lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of secretaries of the Italian Communist Party

message: Amadeo Bordiga was not the secretary of PCI. Two mistakes: 
1) the position of secretary didn't exist until 1926 (Gramsci was the first); before there were a Central Committee: Ambrogio Belloni, Nicola Bombacci, Amadeo Bordiga(EC), Bruno Fortichiari(EC), Egidio Gennari, Antonio Gramsci, Ruggiero Grieco(EC), Anselmo Marabini, Francesco Misiano, Giovanni Parodi, Luigi Polano, Luigi Repossi(EC) Cesare Sessa, Ludovico Tarsia, Umberto Terracini(EC). Part of the CC represented also the Executive Committee (EC).
2)The name PCI, Italian Communist Party, begins to appear during the years 1924-25, with the "stalinization" of the Communist International. Before the name was PCd'I, Communist Party of Italy-Section of Communist International. 
Bordiga has to be erased in this list, or it must be indicated these two lacks of clarity. --Tompint 11:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: From 1921 to 1926 they was just called editor in chief (art. 47 of the 1921 Statute) or 	Secretary (art. 51):
    * Amadeo Bordiga (gennaio 1921 - agosto 1924)
    * Antonio Gramsci (agosto 1924 - 1926)
PCI Secretary-general was:
    * Antonio Gramsci (1926)
    * Palmiro Togliatti (1927 - 1934)
    * Ruggero Grieco (1934 - 1938)
    * Palmiro Togliatti (1938 - agosto 1964)
    * Luigi Longo (agosto 1964 - marzo 1972)
    * Enrico Berlinguer (marzo 1972 - giugno 1984)
    * Alessandro Natta (giugno 1984 - giugno 1988)
    * Achille Occhetto (giugno 1988 - febbraio 1991)
Presidents:
    * Luigi Longo (1972-1980)
    * Alessandro Natta (1989-1990)
    * Aldo Tortorella (1990-1991)
The italian vertion is more complete: Enrico Berlinguer
--Compagno (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grieco!! 

message: From 1921 to 1926 they was just called editor in chief (art. 47 of the 1921 Statute) or 	Secretary (art. 51):
    * Amadeo Bordiga (gennaio 1921 - agosto 1924)
    * Antonio Gramsci (agosto 1924 - 1926)
PCI Secretary-general was:
    * Antonio Gramsci (1926)
    * Palmiro Togliatti (1927 - 1934)
    * Ruggero Grieco (1934 - 1938)
    * Palmiro Togliatti (1938 - agosto 1964)
    * Luigi Longo (agosto 1964 - marzo 1972)
    * Enrico Berlinguer (marzo 1972 - giugno 1984)
    * Alessandro Natta (giugno 1984 - giugno 1988)
    * Achille Occhetto (giugno 1988 - febbraio 1991)
Presidents:
    * Luigi Longo (1972-1980)
    * Alessandro Natta (1989-1990)
    * Aldo Tortorella (1990-1991)
The italian vertion is more complete: Enrico Berlinguer
--Compagno (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grieco!!
Talk:Saghani

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Al-Saghani →  – At present the article's name is al-Saghani, but the correct version is Saghani. Saghani currently redirects to al-Saghani—it should be the other way round! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 March 2023
Talk:'Ali ibn al-'Abbas al-Majusi

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV  (Talk) 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: As the name implies and the source explicitly states Haque's goal is to help Muslims adapt to western concepts of psychology not a source for history.Amber Haque (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357-377 [363]. I had a link if anyone is interested. J8079s (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amber Haque
Talk:Rajouri

message: Should the prepositions up to be written as two words or one, namely upto.
At time of writing, up to is standard english, but wikipedia contains 132 examples of upto.  There are 470,000 examples of up to, however this figure is unreliable dure to limitations of the wikipedia search function.
There is no Académie anglais similar to the Académie française to adjudicate, nor is there likely to be any time soon.
Some points.
The meaning of upto is the same as up to, and is obvious.
The spelling upto saves typing one character.
There are plenty of Concatonated precedents, such as inasmuch for in as much.
In computing, the Fortran language allows both GOTO and GO TO.
At the start of the Personal Computing era around 1976, enthusiasts argued successfully for a new spelling for the word byte meaning 8-bits, as against bite and bight.
So it is proposed that upto one word be left alone. Tabletop (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upto or up to ?? 

message: A significant portion of the body is plagiarized from https://rajouri.nic.in/history/. It is not cited anywhere either. I don't have the time to fix it, sorry, but hopefully it could be fixed 108.46.24.72 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism
Talk:Gurvand

message: To be renamed, for example Gurvand, count of Rennes: he was never Duke of Brittany, but tried to become King of Brittany.Benoni 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was never Count of Rennes. He never held the title of count. He tried to succeed Salomon, so Duke suffices. Srnec 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Salomon was not Duke. Salomon was king of Brittany. The Dukedom of Brittany begins with Alan II Wrybeard. The title is thus false and should be changed. The title I suggested is correct: you may want to write a new history of Brittany, but up to know all the histories of Brittany call him "count of Rennes" (see for example Joel Cornette).Benoni 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Magister officiorum

message: I created this page at the request of Scoutersig; it is completely translated from de:Magister officiorum. I have included all the information that is present in the German article, and have translated the German as accurately as I can, almost word-for-word. It is however, stylistically speaking, perhaps not perfect. I have a simple query, which some better-qualified person might be able to resolve, i.e. how do you best translate magister officiorum into English? My latin is not perfect :-) Dr Gangrene 11:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Macquarie University, Sydney at  has it as "Master of Offices". 220.240.135.99 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What, if any, point do you want to make? Constantine   ✍  06:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation and translation

message: Hay this page seems to be compleat and also stub, though it is still on the translation page, is there a reson for this? Philsgirl 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: Can someone smarter than me (nearly everyone, I suspect) please set this up so if someone searches for Master of Offices it leads to this? Thanks. CsikosLo (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master of Offices
Talk:Halfdan Ragnarsson

message: This merge I am proposing is pretty obvious, but as a (guest) user at en:wiki I'm doing this the (hopefully) formal correct way instead of just performing the merger myself. Finnrind 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem this isn't so obvious as I thought. I have revertet my own proposed merger with Hvitserk and added text reference instead. Finnrind 11:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Moved from article.
An anonymous reader asked "[H]ow can his sons be real but not - without ragnar himself his children wouldnt have lived therefore ofcours ragnar himself was real". That seems like a very reasonable question. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 03:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some (not all) of the "sons of Ragnar" are reasonably well-attested historically, including Ubbe, Ivar, and Halfdan, as brothers who led the Great Heathen Army that landed in Britain in 865. Björn Ironside has a few attestations, and his friend and ally, Hastein, yet another alleged son of Ragnar, has several. The problem is that the father of these men is not recorded. So Ubbe, Ivar the Boneless, and Halfdan may have been brothers, but their father was not necessarily Ragnar. Most likely, Bjorn was not a brother to any of them, or to Hastein, and his father was probably not named Ragnar. Indeed, if the Ivar (Ímar) recorded by the Irish is the same man, the father he is given in a late chronicle is not named Ragnar (and he has two other brothers mentioned in Irish chronicles who are not identified as Ragnar's sons in Norse sagas). There was a Ragnar who participated in the attack on Paris in 845, making him about the right age to be the father of men invading England 20 years later. But a Ragnar who was king of most of Scandinavia, as the sagas make him out to be, is almost certainly a fiction. Spiderboy12 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from an anonymous reader
Talk:Arduin Glaber

message: I checked Liudprand today, but I couldn't find mention of Arduin in there, not in any of the passages about Fraxinetum. I may be misinterpreting Kassis, who seems to attach the reports to his Antapodosis, but doesn't give a specific book and chapter. Anybody with a better index for their Liudprand or access to Kassis' article may want to help with this. Srnec (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liudprand
Talk:Athelm

message: There is a footnote referring to "Dolley "Important Group" British Museum Quarterly", but this item does not appear in the references. Ælfgar (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Just an oversight ... happens. Nice catch, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference
Talk:Baldwin II, Margrave of Flanders

message: Was this man really called Baldwin? Or is this another example of Anglocentrisme? What is wrong with Baudoin or Boudewijn? johanthon (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to bet that the only contemporary version of his name we possess is Latin (prob. Balduinus, Balduuinus). The English is as close to the Latin as the French or Dutch. It is typical of most modern languages that they translate the names of historical figures. What's wrong with Baldwin? Srnec (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man didn't spoke Latin, nor did his kin, his followers, his dependants, his peasants, or any of his neighbours. In his attested native languages he is not called Baldwin, Balduinus or Balduuinus. And in which primary sources he is called Balduinus or Balduuinus? johanthon (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not called Baudouin or Bodewijn in his "attested" language, either. And how do you know he didn't speak Latin? His language may be attested, but is his Germanic name attested in any contemporary primary source referring to him? He is "Balduinus" in the Annales Vedastini. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Article
Talk:Hugh of Tours

message: This article gives a very specific death date, October 20, 837. I note that the Dutch-language Wikipedia article about Hugh gives this date and says that Hugh died in an earthquake in Ticino, Italy (now Switzerland). The Dutch article cites the Gesta Francorum and the Annales Fuldenses in support of this. I don't know about the first of those sources, but according to English-language Wikipedia's own article about the Annales Fuldenses, it's one of the basic sources of all the information we have about this period, particularly for events in the Carolingean realms after 830.
It seems to me that either the English-language article ought to either attribute Hugh's death to the earthquake, or replace the very specific date with an approximate one. This should probably be thought about by someone with actual qualifications to make the call. pnh (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Death
Talk:George Brinton McClellan Harvey

message: Warren G. Harding was not elected on March 4, 1921; he began his term on that day.  HankW512 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information in Article 
Talk:Bertila of Spoleto

message: Honestly, did she ever have a chance to become an empress, wasn't she dead by then? Her husband Berengar I of Italy was crowned emperor in December (if we can trust wikipedia;-). Not only that, the external reference to Cawley claims that she was executed for adultery. A very busy month it was in December 915! And her widowed husband even managed to remarry before New Year!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilmer B (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Brew
Talk:Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine

message: "Karel van Neder-Lotharingen (953 - Orléans, 22 juni 992)" is what the Dutch WP says; why not 993?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: However the French WP says «Charles de Basse-Lotharingie1, né à Laon durant l'été 953 et mort le 12 juin 991 à Orléans»; it is odd to have exact dates in those articles and here he is said to died some time in or before 993.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to sort it out. The date is  22 June. The year is unknown, but must have been 992 at the earliest and 995 at the latest, unless there is some debate over the dating of Adalbero and Odo's attempted coup. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.__Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Death
Talk:Conrad I of Burgundy

message: Who was Adelaide of Bellay?  Conrad had two spouse with a name similar to Adelaide: Adelane, his first wife, and Aldiud, his mistress and later third wife.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adelaide of Bellay? 

message: Why is he sometimes numbered Conrad III? There was no prior Conrad who ruled any part of his kingdom. The only earlier Conrad is Conrad I of Germany, whose realm would be united with Burgundy in the person of Emperor Conrad II. Where does "Conrad III" come from? Srnec (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conrad III?
Talk:Conrad, Duke of Lorraine

message: The link for Conrad's wife is Liutgard, but I believe it should be Liutgarde. Can somebody confirm this? --Cwelgo (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Liutgard(e) link 

message: Conrad is categorized as Duke of Franconia, but nowhere in the article explains how he obtained this title. I can't find any source confirming it or denying it.--RR (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Franconia

message: I think Lorraine is a confusing term for this period and not the one normally used by historians writing in English. Lotharingia would be better? For the time being WP is inconsistent, but I think most better articles also use Lotharingia. I'll post a few such messages on articles where I notice examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name, Lorraine?
Talk:Dietrich I of Metz

message: As you can see from List of bishops of Metz two Dietrichs are mentioned: Dietrich I (964-984) and Dietrich II (1006-1047). Dietrich II is the actual son of Siegfried of Luxembourg. This article - I guess - is supposed to be about Dietrich I (?). The mixup has then spread to other related articles. I think that the French articles on these two are better, but not perfect and lacking references. Someone with access to relevant references should clean up this mess.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilmer B (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixup between two different Dietrich
Talk:Leo V the Armenian

message: We need a better coin image (with proper copyright permission, of course). There are much better gold coin images than the copper follis currently used in the article. E.g. we could use this or this one. They are from the same source as the currently used image. How would one get permission from them? Dipa1965 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better coin image needed
Talk:Liudolf, Duke of Saxony

message: When I edited this page a few minutes ago, I gave the reason for the edit as "No citation for the claim that the Salier and the Hohenstaufer were descended from Liudolf" Clearly this reasoning does not stand up to scrutinty, and the Hohenstaufer and the Salier were quite clearly descended from Liudolf, just not in a direct male line. That is what I meant, that they were not descended from Liudolf in a direct male line. The original format was improper, as we, for example, do not show Philip I of Castile as being a member of the house of Bourbon or the house of Lorraine, even though the later house of Bourbon and the later house of Lorraine did descend from him. I am sorry for my lackluster reasoning when making this edit. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for edit.
Talk:Liutgard of Saxony (died 885)

message: Can ever a reference to someones private genealogy page (in this case at http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com) ever be considered to be an acceptable source?? No peer review possible, anything may be stated, uncontested (all the way to Adam and Eve, when your done ;-}. Hilmer B (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References!
Talk:Lothair II

message: The link to Lothair's consort, Waldrada, takes the reader to a Waldrada who lived in the 6th century.  Since Lothair II lived in the 9th century, I have to assume that this is not the same Waldrada.  The link should be removed.
Chickadeebro (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As things now stand, Waldrada (concubine of Lothair II) redirects to this page. I see that the lack of a page for the woman herself has attracted some attention from a historian of the period, and there's clearly a good case for her having her own entry: http://turbulentpriests.group.shef.ac.uk/the-erased-history-of-queen-waldrada/. Alarichall (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldrada link 

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 policy on article titles.
*Oppose See WP:NCROY.  There are several examples where a monarch is the primary meaning of the name + number combination, which redirects there, but we have retained the disambiguator, e.g. George IV of the United Kingdom, James IV of Scotland, George VII of Georgia. PatGallacher (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lothair II redirects here, so the question of primary topic is already decided. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In English-language history writing, Lothar II (and Lothar I) are almost always spelled thus, without the inserted 'i' in Lothair. This spelling is I think a hangover from the original Encyclopedia Britannica entry. Would it be feasible to change the article title? Charleslincolnshire (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lothair => Lothar?
Talk:Dunash ben Labrat

message: The dates given in this article differ from those given by this book, p. 249:
*Rosenfeld-Hadad, Merav (2011)  Mishaf al-Shbahot - The Holy Book of Praises of the Babylonian Jews: One Thousand Years of Cultural Harmony between Judaism and Islam. In M.M. Laskier and Y. Lev. "The Convergence of Judaism and Islam: Religious, Scientific, and Cultural Dimensions. University Press of Florida
She gives 915-70, whereas this article gives 920-990. Could someone who has access to reference books please check the sources and decide which of these two is more likely to be correct? Kanjuzi (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of birth and death 

message: I've expanded the "Life" section by translating the material on the Hebrew WP page.  Unfortunately there are no sources given there, so I have no idea how accurate the information is, but it's better than the tiny stub we had before.  Still missing is anything about his purported "exile" (from where?) which is the subject of the poem attributed below to his wife.  The Hebrew WP page has no mention at all of the exile, the wife, or the poem. -- 76.15.128.196 (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Life" section
Talk:Ealdred I of Bamburgh

message: I'm thinking of renaming this article to Ealdred son of Eadwulf, which I believe is more neutral since it seems we don't know whether Ealdred was a king or an ealdorman or a reeve or something else. I'd then suggest renaming his father to Eadwulf of Bamburgh. And we might as well move Eadulf Cudel of Bernicia to plain Eadwulf Cudel. Eadwulf is how the PASE spells it, and Higham, and Swanton, and Woolf, and Keynes in the Blackwell Encyclopedia. And it's how we spell Eadwulf in all other cases. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (7 years later!). Or could the article be renamed 'Ealdred I of Bamburgh'? Ealdred of Bamburgh could then be renamed 'Ealdred II of Bamburgh'. He has been described thus in Rulers of Bamburgh since immediately after it was created on 18th June 2009. Alekksandr (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming &c
Talk:Ealhswith

message: Added her year of death. 24.31.169.252 (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please provide a better reason than "unjustified" for not mentioning noteworthy, referenced appearances of this historic person in cultural depictions, like in thousands of other articles on historical subjects. You need to provide reasons why this this article should be special. I see none.
CapnZapp (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please browse any of the following sources     apart from reference sources like the show's home page on Netflix, imdb etc. CapnZapp (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles list similar cultural depictions because, unfortunately like much of Wikipedia, no one has deleted material which does not comply with the rules. No such mention would pass in a Featured article. A discussion of cultural representations based on reliable secondary sources is relevant as in John, King of England#Popular representations, and if you have a number of depictions then you could create an article similar to Cultural depictions of John, King of England, but a statement that an actor played a historical character does not tell us anything about the character, only about the actor, and is therefore not relevant to this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What rule against inclusion do you refer to? Source please. Your notion that a wholly separate article needs to be created just to include depictions in cultural medua is absurd. We have lots of article; you just don't like it for this one. CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unjustified?" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rmkooist (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

message: I will adding some information found from both primary and secondary sources that discuss Ealhswith's character and contributions to the Anglo-Saxon throne.  Rmkooist (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Information