lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Amendments to the Constitution of Canada

message: Wasn't there recently an amendment to the HoC apportionment formula in the Constitution Act 1867?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bancki (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you mean the Constitution Act of 1982, not 1867 (the 1867 Act is a closed document and no longer amendable) As to your question, there have been two amendment for apportioning seats in parliament. One passed in 1985, and another passed in 1999. Both are mentioned in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referring to the 'Fair Representation Act', S.C. 2011, c. 26  amending s. 51(1) of the 1867 Act. This amendment should be mentioned in the list. Moreover, the 1867 Act is clearly NOT a 'closed' 'no longer amendable' document.--Bancki (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Commons apportionment 

message: I notice that in this edit and others, the "§" symbol was introduced into this article to mean "section". I think this should be reverted, as the "§" symbol is not used in Canadian legal writing. Ordinarily the abbreviation for "section" in Canadian legal writing is "s.", and the abbreviation for "sections" is "ss." Mathew5000 (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  § symbol 

message: The expression "Constitution of Canada" is the proper noun given to the supreme law of Canada. It is therefore written with a capital C as it appears at s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. When the expression is written with a lowercase c, it then means that we are talking not only of all the documents forming part of the Constitution of Canada (s. 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982), but also of other rules of law of a constitutional nature which are not part of the formal constitution, such as the Canada Election Act or the Supreme Court Act, for example. Therefore, an amendment to the Canada Election Act is an amendment to the constitution of Canada, but not an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
Miesianiacal (talk) made changes without respecting the meaning of both expressions. I suggest that the expression "Constitution of Canada" with a capital C be restored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariemaude (talk • contribs) 03:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitution of Canada
Talk:Calgary Declaration

message: As this was all nine years ago I can't say I remember it well... the 'reaction' section says there was public support, but why did it go no further? There's absolutely no context on its future evolution past the end of 1997. Radagast 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the intro.  It couldn't "go no further" because it wasn't actually an amendment to be enacted.  It was just a way to deal with amendments should they be discussed.  In fact, some things in the Declaration- federalism, multiculturalism, Aboriginal rights- wouldn't require an amendment.  They're already in the Constitution.  If anything, I imagine the Declaration being a good preamble one day.  God knows the one we have now desperately needs to be replaced.  Hey look, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are still begging our glorious British overlords to be allowed to form a union!  Long live Queen Victoria! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what happened to it?
Talk:Constitution Act, 1982

message: The opening paragraphs state the Act was never "signed or ratified by the government of Quebec."  The government of Quebec has no role in approving or signing federal documents; indeed, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec could not add his/her signature to a document already given Royal Assent by the Governor General or the Queen herself.  The phrasing of the sentence is misleading. --G2bambino 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this actually mean in terms of the effect of the Act? Is Quebec not bound by it? QuinnHK 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec 

message: Just spent several minutes restoring Canadian citation style to statutes of the Canadian Constitution and Canadian cases after series of changes were made.  Please familiarize yourself with Canadian citation practices before making major changes.  Good starting point is the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, with the formal names of all the constitutional statutes;  could also check out the McGill Guide to Canadian Legal Citation.  Our Constitution is Canadian, not British, so British statute citation practices don't apply. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian citation practice 

message: Why the move to a new title..... is there another 1982 Constitution Act anywhere?--Moxy- 23:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also wondered about that. My understanding of disambiguation phrases is that they’re only to be added if there is confusion between different articles with similar names. Why was the disambiguation phrase added here, resulting in a page move, without any explanation or prior discussion? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back to "Constitution Act, 1982" by LastOthello on May 17, 2021. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the move?
Talk:Disallowance and reservation

message: Does Hogg really say the federal government's powers of disallowance and reservation are obsolete and without force? The Supreme Court of Canada seems to believe that the powers are still legally valid: Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327. --Mathew5000 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article does cite an authoritative source for the proposition in question, I am reluctant to delete the statement and substitute an opposite viewpoint, without at least consulting the source myself. --Mathew5000 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm, let's delete "without force"
Talk:List of Canadian constitutional documents

message: As I understand it there are a number of the Acts do not fall within the definition of s. 52(2), so aren't part of the constitution today. Perhaps we should divide the list into current constitutional documents and past/defunct constitutional documents. --PullUpYourSocks 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has List of documents from the constitutional history of Canada completely slipped your mind? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. In fact, it did slip my mind. So then, is this list only documents that fall within the meaning of s.52(2)? I haven't spent any time to figure it out myself so I may be wrong, but I had imagined the list would be smaller than this. -PullUpYourSocks 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how either list was complied, but section 52 doesn't list anything.  It just mentions a schedule that contains the list, but this is not it.  I think the official list doesn't include anything before 1867- the Royal Proclamation and Quebec Act aren't on it for example. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing the list 

message: Under "Amendments using the 1982 amending formula": 
Wasn't there recently an amendment to the HoC apportionment formula in the Constitution Act 1867?--Bancki (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Commons apportionment 

message: How does that "entrench" anything? 216.8.170.66 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions" 

message: Clicking on several of the links to pdf files where one is supposed to be able to read the acts of legislation referred to, I get a message that says "Access forbidden! You don't have permission to access the requested object. It is either read-protected or not readable by the server." Michael Hardy (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access forbidden!
Talk:Dhoom

message: There should be more about Yash Raj/Yash Chopra, heynh?! Autumnleaf 20:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Living tree doctrine

message: Opponents of judicial activism have often been critical of the living tree doctrine, claiming that it gives Supreme Court judges the ability to impose whatever laws and norms they choose on the whole of Canadian society. For instance, critics have argued that bestiality and pedophilia could eventually become legalized in Canada because of the living tree doctrine, meaning that the Court would have has no choice but to accept it, given that a significant minorty of Canadians have already embraced it as part of their lifestyle.  This should probably be noted in the article, along with appropriate sources of course.  ADM (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms
Talk:Will Shetterly

message: I need feedback on the Book DOGLAND by Will Shetterly.
:What about it? PKM 04:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Will has made a post about this page on his blog.
=== Deleted entry === 
The LiveJournal entry in question no longer exists. 76.102.91.60 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A post on his livejournal blog 

message: The LiveJournal entry in question no longer exists. 76.102.91.60 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted entry 

message: The link to "Will Shetterly: Biography" http://willshetterly.blogspot.com/2008/08/biography.html leads to an expired web page. I recommend http://shetterly.blogspot.com/p/biography.html
The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link in References 
Talk:Kill the Last Romantic

message: I've flagged this and other Easyworld/David Ford related pages for having shockingly bad writing. This page in particular has some serious spelling and grammar mistakes and is insanely biased. I'll try and overhaul it over the next couple of days, but for the future, can we please try and adhere to Wikipedia's rules on style and, most importantly, NPOV? Idp 20:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Padlock Law

message: Reference needed for claim about which laws were used against JWs. Contradictory statement exists at Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JW 

message: Please could this page have a link to the similarly-named Argentine law refrred to in the FT on 1st Nov 2012? JDAWiseman (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine Padlock Law
Talk:Pacte de Famille

message: I see that an article about something else entirely is at Family Compact. Someone should probably clear this all up with a disambiguation. I'd suggest either:
#Family Compact (disambiguation)
#Family Compact
#Pacte de Famille
or 
#Family Compact
#Family Compact (Canada)
#Pacte de Famille
-- Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name, disambiguation
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 7

message: I've created Portal:War to present a cohesive facade to the various war-related projects.  Any comments, suggestions, ideas, or offers of help would be extremely welcome. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New portal 

message: After thinking it over, i agree the colours dont make sense. But perhaps we can make some sense of it in another way. We could, for example, do it historically, having different colours for different wars (still avoiding pink :-) ). Or are there other options?
:Well, I'm quite content with having all wars use the same color(s); but if anyone can come up with a more complicated scheme that isn't completely incomprehensible to someone who hasn't read the project page, I'd be willing to consider it.  Unfortunately, it seems like any real discussion of the question needs input from more people; I'm planning on an extensive round of  - tagging Saturday, and that may get some more eyes here. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on colour schemes...Not a good idea. Tried it, didnt work...too much of a pain. I even know of examples such as HERE where battleboxes were not added due to dislike of the colour.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps its time to cut the color box then.  At the moment it just invites contoversy for no end ie why is Turkey not in Europe etc (which IMO it is).Dejvid 15:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compound Warbox colours 

message: Could someone who knows more about hte war than I do check out the dispute there. Thx. Falphin 02:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cenepa War]]

message: Hi again and Well met fellow warriors! Personally, I'm all for combining our forces via merging WP:WARS with WP:BATTLES. Building a concensus on the merge should not be as big a problem as building one on what we should call newly merged project. Towards this end, WikiProject Military history should do nicely. So basically, I agree with your above conclusions. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply change the name of WP:BATTs, merge this project into it (which should'nt be a problem since most everyone here is a member of both), and increase its scope. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These two projects should be merged. The destinctions between them are paper-thin. Wars have battles,  battles are part of war. People die in both, & wars would be nothing without battles, & battles wouldn't exsist without wars!! People from both projects could contribute, or already have, to either project. They're basically the same. My vote is to merge. Spawn Man 07:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Urge To Merge 

message: I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I've proposed at WP:SFD that war-stub be renamed (and implicitly broadened), to mil-hist-stub.  Battle-stub would stay separate, as a sub-(stub-)category, as would WWI-stub and WWII-stub.  Alai 04:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to war-stub, for one moment...
Talk:Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders

message: The first section seems encyclopedic. The rest should be moved to Wikiquote:Opus Dei. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of quotations or any other unassimilated primary source. Any objections? savidan(talk) (e@) 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.--Heavyrock 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done what was requested in the template, to make it more encyclopedic. I hope this is ok. I intend to come back later to keep on improving it. Thanks. Thomas S. Major 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes, although an improvement, do not really solve the main problem that I have with this article. The lengthy list of endorsements of Opus Dei from church leaders as well as the lengthy list of criticisms should be moved to wikiquote. This should be an article about Opus Dei and the Catholic Church. In this case it may be better to find secondary-type sources which describe the overall level and nature of support and criticism from members of the catholic church, perhaps quoting a few people who are particularly important or notable. For example, if a particular statement by a pope has come to define church policy towards opus dei. I don't know enough about the subject to sort through these, but I know that the current format is inadeqate. Just to clarify, my proposed move does not apply to the entire article, only the lenghty lists of unincorporated quotes. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I intend to reorganize the quotes according to topics: significance, criticisms, benefits, sanctity, or whatever common denominators I can find. Just give me time. Thanks. Thomas S. Major 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to wikiquote 

message: I notice that both Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders and Opus Dei and civil leaders include long lists of supportive quotations from a variety of people.  I also notice that both are candidates for having thier content moved to Wikiquote, and that there's some question of whether the articles are encyclopedic enough.  Mightn't it help if we merged the two article and called them something like "Support for Opus Dei"?   this way, we don't have to get into the NPOV issues raised by the complete lack of any critical quotes from civil leaders-- if the page is titled Support for Opus Dei, then we don't have to cover any criticisms in that page.  Just a thought.  --Alecmconroy 10:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Support for Opus Dei]]

message: I reversed a Redirect done by Alec because this article can stand on its own and has high notability. As per our discussion, Badlydrawnjeff and I believe the article can stand on its own. Lafem 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can stand on its own
Talk:History of suicide

message: "straitened" circumstances? The word is probably "straightened" but that doesn't help. Straightforward, perhaps? Strained? The intent of the writer is unclear, and none of those words fit well. One can simply say: "His example was later followed by Seneca, though Seneca had no choice in the matter."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.142.162 (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: language

message: It seems some of the informatin should be moved (or at least copied) to Philosophical views of suicide. Comments? Gflores Talk 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: philosophy

message: The very first paragraphs are... rather unencyclopedic. We don't need another list of famous suicides there; we need an overview of the article. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: "Lesage, Laurent. Le suicide. Paris: Bayard Centurion, 1995." -- a French book which first chapter might provide one with useful info concerning the history of suicide. I found that chapter quite informative in the field of the history of suicide, and to be even more comprehensive that the current article itself in its current state. Therefore, loan it if needed in term of references. Twipley (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed reference 

message: Some  issues with the present article, with its massively skewed focus on Greek, Roman, and Christian thoughts on suicide. At minimum, antiquity ≠ middle ages, particularly on this topic and a large chunk of material should be brought over from Suicide in China and Philosophy of suicide#Confucianism to address East Asia. South Asia should eventually also get a separate treatment. — LlywelynII 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:BIAS

message: I'd also note that while the article's name is "History of suicide", the text is much more along the lines of "History of attitudes toward suicide."  There's a big difference. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You were hoping for different methods? That just tracks history of weaponry apart from how people's attitudes change. This is exact correct focus and content for this article, aside from how insular and incomplete it currently is. — LlywelynII 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Suicide
Talk:1977 Constitution of the Soviet Union

message: I question the use of loaded Marxist terminology like "Bourgeiouse" in regards to western countries in this article.  Is it a deliberate copy and paste from a biased webpage?  Or what?   Regardless, I think the terminology needs to be tweaked, political Marxist ideas are like Esperanto, humored only by a few nowadays.  If this were a Sociology article I'd have no problem with it, but it's not, it's a political science article, and I think that it should reflect that in its text.  Kade 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a note inside the article "Data as of May 1989", use "Edit" link to see this. I think, this was taken from some PD book. I personally should add, for example, that Constitution not just ensured a right for, say, education, as is mentioned in the article. But provided this right completely free of charge on all levels. And the education was indeed free of charge throughout the history of the USSR. Cmapm 00:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk
Talk:Sheila Kiscaden

message: I've done a rewrite of this article, mostly wording changes and expansion, but I did correct one inaccuracy. Kiscaden did not lose the primary election before she changed parties. The Minnesota Republican party did endorse a much more conservative challenger (she has always been a moderate) but she beat him in the primary. The loss of Republican support prompted her to eventually leave the party she had always belonged to. Currently, she doesn't mention party affiliation and it is an open question as to how she will file for re-election. Incidentally, she is my state senator, though I don't know her personally. Jonathunder 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In Minnesota, the Independence Party is considered a major party for statewide politics. Iceberg3k 00:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Minor" party 
Talk:Demographics of Libya

message: The counts of speakers for languages which I've resurrected from an old version in order to correct what appears to have been vandalism don't look reliable (for example the Sawknah article has that language as moribund if not already extinct), but Ethnologue has been paywalled, and I was unable to check the numbers against the presumed source. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language speaker counts
Talk:Patricia Richardson

message: Was she born? J S Ayer (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: nah, she just spontaneously appeared fully grown one day...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4280:A710:9D76:913A:3891:398E (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth? 

message: There is a big discussion on it because they said people make themselves out to be a victim, just because they don't want to say or do anything. The show would belittles men from start to finish, that's been the trend for years, they said. Dads are portrayed as idiot in TV commercials. Richardson would looked insufferable; she was just a degraded version of Suzanne Somers, with dark hair, they said. On the other hand they said the writers gave her lines that women wouldn't say. It was reported, that she turned down 25 million for one more season. Why? Because she don´t like it ? Not to much feminism but chauvinism ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.47.99 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patricia Richardson Recalls Her Time On "Home Improvement 25.10.2019
Talk:Trebinje

message: So, today I was at a uni library and I was checking out theses/dissertations and publications of the university publishing house. One of those books was a very strong study about how to read De Administrando Imperio properly and how to use its content in a historically-informed context. Then, I remembered this dispute in wikipedia and was reminded of WP:PRIMARY in the way primary archival records are approached in some discussions in wikipedia. The lesson is: don't use primary sources yourself. Most have been translated and interpreted by people whose job is to do so because they have studied for years and years the one particular period in which the work was written.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (don't use primary sources yourself..etc) exactly. First, for this claim or information  "as a land of the Serbs" we need RS who says that, this present source does not say that and for now it is OR. Second, De Administrando Imperio is primary source and we cant put information in the article from primary source. We need a historian who use this source and concludes that De Administrando Imperio by Constantine VII  mentioned Travunija (Τερβουνια), as a "land of the Serbs". And then this is RS. Mikola22 (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to read primary sources