lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Raynald of Châtillon

message: thank you for your contribution. I reverted your edit first of all, because it was poorly formatted. Please use the Preview bottom before saving your edits. Secondly, the text contradicts other authors cited in the article (for instance, compare the versions about Raynald's raid in Cyprus). Thirdly, I assume some of your text are copied verbatim from the cited source which is not allowed. Please suggests your proposed edits here. Borsoka (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text 

message: Saladin executed him for his raids on caravans, a serious crime in any country and not a deed acceptable under the laws of Christian societies. Captured with Raynald de Chatillon was Guy de Lusignan, simply a prisoner of war. Saladin treated Guy de Lusignan with great mercy in no way contingent of abandoning Christianity in favor of Islam. Guy de Lusignan had done nothing really wrong. Guy de Lusignan was released after watching the (probably rightful) execution of Reynald de Chatillon without being pressured to convert to Islam. 
Saladin had a reputation of justice in the Christian world, part of which originated in this incident. Caravan raiders are essentially pirates of the "sea of sand". Like all leaders of Christian or Muslim polities alike in that time, Saladin had no tolerance for murder and robbery and used the death penalty against such a crime.
 
I thus will strike him as a martyr of faith. Pbrower2a (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Raynald de Chatillon's treaty-breaking crimes against peaceful caravans are well evidenced and his execution was a clear example of routine justice. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a martyr of Christian faith
Talk:Gàidhealtachd

message: Note that much of the east of Scotland was a Pictish speaking area and, although some parts switched from Pictish to Gaelic, others switched from Pictish to Scots, so it's a little exaggerated to claim that all of Scotland was Gaelic speaking at any time. -- Derek Ross 22:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much that, more that Pictish was absorbed into Gaelic. Northumberland was Gaelic-speaking at one time, actually. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 19:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: That's nonsense, all Picts went from Pictish to either Gaelic or Norse, unless you suppose Pictish survived until the thirteenth century, when we have the first evidence for English north of the Forth. - Calgacus 22:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictish

message: The inclusion of Caithness as a traditionally lowland scots speaking area is as misleading as it is common. The northernmost part of Caithness went from Norse to Lallans but Gaelic was also widely spoken in the region as well. An Siarach
: Removed Caithness; the BBC says  were  --Bangalamania (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Caithness

message: How about adding a rough estimate of how many people are in the Gàidhealtachd, or how many speak Scottish Gaelic. It may be depressing but it's essential. Quis separabit? 21:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I may try to SVG-ise the map, but a nagging doubt: it shows the number of people able to speak Gaelic, to some level of competence, not those who do speak it. Plenty will learn the language, which is encouraging, but with no thought that they will use it in everyday life.  By the same reckoning, the whole of the Irish Republic could be marked as "Gaeltacht" as everyone learns Irish at school (and almost everyone abandons it as soon as they can).
In the Hebrides though and elsewhere in the west Gaelic is indeed a vibrant mother tongue, used at home and in everyday life.  Those are the relevant figures - are they available? Hogweard (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps and numbers
Talk:Ezo

message: the Hisui Region of Pokémon legends: arceus is an ancient version of sinnoh, which itself is based on modern Hokkaido. Ezo is an ancient version of hokkaido, but i'm not sure if Hisui is entirely based off Ezo or not, as the page for Hisui says it's based on "early colonial japan", which doesn't help. QuantumChaosTheory (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hisui Region?
Talk:Kalki

message: Seems like there'a a typo in "This comes from the scriptures that **is** part of the Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist Tradition." "Are" should be used instead of "is". Schedutron (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamRimmer (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023 

message: You forgot to talk about the Ginans and Kalki Avatar of Ismaili Khoja and Satpanth also in vaniş agam for rajistan Nizarpanth. 178.52.69.251 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalki of Satpanth 

message: However, karka does seem to mean "white horse" in Sanskrit. 203.144.67.36 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karki does not mean white. 

message: "According to John Mitchiner, the Kalki concept owes "in some measure" to Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian and other concepts."
Where is the evidence of this? This is completely untrue and contradicted by Mahabharata texts.That line should be removed. 117.221.221.14 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  John mitchner?
Talk:Shang dynasty

message: Reading the first paragraph of this article, I am surprised by the in-text inclusion of the names of three scholars and a scholarly project (Pankenier, Nivision, Shaughnessy, and the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project) in debate with each other on the dating of this dynasty. This is valuable for certain, but perhaps too much detail for the first paragraph. I suggest instead, after the sentence on how the current text of the Bamboo Annals suggests rule dates of 1556 to 1046 BC, something like: “Modern scholarship supports this chronology, and radiocarbon dating from archeological sites has suggested a founding date as early as c. 1600 BC.” Interested readers could turn to the Absolute Chronology section for more detailed information. Thoughts? Resaliest (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% they need to be discussed as is, but yes the place for that is in their own section and not the lead. The lead can just begin with the generally accepted dates and acknowledgement of dispute or simply say that the specific dates are disputed within a range of ~. — LlywelynII 03:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to mention the traditional dates at all in the lead, considering there is practically no use of them in contemporary academia. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  too-detailed scholarly discussion of dates in lede? 

message: * .
has more on the Shang's relationship with the south in the area that later became Chu, Wu, and Yue. — LlywelynII 03:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: Given recent incidents in articles around early Chinese history/archeology, I've been more wary of copyvio—this revision by Porcinipal appears to plagiarize a paragraph pretty much verbatim from the source it's attached to, which is unacceptable. It's only one, but I suppose I've been seeing it too much in this space to be happy about it. Remsense留 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot-checking their other contributions, they seem to do this with approximately one paragraph per article. Remsense留 02:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio paragraph
Talk:Herbert Marcuse

message: There is no evidence that Kathy Acker was influenced by Herbert Marcuse. Or cite it here? Actio (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to prevent you from removing such uncited material yourself. Although you gratuitously and pointlessly insulted me above, I will nevertheless perform the edit for you and remove the reference to Acker. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: people influenced by HM

message: The article says Marx criticized the young Hegelians, but he was a member of them and criticized the old Hegelians. Rationaltail (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the most radical outgrowth of the Young Hegelians. The Young Hegelians for the most part focused on criticism of religion, Marx was the one who shifted the focus to the "material", which is basically Marxist jargon for economic and capital factors. Marx *also* criticized the Old Hegelians but that doesn't mean he didn't criticize the Young Hegelians who were less radical than he was. It's not a contradiction at all.192.53.95.1 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in the article 

message: Citing Kołakowski to describe Marcuse's views is like citing Ann Coulter to describe the views of Rachel Maddow, or the other way around. This is incompatible with NPOV.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kołakowski 

message: @Newimpartial @Janelleclancy I have no position on the disputed text, but Stanford Encyclopedia of Philopsohpy is not WP:USERGENERATED. See their editorial policy  Sennalen (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, points 5 and 6 of that policy certainly differ from standard peer-review procedures. I am not at all convinced that the resulting regime is in any way equivalent to normal editorial responsibility, in spite of notional control by the Principal Editor. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is top-tier as far as encyclopedias go. The authors are typically well regarded experts in their fields. Speaking as someone who's written articles for academic encyclopedias, I can tell you that the editorial oversight is typically pretty minimal. SEP does a better job of it than most, and the articles are updated periodically. That doesn't mean that everything they publish should automatically be considered the consensus view among scholars, but it's a solid WP:TERTIARY source as far as they go. Newimpartial is still correct that rigorously peer-reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable as a basis for article content, but tertiary sources like the SEP can be useful for assessing WP:DUE weight. Generalrelative (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanford Encyclopedia
Talk:List of Nikon products

message: Wikipedia is not a brand-name catalog. Wetman 21:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: ====List of Nikon products ====
Including sub-page Nikon D70. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Egil 22:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From VfD

message: Including sub-page Nikon D70. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Egil 22:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Nikon products]]
Talk:Eberhard Arnold

message: User 64.72.66.122 edited out the following: "After Arnold's death, the Bruderhof was led by his son, Heinrich Arnold, and is currently under the leadership of Johann Christoph Arnold, Heinrich's son. Other brethren that respect the teaching of Eberhard Arnold have withdrawn for the Bruderhof, citing what they claim are "totalitarian" tendencies."
Unless that user or someone else can show that this information is incorrect, I will be adding it back to the article. Did these two men not follow Eberhard Arnold in leadership? As far as those that have withdrawn and claim the present Bruderhof has "totalitarian" tendencies", the article does not say they are correct - just that this is their viewpoint. Whether they are correct or not, it is their viewpoint.
The same user has shown the same tendency in the Bruderhof article - the tendency to remove anything that might be construed as negative. IMO, both articles discuss fairly indifferently the fact that there are those who have both positive and negative views about some things concerning the Bruderhof. - Rlvaughn 21:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to correct factual errors rather than just delete material. I found the dates of Heinrich's leadership and clarified that in the article. This site - http://www.christopharnold.com/jca/Bio/index.htm - would make it appear that Johann Christoph Arnold is the leader (Arnold is senior pastor of the Bruderhof - an international communal movement dedicated to a life of simplicity, service, sharing, and nonviolence). Can you address the issue more clearly, since you seem to be an insider? As far as the second sentence, your not being of aware of something does not make it a factual error. - Rlvaughn 18:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Joe, thanks for the clarifications. I noticed that you changed "Other brethren that respect the teaching of Eberhard Arnold have withdrawn for the Bruderhof, citing what they claim are 'totalitarian' tendencies." to "Some former members have criticized the Arnolds' leadership." User 64.72.66.122, also a Bruderhof member, objected to all the information, stating that it was not relevant to the article. IMO, the first part was relevant, in that it showed his family following in his footsteps. The later part was relevant in that it showed Arnold's influence extended beyond the Bruderhof. As it stands the way you have changed the last part, it shifts the direction from how people feel/felt about E. Arnold (respect his teachings) to how people feel/felt about the leadership of his son and grandson. Am I incorrect in thinking that some people felt that the modern leadership went further away from the teachings of Arnold? I have gotten that impression from things I have read on the subject. I think there needs to be some statement in this article that there are people (even if we leave off about those who've withdrawn from the Bruderhof) who have read Arnold, have been blessed by some of his teachings, while believing the community lifestyle is not necessary. - Rlvaughn 22:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Political privacy

message: For what it's worth, I think Australian ballot should be an article in its own right, but admit I don't feel at all knowledgable enough to write it at present.  There is a history of its development and inception that ought to be preserved, and which is really separate from the much larger issue of political privacy (though of course related).  Maybe the redirect stays for now, but then it will be much less likely that someone stumbles on the fact that we have no article and choose to write it (redirs show up blue). Jwrosenzweig 00:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Australian ballot - Gaz 09:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: The sections marked with  are, IMAO, far too pository and written in a manner of original research. They sound like they're arguing a point, or something, and aren't very well sourced. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay templates
Talk:The Division Bell

message: A thought I've had for a long time but I might as well ask, should we really being using an LP cover in the infobox? This being 1994, the album was primarily sold as a CD - that's the 'default' format and also lasts the full 66 minutes. The LP version was obscurer in 1994 so I think it's odd that it should end up being used here. I reckon the original British CD would make more sense. Thoughts? TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover used
Talk:Hula massacre

message: I found a 1959 Supreme Court ruling related to this case.  Feel free to remind me if I didn't cite it in the article for a week or two. --Zero 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1959 ruling 

message: this article is complete bull. it has no sources and it's completely wrong. Also this supposed ruling is not existant, there was never any ruling of a MASSACRE. These all allegations were refuted entirely later. Needs to be deleted. Amoruso
:Reverted. Please don't slap tags on multiple pages the way you just did. Instead, you should bring arguments specific to the article and the cites to back it up. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Your changes turns up on the NPOV backlog and other backlogs -- Steve Hart 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF ?? 

message: This article is full of rumors and un-professional sources of information (a newspaper?).
Ive looked for more information on this case so we could write a true and well- based article, but the only reference I found was Benny Moris.
I think it is very problematic and therefore this article should be deleted till the facts will be known.
(ScottyNolan (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the reliable resources? 

message: Please stop this edit war and use the talk page to come to an agreement regarding the lemma. --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Talk:Watersport

message: This is ridiculous.  Water sport (recreation) is obviously the primary topic intended by references to "watersport."  There is no good reason that 150 articles should be re-linked to a disambig page just because the term happens to have been coopted as slang for some obscure sexual fetish.  --Russ (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course there should be a link at the top of the page to the fetish. (9 yrs late?) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic 

message: First of all, it's not that obscure—a lot of people out there know the term—and as WP is not anyone's nanny it's not appropriate to keep at least a small link off the main page.  Furthermore, among the people that use the term "water sports" for the sexual fetish, there is no distinction between the version with two words or one compound word, and it's confusing to make those link up differently.  So I'm fixing it. Let me know if that's a problem.  /blahedo (t) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 discussion
Talk:Fern

message: None of the references shown give the topology shown in the cladogram. The cited source (Li et al, 2011) shows the four classes in a four-way polytomy. The consensus phylogeny of Smith et al (2006) places Psilotopsida outside a three-way polytomy of the other classes. None of the three topologies shown in the studies illustrated in Eusporangiate fern#Cladistics match the one in this article either.   Jts1882 | talk  14:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the cladogram needs urgently to be changed to match at least one of the sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogenetic tree 

message: While I don't think there is necessarily an answer, the article uses it two ways. 
# In the lede it seems to use it narrowly for leptosporangiate ferns: 
# In taxonomy section it is used more broadly: 
I think just remove the "true" from the latter would make it consistent. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. The changes in the classification of ferns in recent years make any use of the term "true fern" misleading. I'll do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually more changes were needed. The article really needs a thorough review, because parts have clearly been written at different stages in the changing understanding of the phylogeny of the group, and are not well integrated. I've left the Stace-referenced use of "true fern" = "leptosporangiate fern", but there should be some mention of its use to mean "ferns s.l. minus horsetails". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a true fern? 

message: I think there are some major missing areas that, if added, would substantially improve the article. Reproduction is only mentioned in passing, but really a whole section or subsection under Ecology is necessary to deal with the differences between fern reproduction and other major plant groups. An additional area that is lacking is any discussion of hybridization. You cannot understand the evolution of ferns and their current biogeography and diversity without at least a brief discussion of hybrid formation. Ptero-ADH (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to improve the article (with sources, of course). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, don't forget to improve articles sometimes we need to be bold! Don't hesitate to make the changes you discussed! PrecociousPeach (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Topics Missing
Talk:Drew Barrymore

message: Is it worthwhile to mention the recent incident where a man rushed the stage and tried to so *something* to Drew Barrymore?  It was a notable incident, but I am not sure if it is worth mentioning on her official page.  I am sure that as a celebrity she has lots of weirdos obsessed with her -- letters, presents, videos -- but for one to make it that far?  Scary. datagod (talk)  🍁 05:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalkers
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 2

message: See Archive 1
Sorry about how the adminship nomination went. I guess that you wouldn't want to deal with all the pointless bickering and politicking. Oh well, it's the community's loss. Good job on the Continuation War, btw. 172 01:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:172]]'s comment on adminship

message: Since when do requests for de-adminship have to be approved by community consensus? It is the editor's choice whether they want to become an admin -- we don't force them into it -- and it is the editor's choice if they want to resign. As far as I'm concerned, resignations can be handled by private communication with a developer, followed by a public announcement. If, after the announcement, the community convinces the editor to change their mind, sysop status should be restored without the need for further community involvement (i.e. no need to ask here again). -- Tim Starling 02:36, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
: You're right on the first point. I edited the page appropriately.
: On balance, I'd say that normally the community should be involved on restoration, but that's just a preference. Martin 10:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me. -- Tim Starling 03:39, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
originally added under the desysopping section:
Requests and nominations for de-adminship:
*If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question. 
This would be "off-topic" as User:MyRedDice has pointed out elsewhere. This is a page for straightforward request(s) to be a Sysop and does not conform to any Wikipedia policy. This is not the place to discuss Problem User Sysops. NightCrawler 22:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that it is off-topic. Martin 23:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  de-adminship 

message: :: I'm a bit concerned how fast Pakaran was turned into sysop -- it was only 48 hours between nomination and adminship.  Now granted, he had been discussed before, there was a large amount of support and he's a good contributor.  However, the process seemed quite fast, considering something like Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion has a 5 day "lag time" and adminship used to be a much more drawn out process. Has something changed? Fuzheado 18:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern... no lag time?
Talk:Socket 7

message: It supercedes the Socket 5, they only differnce between the 2 is the Socket 7 can do a dual split rail voltage while the Socket 5 can only have a single voltage.
: Is this right? I've seen Socket 7 motherboards that didn't support dual vcore rails. Crusadeonilliteracy 07:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Socket 5

message: 321-pin (arranged as 19 by 19 pins)
296-pin (arranged as 37 by 37 pins)
It is O.K. or mistake?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.85.94 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  37 and 37 pin?
Talk:Kid A

message: Page says they didnt promote Kid A but they did a video for Idioteque. Was often seen on M2. 2601:404:C000:DB40:600C:BBEB:DF38:C535 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's wrong to say they released no music videos. Fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video for Idioteque