lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Araunah

message: If Araunah is linked to the Temple, and its (Aaronid) priesthood, could there be a link between "Araunah" & "Aaron" ?66.235.26.150 (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Araunah and Aharon 

message: Curious section but it is erroneous in stating that the Book of Chronicles claims Araunah's threshing floor was on a hillside - both 1 Chronicles 22 and 2 Chronicles 3 (as well as 2 Samuel 24-25) express the fact that this was the site of the Temple of Solomon. 108.217.108.193 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Threshing Floor 

message: >> In the Hittite language araunah means the lord, and is not a personal name but a title.[4] << Where Gary A. Rendsburg writes that it is Hittite? --134.3.8.32 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of Araunah
Talk:Titania (ballet)

message: The correct title of this ballet is Titania and not Tatiana ! Huster on French wiki 62.205.113.50 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tatiana and Titania are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT names.  Whoever has confused the two needs to do some serious research.  Tatiana is a feminisation of Tatian, and neither name has anything to do with Titania.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.61.201 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Titania'', not ''Tatiana''
Talk:Basemath

message: With this biblical character there is the problem that she is called with different names in two chapters (28 and 36). Firstly she is called Mahalath and then Basemath. So, we have two articles for the same person.
The problem is bigger because in chapter 26 there is another Esau's wife called Basemath, that then, in chapter 36 is called Adah. So, we have two articles for Mahalath-Basemath, but we have no article for Basemath-Adah. I think that the article Basemath should be for Basemath-Adah because we have another for Mahalath-Basemath. --Jordi G (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles for the same person
Talk:Benaiah

message: I don't think the explanatory note connecting the name to Ben is appropriate. The article cited does not say that this is the meaning of the word, but that's the implication in putting it in the lead. Getting the meaning "Son of Yahweh" is original synthesis. User:A Georgian obviously disagrees with me. Perhaps we need help from WP:ORN or WP:3O. StAnselm (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of the name
Talk:Mahlon and Chilion

message: Is Obed continuing the line of Mahlon or Elimelech  - he is 'handed over' to Naomi? 81.96.105.12 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   inheritance 

message: As discussed on Talk:Book of Ruth, the commonly-accepted standard for rendering Biblical names into English is the eighteenth-century punctuation and spelling edit of the King James Bible.  We should depart from this only for a specific valid reason... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Chilion vs. Kilion

message: The article states, without providing any sources, that Boaz was head of the Sanhedrin. Since there are no contemporary sources to Boaz' life, it should be clarified what tradition it is that assigns him that role.Nikolaj1905 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "sanhedrin" is completely anachronistic.  There are traditions of the Great Assembly and the transmission of the Oral Torah, but I doubt that Boaz is mentioned in them... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanhedrin?
Talk:Doeg the Edomite

message: You can hardly call Doeg a mass murderer. He didn't kill Abimelech and his family. He is responsible for Saul killing them, but he cannot be considered a mass murderer. He should be taken off the Mass Murderer category. Azn Clayjar (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His betrayal and deceit was the cause, and he carried out the sentence, personally slaying 85 priests. I wouldn't argue against the category. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mass Murderer? 

message: In 2008, Mr. Azn Clayjar wrote that he did not believe Doeg, the Edomite was responsible for the massacre of Ahimalech and the 85 priests of Nobeh. In the book of Samuel it is recorded that Saul ordered his guards to kill "the priests of of the LORD to death, because their hand also is with David and because they knew that he was fleeing and did not reveal it to me. But the servants of the king were not willing to put forth their hands to attack the the priests of the LORD."  Saul then turned to Doeg the Edomite and ordered him to kill priests.  It is recorded that "he killed that day eighty five men who wore the linen ephod."  He also "struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both men and women,children and infants; also oxen, donkeys, and sheep with the edge of the sword."
Why would this son of Esau not be responsible in the eyes of the LORD?Madkanouse (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doeg was clearly an informant and an executioner. The point of the discussion above is whether it was appropriate to place this article in :Category:Mass murderers, which is more debatable. However, two of us seem to find the category appropriate and only one objected, so I will reinstate it. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doeg the Edomite - Responsible for the death of Ahimalech? 

message: There are two issues with this sentence:
"Doeg is an instance of the evil consequences of calumny, because by calumniating the priests of Nob he lost his own life, and caused the death of Saul, Abimelech, and Abner."
1. The information Doeg provided Saul concerned only Ahimelech, not the priests of Nob.
2. What Doeg said about Ahimelech was factually correct, and thus not calumny.
Anyone care to comment/clarify? --96.56.9.210 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calumny?
Talk:Ebed-Melech

message: * Adamo, David T. “Ebed-Melech’s Protest to King Zedekiah as a Model of Modern Protest Movement (Jr 38:1–17).” In Die Skriflig; Potchefstroom 53, no. 1 (2019). doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.pacificu.edu:2048/10.4102/ids.v53i1.2450.
* Everhart, Janet S. “The Hidden Eunuchs of the Hebrew Bible: Uncovering an Alternate Gender.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The Iliff School of Theology and University of Denver, 2003.
Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Sources for expansion
Talk:Eliakim, son of Hilkiah

message: The article presents the passage of Luke 3:30 as if it were one of the occurrences of Eliakim, son of Hilkiah in the Bible. Actually, I see no reason to think that the Eliakim, son of Melea and grandson of Menan of Luke 3:30 and the Eliakim, son of Hilkiah of the Hebrew Bible are the same person, nor do I know of any reliable source that makes that identification. Should we remove it, then? I will wait for any response.--Potatín5 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke 3:30, not the right Eliakim
Talk:Ethan (biblical figure)

message: Why "Hebrew Bible"? Bible = "two books."
You would not write "Bhuddist Bible" for, say, the Tripitaka, would you? Leegee23 (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, etymologically Bible = "books", not "two books".  It comes from the Greek "byblos", meaning papyrus (i.e. "bi-" is not the prefix meaning two as in "bicycle").  Source:    Crust (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Two books
Talk:Gedaliah

message: Why does the link to Shaphan point to Hyrax?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.67.70 (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. --PloniAlmoni (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is now Gedaliah with a spelling difference from Fast of Gedalia. The two article should spell the name the same. But the two articles have so much overlap that I suggest that they should be merged. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name and merge
Talk:I Go to Extremes

message: This article was included on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs, for what it's worth. And apparently it was a Top Ten pop hit for a notable performer. InnocuousPseudonym 07:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree. The song is notable. - Holiday56 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the notability tag. Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Songs is in flux right now, but virtually every proposed version of the guidelines makes allowance for high-charting songs. The tag was put in place before the infobox with chart information had been added; now that it's there the issue should be settled. InnocuousPseudonym 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Notability

message: The article states:
:In live concerts, Joel would often jokingly create new lyrics for the chorus, such as "I go for ice cream", and "I got a new wife on the cover of Life."
It has two sources that I can't appear to load properly, which might be why the verification failed. However, there are recordings of Joel changing the lyrics to these phrases:
* "I don't know why I go for ice cream": Version of "I Go to Extremes" recorded at LA Memorial Sports Arena, April 1990, released on My Lives (2005), disc 3, track 2, 3:01-3:06 and 3:30-3:35
* "I got a new wife on the cover of Life": Version of "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant" recorded in either Moscow or Leningrad, July or August 1987, released on A Matter of Trust: The Bridge to Russia (2014), track 6, 1:51-1:53
I would love to cite these versions of the songs in the article, as opposed to the sources used currently. How do I go about doing that? PDXPhotoGuy84 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Failed Verification of Joel's changed lyrics
Talk:Jabesh

message: we should separate the person from the place; whatever pertains to the place should be transferred to Jabesh-Gilead. Shilonite 06:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . The relevant content had been added here by Billalex11. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: transfer Jabesh to Gilead
Talk:Jehonadab

message: "Witnesses believe that exactly 144,000 men and women will reign with Jesus Christ in heaven, out of all Christians who have died since Jesus' resurrection. They refer to these as the anointed or spiritual Israel, and those still living are referred to as the remnant."
Should this read "Witnesses believe that exactly 144,000 men and women will reign with Jesus Christ in heaven, out of all Christians who have lived since Jesus' resurrection. They refer to these as the anointed or spiritual Israel; those still living are referred to as the remnant"?  The way it stands now, it sounds like the "remnant" are in addition to the 144,000. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah's Witnesses
Talk:Grazia

message: Currently, the lead states 218,000 Italian copies and 170,000 copies in the UK, whereas the section below states 210,000 copies, probably in the UK. First, the two seem contradictory; second, both statements are unsourced; third, it should be clarified which edition (or both, if so) the latter figure refers to. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 07:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales figures
Talk:David's Mighty Warriors

message: I've added  to the JE cites.  Which article is it in the JE that deals with this topic (specifically, the text criticism aspects)?  I wasn't able to find it.  Jheald (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Page needed" tags (JE cites) 

message: Is there a reason why the word "appendix" is italicised in the lede? Iapetus (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Appendix''
Talk:Mahalath

message: With this biblical character there is the problem that she is called with different names in two chapters (28 and 36). Firstly she is called Mahalath and then Basemath. So, we have two articles for the same person.
The problem is bigger because in chapter 26 there is another Esau's wife called Basemath, that then, in chapter 36 is called Adah. So, we have two articles for Mahalath-Basemath, but we have no article for Basemath-Adah. I think that the article Basemath should be for Basemath-Adah because we have another for Mahalath-Basemath. --Jordi G (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles for the same person
Talk:Nabal

message: A recent edit gives the meaning of Nabal's name as "revulsion". The usual scholarly meaning is "fool" or "foolish", or some variant of "person whose behavior is awful" as can be seen in the following examples: , , , , , . I'm not seeing any examples of "revulsion" outside of the current source cited, which is an Artscroll commentary. For anyone who might be unfamiliar, ArtScroll is not a mainstream academic outlet, but an outlet with a specifically Orthodox Jewish outlook, which has a very different scholarly philosophy than mainstream biblical scholars. 
For this reason, in light of the WP:RS policy, most certainly the first sentence of the article, if it addresses the etymology of the name at all, should do so from the mainstream scholarly perspective. Alephb (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Revulsion"
Talk:2007 AIBA World Boxing Championships

message: Bit of an unusual one. As this was an Olympic qualifier fighters from Great Britain are fighting to represent the Great Britain and Northern Ireland team. However, they were consistantly shown as "English" with an English flag beside their names. Can someone please clarify who they were representing this week.--Vintagekits 13:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABA says England.--Vintagekits 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British boxers
Talk:The One Where Ross and Rachel Take a Break

message: Any objections? It's a two-parter and the A-stories are the most important part of the plots so they may as well be merged into "The One Where Ross and Rachel Take a Break / The One the Morning After". Brad 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose this suggestion for the simple reason that they are two separate and unique episodes - they first aired separately a week apart and within the standard timeslot for the show. If they had aired and been listed by good sources as a specific double episode then there is an arguement for a merger, but they are clearly defined through credits, airdates, etc. as being individual and separate episodes which are simply part of a larger story arc - two parter or no, the distinction should be clear. A two part episode and a double-length single episode are not the same thing. Tx17777 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose. The two episodes are billed separately. They are not one of the Ones with Two Parts. Quite a number of Friends episodes continue the story directly. Timrollpickering 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Nisroch

message: Is it pronounced with a "k" sound or an English "ch" at the end? OneGyT/T|C 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Is there any sources that link the apkallu to Nisroch? The image is of an Apkallu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdishtar (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image is not of Nisroch 

message: Recently, The Onion did a story which referred to the god Nisroch. I don't think that's sufficiently noteworthy to list here (the Onion refers to lots of things, I think it'd be madness to have every article list all the times the Onion refers to the subject matter). So I'm removing the following from Nisroch:
On February 13, 2010, spoof news website The Onion published a satirical article titled "Forgotten Assyrian God Revived To Name Sports Drink." The article stated that:
:"Representatives from the sports drink manufacturer Powerade announced Wednesday that Nisroch, the ancient Assyrian god of agriculture, has been resurrected from the depths of Assyro-Babylonian mythology to serve as the key marketing figure for their newest product, Nisroch: Eagle Heart X-TREME WHIRLWIND!" 
The report was a parody (i.e., it was not true). A number of bloggers missed the satire, however, and reported on the story as actual news.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise, though. Thoughts? -- Narsil (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onion parody--not noteworthy, IMO 

message: The image shown of the winged, eagle-headed man is not one of the Assyrian great gods, but a lesser daimon. The Bible refers to the Assyrian king's "god Great Eagle", which could well have been what the contemporary Israelites would have called the Assyrian supreme deity Ashur. The symbol of Ashur the god is "a feather robed archer" in a winged sun disk and would have been on display with the Assyrian army and seen by conquered peoples. The entry "Nisroch" should show the same image as the entry "Ashur (god)".
64.90.143.2 (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Image is not Nisroch 

message: Whoever wrote this "in revenge for the destruction of Babylon" should cite some evidence.  He was probably murdered because he promised he would return with booty and spoil but instead returned ashamed and empty handed and his army destroyed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SedesGobhani (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported Assertion 

message: I removed the brackets from "Adrammelech" in the first paragraph because they linked to a different Adrammelech.  I don't think either one is important enough for a disambiguation page.  And anyway, I don't feel confident of my ability to figure out how to make one.  Also, his brother Sharezer links to a page which merely redirects to a paragraph in their father's page.  If I knew how, I would change that to link directly (eliminate the middleman). 伟思礼 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect reference removed
Talk:Peninnah

message: this is original research.  The reference simply gives the name, then the Hebrew, then the English word "coral". It would be fine to say "her name means coral" according to the source, but speculation is not sourced. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:4831:3A33:8593:B902 (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "her name may derive"
Talk:Sanballat the Horonite

message: About mid article is the statement "Nehemiah was equal to the emergency and attended strictly to his work." What does this mean? "Equal" doesn't seem to make sense here. Is this a typo of some sort? Or maybe a confusion of words from a non-native-English speaker? — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Equal to the Emergency?
Talk:Shealtiel

message: How can we resolve these issues and make the needed improvements?: 
* In the Book of Haggai, Shealtiel is the father of Zerubbabel. 
* In the Gospel of Matthew, Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel. 
This confusion is:
* Preventing the Template:Infobox_officeholder from entering the Shealtiel page
* Preventing Shealtiel from entering List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel
* Preventing this footer from certain pages: 
Twillisjr (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Article Issues
Talk:Leeds Thomas Danby

message: I have added a link to the new Leeds City College page which will replace the former three colleges on the 1st April 2009. BNC85 (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Leeds City College

message: So far as I know this was the name it was known for most of its existence.  Why is this not the page name? Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the page was moved when the college was renamed, to its then current name as is generally done. Then the college was merged into LCC and ceased to exist. I doubt that anyone would oppose a move back, as I imagine "Thomas Danby College" is going to be the name by which most people will remember it! PamD (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Danby College 
Talk:Shiphrah and Puah

message: I propose to merge Puah into Shiphrah.  Much of the Puah article is repeated in the Shiphrah article.  Furthermore one is almost never discussed without the other.  They should be treated like other Wikipedia articles on biblical pairs such as Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, or Sodom and Gomorrah.   --GHcool (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly agree. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Sounds right. Title "Shiphrah and Puah"? The second Puah is at List of minor Old Testament figures, L–Z, though details differ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

text: There's some humor in this story (genocide aside), I think. When they tell Pharaoh " 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.'", it seems implied that his response was something like "Oh, ok", rather than "Liars. Off with their heads." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Shiphrah and Puah" would be the title I had in mind.  --GHcool (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Ya'rub

message: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Enough lies, please! This "article" has nothing, but nothing, to do with Judaism.
J.D.
:Hmmm, I and I would tend to agree that Yarob'am, The King of Israel requires an article of its own! I will split the two unless there is some reasonable argument not to do so--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia, stop the fraud!!! 

message: "some Arabs"? Really? Like who?...
I have deleted an irrelevant and poorly sourced information. I would like to inform that in the talk page of this article so if anyone has any problem with my edit first you need to response here. Also I will be heavily editing this article in the few next days because there are some errors and some things that need to be added. SharabSalam (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated information and poorly sourced
Talk:Christopher Wise

message: A few editors, including myself, have made edits to this article to bring it more in line with an encyclopedia article instead of a CV.  Another editor has reverted all of those edits with no explanation.   Can you please explain why you reverted several editors' edits?  Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of works by an academic or an author is perfectly standard material for a Wikipedia article, not something that only appears in a CV. After all it's precisely the works that make such a person notable. I've made a start of looking for sources and there are loads of reviews available for Wise's works, demonstrating clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a CV