lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Antipope Anacletus II

message: Legally speaking Anacletus was the canonically elected Pope and Innocent was the anti-Pope.
:So is written in article. The thing was not so simple.--Stebunik (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope or antipope? 

message: The chronology of events in the text is misleading.  Innocent started dealing with the Emperor Lothar on February 18, and wrote to him again on May 11, while he was still in Rome. On March 2, he excommunicated Pope Anacletus.  Innocent was still in Italy on August 12, six months after the Election.  He arrived at Cluny on October 24, 1130.  He held a synod at Clermont on November 18.  This article is seriously flawed and needs work. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Events
Talk:Béla I of Hungary

message: "He also ordered that fairs should only be held on Saturdays, instead of Sundays, in the kingdom", I read somewhere this was an anti-Jewish measure, who could not trade on Saturdays because of religious rules. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Info added based on Berend's work. Thanks. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturday

message: This was added to list of unusual deaths, but then removed as being unsourced for this as an unusual death. Those more familiar with this biog might be interested. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of unusual deaths]] 

message: , I have not found the reference to the above translation in Kosztolnyik's cited world. On the other hand, the translations of both chronicles cited in this article translates his nickname as "Boxer". Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: p. 389 (?), proper text: "Bela is being referred to as Bela Pugil (warrior), Bela the Champion", but Hungarian historiographical works also translate Béla's "nicname" as "Bajnok" or "Bölény". I think we don't need for literal translation in this case, "pugil" also means warrior/champion. Especially, the Boxing had disappeared mostly with fall of the Roman Empire and did not appear again until the Modern Era. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not find the above text. Yes, we do not need a verbatim translation, but the translators of those two chronicles clearly preferred the "Boxing" nickname. Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, you did not use this work in the article: Hungary Under the Early Árpáds, 890s to 1063, Kosztolnyik (2002). p. 389. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It is OK. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champion / Wisent
Talk:Partition coefficient

message: As a non-medicinal chemist who came here to find the difference between logP and logD, I found the first sentence confusing: as written, it sounds as though they are the same thing. This is clarified in the next few sections,  but I think the first sentence needs some editing for clarity. I saw all the aggro on this page so I think maybe it's best if I just highlight this and leave you to it?! 
FlowerFaerie087 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: in this edit.  In the context of the general definition contained in the first sentence, the partition and distribution coefficients are essentially the same thing.  They differ in what exactly is being measured (neutral vs. all species respectively).  Also this distinction is normally made only for liquid/liquid equilibria and the scope of this article is wider than liquid/liquid equilibria.  The difficulty is that the lead needs to be kept dead simple and it is nearly impossible to provide both an easy to understand and complete definition in one sentence.  At the same time, the lead should provide a summary of the entire article.  Instead of trying to define everything at once in the first sentence, I have state what the difference is in the third sentence.  Is this OK? Boghog (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: Per WP:CITEVAR, there was a previously established citation style in this article.  Unless you obtain consensus on this talk page, you should not change it. Also why are removing  from the citation templates? Boghog (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is using  to indicate whether something is WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY a standard use for that field? It is not as  defines its meaning. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation formatting 

message: Does log signify log10 or ln? catslash (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Throughout the article, log is indeed log10. If you believe this needs to be mentioned at its first use, please make that addition. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the swift reply.  A base of 10 did seem most likely, by analogy with pH and most (though not all) logarithmic scales. catslash (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

text: (Done) catslash (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Timber
Talk:Bertha of Holland

message: The text says they had five children (in the Repudiation section), and then says (in Issue) they had three.  It also says (Childlessness) Constance followed Louis, and that (Issue) she was No. 1.  Which is it/are they? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, thank you for noticing that. The version before the expansion listed five children, but none of the sources I encountered mention any children other than Louis, Constance and Henry. The article used to list Constance first for reasons unknown to me. I see that fr.wiki lists her first and her two supposed brothers last, but there do not appear to be any sources there. I'll fix the inconsistencies I forgot about. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Vladimir I the great had a daughter who married Bernard of the nordmark, whose daughter married Dirk III, whose son was Dirk IV, who was the father of Bertha.
I tried to edit the page but you reverted my edits instantly and labelled me as a vandal. Check the pages to verify it. 2A00:23EE:12D8:9082:5402:3B93:6236:ED21 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rurikid descent
Talk:Hurricane Smith

message: My grandfather, Chuck Smith, wrestled under the names Tiger Chuck O'Neil and Hurricane Smith in Sioux Falls in the 30's. He was Lakota, but took the name "Chuck Smith" because being Indian in 1930's was more dangerous than wrestling randos at the county fair. If one of the local farmboys could pin him they'd win $10. If you know anything about him please post. It is hard to track someone named Chuck Smith. 2601:647:CD02:7370:616D:923F:61BA:C6BE (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Smith
Talk:Berthold II, Duke of Carinthia

message: He is Berthold I duke of Carinthia and margrave of Verona, because his son Berthold duke of Swabia is Berthold II duke of Carinthia and margarave of Verna. Please correct the title of this lemma from Berthold II to Berthold I. The beginning of this lemma "Berthold I a member ..." is correct. Aris de Methymna (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Baldwin III, Count of Hainaut

message: Hi, I noticed a date confusion regarding the marriage of Richildis and Thierry d'Avesnes. To my best knowledge, Baldwin and Yolande were married in 1107, so I would say Richildis was most likely born after this date. However, Thierry died in 1106. So how it is possible that they were married?
Or maybe this Richildis is confused with Richildis, daughter of Baldwin II, Count of Hainaut, who was born in 1095 and could be the wife of Thierry.
Regards,
--192.85.50.11 (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong here 

message: Gertrude/Ida of Hainaut, married before 9 August 1138 to Roger of Tosny of Conches and Flamsted.[1]
the Roger of Tosny linked died in 1040, this should be linked to Roger III of Tosny. See FR WP and DE WP, and also FMG (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/HAINAUT.htm#_Toc280375831), Even the sole "published" reference reads thus - Roger III De Toeni, also Styled De Conches, b. abt. 1104, d. aft. 29 sept 1158, Lord of Flamstead, Co. Hertford; m. abt 9 Aug. 1138, Ida of hainaut, dau. of Baldwin III...........  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.39.224 (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  more errors
Talk:Boniface III, Margrave of Tuscany

message: *"He kept his court at Mantua, which he made a city to rival Medici Florence"
...or Las Vegas, Nevada. What does this kind of anachronism evoke? --Wetman 05:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask the historian who used it. It is meant, I suspect, to help one's imagination in picturing a Mantua full of a good deal of ornamentation and artistry: Canossa had the first organ in recorded in Italy (c.975), but the decor of its church was melted down to help pay the pope's mercenaries during the Investiture Controversy. Medici Florence and Bonifacian Mantua could be rivals in terms of the grandeur of their collections of art and artisans. I'm fine with removing the statement, though. Srnec 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Baldwin IV, Count of Hainaut

message: The lineage presented is not complete. I know of one other issue of Baldwin IV de Hainaut and Adelheid de Namur; their son, William (Guillaume) de Hainaut who maried Mahaut de Lalaing. I am adding William. (Cfaustus (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bretislav I

message: These facts appear contradictory without any clarification:
1035 - Bretislaus is friend of the Holy Roman Empire, as he wants to establish his state as subject of the Holy Roman Empire
1040 - Bretislaus is enemy of the Holy Roman Empire, as Henry III (Holy Roman Emperor) invades Bohemia.
1047 - Bretislaus is friend of the Holy Roman Empire,  as Henry III mediates peace treaty between Bohemia and Poland, which the author mentions was beneficial to Bohemia
The author's note on this last event, however, is also contradictory in itself, as the peace treaty cannot be beneficial to Bohemia, as Bohemia was forced to pay tribute to Poland.  Poland would be the beneficiary. 
Al-Hakam70 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed
Talk:Barisone II of Arborea

message: A source of energy that produces heat for living being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destruction lee (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light 

message: A power that helps people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destruction lee (talk • contribs) 20:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regaritionation 

message: A cicken that is a myth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destruction lee (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  regariration
Talk:Byrhtferth

message: Note that the automatic system is annoyed that I'm citing from a major work on Byrhtferth that happened to be published by Edwin Mellen Press. If a well-meaning but overzealous admin or editor removes it because of an alert, kindly restore it as a source of the idea that the subject is sometimes credited with the Menologium:
:.
 — LlywelynII 02:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Hart
Talk:Béla II of Hungary

message: If it would have happened in 1127, Stephen II should have been demand the extradition of Álmos from the emperor, compromise and make peace with the northern and western neighbors (Venice, Bohemia, Austria, Rus) and attack the Byzantine Empire within few months. Furthermore Álmos died in September 1127. I find this rapidity is inconceivable due to the contemporary transport, diplomacy etc. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Álmos' exile
Talk:Yancowinna County

message: The coordinates for Sebastopol given in this article disagree with those in the Sebastopol article linked to. Are they two different towns of the same name? Ordinary Person (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a town elsewhere in the state; This one is a parish (cadastral area) only and really should not have been entered as a red link (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sebastopol
Talk:Béla III of Hungary

message: Did he ever call himself "Belo"? but if the alternate names in his subjects' languages are named, then why not Adalbert, the German form, used by many of his ethnic German subjects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.38.242 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your message. I fixed the problem. Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When did Manuel conquer Bosnia, Dalmatia and Syrmia? The article about Manuel I Komnenos (FA) suggests 1167, but this article (GA) says 1165. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not say that Manuel conquered these provinces in 1165. The article says that Manuel seized the provinces by bringing Béla/Alexios (the ruler of the three provinces) to his court in 1163. Afterwards, Béla's brother, Stephen III made several attempts to reconquer the three provinces. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest of Bosnia, Dalmatia and Syrmia
Talk:Bertha of Sulzbach

message: This is an odd move, who ever calls her Irene of Sulzbach? She is almost universally called "Bertha of Sulzbach", or sometimes "Bertha-Irene", but "Irene of Sulzbach" doesn't really make any sense. Another example of Maria of Antioch, who is occasionally called "Maria-Xena", but never simply "Xena". (Or Agnes of France, who I suppose must have had a baptismal name, but I can't even think of what it was, since she is always called "Agnes".) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maria of Antioch was never Empress Xena, that was her monastic name. Her name was already Byzantine enough so she was Empress Maria. And sources do refer to Bertha as Irene of Sulzbach. Also there is Irene of Hungary, Anna of Hungary, Irene of Montferrat, Irene of Brunswick, Anna of Savoy, --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even then, most of those sources say "Bertha-Irene" or "Bertha (Irene)". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this current article doesn't even give her name Irene any standing at all. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Irene of Sulzbach?
Talk:Bertrade of Montfort

message: Sources must be cited with exact referent.  So I've removed these citations which require readers to skim thousand page works to find one  phrase. Wjhonson (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was a y mistake. No source is not in any way better than some source, unless you have a reason to think any were actually lied about. Any future editor who sees this is warmly welcomed to restore those mistakenly removed sources, although of course exact pages are always preferable. — LlywelynII 03:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources culled

message: There's obviously more in the edition of Orderic provided, which should be used in combination with modern scholarship. There's also more at
* .
 — LlywelynII 03:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future expansion
Talk:Nickel Trophy

message: Can anyone get a reference to where the information came from about who won each year etc.?
Thanks --Ndstate 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats
Talk:Crínán of Dunkeld

message: There seems to be no documentary evidence that Maldred of Carlisle was related to Crinan of Dunkeld and certainly not to his wife, Bethoc. What exists is more of a genealogical legend which has been perpetuated by people who do not want their family tree's to have dead ends.  If anyone has a document that associates Maldred with Crinan, such as witnessing a royal charter, or giving to a Monastery of founding a Priory, let's see it.DocSpenser (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Ancestry of George Washington page lists Crínán as a direct ancestor of the first American President. Does this bear mention here? PurpleChez (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire royal family of Britain is descended from Crínán, ergo anyone descended from Henry I of England is descended from Crínán. Literally millions of Italian and German people are descended from Crínán. And yes, Russians are as well since many of their noble families also had Norman and Plantagenet ancestry. It is never significant when somebody from the Middle Ages is an ancestor of somebody today. Never.   – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this conversation is four years old, but I'd like to add that it would be similar to say X is a descendant of Gengis Khan. Yeah, him and millions of others. It's not fesable to add a section for descandants and add every white guy and his dog. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington 

message: Barrow is incorrect. Maldred was a son of Crinan (aka Karl Hundisson) from his first marriage - ie prior to Bethoc. Freuchie (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family
Talk:Cynan ab Iago

message: See here for a guy with a very effective means of explaining why the lifespans and careers of Iago, Cynan, and Gruffydd don't seem to line up. In brief, he argues that the chronicles' "Gruffydd wyr Iago" and "Gruffydd ap Cynan" were cousins rather than the same person. Also explains the silliness about Gruffydd's "decades in captivity" being fixed by walking out of town: the captivity never existed or was much shorter & was invented by later historians trying to explain the gap between the two men's attempts on the throne.
It doesn't seem badly sourced or WP:FRINGE (inter alia, based on her dad's generation, Gruffydd's mom would've presumably been around her 50s by 1055 unless dad had sired her in his old age just before he died...) but it's certainly not the mainstream history either. Any idea how well-respected the guy is or how many caveats we need to through up around the "Two Gruffydds Theory" subsection?  — LlywelynII 11:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Cynan theory

message: 1014 seems pretty young. (Though see above.) Any legitimate source at all for that date or was it just pulled off someone's genealogy website?  — LlywelynII 11:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: Removed this line
:As his son Gruffudd was supposedly born c. 1055, the date of death "1039" is doubtful (Gruffydd died 1137).
since there was no one arguing anywhere else in the article that 1039 was the deathdate. (Though see above for someone it might apply to.) Any idea where that date originally came from?  — LlywelynII 11:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Death
Talk:Diarmait mac Máel na mBó

message: How do we pronounce the name in English? 86.44.147.142 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation

message: What is the meaning of "Máel na mBó"?  Does this actually translate as "Servant of the Cows"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Name
Talk:Boniface del Vasto

message: Boniface died somewhere between 1125 and 1132. The range is clear when comparing the versions of this article in English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French. Showing death in "c. 1125" and tenure until "1130" at the same time in this article is also inconsistent. The date of death or range of years of his death need to be corrected and clarified.
ICE77 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent date of death
Talk:Rock Springs, Wyoming

message: A few things:
*Removed trivia section, unreferenced, if cites can be found it can be retrieved but the content should be merged with an appropriate section not put into a trivia section.
*Added fact tag to: The site has great historical significance and contains artifacts relating to the Rock Springs Massacre. Is this, by chance, referring to the remains of Camp Point Pilot Butte? Does it even exist anymore?
*Removed sentence in Geography section that looked like POV vandalism/test: There are not many people.
IvoShandor 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few things

message: I removed this from the main page:  The city also has many different radio and TV sources.  The city has public access channels at channel 6, 13 and 60.  Radiowise, there are many radio stations.  There is 90.5, 91.3, 92.1-KFRZ, 95.1-KYCS, 96.5-KQSW, 97.9-KZWB, 99.7-KSIT, 107.3, 107.7, 1360 AM-KRKK, and 1490 KUGR.  I can't find much precident for a list like this elsewhere, and it really doesn't add much
to the encyclopedic tone of the article, since availability of TV and radio in this day and age are assumed. If somebody can figure out a way to do a list and make it fit, please feel free. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio and TV sources
Talk:Edith of Wessex

message: I am no expert at all, so could someone check if the last line is correct? It states that Edith was the only senior member of the Godwine family to survive the Norman Conquest, but didn't her brother Wulfnoth live until 1091? Thanks, 82.16.0.232 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Where did she die, and what was the cause of death? At present the stub gives only the date of death. Norvo (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See my recent edit. Cavila (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place and cause of death 

message: The article states that she "was Queen of England from her marriage to Edward the Confessor in 1045" but also that she "married Edward on 23 January 1043. But ODNB actually says "she was married to Edward (d. 1066) on 23 January 1045". I will amend the article accordingly.Alekksandr (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of marriage

message: Is it really necessary to say that the Vita is 'inevitably biased'? Surely that's a truism? Katiehawks (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! It would be worth noting the nature and ideally an example or instance of bias, but otherwise this feels redundant. (Everything is "biased".) Gabrielbodard (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias
Talk:Cecile of France

message: I'm not sure where her date of birth comes from, but the edit that changed it to 1087 can't be correct - Philip and Bertrade weren't married until 1092 (and Bertrade was famously still married to Fulk of Anjou at the time), so she obviously can't have been born before that. She also had two older brothers, so 1097 seems reasonable. Yeah, that does mean she was married at 9 (and widowed and married again at 15), but that's actually not extremely unusual. She didn't have any children until she was 18, which sounds about right. (If all this had happened when she was 19, 25, and 28, that would actually be stranger.) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate