lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Samuel Whittemore

message: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01839.htm
: "...On April 17, 1775, while working in his fields, Whittemore became aware of the retreating British army which had fought the militia men at Lexington and Concord..." Leave it to the Massachusetts Senate to get the date wrong for the most important event in state history. (Added 31 Dec 05: The battle actually occured on April 19). Flying Jazz 15:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research about Whittemore including statements from the doctor who treated his wounds is found in David Hackett Fisher's Paul Revere's Ride, but I let a friend borrow my copy and I don't have the book in front of me.  If someone's really interested in making this a well-researched little article, they should consult Fisher's book.  There is little doubt that this event occurred generally as it's represented.  There is uncertainty about individual actions in battles from 40 years ago, so grisly minor variations in the story like which weapons were fired in what order and the number of redcoats killed and wounded by this old man over 200 years ago will most likely remain unless someone digs up statements from the guy in newspapers of the time.  The fact that he survived multiple wounds after inflicting considerable damage is not disputed. This seems miraculous, but the main objective in warfare is to prevent your opponent from harming you.  It is possible that once the regulars discovered that their foe was a very old man, they wounded him multiple times to ensure that he was out of the fight, but none of the British had the heart to deliver a fatal blow. Flying Jazz 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Whether or not the date on the monument is correct or not, the monument does in fact state that Samuel Whittemore died at the age of 98, and so it should correctly reflect this.  
Some photographic evidence:
http://www.uua.org/clf/quest/2003-10/whittemore.jpg
http://www.alyssaboehm.com/hello/316151/640/samuel_whittemore-2005.06.16-18.29.48.jpg
:Nice picture! The date on the monument is correct. The date on the Massachusetts Senate bill is wrong. I just added the comment in parentheses above to make that clear. Flying Jazz 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Quotation...
Talk:Portal (1986 video game)

message: I dispute that term in the introduction; there were several other interactive novels with graphics available around then, and many of which came out before. for example, the Telarium adaptations of Rendezvous with Rama and Fahrenheit 451 came out in 1984 and 1985, respectively. 50.135.253.148 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unique for its time" 

message: I don't have a huge problem with merging them, as long as it's emphasized that:
# The game is not just a Commodore 64 game; ports to the Macintosh and IBM PC were made.
# It also became a novel which was published and, I believe, republished.  There is also apparently a comic book in the works.  So it's not just a game.
As long as the expanded item basically merged all the information from both articles, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Xihr 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  It seems that the two articles complement each other nicely.  The game article covers some of the gameplay aspects, and this article covers the novelization and plot more completely.  The game article was definately written with a C-64 bias, but it would simply take some fiddling with the info-box to include the other ports, and similarly adding expanding the information about the novels would do the trick.  I'm not particularly well-informed on either the game or novel, so I feel unqualified to edit either article any further.--Woden325 23:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The game and the novel contain exactly the same content.  The "game" is just a way of interactively showing this content.  In fact it's really not much of a game; you just go back and forth between different content areas to see what's new, and in that process open up more content in other areas.  The novel just shows all of it linearly.  The full content of the game/novel can be found here. Xihr 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: Any news on the comic book? Xihr 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic book II
Talk:Die Deutschen Konservativen

message: The German article has a large criticism section missing here.--Molobo (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please translate the German article and criticism section 

message: with a procession of torchlit boats down the local canal, each carrying flags of the 'lost provinces' (Silesia, East Prussia, Danzig, Sudetenland, Pomerania)
Sudets were not part of German Empire, Nazi Germany took them. So the question is do they express desire for lost provinces of Nazi Germany ? Also parts of Silesia were restored to Poland after 1918, do they claim borders in that regard from 1914 ?
--Molobo (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Provinces of Nazi Germany ? 

message: "Ende der neunziger Jahre sprach sich der Verein im Zusammenhang mit dem Entschädigungsfonds für NS-Zwangsarbeiter gegen weitere Wiedergutmachungsleistungen Deutschlands aus und machte zugleich auf das Schicksal deutscher Zwangsarbeiter aufmerksam. [10]. Außerdem lehnten die Deutschen Konservativen das geplante Holocaust-Mahnmal am Brandenburger Tor ab. [11]. In weiteren Spendenbriefen bat Joachim Siegerist im Namen des Vereins um finanzielle Unterstützung für den Bau einer Soldaten-Kapelle und eines „Friedens-Museums“ für die Soldaten der Deutschen Wehrmacht auf seinem Anwesen in der Nähe von Jelgava/Lettland. [12]. Wiederholt haben die Deutschen Konservativen zu humanitären Hilfen für ehemalige Angehörige der Waffen-SS in Lettland aufgerufen."
If I understand correct-they are opposed to helping slave workers used by Germany and are helping former Waffen SS members ? If somebody would translate it would be great.
--Molobo (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please translate the German Wikipedia fragment-helping Waffen SS members ?
Talk:Catalexis

message: I'd like to see this expanded rather than moved to Wiktionary, because at the moment Wikipedia really has rather good coverage of poetic form, and my feeling - slap me if I'm wrong - is that Wiktionary is not sufficiently well-integrated that moving things like this wouldn't break that. I'm sure this could be bulked out nicely with examples, and something about the effect of catalexis on the reader.
--Oolong 09:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary 

message: I think the title would be much better if it were "Catalexis". It seems odd to call an encyclopaedia article after an adjective. It is as if the article "Intelligence" were renamed "Intelligent". Kanjuzi (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

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. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Catalectic →  – In line with Acatalexis, and while catalectic can be a noun, it is probably more likely to be an adjective, so WP:NOUN applies. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I support it. The move sounds a sensible one to me. Using "Catalectic" makes it simpler to add links from other articles, since the adjectival form of the word is more common, but it is certainly very odd to have an adjective as the title of an article. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 December 2022 

message: The 'Latin' section is stubby and may give the false impression that catalexis is exceptional in Latin poetry. It would be helpful to add references at least to the Latin adaptations of Greek stanzas based on acatalectic/catalectic types of the same verse, e.g. glyconics/pherecrateans in Catullus 34. 128.62.18.67 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin
Category talk:Futures studies

message: I would like to open the discussion by noting that "futurology" has two origins:  the formal academic etymology, and popular culture usage.  With regard to the former, Ossip Flechtheim coined the term in the 1940s (see his essay on the subject, handily available online here: ); members of the emerging academic field discussed adopting the term, but the emergent consensus in the 70s went with "futures studies" instead; the term "futurology" still gets airplay in Europe, although primarily among journalists and people who aren't actually tracking the futures studies literature.  As for the "popular culture" usage, I'm referring to the tendency in colloquial English to "-ologize" anything informally.  So, "thinking about the future" = "futurology."
However, when you look at the subcategories listed on this page, you will see that they are all broadly human activities relating to the future.  So this category is really, "Thinking about the Future".  Or maybe, even more inclusively, just "Future," with a disambiguation link to "Futures."
Other suggestions to fix the "Futurology" inaccuracy?  wendyif 09:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Why is making futurology predictions so important for change?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayadams123 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Futurology:  a re-think of the category structure and taxonomies.

message: No. Don't cite references in a category descripition. Even a lead section doesn't really need them but certainly not a category, which should be a brief description or just a link to the main article. Richard001 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References?
Talk:Clay Constantinou

message: I have found a reference for his year and place of birth under: http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/conrey-coogan.html, where it states the following: "Constantinou, Clay (b. 1951) — of Colts Neck, Monmouth County, N.J. Born in New York City (unknown county), N.Y., 1951. Democrat. Presidential Elector for New Jersey, 1992; U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, 1994-99; delegate to Democratic National Convention from New Jersey, 2004. Still living as of 2004."
I also know that he grew up in Cyprus from the age of 2 after his family moved to the village of Karavas a few miles west of Kyrenia (Girne in Turkish) on the north coast of the island (now in the Turkish-controlled zone). I know him personally from the time he was ambassador to Luxembourg, and have met him a few times since here in Luxembourg.
hillwalker (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added year and place of birth 
Talk:Tony Hawk's American Sk8land

message: Nintendo states the release date as November 15th, not November 14th.  -- Matt 09:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: The GBA version is not, in fact, unrelated.  It was made by the same company, Vicarious Visions.  I went ahead and fixed this little typo.  fruitofwisdom 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GBA Version

message: In the Hollywood level, there is an obvious reference to the movie Napoleon Dynamite, where one of the gaps is called "Vote Pedro".
This is true. --Gaming King 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Napoleon Dynamite

message: Is it true that this game has VOIP (in-game voice chat)?  Drewboy64 08:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WiFi voice chat 

message: Help is needed at the Tony Hawk Games Wiki, which can be found here. It is very lonely. There are only about 3 users on there. If anyone of you join, and have questions, please see this user page. --98.148.171.15 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Hawk Games Wiki
Template talk:Dissociative psychedelics

message: G'day,
I think that ketamine and nitrous oxide should be moved from here to an ANAESTHETICS category.  They are both used clinically in this role and putting them in a recreational category over a therapeutic one seems inappropriate. ben 10:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has been redirected to another template with a significantly expanded scope: it covers not only dissociatives, but also psychedelic drugs and deliriants. Also, both ketamine and nitrous oxide are now listed in Template:General anesthetics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ketamine and nitrous oxide
Talk:Janet Hardy

message: No references suggests not notable?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: If someone wants to undo my revert to the article, feel free to. The stub tag the anon added didn't seem to fit the article description so I reverted. However, it didn't appear to constitute vandalism either so I didn't warn the anon. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Date of birth is needed.--109.252.100.73 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: DOB?
Talk:2005 French riots

message: "Rioting slows down by mid-November, suspected realitation to the 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations in Asia"
Aside from this sentence not having a citation, "realitation" is not a word, so was it supposed to be "retaliation"? But then presumably this was meant to be "reaction" instead, as in it contributed to a global atmosphere of disorder, because the rioters weren't Japanese offended by those previous demonstrations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuhanon (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "realitation" supposed to be "reaction"? 

message: The redirect Civil unrest in France has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Civil unrest in France]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:The Gun Seller

message: this is very POV of course but I would say that the Gun Seller was not just one of the funniest books I have ever read....but also technically one of the best thrillers you could read. (martinb)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.224.151 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the best thrillers you could read 

message: this was an excellent book!!!  a must read for any Hugh Laurie fan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.63.34.15 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A must read for any Hugh Laurie fan 

message: i can't find out if this book is available in portuguese. can someone tell me that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.154.79 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this book is available in Portuguese? 
Talk:The Educated Mind

message: This article doesn't seem to me to reflect Egan's perspective in a neutral manner.  For instance, with regard to the opening section of the article here, I would simply refer to one of Egan's own descriptions of his perspective on historical approaches to learning:
We have tended to view intellectual development in one of two main ways. The traditional way, derived ultimately from Plato, was to see intellectual development as driven by the acquisition of particular forms of knowledge. The mind was viewed largely as an epistemological organ. The more modern way, derived mainly from Rousseau, was to see development following an internal schedule of its own, rather like the body, and knowledge serving as "food" to support or "facilitate" the process. In this scheme, perhaps most associated in this century with the work of Jean Piaget, the mind is viewed largely as a psychological organ. Drawing on two of my own books (Egan, 1997, 2000) I want to approach the problems of literacy acquisition in a different way. I invite you to accept for a while the belief that neither of the older accounts of intellectual development is adequate to account for the process. In their place I want to propose "trying on" a different idea: that our intellectual development is best accounted for by the set of cognitive tools we pick up as we grow into a society.
http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/publications/WPno5/4.htm
It can be seen that the character of Egan's conceptualisation is very distinct to that of this article.  
I would also refer you to http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kegan/Vygotskycogandlit.pdf .  
While neither of these works are the book this article concerns itself with, they do give a clear description, by the author, of the same body of his own work which the book deals with.  The author's overall perspective as given in parallel documents is pertinent to any study, synopsis, precis, description or interpretation of any part of that body of work.  
For these reasons I have marked the article as disputed with regard to having a NPOV (Neutral Point of View).  
My own view is that the article here does a considerable dis-service to Egan who's thinking, it appears to me, resides in an entirely differnt level of integrative complexity to the one-dimensional account given in this article.
LookingGlass 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:LookingGlass objections
Talk:Angels in Islam

message: The recent edits added the "disputed" section again (something I also had in mind before I used the asterix (*)). Aren't Harut and Marut not also disputed, since some exegetes such as Hasan al Basra regarded them as kings instead of angels? Should we add them to "Disputed"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed angels 

message: @Canistia and @Iskandar323
There have been compelling arguements for the image suggested by Iskandar323. Canistia's arguement for reverting Iskandar's suggestion is that the consensus was made on another article. However, I wonder how such a discussion would end up differently here? Can't we just transfer the conclusion from the other article to this one? Why should Canistia's suggestion be preferred on this article? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and, in fact, raising an almost identical discussion to the existing discussion on this talk page would essentially be a WP:FORUMSHOP and a waste of community time. I see that Canistia has raised a point about not using the same image on multiple images, but if that's in a guideline, it's one I'm unfamiliar with, and nothing in my experience suggests it is even remotely the case. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Though incidentally, even based on that newly proferred point, are least two other novel angel imagery candidates were provided in the pre-existing discussion, so that still would not justify reverting to the anatomically bogus image. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I see that in the previous discussion, there is an image of an angel used previously on this article. I wonder why it has been removed. Couldn't we just use the one with the yellow background instead again? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, now that you mention it, I recall the main image being that other picture. It appears a now-blocked editor switched the image here on 5 Feb in an summary-less edit as part of a series of similar problematic edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War over the image 

message: I have a question regarding the list of angels: The list mentions the Cherubim and Seraphim (those around the throne), and the archangels respectively. However, the archangels and the "angels around the throne" are usually considered to be of the same order (muqaribiyun). Would it make sense to move them up the the Archangel-Section above or to give a briad introduction into "God's Near Angels" (which are basically the Islamic coutnerpart of "Archangels") or should we just leave it that way until better sources are available? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Angels
Talk:Trivium

message: Mark Passio talks about the trivium. This meaning should be somehow included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilmanb (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

message: I believe the image in the top right corner of the lead section can be placed somewhere more centered and aesthetically pleasing. The image seems to draw attention away from the article instead of towards. 
GarrettGartholomuleIII (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivium Images/Media 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Trivia (education) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia (education)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Location of Jerusalem Temple

message: What is the purpose of this (stub) article? It can and should -- after some good editing for removal of "fluff" -- be easily merged into the main article at Temple in Jerusalem. IZAK 11:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Temple in Jerusalem has a section on location controversy. As the material in this article was unsourced and speculative, a redirect without merge is OK. JFW | T@lk 13:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: merge to|Temple in Jerusalem
Talk:Tao Nan School

message: More refs for a B Victuallers 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assess

message: Does anyone have a good picture of the school crest? I can't find any good ones online. ryan-d 11:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: School Crest
Talk:United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

message: The heading is now inaccurate. It says that this is the court as of the elevation of Alito to the Supreme Court. Judge Rosenn has since died, and his death has now been reflected in the table. So it's no longer a table of the court as of Alito's elevation but as of Rosenn's death. That should be changed, but I'm not sure exactly what it should say. Should the Alito reference stay in there? I imagine part of the purpose of that was to make it clear that this takes his elevation into account, and maybe there's still reason for mentioning that, but I wouldn't know how to say it to make it accurate about reflecting Judge Rosenn's death. — Parableman (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header for current lineup 

message: Judge Roth will take Senior Status on May 31, 2006.  The info is here: .  Let's remember to update then.--Smashingworth 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Vacancy Coming

message: Please note and contribute to this discussion. Billyboy01 (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table standardization