admission of tangible evidence found as a result of an un-Mirandized confession.  --Thunk 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Factually unsound and uncited information in alternate usage tagged as requiring cite. I believe that the information should be removed if not promptly cited. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative usage 

message: I put on a globalize tag. I assume other country's legal systems have similar rules. If I'm wrong, delete the tag. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: Until recently it was my understanding that "fruit of the poisonous tree" was a more general doctrine about disputes arising from criminal activity, for instance if the other members of your band of thieves don't give you your proper share you can't sue them for it. It is a short leap to thinking that the first judge who rejected stalker-style wiretap evidence as FOTPT was being really dismissive and pointing out that the spying was criminal, but this implication has been lost as the evidence-rules meaning has eclipsed the more general usage.  I don't have a reference; just a vague memory of a conversation some years ago with someone who knew; if the right name for the doctrine that prevents the shortshared criminal from suing the other thieves could be mentioned in a response to this discussion item that would be awesome. 65.46.169.246 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that not just "no one shall profit from their own wrong" ? It's also the common law principle that stops you inheriting from your parents if you murdered them. 86.151.128.124 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  more general rule than evidence allowability 

message: The first paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph look like they could be kept, as they are historical in nature; and the rest put into a new section, perhaps called "Description", as this is literally what that content is. However I do not want to do the actual editing myself. This is the latest edit at the time of writing: . Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split "History" section?
Talk:Carl Størmer

message: This guy has too many names. Does anyone know for sure whether it's "Carl Fredrik Mülertz Størmer" or "Fredrik Carl Mülertz Størmer" or what? —Keenan Pepper 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Berland found a biography at the web site of the University of Oslo, which says at the top "Fredrik Carl Mülertz Størmer" and "Han var både matematiker og geofysiker, spesielt nordlysforsker. Etter han fikk fast stilling ved universitetet kalte han seg Carl Størmer." His translation: "He was both a mathematician and geophysicists, focusing on aurora borealis. After he got a permanent position at the university he used the name Carl Størmer." That seems pretty authorative to both of us. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: In the section on astrophysics, it is said: "His work, including laboratory 'aurora reproductions', had gathered international popular interest by 1928." This sentence is cited to an article in Popular Science. But Stormer was already well known to the scientific community before 1928. And as far as I know he never did any laboratory experiments (though his colleague Birkeland did). Indeed, Chapman's obituary (the first source cited in this article) makes no mention of Stormer performing any experiment in the laboratory. So, despite the fact that this sentence is cited, I propose removing it (unless someone can show a source indicating Stormer made "aurora reproductions" in the lab). Any objections? Attic Salt (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a sentence that appears inaccurate.
Talk:Every Man a King

message: ==Untitled==
Wasn't Randy Newman's cover of 'Every Man a King' a perfect example of irony??
== Not a Louisiana state song ==
Lyrics of Louisiana's official state songs:    This isn't one of them.  --RBBrittain 03:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I told when young that it was one of multiple state songs (along with "You Are My Sunshine" and various less memorable tunes). I wonder if it ever was. Alas the above link is dead now. -- Infrogmation 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: _

message: Lyrics of Louisiana's official state songs:    This isn't one of them.  --RBBrittain 03:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I told when young that it was one of multiple state songs (along with "You Are My Sunshine" and various less memorable tunes). I wonder if it ever was. Alas the above link is dead now. -- Infrogmation 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Louisiana state song 
Talk:De Leon, Texas

message: is there an explanation for the city's name ? Wefa 21:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely Juan Ponce de León  Joe  I 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe a more likely name source is Alonso de Leon.  I cannot find any record of Juan Ponce de Leon having come west of the Mississippi, so he seems less likely to have been an influence in Spanish Texas.  Eugenefleming (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Wilmington Island, Georgia

message: Is it actually an island? jengod 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Ethan (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

message: If you would like to know why I assessed the article the way I have, please use my talk page. Ethan (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 
Talk:Sacrifice of Angels

message: Totally un-cited, sounds like original research to me.  Any objections to it's removal?  ConnertheCat 02:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally got around to removing it, as it appears no one objected in the past six months. ConnertheCat 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: Segragator239 and others.  Personally I agree with you that the writers took a shortcut to ending this particular episode.  It always felt like a cop out.  Sadly enough, you saw a lot of Star Trek Episodes from the Rick Berman era that had a terrific build up in the plot, only to use some convenient plot device to resolve the problem.  We still shouldn't be using Wikipedia articles to offer up our particular gripes.  Not only do you give the episode more attention than it deserves, but you set yourself up for an "edit war" with Rick Berman fans who would have Wikipedia rules on their side.  
If you need validation then consider that Ronald Moore quit Star Trek over many of these same issues and incorporated these concerns into the new Battlestar Galactica series.  This show, would go on to achieve higher ratings than Star Trek Enterprise, resulting in that shows cancellation.194ABrg (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True but the "Last Minute Intervention by God-Like Beings to save the day" seems like the textbook definition of Deux a Machina!  Why not just call it what it is?151.207.242.4 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia
Talk:1891 in rail transport

message: On May 19 (May 31 - new style) 1891, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning a public prayer was held in the special pavilion not far from the city was held.
Cesarevitch also participated in ceremony of laying the first stone and a silver plate in the railway station construction.
http://www.transsib.ru/Eng/history-review.htm
1891 Work on trans-Siberian railway begins
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/today/0531.htm
On May 19 (31), 1891 in 10 a.m. in area of Kuperovskaya fold in Vladivostok city ceremony of grand laying of the railway was carried out and a service on this occasion was held. Heir of throne, czeravecih Nikolai Alexandrovich (future emperor Nikolai II) took part in this ceremony.
http://www.transsib.ru/Eng/history-phases.htm
May 31, 1891 - Work on trans-Siberian railway begins.
http://www.kipnotes.com/Railroads.htm
Wdew (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: start Trans-Siberian railway
Talk:Engel v. Vitale

message: The article infers that the prayer was required, but it was actually optional.  This should be clarified because there is a significant difference.
::Do you have a citation?  I doubt it was optional.  Either way, the point is that it was written, led, and endorsed by the school officials - an establishment of religion which is explicitly disallowed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  76.21.107.221 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Required?

message: The infobox states "Frankfurter and White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case." Does anyone have an idea why neither Frankfurter nor White was a part? The reasoning should be a part of the article, in my opinion, but not given undue weight. Bob305 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankfurter and White
Talk:Laffy Taffy

message: Why was a valid external link to information particular to a section of this wikipedia entry removed?
*Probably because it's not relevant to the candy. I'll add it to the newly created Laffy Taffy (song) page for you.--Aleron235 22:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Laffy Taffy was referenced in Wreck-It Ralph. I think that should be worth mentioning. Visokor (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in Wreck-It Ralph 

message: The lead mentions that artificial flavors are used. The Laffy Taffy website shows the products with the wrappers clearly displaying 'no artificial flavors'. Obviously both cannot be true. Will work on tracking down the correct info with cite. THX1136 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Went to the Ferrara website for Laffy Taffy to update the ingredient list. I looked at 4 different flavors and their ingredients. Aside from corn syrup and natural flavors, each flavor varies in its composition slightly. I don't like the way the ingredients are presented at present, but cannot think of a better way to do so. I'm wondering if listing ingredients common to all flavors and then a list of ingredients depending on flavors would be a better approach. Thoughts? THX1136 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavors?
Talk:Darjeeling tea (oolong)

message: From Oolong page... now I dont know what and how to use this... it looks like link spam to me!
BEGIN QUOTE
Kali Cha:  Oolong Tea from Kurseong District, Near Darjeeling, India
* http://www.taooftea.com/detail.php3?id=&pid=1619 Kali Cha
END QUOTE
--Iateasquirrel 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely looks like WP:CITESPAM to me.  Linking to a company selling tea is, in most cases, not okay...these are self-published sources, and do not meet WP:RS.  Cazort (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Long title

message: I've never heard of an Act of Parliament's long title being referred to as a "rubric", but accept that I may have led a sheltered life.  However, I've certainly never seen an official copy of an Act printed with a long title in red, even in the eighteenth century; hence I've inserted the request for a citation.  Maybe this was something done with non-official texts...?  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rubric"
Talk:M41 highway

message: I'm delisting this article from the good Article list because it is not well-written or nearly thorough enough:
*no lead; the paragraph in the beginning starts with a debate over the source of the highway
*the entire article is just simply where the road winds
*not thorough; lacking in history and use: when was it built, what was it used for, what happened?
*Certainly this article should be correctly categorized? Geography? 
AndyZ 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisting
Talk:Mount St Bernard Abbey

message: should this have been marked as a stub instead of marking it to be deleted? --Walter Görlitz 21:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this should have been marked as stub, not tagged for deletion. I have removed the delete tag and re-formatted the available information to make it look like a stub.Staffelde 02:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?
Talk:Vanwall (Formula One team)

message: As far as I know Chapman was an external consultant while Costin was working for Lotus... Ericd 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Was this 86.1 × 85.6 mm as the text currently implies? (I'd tend to assume that it was actually 86 x 86, so that only the bore changed as the engine grew in size). 86.181.177.63 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-litre engine 

message: Vanwall never used type numbers. The cars were simply "Vanwalls". The numbers used in the results section are bogus, either being the year or referring to one specific chassis (i.e. "VW5"). This may be annoying for those who collect type numbers, but all Vandervell was interested in was winning and the only reason the cars had chassis numbers was that it was required for customs purposes. Ambak51 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we distinguish them? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't. Each individual chassis was rebuilt many times with different bodywork, mechanicals or chassis, according to development progress. Unlike almost every other constructor they didn't go for types, and inventing spurious data is not encyclopedic. Pyrope 00:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type Numbers 

message: Should this page be moved back to the article name "Vanwall"? ByKolles Racing lost the rights to the Vanwall name, so I feel like there's no reason to have distinction of the old Vanwall team. SteeledDock541 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This should never have been moved in the first place. The F1 team is the primary entity associated with the name Vanwall, and all these other rebranding hucksters are trying to gain credibility from it. Pyrope 10:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving page back to "Vanwall"
Talk:Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar

message: Why should it be merged? They are two separate people and notable in their own right.  Karim not merge worthy. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

message: i notice that the title of the article is in spanish, or the name of that bible is exactly that why? and in spanish the article is longer than english. you can look here for the spanish version: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblia_Hebraica_Stuttgartensia
P.S. i`m new in the use of  english language. by El Angelillo 28 oct 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.174.184.142 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the book is actually in Latin (and one of the prefaces in the book is also in Latin). AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The title is in spanish

message: Why is BHS repeatedly (but not always) shown in  in this article? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small capitals
Talk:Benson-class destroyer

message: my last name is Benson, anyone happen to know where the ship got its name?
The characteristics for the Benson class says there are 4 5 in guns, both photos show 5 mounts. The torpedo count also seems off, there is a single 5? tube mount.
GSP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.170 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWEET 
Talk:Swarthmore College Computer Society

message: Hi.  I find some slight POV, particularly in the last phrase "who put in many hours each week providing services and keeping all of the systems running smoothly."  Perhaps we can remove it.
done --Andrew 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV doubts 

message: Looking at the list of users who edited and created this article, isn't this a complete vanity article? -Semisomna 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vanity? 

message: SnowFire's comments in the restoration of the notability requirement should be addressed. There are indeed many computer societies on college campuses. Some are volunteer organizations. Very few—if any—fall outside of the purview of either the ITS department or the CS department. The SCCS fall under neither, so a page about the CS department as a whole would not be an appropriate place for the article. --Andrew 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Template talk:SF Radio

message: Free Radio Santa Cruz has been added to this template twice now, but doesn't really belong here. Its not because its a pirate station; rather, FRSC isn't really a "Bay Area" radio station. Note that no other Santa Cruz stations are listed on this template: I'd expect to see (at least) KZSC KAZU KWAV and KPIG on this list. Hmm, KPIG-AM is bay area. I'm adding it only. --Mcpusc 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I broke up the list of stations into various areas/markets, I re-added FRSC to the Santa Cruz listings. I may break off Santa Cruz/Salinas/Monterrey into its own nav box. Though it is a pirate station, I think FRSC deserves to be listed, since it does have a long local presence and is noteworthy. BTW: I was not the one who added it previously.--Fightingirish 15:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Do we really need to list all of the various translators for KLVM (a tiny 21 watt Salinas radio station with small translators across the Bay Area) or K-Love? I'm thinking we don't, and I think they should be removed, since they're not notable. --Fightingirish 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translators

message: As people have started adding stations from faraway places such as Santa Cruz and Wine Country, I have started work on a new template that separates the Bay Area into four different groups, similar to that of LA's FM template. The groups will be - 
*San Francisco/Oakland
*San Jose
*Santa Cruz/Monterrey/Salinas
*Wine Country/North Bay
Hopefully, this will eliminate much of the clutter. Look for it soon. --Fightingirish 08:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. I may break off Santa Cruz/Salinas/Monterrey and Stockton/Modesto into their own nav boxes.--Fightingirish 15:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on makeover
Talk:Minoh

message: Shouldn't this be "Minoh"? WhisperToMe 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: I came to this discussion late, but this page should not have been moved. There are guidelines for municipality article naming at WP:MOS-JA#Place_names, and as Minoh is not a designated city (政令指定都市) the article title should be "Minoh, Osaka." As this is clearly stated in the MOS, I'm going to move it back. -Amake (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I have confirmed the date Minoh was established as a city (市) as December 1, 1956 (Showa 31). From the city ordinances:
町を市とする処分
昭和三十一年十二月一日
総理府告示第八百八十一号
地方自治法第八条第三項の規定により、大阪府豊能郡箕面町を箕面市とする旨、大阪府知事から届出があつた。
右の処分は、昭和三十一年十二月一日からその効力を生ずるものとする。
I'm not an expert in legal Japanese, but I read that as saying that the town of Minoh was designated as a city on 12/1/56 by the governor of Osaka-fu pursuant to the Local Government Act.
Will add the citation. If I'm mistaken, please change it accordingly. Mockingale (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of establishment
Talk:Dmitri Egorov

message: Reason: "Дмитрий" is properly transliterated as "Dmitri" (or sometimes "Dmitriy"), never "Dimitri". --Fibonacci 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
*Comment Page was moved by HappyCamper --Lox (t,c) 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move to [[Dmitri Egorov]]

message: *Support, but Google seems to prefer the wrong version.  Grue  23:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :Add any additional comments
*Comment Page was moved by HappyCamper --Lox (t,c) 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Maria Bueno

message: As a newly-registered Wiki contributor, I cannot see any reason for deleting the image of this fine-looking and famous Wimbledon champion. Either that, or another pic, that reveals her features more clearly. Valetude (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the image 
Talk:Shadow Hills, Los Angeles

message: Shadow Hills, is in fact shared between Sunland and Sun Valley, I believe everything south of Stonehurst has a Sun Valley zipcode, including Stonehurst Park.--Pozole 22:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Per a discussion I had with the Sunland postmaster, Shadow Hills is 100 percent contained within Sunland. Do you have any supporting information for your supposition? David Hoag 04:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is correct. I edited accordingly. Some Realtors may try to sell parts of Sun Valley as Shadow Hills, but it's not.207.69.137.24 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Per this map from the City of Los Angeles  Shadow Hills is clearly its own distinct section of Los Angeles.  The Post Office is just saving money lumping Shadow Hills in with Sunland.  I have a friend who lives on the thin strip of Los Angeles City heading towards San Pedro yet his address is Torrance as far as the Post Office is concerned.  He is still in the city of Los Angeles despite the postal service.  Just a weird quirk in government agencies.~~Fangs4U  Fangs4U (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Like Sunland and Tujunga, Shadow Hills is not in the San Fernando Valley. It's in the Crescenta Valley. 207.69.137.24 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shadows Hills not in SFV

message: *Does anyone have a supporting reference for the Clark Gable hunting lodge? I have searched through numerous sources including two Clark Gable biographies and could find nothing referring to that. If there is no reference it should be removed. Darkgrrrl 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended changes 

message: *Shadow Hills
*Community Info - Sunland - Tujunga  Ronbo76 06:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible references
Talk:Lloyd McNeill

message: Added dispute of SD to WP:SD stating: saw this while on RC patrol. I believe it should stay, as it could be argued that he is notable. At the very least, I believe that it should be moved to AFD for more debate.
SoberEmu 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Deletion Dispute
Talk:Illinois v. Gates

message: I added some stuff abt. dissent, majority rationale, some interesting dicta etc JeanLatore (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: new info

message: In Probable cause#Related cases it says,
:The Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Gates http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_430 lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause. A better-than-even chance is not required.
This article is Illinois v. Gates and it doesn't say anything about a better-than-even chance being required or not. These two articles should be brought into agreement with both the decision and each other. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement with Probable cause article