lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Savoy Ballroom

message: Here it says "Its credits say its music was written by Benny Goodman, Chick Webb, and Edgar Sampson, and the lyrics by Andy Razaf, in reality it was Sampson who actually wrote the number - see here)"
I expected the linked page to explain about the confusion regarding credits, but actually that page repeats the credits
that are wrong according to this article. So I think a reference is needed for the Sampson claim.
--Perstar 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stompin' at the Savoy credits

message: What happened to the Savoy? Why did it demise?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.24.48 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the Savoy? 

message: I've just read the Langston Hughes poem 'Juke Box Love Song'. I can't find anything in there which can be called a reference to the Savoy Ballroom, only a vague description of Harlem nightlife. Obviously the same source backs up mentioning Hughes in the article on Lenox Avenue; but I think he should be removed from this one. Harfarhs (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langston Hughes - why?!
Talk:Prime ideal

message: We should present this as the definition of a prime ideal:
:P is a prime ideal iff it is a proper ideal such that for any ideals A, B, AB \subseteq P \Longrightarrow A \subseteq P \vee B \subseteq P
This definition works in both the commutative and non-commutative cases, and is equivalent to the definitions we're currently using.  It's simpler than the one we're using for the non-commutative case, and as simple as the one we're using for the commutative case; it's also more closely analogous to the standard definition of a prime number, with "proper" taking the place of "not unity" and subset taking the place of divisibility.  It should lend the article greater unity and clarity.  Any objections? — ciphergoth 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching definitions? 

message: Surely this is not the case. Consider rings which are fields, which have no (proper) ideals to begin with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.228 (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The zero ideal is a prime ideal in any field (or integral domain, for that matter). — Emil J. 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every nonzero ring has a prime ideal? 

message: Thanks for [ correction]. It was my mistake and confusion: {0} is prime, though it is not maximal and is the only ideal giving this combination of properties. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero ideal in ℤ 

message: The caption to the image states that 4Z is a prime ideal. Now 2 * 2 is in 4Z, but 2 is not! Hence 4Z is not primary. 212.127.195.242 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption says that 4Z is not prime, while it is primary. Both claims are correct.—Emil J. 10:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

text: As Emil has already commented, there was nothing factually wrong in the caption, but it certainly was not a very clear caption overall. Beyond that, the graph was not particularly good for this page. (It looks well-suited to the divisibility article, though.) I went ahead and made a new one which I hope is clearer. Rschwieb (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong caption to image 

message: There should be more explicit examples along with techniques for constructing prime ideals. This should include the use of eisenstein's criterion for analyzing the reducibility of polynomials, constructing complete intersection ideals by taking coprime irreducible polynomials, and giving non-complete intersection prime ideals, such as from the embedding of a projective variety using a twist > n of a very ample line bundle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.20.131 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Examples
Talk:Locomotiv GT

message: I have added some information from the also rather short article :de:Locomotiv GT, I think the band deserves inclusion, information is somewhat hard to find outside :hu:LGT and other Hungarian sources tho. --BNutzer 19:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you would not have to create the article, perhaps just add some information from :hu:LGT ... --BNutzer 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability
Talk:Andy Booth

message: 'The Legend' paragraph is ridiculous and totally unsuited to an encyclopaedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.13.183 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi Andy
Sorry to impose this my wife and grandchild have been doing @the walk for the last 4 years in support of town would it be possible to meet you personally they are both doing the walk tomorrow and have raised over 2 thousand pounds for the charities.
Thank you 
Dea 185.41.230.106 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huddersfield  field walk
Talk:United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

message: I would like to question the categorization of Hammer as a Tenth Amendment case.  I read Hammer as falling primarily into a group of cases that sought to apply distinctions from dormant commerce clause jurisprudence into exercise of the commerce clause power by Congress.   It seems to me that the opinion devotes a single line to the Tenth Amendment, and virtually the rest of the opinion to making distinctions between regulating the transport of goods across state lines, on the one hand, and regulating the manufacturing process.
Best regards
Jvonkorff (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:United States v. Butler

message: It appears that there is some disagreement in the article as to whether the act was declared constitutional or unconstitutional. I fixed one instance in the first paragraph, but due to the lack of citation, I doubt the accuracy of the article as a whole. Also, I may have missed other instances of the same thing. Added "Contradict" and "Unreferenced" templates. Mattpat 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental inaccuracy? 

message: Hey guys,
I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't feel comfortable updating stuff, but I thought I'd throw in my $.02:  US v. Butler, though it spoke broadly about Congress's power to spend for the general welfare (as in, it can do so as an independent power and not in furtherance of its other enumerated powers), struck the law because it violated some other portion of the Constitution -- in this case, the 10th Amendment, reserving certain powers to the States.
So basically, it expanded the powers of Congress over spending, but drew the outer limits as well.  Hope that maybe clears it up if someone is looking to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palsgraf (talk • contribs)  (on 1 April 2007).
This analysis is exactly right. It says that Hamilton's view of widepread power for Congress under the spending clause is correct and Madison's more restrictive view is not. Yet, it strikes down the law because that type of Agricultural restriction is a state right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burddog (talk • contribs)  on 29 April 2007
::Actually, the Court struck down the Federal processing tax in this case by viewing the tax as, in substance, not a tax but an attempt to "regulate." The Court judged that the Congress did not have the power to regulate in this particular instance. The power to tax and the power to spend, according to the Court, are limited by the language of the first enumerated provision of Article I section 8 -- which is that the taxing and spending be for the "general welfare" -- which is of course a somewhat vague, "general" concept. The Congressional power to regulate, under the Butler Court's view, must come from some some subsequently enumerated provisions (clauses 2 through 18 of section 8). Famspear 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconstitutionality 

message: I'm not really familiar with how to edit pages, unless I can copy and paste, but if there's a citation, why not just cite to the case itself?  The case citation is given in the article, right?  Random Goblin 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A link exists in the article to the full text in Findlaw.  I suppose what is needed is citation to the interpretation of the case.  Interpretation of case law is a touchy subject. Original interpretation (even if it is from the case text itself) counts as original research, and should be avoided.  Mere statements reflecting the opinion as acceptable; however, there is a fine line between summary and interpretation  Nicholas SL Smith 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should look to the interpretation of Oyez        Nicholas SL Smith 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation
Talk:Share price

message: See warren buffet & other graham disciples, perter lynch, hedge funds today, etc. - all successful in spite of transaction costs and bid-ask spreads, what they don't have are the constrainsts placed on or the groupthink of the typical institutional investor or the lack of knowledge of the typical individual investor.  Also, when institutional money is 75% of the marketplace, a good deal of it won't beat the market but this doesn't mean there's no expertise.  160.39.190.180 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffet and Graham

message: I added a "citation needed" note to the claim "When viewed over long periods, the share price is directly related to the earnings and dividends of the firm." because, though the claim may sound believable, I for the life of me can't see any link between share values and any real-world value such as earnings, dividends (which I think is just a few per cent of the stock value and thus almost negligible when considering what one pays for them), the company's total assets or the stock's par value. In fact, it seems to me that the price that is paid for a share at the stock exchange is almost entirely based on expectations on what the share will be worth in the future. To predict the future, some look at the history (i e basically believe they can extrapolate the price graph), so-called "growth investing" and some compare the prices between shares from similar companies and buy those who are cheapest in this comparison, believing that they are under-valued, so-called "value investing". And a value based purely on expectations on future value growth to me seems like buying and selling thin air. I've been searching for any fact that could contradict my claim. If you have one, then please post it, WITH a quotation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.73.73.1 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording could use some improvement, but I've added a citation.  Roughly the point that I believe was trying to be made is that there is, or should be, some connection between share price and expectations of future dividends and earnings (the latter being needed to support the former.)  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real value 

message: A citation for "Empirical studies have demonstrated that prices do not completely follow random walks" could be Spectral Analysis of New York Stock Market Prices (1962). I'm feeling uncertain about editing the main page, so just talking. PHolzwarth (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just saw this, and added a different source that makes the same point.  You're welcome to edit the article diretcly, but I realize that many folks find the referencing syntax here to be pretty baroque.  Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices don't completely follow the random walk theory
Talk:De Jonge v. Oregon

message: Note: I don't know enough about editing pages to deal with this at the moment, but "De Jonge" with a space is the correct spelling, and therefore the redirect should be going in the opposite direction, i.e. with "DeJonge" dumping into "De Jonge". Hopefully someone with more editing knowledge will fix this, or perhaps I will learn at some point.
Pwallach (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been corrected, thanks for pointing it out. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Palko v. Connecticut

message: In the second paragraph of this article, I suggest changing the "2" to the MLA-appropriate "two," in accordance with their policy that numbers that use two or less words should be spelled out. If no one objects within a couple of days, I will make the change myself, but remain open for discussion.
User:Oblyter8ed 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hughes is not in the Case Opinions section --Jordan042 20:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Opinions
Talk:Paranormal Investigation Groups

message: Interesting stub. It parallels the content of ghost hunting somewhat. LuckyLouie 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: This page has the potential to be a nuisance magnet for people promoting their own group. - LuckyLouie 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: This parallels ghost hunting and completely overlaps Paranormal Investigation and the names should have capital letters like that.... what a mess. DreamGuy 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Merge. LuckyLouie 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Cantwell v. Connecticut

message: The article describes this primarily as a free-exercise clause case, but my memory of the decision was that it was largely seen as a free-speech case -- that the main point was that a state could not suppress speech merely because others objected, and might possibly do so violently (this has been called the "Heckler's Veto" although not in the opinion, i think). Can we find a citeable source for the analysis, one way or the other? DES (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: "Before the Cantwell decision, it was not legally clear that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal."
Citation please? The Bill of Rights was written exclusively for the purpose of preventing overreaching by the federal government beyond its limited enumerated powers. The opposition to the Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary to reiterate what the federal government could not do within a scope powers powers they were not given. So this court "suddenly noticed" 72 years after the passage of the 14th amendment that the amendment had radically changed the relationship between the federal government and the states? I don't think so. Before that the rule on the implications of the Bill of Rights were brought to common-law in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that said the Bill of Rights protected "traditional individual rights and state governments' traditional powers."
They did not "make clear what was previously unclear", they simply overturned Barron v. Baltimore, inverting the policy such that traditional individual rights and new federal powers were now protected against state government action.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.113.116 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear or reversal? 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Content was identified as copied from . Removed text must not be restored. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Lisenba v. California

message: This article isn't neutral. It's supposed to be about the Supreme Court case. There are a few sentences about the circumstances, but nearly all of it is Black's dissent. But he was in the minority, and the court's vote was 7-2. A more neutral point of view is needed, and more background as well.
Ira Leviton (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Perfect Matrimony/Archive 1

message: As the title of the book implies (and as do many chapter headings), this book is definitely sexual in nature, about sacred sexuality in a couple.
Samael's views are not common, to say the least, but not unheard of. Other writers before and since have alluded to such sexual practices. A comparison would be most beneficial.
I intend to work a little on this article, and despite my limited knowledge, try to do justice to the book.
Would Be Gnostic 14:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A book like few others 

message: #http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0766104664/104-9901176-6117519?v=glance
Esoteric Philosophy of Love and Marriage (1924)by Dion Fortune 
see comments ("Ancient secrets implied but not revealed")
 
:Love and Marriage are at the heart of all mysticism and religion, even though in the many of the modern forms this knowledge is so degenerated it is hard to distinguish. Marriage has always been a sacred agreement precisely because it is the only vehicle back to the divine. (These days, of course, this knowledge is almost totally lost). Dion Fortune, in accordance with the restrictions of her time, could not reveal the true nature of the Alchemical Marriage: the great secret of the Arcanum. But she obviously knew it and gives many clues as to it's nature. This book is a good primer, but it does not provide the necessary instructions to begin practicing for oneself. The restrictions on the revelation of the Great Mysteries were only removed in 1950, and only one person was allowed to reveal that knowledge: Samael Aun Weor. From the day he began to reveal the true knowledge to this suffering humanity, we have seen a world-wide storm of false teachings and misleading ideas. Thus today we have a truly grave situation: a humanity that does not comprehend the true nature of our relationships with each other. For more information about the complete teaching that Dion Fortune always pointed toward, read The Perfect Matrimony by Samael Aun Weor
The book is superficial. Too many "proves" white tanta was practiced by different cultures and little detailed practice descriptions.
::::Please sign your comments with four tildes, as it helps tremendously, and gives you credibility.  The great kawa 07:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books
Talk:USAF Hunter-Killer

message: Model 396 looks rather like the rumoured jet-powered Predator C than a scaled-down Global Hawk.--Arado 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. It's an official photo. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

message: It appears that the MQ-9 Reaper has won this contract, at least in the near-term. This would require large restructuring of this article...though perhaps the article was intended to cover a tender beyond the current MQ-9 buy. 66.92.132.155 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner? 

message: A bad picture of Minion may be found at http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/skunkworks/SkunkWorksToday.html TGCP (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Minion picture

message: Regardless of how it's done, this article is badly out of date; at the very least, the outcome of the USAF's plans to "field the Hunter-Killer by 2007 and may order up to 60 machines."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.82.109 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated
Talk:Hirabayashi v. United States

message: I edited this article to change the paragraph that said the Supreme Court reversed Hirabayashi's convictions.  The convictions were overturned by lower courts, and the U.S. Government did not appeal to the Supreme Court.  That means the original Korematsu and Hirabayashi opinions are still precedent. 
I don't have a definitive cite for this, but found partial information on several web pages.  
WBSimpson 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of conviction 

message: Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasui_v._United_States has a deeper explanation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.248.23 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length does not reflect true historical impact
Talk:Smith v. Allwright

message: that
Many Southern politicians of the huj era who are now largely regarded as progressive nonetheless were staunch supporters of the "white primary", perhaps most notably J. William Fulbright and Claude Pepper, who would nonetheless support anti-segregation candidates such as Henry A. Wallace in national elections.
I'd love to see some proof of that statement. If no such proof can be produced, then the paragraph goes.
--RobbieFal 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV concern 

message: The text in the "background" section states that onerous voting barriers established in the region "crippled the Republican Party in most southern states" but in no way explains how this "crippling" afflicted only the Republican Party. One may bring one's own opinion about this state of affairs to the article, based on other knowledge but it's rather opaque here. Rt3368 (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opaque
Talk:Sacriston

message: i do not think that can be correct, the post code for sacriston shares the same prefix as a post code from my area, which is in county durham under derwent side council some how.i think.i dont know.
It falls under Chester District Council.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.78.225 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chester le street?
Talk:Synchronous rotation

message: How can the moon still rotate about its axis and not face the earth with one side?  Can someone explain that to me?  Perhaps it could be explained in the article, too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.24.238 (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this work? 

message: "Diagram illustrating the Moon's synchronous rotation" in external links seems to be dead. Et least it is not available (e404) now (Epimeteus (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link? 

message: Where is the discussion of merging this entry with tidal locking? Why is there no suggestion on the tidal locking page of a merger? What about a merger with synchronous orbit, which would make even more sense? This merger suggestion was made by KlappCK, who didn't even take the trouble to give an argument for the merger himself/herself. -- Ben Best 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of merge ?
Talk:International Shoe Co. v. Washington

message: This and other articles would be more useful if the facts only contained facts. There is quite a bit of analysis and opinion as well as resulting law represented in the facts section. In my opinion the facts should be represented in a nearly list format and followed by an analysis section that interprets how these facts affected the case. There should be no fact listed that did not have an effect on the case, nor should there be any analysis of a fact not included in the facts. 
Then there should be a subsequent section referred to as analysis that includes the discussion represented as above.
There should also be a section referred to as Rules of Law; here there would be a list of any rule of law referenced in the case as well as a citation for where it has been derived.
All of the additional information about the evolution of law as related to the case could be presented in an additional section stating the effect of the case on law and its progression. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jstarin (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline of this article and other similar articles 