lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Derogation

message: subsequent law imports the abolition of a previous one.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Couldn't this be worded better?

message: Some Examples in context may assist the casual reader ( me ) to better understand this relatively obscure Latin derivative.
 Derogate in the Australia US Free Trade Agreement Article 17.1 Paragraph 7 
"A Party may derogate from paragraph 6 in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other Party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that such derogation is:   "
In my view this means in plain-speak that the previous paragraph 6, provisions can be ignored IF the requirement is for a "local address or Agent to be appointed". 
As an off topic comment it is interesting to not that the Article 17.1 authors were not aware of the exact wording used in Article 10.5 which specifically commits that neither party will require a local presence ie an address or agent for a cross border service provider. I expect he Legal eagles would argue that commerce involving an intellectual property is a special NON service to the extent that a copyright or patent requires a physical location for the paperwork to be sent!
Seanwong (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples ? 

message: Please do not revert references to original source material. The fact that the original source makes more clear that it the content relates to a specific jurisdiction, as opposed to a website where the same material is replicated, is not a basis for reversion. If your concern is that sources be global, it is better to identify sources that are associated with a particular jurisdiction so that you know where supplementation is needed, as opposed to removing that information such that the issue is not visible to editors or readers. Arllaw (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: you did not check the original source, you simply added the source TFD claimed to use. You should only add sources you have checked in those cases. Moreover, if you use "derogation" in its 19-century meaning in the USA, then you have to mention it and no state it as a general definition. This is why I prefer to use the contemporary source such as TFD. Veverve (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not accurate, as you would know had you actually checked the original source. I am not clear you prefer to cite websites that quote material rather than the sources that they are quoting, if that is in fact your objection. If not, your objection is unclear. Arllaw (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the original source
Talk:Federal Appendix

message: This article says that unpublished opinions "tend to be extremely concise and cryptic," which is wrong. Most unpublished opinions are thorough and indistinguishable from published opinions. The article has no citation or other verification for its description of unpublished opinions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.44.122 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was true at one time (see http://doug4justice.org/NoCite-Publish/Barnett.JAPPfinal.pdf, p.2). It should then be noted that the Federal Appendix did not initially include their opinions but that has since changed, and hopefully stating when it changed. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Federal Arbitration Act

message: I seem to remember a recent controversy regarding binding arbitration recently. If anyone has more information, I believe it'd be helpful to the article. (especially considering it's bordering on being a stub.) 24.94.182.11 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See the 2011 California pre-emtion ruling linked in the article.46.39.169.168 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy?
Talk:Derry v Peek

message: Please would an editor please elucidate the precise effect of the 2006 Act upon the decision in Derry v Peek?  It seems clear that its 3-part test which defines fraudulent misrep is still valid the law of contract. Arrivisto (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of the Companies Act 2006
Talk:Sampson Salter Blowers

message: I have assessed this as a Stub, as it contains only the basic information on the subject, and of low importance, as I do not feel that many outside of law or history would be familiar with the subject of this article. Cheers, CP 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I'd like to elaborate a few things, but don't have the info to hand:
* what was the mechanism for the confiscation of his property? Loyalists lost their property? What was the definition of a loyalist? Was there some compensation?
* apparently not all of the 13 (?) colonies became the USA right away? Bits of it were still under British jurisdiction or there was a gradual handover?
* it's not clear why his daughter came to Hali --Cornellier (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known unknowns
Talk:Hydrocyclone

message: This diversion is odd: all sand separators are hydrocyclones, but not all hydrocyclones are sand separators!
LinguisticDemographer 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversion of "Hydrocyclone"

message: The information being given in this article seems erroneous. The larger particles in a Hydrocyclone exit at the bottom, and the liquid exits at the top.
Pranav Kapoor
::Picture clarifies that hopefully. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous 

message: Most of the information is related to the hydrocyclone. An article split would be appropriate. However, there is already an article/redirect called hydrocyclone. One solution would be to copy/paste the information: this would mean losing information on the authors/history. That is what I try to avoid. Can someone do something about it? --VanBurenen (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: both hydrocyclone and hydrocyclone1 are labelled for speedy deletion, as we had consensus on the move, once done, sand separator can be moved to hydrocyclone, and a new page sand separator can be created, i think this can be done, lets see. Mion (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split or rename 
Talk:Desert Land Act

message: I edited the first listed source and relinked it with an updated link and rephrased it to not be word for word. I moved the paragraph on fraud entrymen into the Effects and Outcomes section. This subsection can be split eventually, though as of now there is not enough material. Perhaps we can eventually add more communities that were largely built because of the Act in its own section. Amberlord5 (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit 

message: This would be a better article if it included the date when the Desert Land Act ended. 174.251.163.205 (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date for the act?
Talk:Federal Communications Bar Association

message: "The FCBA has had a membership of around 3000, holds regular continuing legal education, and organizes topic related committees. The highlights of the year for the FCBA are the Chairman's dinner in December (an annual dinner for the FCC Chairman, where law firms compete to have the table closest to the Chairman, where law firm partners nervously drink, and where the audience politely laughs at the Chairman's jokes) and the FCBA Charity Auction in November."
As funny as this is, this is terribly written and hardly appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. 129.2.198.186 (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what?
Talk:Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd

message: I am a bit concerned that about 75% of the words in this article are made up from a lengthy quotation from the judgment.  I think I have two concerns, (i) copyright, and (ii) I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise rather than regurgitate.  Does anyone have any other views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote too large?
Talk:Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury

message: If anyone is interested, I have proposed a new Wikiproject concerning prisons here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Prisons 

message: Major media outlets have declined to identify Ms. Biron because it could lead to the victim, her daughter, being identified. I would therefore like to delete her from this article. MDEVER802 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Lisa Biron 

message: This info was in the Danbury, Connecticut article and was recently removed in a scrapyard sort of mass deletion but i post it here so it can be salavged if desired. SageRad (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable inmates information from Danbury, Connecticut article 

message: There was a 2004 Hartford Courant article in which "Barbara", a former prisoner, talks about the prison
* Tuohy, Lynne. "Don't Worry, Martha, It's Like A Big Hotel." Hartford Courant. September 19, 2004.
However in Orange is the New Black the book Piper Kerman said the Tuohy article had inaccuracies. I'm going to cite the ebook, eISBN 978-0-385-53026-2
* location 1415: "Levy" is a French-Moroccan Jewish woman at FCI Danbury
* location 3123: Kerman and the other prisoners learned about the article and realized "Barbara" was "Levy"
* location 3130: Kerman said Levy made the prison look better than it actually was
* location 3137: Kerman said that Tuohy included some minor inaccuracies; she said that the CD player claim, the number of nuns, and the Haagen Dasz claims were not true, and that the inmates were very upset at the Haagen Dasz claim. She also said the women were very angry at Levy/Barbara.
Since Kerman used false names for almost everyone in her memoir I will assume that Levy is also a false name
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Hartford Courant article
Talk:1994 in organized crime

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  blp
Talk:Federal Correctional Institution, Tallahassee

message: According to the article, the police have been investigating the bomb threat - for almost a year. Surely something has happened? -WarthogDemon 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb Threat 

message: If anyone is interested, I have proposed a new Wikiproject concerning prisons here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Prisons
Talk:Tatiana Day

message: It seems to me that the bulk of the current page relates directly to Saint Tatiana, with less of it relating directly to Tatiana Day. If I am correct in that, wouldn't it make more sense to have most of the content relocated to the Saint Tatiana page? John Carter 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In ru-wiki we have both articles Saint Tatiana (Татиана Римская) and Tatiana Day (Татьянин день). --Koryakov Yuri 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a new page for Saint Tatiana and moved some material there. Squamate 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible retitling
Talk:Woburn, Massachusetts

message: I don't know who put this page together but there needs to be a separate section on the toxic tort claims against Grace and Beatrice. It's widely known and was a major issue within Woburn. This article seems to emphasize the movie over the actual events in Woburn. --Gcilley 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is a citation really needed for the local pronunciation of Woburn? I'm a Woburn resident and can confirm that it is a fact.
65.78.10.47 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for pronunciation
Talk:Detailed walk through the codecision procedure

message: Please, have a look at that scheme http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm. Council has 2 options after second reading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huski (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: This seems to have been proposed for a merge for a long time. I totally agree as we could easily have this level of detail in the main article. It would need to be rewritten a lot when transferred though as there are many points where this is out of date. So I propose to redirect straight away to Legislature of the European Union#Ordinary legislative procedure as this article at the moment is mess and misleading and if someone cares enough about its content then they can expand what we have there. Objections?- J.Logan`t: 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As there are no objections, I'll redirect this page.- J.Logan`t: 18:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Basic norm

message: This article might now be deleted, as superseded by the current version of Pure Theory of Law.  Links to it in Jurisprudence and Hans Kelsen should then also be removed.  --Wikiain 02:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly second Wikiain's claim. The article is superfluous, full of mistakes, not referenced, and badly written. In short: it should be deleted. 84.178.191.19 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Removing a PROD template may take place at any time, by any editor, after zero delay. Removing the template deprives no one of the opportunity for discussion; that's a misconception of the what the template is for. The venue for discussing deletion of an article is at WP:AFD, not here. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete as superseded?
Talk:Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990

message: The exact name of the Act of the U.S. Congress that is the subject of this article is the "Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990". It is "Procedures", plural, not singular. This Act is Title XXXVI of the Crime Control Act of 1990. I've begun some corrections. Famspear (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact name
Talk:San Francisco Sex Information

message: Founding date and founders information needs correction.
In "Sex Information, Can I Help You" http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Information-May-Help-you/dp/0940208148/ co-founder Maggie Rubenstein writes in the forward that SFSI was founded in 1972 (not 1973) by her, Toni Ayers and Carolyn Smith (not Rubenstein, Tony [sic] Ayers, and Margo Rila).
Founding date is further substantiated by the org's incorporation papers, dated November 30, 1972. http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx 
FWIW, SFSI current and former board members privately cite November 1, 1972 as the officially-recognized founding date.
108.75.73.197 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:San Jose Police Department

message: San Jose is one of the safest large cities in which to live in the United States.  Crime is low in all categories.  The department prides itself on being professional and above reproach. No, I do not work there, but I grew up in San Jose and know that it is a safe place to live and work. Sounds like "Quicksilver" was arrested or cited by San Jose PD for doing something he should not have been. Quicksilver, get over it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitolguy (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Quicksilver; personally, since this article doesn't have anything interesting other than a list of stats and things copied from the police department's homepage. Seems like an advert to me. --haha169 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First Class Police Department

message: I've checked New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles for comparison and all have controversy/allegations of misconduct sections.  Adding such here would make this genuinely encyclopedic, as is it does seem like something the department would release themselves.  Capitolguy, your defensiveness here makes you appear biased, because Quicksilver did not suggest a smear campaign put up on the page.  Asking for balance does not deserve accusations of illegal activity.  San Jose is one of the safest cities, as you have noted.  That does not mean the noteworthy incidents that have generated controvery, whether justified or not, should be ignored in the article.  An encyclopedia is for information, not glorification.
I don't have time to work on this, but for anyone who does, a good start would be the beating of the Custodio family, and the slaying of a Vietnamese woman for wielding a vegetable peeler.KVND 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent with other entries on police departments

message: Anthony Mata is no longer SJPD chief. 2601:647:4400:FE90:594E:305B:7D44:D211 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  chief
Talk:Detention (academia)

message: #REDIRECT Talk:School punishment
Jug - Detention
Some students of Catholic school may be familiar with the term "JUG", also known as "Justice Under God."
What does this sentence want to say? I am not a student of a Catholic school so I am not familiar with the term. What does it mean?
*  "Justice Under God" is incorrect.  "Jug" is specifically Jesuit, not generally Catholic, and it does not stand for "justice under God."  It is derives from the Latin "jugum," meaning "burden" or "yoke," and referring to labor designed to elicit contemplation that brings the subject closer to God.  Generations of students at Jesuit schools have paid for transgressions by spending afterschool hours in Jug, doing things like cleaning the campus, memorizing poetry or Biblical verses, or circling all the "i's" on several pages in the phone book.  I myself had to learn the origin of the term "Jug" as part of a Jug assignment given by Fr. Ed McFadden, S.J., God bless his soul.  This may just be personal opinion, but I think part of the power of Jug is in the name itself - not just the mystery of it, but also the brevity and punch of the word (i.e. saying "Go get a Jug" [students typically get the jug from the teacher in class, but must leave class and go to the Dean of discipline to get the assignment], or simply pointing at a student and saying "Jug!" has much more to it than a mealy-mouthed "go to the vice-prinicpal and get a detention").  The term really deserves an article of its own.  See http://www.jesuitvocation.org/Jesuits/reflection_prior_gene.htm Freeheel 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jug is also slang for prison, and seems to be related to jougs, an iron neck ring, or the old Scottish pillory, derived from Old French joug, a yoke, from the Latin jugum (as per Freeheel above). DuncanHill 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Detention (imprisonment)

message: Can we get a redirect from detainment to this, please? Or somewhere appropriate if it's ambiguous. --88.77.101.69 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detainment 
Talk:Federal Emergency Relief Administration

message: really? this seems a little unbelieveable  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.17.89 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3.1 million

message: The claim that FERA employed 20 million employees seems very dubious, and does not match other credible sources I have come across. It would be nice if some citation could be provided, given that it's not entirely a false claim. The article also seems to suggest that FERA continued to exist into the 1940s, which isn't true either (although it could just be poorly phrased and trying to refer to other agencies mentioned). ElKabong888 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious information 
Talk:Wrongful dismissal

message: What are possible grounds for a wrongful dismissal suit in an employment at will state such as Virginia? Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Employment at will

message: The UK section states "An employer is only entitled to dismiss an employee without notice...if the contract says so" - however I believe there remains a 2 week statutory minimum. ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.83.249 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK wrongful dismissal error
Talk:Sanctions (law)

message: went to dmv to get my reinstatement of lisence amount and on the paper work they used the word SANCTION  on the header is that normal protocal 74.231.214.100 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  sanction {word used by DMV} in regards to my liscence suspension is that a normal term to use in such instance
Talk:Deterrence (penology)

message: If there is a section regarding criticism of the practice of deterrence, there should also be a section about defense of deterrence.  Otherwise, this article is heavily POV.  63.226.175.120 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense

message: Within the context of "legal deterrence", why is there text in this article about the benefits of owning guns to deter crime? 85.229.249.4 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Owning guns to deter crime

message: Detterence of criminals 119.93.198.195 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical Research 

message: The redirect Deterrence (legal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 20:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Deterrence (legal]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Society of Writers to His Majesty's Signet

message: Does the title of the society change with the gender of the sovereign?
Jhlister (talk) Jhlister (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  His or Her Majesty?
Talk:Writ of execution

message: Half a year ago, a merge to Fieri facias was proposed without explanation. While that article is related and has valuable content, it refers to English law, while this title is more universal (its counterparts in other languages bear similar titles). I propose to merge to this title, or to leave them be.--Martin BerkaT|C 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Sandra Segal Ikuta

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Sandra Segal Ikuta was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: Several of the links, such as http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72E64E983042E1A0882572510000D1C8/$file/0550676.pdf?openelement, seem to be broken. Benjamin (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: She wrote a dissent on MORRIS V. ERNST & YOUNG, calling it "breathtaking in its scope and in its error".https://cdn.ballotpedia.org/images/5/57/Ernst_and_Young_v._Morris_Ninth_Circuit_opinion.pdf The case is now before the Supreme Court. Benjamin (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; do you have any input? Benjamin (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  dissent 

message: "9th Circ. Remains Silent On Migrant Kids' Right To Counsel" Law360 "Two of the Ninth Circuit judges — U.S. Circuit Judges Consuelo Callahan and Sandra Segal Ikuta — dissented from the majority. They said that while ..."  Benjamin (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids