lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:American Freedom Coalition

message: Some opponents of the Unification Church try repeatedly to discredit it, by claiming (a) that the church has sinister motives and (b) that it wrongly hides these sinister motives via a cloak of innocuous associations.
These leads to an environment where, no matter what good the church tries to do, people shy away from involvment lest they be tarnished with the same brush.
This puts the church between a rock and a hard place. If it does everything independently, critics accuse it of being stand-offish and uncooperative; but if it tries to cooperate with existing organizations, people protest that "those Moonies" are sticking their noses in.
If the church tries to downplay its connection with an existing or new organization, so that people can do some good without being "outed" as "working with Moonies", someone always manages to discover the connection and accuse the church of "deception".
I guess critics just want us to shut up and go away. Well, too bad, we won't. So there. Nyaah.
: Are you arguing for or against the idea that this is a Unificationist front? (And who are you?) Vicki Rosenzweig
Serious problem: what are "traditional values" and what does "the sanctity of life" mean in this context? Is this code for "anti-abortion"? Does AFC follow the Catholic church's opposition to the death penalty? Are they pacifists? (Any of these positions can be labeled as being in favor of "the sanctity of life".) Vicki Rosenzweig
: Moved from article: ' such as "traditional values, the sanctity of life, and' 
:As noted above, "traditional values" can mean almost anything, and "sanctity of life" could be code for vegetarianism or anti-vivisection, as well as (I'd guess more likely here, but I would be guessing) opposition to abortion or the death penalty. Vicki Rosenzweig 04:07 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
I just did a Yahoo search and the AFC does not seem to exist anymore. The Christianity Today article is a good source, but otherwise it was mostly left-wing blogs warning us about the dangers of the AFC.  I would vote to delete the article, for lack of sources not lack of notability. It had notability, but that was like 20 years ago. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:War of 1812

message: As things as they currently are, I have 3 observations
# Strength of US Allies is only 125 Choctaw. Surely, there must be more numbers for the various tribes?
# The Regency of Algiers has been added in good faith, but I do not think this should remain for much longer.
# Spain is listed. Given the Peninsular War was taking place, it did not have the resources to actively intervene, to launch an offensive, in overseas territories. (Simon Bolivar took advantage of Spain's weakness at this time.) A jittery Governor of Pensacola, Mateo González Manrique had his territory and his neutrality violated by the British officer Edward Nicolls, then Jackson came along and violated the neutrality. When Nicolls left, he took half the Spanish garrison away, which was stranded elsewhere for the remainder of the conflict.
There is no declaration of war on the part of Spain against the US, or vice versa. There was effectively a border dispute with the Battle of Pensacola (1814), but the impotence of the Spanish was not going to see any ongoing conflict on their part. 
I don't see the US Navy listed as pro-Arab forces in the Six Day War, and I don't see the Brazilian armed forces, or the Finns, as combatants in the War in the Pacific from 1942 to 1945.
Spain has been mentioned in passing in the past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_22#Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_20#Infobox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_8#Spain?%60
I think as it currently stands, it is misleading, and implies Spanish forces engaged from 1813 through 1814. I am only aware of the capture of Pensacola on November 7, 1814 as the one time Spanish forces were engaged against the US Army during the War of 1812. I don't think being sandwiched between the fiery and ill-tempered personalities of Jackson and Nicolls was a particularly appealing prospect! Keith H99 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Patriot War, which took place at the same time as the War of 1812, appears to be so insignificant that it does not have a corresponding article in the Spanish language!!!  Keith H99 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I read years ago a French ship was involved in one combat... Anyone know of that?Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox and belligerents, with Spain on the list 

message: in several parts of the artical, it says that indians are fighting in the war, and i think that if it is indeed people from india who are fighting, then add india to the list of nations in the war, but if that is not true then update it to "indigenous", "native americans", or something like that to reduce misconceptions (perhaps instead just specify where they were from?)  - some bored kid at school (tell me about stuff here) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been discussed, many many times before. Have a read of this discussion for a bit of background. This is just ONE of many discussions - for more do a search through the archives. 
Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  replace "indian" with "indigenous"
Talk:Mumbai

message: 103.220.80.14 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023 

message: i need to put the new updates in the mumbai article page about the tourism category Anushree5129 (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023 

message: For some reason this article lists NYC as a sister city of mumbai. It cites a leading Indian news paper article which indeed reports the same. But I think the source is incorrect. 
For some reason only Indian sources report NYC as a sister city of Mumbai. I went to the wiki page for NY Sister Cities and failed to find Mumbai or Bombay there. I double checked that pages citation:
https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/875-22/mayor-adams-signs-sister-city-agreement-between-new-york-city-athens-greece
It does not list Mumbai either. I think the original Indian news paper made a mistake, and everyone just sourced that. Since page is semi protected I'm hoping someone can make this edit, and confirm my process of checking this. 24.5.185.64 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities Incorrect 

message: can someone please fix the megacity population data it's given as IN-MH478,447 which doesn't make sense but the right figure is 12,478,447 the sources in the introduction and in the text box can verify that. 2409:40E0:1024:D901:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix city population in text box
Talk:Money laundering

message: This article is missing things, it used to explain "smurf" "spin-dry" etc.
I'm not saying you need to include every countries variant slang, but, it used to be super relevant to the USA.
It is kind of disappointing when an article gets to improved, but loses some of the readability.
It's a great article, but, I think that there were a few overzealous removals when editing.
Signed - Grumpy 49.184.195.195 (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much has been overhauled from last year 

message: Please add some more info on newer technologies, such as AI ones, possibly in a new separate subsection. Recently featured this in 2022 in science:
News outlets report about the first fully self-supervised anti-money laundering AI software using contemporary suboptimal datasets, LaundroGraph (24 Nov/26 Oct).
Also see the recently added section Applications of artificial intelligence#Anti-money laundering.
 Prototyperspective (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info on newer techniques for anti-money laundering 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kennethlamkl4997 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
Talk:Game show

message: This article seems to concentrate almost entirely on quiz/trivia shows when there is a whole galaxy of game show formats that have exploded in popularity in recent years. Cooking competition shows such as Chopped (TV series) or Cutthroat Kitchen  are clearly game shows, as are shows like The Voice (franchise) and American Idol. Contestants compete with one another to win a prize on all of these shows, and that's what a game show is, so it seems odd that all this is just basically ignored. I thought I'd ask here if there was some reason the article scope is seemingly restricted in this manner before actually doing anything. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  entire categories of popular formats seem to be missing
Talk:Semitism

message: I suggest a Wikipedia page be created defining the word Semitism.
Merriam-Webster definition of Semitism vs International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance non-definition (Newspeak)
Is Semitism a word, and is it racist to use this word?
"IHRA’s concern is that the hyphenated spelling allows for the possibility of something called ‘Semitism’, which not only legitimizes a form of pseudo-scientific racial classification that was thoroughly discredited by association with Nazi ideology, but also divides the term, stripping it from its meaning of opposition and hatred toward Jews"...https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/antisemitism/spelling-antisemitism
Or is Semitism Racism, or Jewish Supremacy?
"policy or predisposition favorable to Jews"...https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitism 
Also see ... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism#Jewish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
We have a situation here where the word Semitism and Antisemitism have been twisted beyond recognition, and have opposing meanings. If Semitism is Racism or Jewish Supremacy, then Anti-Semtism would mean Anti-Racism or Anti-Jewish-Supremacy. ... SteveBenassi (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merriam-Webster definition of Semitism vs International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance non-definition (Newspeak)
Talk:Function word

message: ..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:800F:4CAB:7E04:5D42:E5BB:FDC8 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

message: Why does Content word redirect here, Particularly considering the first paragraph, stating content word and function word to be opposites?  Surely there is more to the definition of content words than simply "not a function word" PRB 11:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bit more detail; there's not much more to say.  A separate "content word" page would be little more than a dictionary definition.  Maybe the page should be renamed "function word and content word" Joestynes 03:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Title suitability) 

message: Changed "Conjunction - uninflected" to "Conjunction - uninflected in English", as conjunctions are inflected in Classical Arabic.88.212.123.106 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Conjuctions & inflection) 

message: "Each function word ... may indicate the speaker's mental model as to what is being said." Gobbledygook to me, I'm afraid; could someone who understands the point please reword that sentence? The article's lack of adequate references is both chronic and concerning. Nothing gives ammunition to Wikipedia's critics as much as a dearth of verifiable sources, especially regarding academic material. The style is below par in parts, but rash overhauling of most or all of an article will lead to a spate of reverting by previous editors with a proprietorial bent unless the Talk discussion has adequately paved the way. Nevertheless, an authentic 'encyclopaedic style' imposed by a suitably competent editor, with quoted sources, will be necessary sooner or later if the cautionary flags at the top of the article are finally to go. Humboles (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to overhaul the whole article? 

message: Lexical words are the words that possess semantic meaning of the sentence in which they occur.
Ex: mouse,  traffic light,etc. 49.244.197.70 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexical words
Talk:Ford Model T

message: Is there a reason why the yearly chart for this section has several years out of sequence? Just one example, 1915 comes after 1917. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sorted correctly for me. If you look at the top of each column there is a set of up/down arrows to sort that column into ascending/descending order. I think you clicked on 'Current equivalent Cost' without realising it.  Stepho  talk  10:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price and production 

message: Between the sections about the wheels and axle and the transmission, one section states that there are no brakes in the wheels and the other states that there are parking brakes integrated into the wheel hubs. I'm confused. --TheStudent646 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worded badly but it is trying to say that there is a service brake (used during normal driving) on the back of the transmission and a much weaker parking brake (used only to stop the parked car rolling away) on the rear wheel hubs.  Stepho  talk  21:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction regarding brakes? 

message: I know this was a nick-name for this car, but it's not supported by either of two citations here --
The Ford Model T (colloquially known as the "tin Lizzie," "leaping Lena," "jitney" or "flivver") is an automobile that was produced by Ford Motor Company from October 1, 1908, to May 26, 1927.[10][11] 
::I added two refs. for these.  I don't think they're particularly high quality but they're better than what was there previously (nothing).  I couldn't source any reference to the Model T being called a "jitney" - where I am from jitney is synonymous with an illegal taxi. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tin Lizzy 

message: https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2018/12/13/the-houses-that-t-built-and-that-built-the-t-tracking-down-the-assembly-plants-of-fords-first-distributed-production-effort
I can add this, but should this section be alphabetized? Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this covered by List of Ford factories? Might be good as a reference there.  Stepho  talk  09:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a problem understanding your question. This link mentions four or five early remote assembly buildings, the one in Portland still stands.Fotoguzzi (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that your reference is more to do with Ford factories rather than the Model T. So it might be better to use it at List of Ford factories, which also includes defunct factories.  Stepho  talk  21:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portland Oregon assembly plant
Talk:Science fiction film

message: Some parts of the current article may be merged/synchronised with Science fiction on television. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science fiction on television 

message: :Early films often used alien life forms as a threat or peril to the human race, where the invaders were frequently fictional representations of actual military or political threats on Earth as observed in films such as Mars Attacks!, Starship Troopers, the Alien series, the Predator series, and The Chronicles of Riddick series.
The oldest of those movies is 1979; the latest is a franchise that started in 2000. Those hardly count as early films about alien invaders. This is followed by a list of "early films" where aliens are benign or beneficial, which range from 1975 to 2009.
I think there might be something relevant to be said about the history of depictions of alien life in SF film, but as written, the article doesn't even come close. 
Also, as with the previous section, this entire section appears to be uncited original research, and largely incorrect. (For example, Avatar isn't about benign aliens any more than Starship Troopers is.) --157.131.170.189 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early films" are often not very early
Talk:Independent Television Authority

message: Channel 4 wasn't a guise for ITV2. It was, rather, the Annan report's open broadcasting authority, not connected with ITV but state-owned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.103.159 (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "ITV2", the second commercial channel, did not begin until 1982, under the guise of Channel 4
Talk:Kangaroo Jack

message: I revised the synopsis a bit because it contained spelling errors, needless comments (such as adding that Charlie "sexually harassed" Jesse, sure he did but he didn't know, and must we really be THAT pc by putting that on the plot description?) and was vandalized. I had already corrected the spelling errors before, but some goof put them all back to their incorrect form. I have an automatic spell checker on my browser, so yes I'm sure the old was incorrect and mine were correct. Just wanted to let the editor and anyone else know what was up with the big change.-- PokeFan2006
: I've removed it.  It's quite difficult to follow and doesn't really add anything.  The existing "Plot" section describes the plot adequately. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed Synopsis 

message: Just watched the film,it was $50,000 not $500,000,so I corrected the article.94.196.50.21 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction. 

message: Magolor is found to find a kangaroo gangster known as “Jack” in a kangaroo exhibit in the Lake Superior Zoo. Jack tries to shoot the other kangaroos, but fails.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.72.49 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magolor and Friends
Talk:101 Dalmatians (1996 film)

message: Between this article and the article about the animated movie, which is the best difference??
*The animated movie article gets titled 101 Dalmatians (animated film); this article gets titled 101 Dalmatians (live-action film)
*The animated movie article gets titled 101 Dalmatians (1961 film); this article gets titled 101 Dalmatians (1996 film)
*Neither A nor B
Georgia guy 01:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither A nor B, since there is no animated movie titled 101 Dalmatians, and thus no need for such disambiguation. The movie you are probably thinking of is titled One Hundred and One Dalmatians, just like it says in the article and further down this talk page. --Paul A 02:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title clarification 

message: The article has been moved to 101 Dalmatians (1996 film) and 101 Dalmatians changed to a disambig page. While the 1961 movie may have been released to theaters as One Hundred and One Dalmatians, it is also well known as 101 Dalmatians, which is the title shown on the VHS and DVD releases from Disney. Some editions of the novel also have the title as The 101 Dalmations instead of spelled out. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: For years, IP users claim that at the end of the film, Anita was pregnant again, but all Anita said was "Roger, darling, I have the most wonderful news." We never did hear of this "wonderful news", and it was never revealed in 102 Dalmatians, either. This has to stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative edits... 

message: Template:Infobox film warns not the cherry pick budget figures but instead of including both figures the budget was change from one figure to another without any explanation. Can anyone explain this? -- 109.78.202.99 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: Disney going to Release a 101 Dalmatains (1996) and 102 Dalmatains on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray+Blu-ray Ultimate Collector's Edition in 2024, after Abyss (1989) release. 46.191.232.245 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Release
Talk:Natalie Portman

message: Natalie Portman and Benjamin Millepied are divorced. They separated in 2023 and finalized their divorce in 2024. Iwinmatthew (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2024
Talk:Timeline of aviation history

message: Well, the question is - is there non-western points in aviation history?
Another (local) view might be found at http://www.aviation.ru/calendar/
-jno
A good question, jno, but it seems that most, perhaps all, of the major milestones were Western achievements. I've looked over link you gave, but couldn't find anything that obviously seemed to merit inclusion. 
When we come to spaceflight, of course, it is a very different story. In fact, that leads me to wonder if this list of aviation firsts couldn't more usefully be a list of Milestones in aerospace, and include the current material, plus Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin's first orbit, the moon landing, and so on. As the list stands, it's not going to get much longer (unless we start including all sorts of trivial things - which would be a bad idea), so adding space firsts as well would be an all-round good idea. What do people think? Tannin 12:00 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm. "Aviation" is a more familiar term to most people, I think. On the other hand, a more inclusive list is probably in order since this one can't expand much further. Anyway, if you decide to keep it under aviation, it should probably be moved to Milestones in aviation. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:00 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
This page needs merged into List of years in aviation as its duplicating info. Greyengine5 23:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Hyundai Motor Company

message: I thought it reasonable to remove all three existing pics from this article when I loaded in my fresh five because:
- none of the three have any copyright information whatever,
- the uploader can't be contacted because he/she (called Brothering) has no talk page,
- two of the three pics are very small even when clicked on.
For all these reasons, a fresh start seemed OK. - Adrian Pingstone 21:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic removal

message: In 2004, Hyundai tied with Honda for initial brand quality in a survey/study from J.D. Power and Associates, for having 102 problems per 100 vehicles.
102 problems for 100 vehicles doesn't sound very good at all.  Is this accurate? siafu 16:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: J.D. Power and Associates

message: Please could we add :Category:Companies in the S&P Asia 50 ? 92.71.60.62 (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cat 

message: Hi. Have acquired a Hyundai Elantra saloon car from the government of Kenya which requires some spare parts for it to be functional. These spare parts are internal fixtures which have tried to contact the Nairobi agent but in vain. Have sent the list to them but no response at all. This my first vehicle to own but the agents here are not responsive to our request. What should I do?
William
0725635579
wilyeeithy@gmail.
me 197.179.86.148 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyundai vehicle Kenyan agent