lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:James Kugel

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/Plotz-t.html 
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922291.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301503.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/17/DI2007121701484.html
http://www.jewishjournal.com/arts/article/the_bible_for_dummies_and_experts_20080125/
Thanks, Rumjal 
--rumjal 07:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to add

message: the text is misleading, and it refer to a minority of students, in spite of the alleged claim Kugel was invited to lecture at the Yeshiva University, a religious Jewish University. 
::Kugel is an Orthodox Jew who holds since 1991 a tenured professorship in Bar-Ilan University, a religious Jew University in the State of Israel.
: John J. Collins (Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation) from Yale Divinity School, formerly Chicago University wrote in a critic article about Kugel book "The Bible as it was": "It is not a polemical book. It is a thoroughly positive retrieval of traditional exegesis, whose greatest attraction is the author's obvious love of his material." (Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 59, No. 3 (2001)).
:: see also the review article by Phyllis Trible: "Kugel is unhappy with what be claims is largely a Protestant captivity of the Bible and the Biblical scholarship over the last few centuries. In contrast, he seeks to recover the ancient interpretive tradition that gave us the Bible as it was." (The New York Times Book Reveiew, December 21, 1997, pp. 7-8.) Tzahy (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the arguments mentioned above I omit this fallacy premise. Tzahy (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Chapter
Talk:Ebelthite

message: I have a sixth great grandmother named Sarah Eblethrite, who was born and died in Aldbury, Hertfordshire -- a village in one of this family's target counties, just across the border from another target county.  Eblethrite seems to me like a variant of Ebelthite, but can anyone testify to this with confidence?  -John Rigali 06:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eblethrite: another variation?
Talk:Michael Rogers (publisher)

message: It would be good to include:
In the August 28, 2007, Wall Street Journal, commentator James Taranto argues that the alleged "outing" of Sen. Craig and calls of his hypocrisy appear to be fueling more anti-gay hysteria than understanding his predicament. "To single out those who are (gay) for special vituperation is itself a form of anti-gay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree.... But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy."http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010531
But it would be preferable to wait until we can also include a quote from Rogers where he directly states his motivation for outing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad mouse (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Rogers says, "When those private lives are in direct conflict with the public policy that these officials espouse, I think it's fair game that their private lives be brought into this. And I have to blog to do that with. Here's the question: What community is expected to protect its own enemies? Don't beat up the gay community, and then expect us to protect your secrets and your double life. It's just not right."'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A criticism section should be added 

message: I tried to format the lead sentence a little to wp:mosbio. Anyways,--Tom 04:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format lead sentence
Talk:Bethel (god)

message: Greetings Wikipedians! After searching through Teixidor's book, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (college edition) and the Etz Hayim Torah and commentary, I managed to cobble together what I hope is an adequate number of citations to reliable sources. I believe we now have enough citations to merit removing the "original research" template. This I have done. I am far from being an expert on this subject, but it was a great learning experience. I welcome comments from all. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one big issue with this page IMO which is that it confuses "Bethel is always a god" with "Bethel is a god at least once". No one (cited, at least) denies that Bethel is at least almost always a place. So content about uncontroversial verses in Genesis or Samuel doesn't really belong. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @GordonGlottal Thanks. I don't disagree. Suggest we wait a bit and see if anyone has further comments before diving back into this obscure topic. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major re-write complete
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live!
Talk:Timeline of Genesis patriarchs

message: Interesting how the removal of the 60 years from Terah's 205 puts his death star as 2256am in that he died 59 years after Judah was born. The star belongs to Father and son Judah in 2256am when Nimrod dies at 500. But to take this away from Judah's birth and give it solely to Jacob Israel in death would be an action taken by 10-tribe Israel against 2-tribe Judah so as to nullify Jacob's word upon Judah's birth. What should be noted is that Israel's blessing the sons is more probable the 137-year calendar formula honored in Genesis at age 137 than his death at 147.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.172.174 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017

message: The numbers are false.
https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalChronology/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.57.130 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 2019

message: Wouldn't the creation of Adam and Eve be 0 AM? If they began at 1 AM, then 130 years later would be 2:30. Aramink (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting point
Talk:Oholah and Oholibah

message: Why is the Ezekiel quotation taken from the KJV?  The language makes the passage incomprehensible to modern readers.  They're not going to know that "flesh" means genitals (penises), "asses" means donkeys, and "issue" means emission (semen).  A more contemporary translation should be used. 2607:FE28:206E:7B00:5CBB:7F1:BE9A:4A23 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  King James language not helpful
Talk:The Living Torah and Nach

message: Deleted unsourced criticism that the late Rabbi Kaplan, an Orthodox rabbi, didn't include non-Orthodox sources. This pattern was set before this work was published, by the late Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz's first/1976 work.
It also followed the pattern set in the five booklets mentioned in the Rabbi Aryeh Kaplin article.   Pi314m (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox writer
Talk:Barbara Corday

message: She has never been married to the well known financial journalist, Roger Lowenstein, so I unlinked the name.  Her husband is named Roger Lowenstein but is an unrelated writer and TV producer who happens to have the same name.  AFAIK wikipedia does not have a biography of the Roger Lowenstein who is married to Ms. Corday.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpearl (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  had been linked to wrong Roger Lowenstein as her husband 
Talk:Bethlehem of Galilee

message: If Mary in advanced pregnancy had to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth it makes sense that she would have gone to nearby Bethlehem of Galilee and not the distant Bethlehem of Judea.
However the Christian church wished to link Jesus to King David of Bethlehem in Judea and so probably rewrote history.
Jesus is clearly identified in the Gospels as coming from Galilee where he was active for most of his life.
According to the geneology of the Christ, we know that Joseph was a decendant of Judah, not Zebulun. Jews were ordered to return to each person's town of ancestry during the census. When Joseph and Mary traveled for this purpose, they surely would have gone to the Bethlehem in Judea. This is both prophesy and history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.185.59 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Ezion-Geber

message: Where did someone come up with the idea that Etzion Gaver means "giant's backbone"??? Etzion comes from the root for "tree" (etz) and "gever" is a man. If no one comes up with a source for this, I will delete it.--Gilabrand 09:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology 

message: A city in [[Idumea]?! Idumea is a term used by classical sources referring to a much later entity than the Iron Age kingdom of Edom. Very misleading. Also, as E.G. only appears in the Hebrew Bible as an alleged foundation of Solomon, it is an Israelite city. It can of couse be built on conquered Edomite territory, but this needs to be clearly stated. Arminden (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Idumea?!
Talk:Martin Wesley-Smith

message: I started the article because I saw it red-linked in the List of Australian composers and because I have several CDs with his work on.  I believe the notability can be justified, but I do not necessarily have access to the material to do this. Stumps 07:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the articles I've put a link to in the external links section  refers to him as 'the distinguished Australian composer' ... Stumps 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: This is more of a sketch than an article. Rather tiptoe. Lots left out. MW-S moved to Kangaroo Valley only in his later years for example, and he could be a difficult man… --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:6CB8:6528:4AAA:58E7 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiptoe…
Talk:Richmond Spiders football

message: "Richmond and William and Mary have met 115 times since 1898, making the rivalry (sometimes referred to as "the South's oldest rivalry") the 4th most-played in college football. Only Lafayette-Lehigh, Princeton-Yale, and Harvard-Yale have played more games." Wisconsin-Minnesota have played 116 times, is this list only supposed to pertain to D1-AA rivalries? RealFerrari 06:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just hasn't been updated...Richmond and W&M have also played 116 times now. You can see the official NCAA lists (through the 2005 season) on page 110 (I-A) and 177 (I-AA) of the NCAA Record Book. Thanks for the heads-up...I'll update this article. But there are also a handful of D-III teams that have played a few more times, so it is only an "All-Division I" ranking. WildCowboy 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Philistine captivity of the Ark

message: I think this stub article should be merged into the Ark of the Covenant article, in the relevant section. The parent article has more info about the same subject anyway. John Hyams (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. There's a lot more that can be said about this story, and I've put this article on my list of things to do. I'll expand it when I get a chance. StAnselm (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I have removed the merge tags now. StAnselm (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article into Ark of the Covenant
Talk:Mount Ebal

message: After the second paragraph of the Biblical Account section, the following user-comment was added:
The following section appears to have been based on the work of people who explicitly deny the accuracy of the Bible.  May we ask that other scholars' works be included and integrated for a more balanced entry?  Remember the criticism of the 19th Century that was based on not having found any Hittites?
I removed the comment, and have listed it here where it should have been written. — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline User Comment 

message: The article states: "the law of Moses was written onto the stones."  Should that be changed to "cut into the stones"?  Incidentally I ask if the alleged Altar of Joshua, has any sign of the Law of Moses written on it or carved into it?  The discovery of Joshua's ancient copy of the Law of Moses would be the greatest archaeological discover of all time. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the former question, I prefer "written upon" simply because it more closely mirrors the Hebrew -- the verb is clearly "writing" (kaf-tav-bet) and the preposition is clearly "on" or "upon" (ayin-lamed).  While I tend to agree the sense is likely "cut into," the text says what it says.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Upon or In?

message: Doug Weller talk 19:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Another.. I can't find his full statement unfortunately. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also one from James R. Davila here/  Kershatz (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

text: It’s on his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Prof.IsraelFinkelstein/ Doug Weller talk 09:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A critique from Israel Finkelstein
Talk:Avvites (of Philistia)

message: A dubious part of the article has been removed to the following blockquote due to inadequate sources and it seems to contradict what the Bible says:
The Talmud (Chullin 60b) notes that the Avvites were the Philistine people in the days of Abraham. Their capital city was Gerar and their king both in the days of Abraham and Isaac bore the name Abimelech. These Philistines are mentioned several times in Genesis. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and 1Chronicles 1 lists them as a people distinct from the Caphtorites noting that they were an offshoot of the Casluhites.<BR>
<BR>
The Talmud explains that originally the Israelites were not entitled to conquer the land of the Avvites because of an oath that Abraham had sworn to Abimelech but that this oath no longer applied after the Caphtorites had destroyed them. This view is reiterated in Rashi's commentary on Deuteronomy.
That the Philistines were an offshoot of the Casluhites is clear from Genesis 10, but the Avites were a separate people that had occupied an area of land between lower Egypt and Philistia. Does anyone have the complete quote from the Talmud in English from a reliable source that we can examine?<BR>Telpardec (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Kittim

message: A simple notion makes me wonder if there might be an etymological relation between City and the Latin Cition referred to in the article? conferring etymonline.com --Xact (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymological City 

message: The ancient Hebrews were from the same cultural sphere as ancient Babylon, and the ancient Babylonians knew the Earth's exact size.  Please refrain from any anti-mizrahi racism, which is the obvious motive for portraying the ancient Hebrews as illiterate and ignorant.  Just my understanding that many Jewish academics like to portray the Arabs as savages, and you seem to enjoy downplaying even the achievements of ancient Babylon, who divided the year into 365 days, who laid the foundations for algebra, and who divided time into minutes, hours, and the day into 24 hours, and who knew the Earth's exact size.  Babylon was an educational center in the ancient world, and all semitic young men who sought schooling went either there, or later on, to Alexandria.  Just saying, if a given ancient Hebrew could write, then he knew the Earth's exact size.
71.221.146.183 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "The World Known to The Hebrews" Picture 

message: Why are there random brackets inserted inside the words west and especially? Why is the word but in front of the word especially when but indicates a statement contrasting with the previous one? Primal Groudon (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bracketing 

message: in the article, it stated that the Septuagint translates Daniel 11:30 kittim as Ῥωμαῖοι or Romans.
This isn't true, at least for the Vaticanus text. 
It translates Daniel 11:30 kittim as Κίτιοι, Citians.
It would stand to reason that is a general term for the west from the sea. 141.151.86.133 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel 11:30 Sept
Talk:Lud, son of Shem

message: Article is all about the area from Anatolia to Assyria as belonging to the Shemites, yet the image shows Japhetites.2604:2D80:DE11:1300:E0F1:43CB:4BB5:EB97 (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Doesn't Match Article
Talk:Abdi

message: I think Abdi is quite separate to Abidi and shouldn't be merged. John Cengiz talk 12:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging? 

message: * Hello! Greetings from a community that has limited Somali assets in terms of grocery and access to paramedics with Arabic Apple 3 watch connections in the ambulance. I am a paranormal investigator studying the great name of Abdi and wonder how I go about adding a nurse who take great care to reflect upon the lack of brown security at Safe-Injection-Sites worldwide. If I may be of assistance to Wikipedia, this Abdi has invented a method of care and control for those street nurses who drink more than one cup of coffee on the needle prick with respect to observing the benefits of inspecting an arm for previous forensically identifiable residue and estimating a date in the event of extinction level event while ambulatory services need still to be applied. How to proceed? WinstonZeddmore (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greetings From Proxy Central (As In Central High School, Burlington, Ontario, RIP Steve Wood, RNA, DNA, prefect!)
Talk:Khorzhak Monastery

message: Is this identical with Khojarnāth? And: The spelling “Khorzhak” is rather obscure. —Babelfisch 03:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the Nepali name - see recent additions to the text. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Agagite

message: ("as of" the Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 March 2024 version of this article), ...Near the last word of the last paragraph of [the main "body" of] this article, there is still a  ""  tag, which gets displayed (in 'superscript') as: "".It is also very close to a footnote which was added recently.There is a "COMMENT:" -- [which was also added recently] -- near the recently added "ref" tag for that "long winded" footnote (which ... is currently footnote number "[3]", but ... it will probably remain a "long winded" footnote, even if/when its footnote number should change). 
As mentioned in that "COMMENT:", the new "ref" tag (the one for the "long winded" footnote) was intended to (at least partially) supply the "citation" that has been "needed" since April 2023. 
Someone who knows more than I do about 
* [a] the reason[s] why that "" tag (or ... "" tag) was added,and 
* [b] the exact nature of the changes to that paragraph that might havebeen 'envisioned' by the editor who added that  tag
... might be able to shed some light on: what additional changes -- if any -- are still needed, now. 
Thanks for listening. Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The April 2023<code><nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki></code>tag (after "enemy to the Israelites"): can it be removed now?
Talk:Stotting

message: The only entry for cavorting is the name of a music album release, though I recall it used in the natural science terminology description for an activity by rabbits / hares(?) running and jumping past one another, (often spraying urine) during mating ritual. Should perhaps this similar behavior be classed a synonym of sorts or is it technically used with distinct difference? Nagelfar (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising the question. The term cavorting is sometimes used in ethology but with multiple senses, often nothing to do with mating, nor (for the purposes of this article) anything to do with predators. It might be relevant in some other article, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cavorting"
Talk:Observations on Man

message: This article contains at least one copy violation: "The course of reminiscence and of the thoughts generally, when not immediately dependent upon external sensation, is accounted for", lifted from one of several possible early versions of The Encyclopaedia Britannica --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a copy violation, as it is taken from a public domain text. The article should have had a reference to the 1911 Britannica to cover this problem. I have rectified that, copyedited the text to make it clearer, and started to add references to it. However, I have reached my limit on Google Books, so I will have to go to the library. Note that this article was forked from David Hartley (philosopher). Ideally, that article should contain a summary of this article, rather than a copy. Hopefully, some day this article will be much better and that will happen. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy violation
Category talk:Exhibition tennis tournaments

message: Hello Feardes. I've removed the U.S Pro from the category "Exhibition tennis tournaments" because it was one of the most important tournaments from 1927 to 1967 (and until 1999). In 1948 it was the only world tournament and almost ranked the best players in the world (Kramer, Riggs, Kovacs and Budge). Same thing for "River Oaks" that I haven't yet removed but I am tempted to do it. Hopman Cup or ECC-Antwerp or World Team Tennis are very much more exhibitions than the old US Pro or the River Oaks tournament.
Carlo Colussi 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S Pro hadn't been an exhibition from 1927 to 1999