lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Arya Samaj

message: It is usual to say that the Vedas speak of many gods. It should be explained here why the members or Arya Samaj believe otherwise. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article God in Hinduism:  "(Max) Müller noted that the hymns of the Rigveda, the oldest scripture of Hinduism, mention many deities, but praises them successively as the "one ultimate, supreme God" (called saccidānanda in some traditions), alternatively as "one supreme Goddess", thereby asserting that the essence of the deities was unitary (ekam), and the deities were nothing but pluralistic manifestations of the same concept of the divine (God). Sooku (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheism 

message: Does anyone knows whether Rishi Sunak, the British prime minister comes from an Arya Samaj family? I ask because many East African Punjabis  were followers of the samaj. Both of his parents were born in East Africa to Punjabi parents. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rishi Sunak 

message: Pandit Lekh Ram and Swami Shraddhanand, both named as leaders of the Punjab Arya Samaj, were both assassinated over allegations of insulting Islam. It's stated in articles about them but should it be mentioned here? Sooku (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassinations
Talk:McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents

message: Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
{{request edit}|D|T}
Add two sentences to the end of the 'Findings' section: Ultimately, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents is significant for its emphasis on the diversity rationale. Specifically, the case recognizes of equality interests for students of color, especially in higher education.
Cf2022 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  The material cited does not clearly relate to the case in this article. Orvilletalk 08:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Proposed Changes
Talk:Dennis v. United States

message: What happened to them?
I can provide EXTENSIVE cross-references for all, including my interludes, from original sources, and in their own words.
Did some right winger dislike the apples to apples comparison to right wingers?
Since the point of this article seems to be to editorialize on behalf of KKK member Justice Black's dissenting opinion, I move that the ENTIRE article is misleading, and DEFINITELY *NOT* NPOV.
See Yates, Noto, and Scales for further DEFINITIVE interpretation.
Personally, I can't wait until we can use this crap against Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann's *TERRORIST* pals.
Janet Reno should have.
156.99.40.14 (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV.  We don't do "interludes."  If you can rewrite the material objectively, without providing your own commentary, be my guest.  Postdlf (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vinson quotes from the WINNING argument...

message: Sorry im not a law student or anything like that...
But to my knowledge the POINT of "Freedom of speach" was to allow people to speak out and riase up against an unjust government...
this seems to make that illegal...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.227.95 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Respect for freedom of speech was at a low point during McCarthyism. The Court effectively overruled this case in Brandenburg v. Ohio, as Dennis v. United States#Aftermath states. Regardless, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not for debating the article's subject, so please stay on topic in the future. See WP:TALK for our guidelines. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF?  

message: The background section of this article does not adequately explain the events leading up to the trial. It mentions petitioners but leaves what they were petitioning and how Dennis played a part in it implied rather than stated openly. To improve this article, there needs to be more explanatory information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.49.166 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Background info 
Talk:Beauharnais v. Illinois

message: Apparently the Illinois statute in question made it illegal to publish literature attempting to incite hate or disparagement of a group of people.  Since this is apparently the exact intent of now-current laws proscribing "hate speech", and this case has never been explicitly reversed, how is this holding not current law?  Is it that the newer laws consider "hate speech" as a different issue than the "group libel" contemplated here?  75.225.80.120 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of laws regulating "hate speech"?
Talk:Kawakita v. United States

message: Article: "Shortly after his return to the United States, he was recognized by one of the former POWs and subsequently arrested."  Uh, what are the odds?  Any information on how or where this happened? 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US arrest 

message: Actually, I do have information on that.  My great-uncle, William Leon Bruce, did, in fact, see Kawakita while furniture shopping with my great-aunt Jean.  If you would like more information on that, here's a link:
http://1947project.blogspot.com/2005/06/victim-tells-of-thrill-in-trapping-jap.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.182.2 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: US arrest 

message: Oh - sorry forgot
Yes President Eisenhower commuted Kawakita's sentence to life in 1953, and yes President Kennedy released him in 1963, deported him to Japan and banned him from ever entering the U.S. - and yet, he lives in the U.S.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.182.2 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: US arrest 

message: I just finished a major rewrite of this article, and I've nominated it for Good Article status.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article nomination 
Talk:Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

message: At the risk of stating what is or should be obvious to every U.S. tax lawyer (but not to everyone else), Glenshaw Glass is a leading case in the universe of court decisions on U.S. Federal income taxation. Yours, Famspear 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A leading case

message: The following unsourced material has been moved from the article to here for discussion:
::Although the test seems simple on its face, there are many questions that arise out of the tripartite test.  The simple questions simply are: what is an accession to wealth, when is it clearly realized, and when does a taxpayer have complete dominion?  Examples that speak to such questions arise out of the recent home run balls of Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire.
::Is catching the ball an accession to wealth?  The ball may be worth something, but how is it to be valued?
::If the ball is an accession to wealth, when is it clearly realized?  Is it realized when you catch it or when you sell it?
::Lastly, when does a taxpayer have complete dominion?  When is it that the taxpayer gains complete dominion?
::The answers to these questions will greatly alter whether or not a taxpayer has gross income, and these answers are all highly debatable to this day.  This is the test that is used, but it is often difficult to determine what the outcome will be.
::Additionally, one of the major problems with the test in Glenshaw Glass is that it implies that the 3 prongs are easily distinct from each other. However, the "clearly realized" requirement is very ambiguous. The difficulties with this prong are clearly illustrated when one asks if the one must clearly realize the thing itself or the value. For example, if the thing itself must be clearly realized (in the homerun ball example- this would mean possession of the ball), then "clearly realized" seems redundant with the "complete dominion" prong of the test. However, if the "clearly realized" refers to the value (in the homerun ball example, this would mean selling the ball and getting its value), then it seems redundant with the "accession to wealth" prong.
This is classic law school stuff - a good discussion, and a sophisticated version of "how to." I'm not sure this kind of commentary belongs in a Wikipedia article. Can we modify this and include it in the article? Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Questions arising from the Test" material
Talk:NAACP v. Alabama

message: The lead does not appear supported by the discussion below - nothing is said about the state fearing for the safety of members of the NAACP. Will change.--Parkwells (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead appears incorrect

message: If the case was brought by Alabama in 1956 and the Supreme Court decided the case in 1958, it's impossible for the Alabama court system to have balked for 5 years. One of these numbers, perhaps more, must be wrong. Either the Alabama courts had balked for 2 years, the first action was earlier or the final decision was later. So which is it? TMLutas (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case timeline is wrong 

message: All references I can find to the case refer to it is NAACP v. Patterson; not v. Alabama. 
Justia
Oyez  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfgreen (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title might be incorrect
Talk:The Caravans

message: The link for group member Delores Washington links back to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsong1954 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular Link 
Talk:Torcaso v. Watkins

message: This section needs to be edited. Poor grammar, run-on sentences, etc. If the citations are missing, perhaps it should be removed altogether? Tim Riches, Brampton, Ontario (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to have been fixed, though a few citations are still missing. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Secular Humanism" as religion
Talk:Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul

message: Does anybody else think that it's a bit strange that this is just against "Paul"? BirdValiant (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That is the correct legal citation according to Wikipedia Legal Style. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul 

message: There was an issue concerning the image of Justice Brennan (WJB). The file as originally uploaded did not specifically identify the pre-existing Wikipedia file from which this detail was cropped. That omission has now been rectified. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issues
Talk:Edwards v. South Carolina

message: That would be nice to have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.14.250 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was Edwards? 

message: This article still needs work to add additional context, and is in need of pinpoint citations, but it is definitely not a stub anymore. I reclassified it from stub to start to be conservative, but it is probably either start or C-class. LegalSkeptic (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment
Talk:Brown v. Louisiana

message: Add SCOTUS members list to Supreme Court box. Matt Peteritis 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

message: Corrected material. --Parkwells (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm a bit confused as to why there is a picture of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the bottom left corner of this article. If a reason for its presence is not produced I will delete it for lack of relevance. Kaimakides (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl Warren? 
Talk:Flast v. Cohen

message: "Second, "the taxpayer must show the challenged enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Article I, Section 8." Only when both nexuses have been satisfied may the petitioner have standing to sue."
This above sentence contradicts the one under the Flast test. It seems to be missing that part of the quote. It is also redundant to describe the test twice. 
"Second, the Court required the taxpayer to "show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8." Id., at 102-103, 88 S.Ct., at 1954.""
98.193.103.148 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency
Talk:Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC

message: Anything on who "Cook" was, and the original circumstances of the lawsuit? AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you might ask! I've just added his name & link to the article. And when I have the time I will come back and add some info on the background to the case. Cgingold (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anything on who
Talk:Brandenburg v. Ohio

message: Is it just me, or does it seem like way too much legalese in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.15.225 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it just me

message: The text "doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States (1919),[5] Abrams v. United States (1919),[6] Gitlow v. New York (1925)[7], and Dennis v. United States (1951).[8]" found in the opening paragraph of the page, in my opinion, requires a source to justify the statement that Brandenburg v. Ohio "cast doubt" on the case following.
Parkernm (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider Revision: "doubt was cast..."
Talk:Causantín mac Cináeda

message: I've started expanding the article, which means that for a while a lot of it will be unreferenced and may not make perfect sense. I'll try to finish as quickly as possible. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Downham: 68-71 (Hálfdan), 21-23 (Amlaíb, Auisle) 137-145, 160-3, 238-240, 246, 238, 257-9, 265
Woolf: c3
Broun, Irish origins: 168-9, 171-4
Anderson, Kings and Kingship: 78-9, 196-8
ASC: 871, 875
OIHV: 90
Duncan, Making: 90-1
Smyth: 159, 187-195, 215, 217, 222
[Robertson]
[Skene]
Crawford: 49-51
O'Corrain, I&S:
ESSH 
SAEC 
Trim down list of unnecessary refs. No OotKoA stuff needed? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: The article says he died in 871 or 872. But my reading of the Pictish Chronicle seems to indicate 875:
and after two years Amlaib, with his people, laid waste Pictavia; and he dwelt there from 1 January until the feast of Saint Patrick [17 March]. Again in the third year Amlaib, [?while collecting tribute], was killed by Constantine. A short while after that battle was fought in his 14th year at Dollar between the Danes and the Scots, the Scots were annihilated at Atholl. The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia.
There seems to be reference to two different battles: one in Constantine's 14th year (875-876) at Dollar in which Amlaíb died and Constantine was victorious; and another battle at Atholl shortly afterwards in which the Scots were heavily defeated. This latter is in the Annals of Ulster for 875 (corrected), so that would put Amlaíb's death earlier in 875. Eroica (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amlaíb's Death
Talk:Áed mac Cináeda

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that because some poorly written piece of reference tat says X we must say X is not acceptable in any other field. There are still a huge number of old reference works which say Pluto is a planet, yet our article does not say that. But seemingly we'll claim that this man was a "king of Scots" until hell freezes over or reference works catch up with reliable sources, whichever comes first (my money would be on hell freezing over). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have been reading my books about my family history and i have come to the information that the ancestor of the First Zambrana was a White man refer to the White lord and was Son to a scot Princess and a dragon "draconarious of roman legions". 
To me that sounds like a princess that was kidnaped or saved from execution. Does the Lord sof the white flower have all his daughters accounted for is one missing?. If yes can i have a name?
The Dragon of the legen of Jaun Zuria is Sugaar or "Suge Sugarra" Serpent fire in Basque language.
Or A draconarious of Castra legio Septima gemina, Brittania, Toledo, Burgundee, or aquanarious.
The reason i believe this is true is the use of saltire cross in their code of arms for this families. Also they use The black wolf are there any records of emblems for scotland with black wolf tribal? Or elm tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Fortun(o)_Sanchez_(Sangiz)_Grandee_Zambrana
Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk)
Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lope Jaun Zuria
Talk:Donald II of Scotland

message: All of the following name changes are being discussed at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland#Requested move:
* Cináed I of Scotland → Kenneth I of Scotland
* Cináed II of Scotland → Kenneth II of Scotland
* Cináed III of Scotland → Kenneth III of Scotland
* Domnall I of Scotland → Donald I of Scotland
* Domnall II of Scotland → Donald II of Scotland
* Domnall III of Scotland → Donald III of Scotland
* Donnchad I of Scotland → Duncan I of Scotland
* Donnchad II of Scotland → Duncan II of Scotland
* Máel Coluim I of Scotland → Malcolm I of Scotland
* Máel Coluim II of Scotland → Malcolm II of Scotland
* Máel Coluim III of Scotland → Malcolm III of Scotland
An  approval poll is in-process, as of August 28.  All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Malcolm I of Scotland

message: The claim 'Malcolm was born in 897 in Auchencairn' was added to the main text without any new source, by a now blocked editor, in this edit:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_I_of_Scotland&diff=1115620770&oldid=1114700499  Auchencairn was added to the infobox as birthplace by a non-logged in editor, in this edit:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_I_of_Scotland&diff=1096099489&oldid=1089049882  A Google book search of the proximate reference, 'Pictland to Alba' brings up no mention of 'Auchencairn'.  The Auchencairn article itself states 'the first written record of Auchencairn occurs from 1305 in a charter of Edward I of England '.  I will remove this claim - Crosbie 14:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in Auchencairn?
Talk:Hezbollah rocket campaign in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

message: Possible to put this article in the form of a timeline with number of rockets reported per day, targets hit, damage done etc rather than in the form of a narrative?  
I noticed that the rocket attacks are actually increasing according to figures for yesterdays attacks.  
Then all the details on announced strategy/comment on Hezbollah can go into its own section. 82.29.227.171 10:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I split it into July - August and will backtrack to get rocket figures/targets for each day where possible.  I think the volunteers details belongs elsewhere in the article or perhaps another article as a few other countries also recruited but since there are no details on if they ever arrived its only slightly remarkable and no indication they were involved in fighting.82.29.227.171 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What with a reference to the much more comprehensive Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where also the rockets of Hezbollah are registred? --imi2 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: I'm of the opinion that both Hezbollah and Israeli action articles should be merged into the general "Military action" article, but short of that, this should be renamed to an analagous "Hezbollah military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict," and should detail the activities from the original raid to the combat in S. Lebanon. Cheers, TewfikTalk 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming
Talk:Kenneth III of Scotland

message: All of the following name changes are being discussed at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland#Requested move:
* Cináed I of Scotland → Kenneth I of Scotland
* Cináed II of Scotland → Kenneth II of Scotland
* Cináed III of Scotland → Kenneth III of Scotland
* Domnall I of Scotland → Donald I of Scotland
* Domnall II of Scotland → Donald II of Scotland
* Domnall III of Scotland → Donald III of Scotland
* Donnchad I of Scotland → Duncan I of Scotland
* Donnchad II of Scotland → Duncan II of Scotland
* Máel Coluim I of Scotland → Malcolm I of Scotland
* Máel Coluim II of Scotland → Malcolm II of Scotland
* Máel Coluim III of Scotland → Malcolm III of Scotland
An  approval poll is in-process, as of August 28.  All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Oregon v. Mitchell

message: Article says that "Congress had passed an act requiring all states to register citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 as voters."
Is there a link to this decision somewhere?  Aslaveofaudio (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Congress decision that started this whole thing 

message: Elsewhere (Twitter in particular), my neutral point of view has been called into question on my edit in 969695589. While its true that my motivations were perhaps less than pure, I think my neutral point of view remained intact. Others may disagree, and in an effort at full disclosure, mention it here. If any editor disagrees with my edit here, I invite you to undo it. I would, however, appreciate a mention here or on my talk page. Thanks. Rklahn (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about (or care to get involved with) your Twitter dispute, but I will say that the part of the case that upheld the Voting Rights Act's ban on literacy tests and other discriminatory practices is not "moot" and continues to be in force today. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wish I had never gotten involved either. I could digress, but wont. Thanks for your time and edit. I think it made a huge improvement. Rklahn (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I have changed the wording in the lead to more accurately describe the relationship between this case and the Twenty-sixth Amendment. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  mainly moot
Talk:Younger v. Harris

message: The Decision and precedent and Status as precedent sections (by the way, those section titles overlap) both contain a numbered list of three exceptions, but they don't match. Exceptions 1 and 3 in the former correspond to exceptions 1 and 2 in the latter, and the remaining exceptions are different (2. "harassment" vs. 3. "inadequate state forum"). Neither list is sourced. (The second one contains citations, but for individual points, not to show that this is a correct and complete list of exceptions.) Joriki (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The case itself only discussed bad faith prosecution and other "extraordinary circumstances". See  at 1006. The "Status as precedent" section accurately describes how the case has been interpreted by subsequent precedent. See, e.g.,  at 1982-1988; see generally . voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different lists of three exceptions