lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Austrofascism

message: Fascism in Austria  would make a more normal heading. The point of the neologism Austrofascism is to isolate the phenomenon of Austrian fascism to the period 1934 - 1938. --Wetman 07:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism in Austria 

message: As there are reference to Franco, there should also be a reference to Portugal's Salazar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.74.131 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: it looks like a neologism to me. Maybe it could be moved to Fascism in Austria or Dictatorships in Austria. Vertenoir (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no it's the term usually used by historians  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.211.92 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesnt 

message: The phrase "überhitlern" occurs in the article twice, in the Ideology and Ideals section it is translated as "over Hitler" and in the section Criticism of the Term it is translated as "out-Hitler".  I can't say I really know German and I know über probably can have more than one meaning, but in this particular instance I don't think that's the case.  It should probably say "out-Hitler" in both cases.--Loje (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation inconsistency 

message: Is this article about the political system Austrofascism of is it about the political organization of Federal State of Austria?  It's a mess and whoever messed it up should fix it.  Move the name back to Federal State of Austria and keep the Infobox or kill the Infobox but put a section for Federal State of Austria.  If German Wikipedia jumps off a bridge do we have to jump off it too?
--Hutcher (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this?

message: The "Anschluss" wasn't forcible, but done after referendum. Please straighten out the facts --41.151.86.7 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And there were some little areas that were not yet occupied by German Armed Forces. In these areas, I have been told, the referendum quit regularly some 99% against the Anschluss. Call that coincidence who wants to.--93.134.242.251 (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the forcible incorporation 

message: As the article itself notes that the term "Austrofascism" is now deprecated and avoided by historians, this raises the obvious question of why it continues to be used on this site. Since the very term which this article is named after is disputed (and also in light of how much of it is completely unsourced), I propose it be merged into the Federal State of Austria article. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Austrofascism"
Talk:Validity (statistics)

message: This is an artical putatively about validity the statistical concept. Why does the first sentence limit the discussion to the domain of psychology? If there are distinct validity concerns in the realm of psychology, shouldn't that be dealt with in a subsection? The overall article should presumably be as domain independent as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.82.175 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why limited to psychology?

message: Anon 142.103.116.65 left the following note in the article space for Criterion validity, red-linked from this article.  Since the note is more appropriate for a talk page, and that article doesn't exist yet, I'm moving the note here before deleting the article.
:Criterion validity is not the right terminology. It ought to be "criterion related validity" which means the validity is actually of the predictor using the specific criterion. It is safer to term it "predictive validity" of a measure.
End copied text.  SWAdair | Talk  07:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved note re:Criterion validity

message: Why no reference to incremental validity?  And why no page for incremental validity?  Can someone come to the rescue?? --1000Faces (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If provided a citation for the concept, then we could determine whether it belongs here. I don't see "incremental" listed in the AERA, APA, NCME standards, so I assume it's something from the "Statistical conclusion validity" section? The plurality of validity is tiresome, anachronistic, and useless. I say we trim what's here rather than add anything new.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbrowne (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incremental Validity? 

message: There's a little vandalism going on in the first line there...someone who knows what they're doing ought to take care of that...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.120.193 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line vandalism 

message: The lede contains the sentences: 
"The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the truth of inferences made from premises. In logic, and therefore as the term is applied to any epistemological claim, validity refers to the consistency of an argument flowing from the premises to the conclusion; as such, the truth of the claim in logic is not only reliant on validity. Rather, an argumentative claim is true if and only if it is both valid and sound." 
This is more or less completely wrong. I propose to replace them with: 
"The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the relationship between the premises and conclusion of an argument. In logic, validity refers to the property of an argument whereby if the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows by necessity. The conclusion of an argument is true if the argument is sound, which is to say that the argument is valid and its premises are true."Dezaxa (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to logical validity in lede
Talk:Laurence BonJour

message: The text of this article is a pretty much verbatim copy of BonJour's homepage. However, I'm hesitant to flag it as a copyvio, because the text is only a pretty much standard listing and would be difficult to write in an original format.  — JIP | Talk 07:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Template talk:Seminaries and theological colleges in Canada

message: There is a very distinct difference between a theology school and a bible college which may have a degree-granting charter from its provincial government - theology schools have accreditation with the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada and are almost universally accredited by their provincial post-secondary authorities.  Bible colleges do not exist in this domain, nor do they carry the same level of academic rigour.  In theory, some "bible colleges" could become seminaries if they met the criteria and achieved accreditation, but I'm not aware of any, at least among the ones in this template.  
I've removed St. Stephen's University from this template since it is a small former bible college which is now a private university offering primarily undergraduate degrees of a religious nature.  Atlantic Baptist University is a considerably larger institution but has a similar history of development.  Both insitutions would be comparable with Trinity Western University in B.C., or several of the private universities in Alberta and Ontario.  Bethany Bible College in New Brunswick and Maritime Christian College in Prince Edward Island are bible colleges which have now been given degree-granting charters, again primarily at the undergraduate level.  I would argue that they should be placed under the "private university" categories for their respective provincial templates since they are private institutions.  Only publicly funded universities have accreditation with the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission.
As for so-called "bible colleges" - we cannot deny that these institutions exist as universities/colleges/post-secondary institutions, nor that these provinces have given them university degree-granting charters.  The only distinction I would make is that they are not "seminaries".  Perhaps a template can be made for Canadian Post-Secondary Religious Institutions which would encompass all of these, seminaries and private religious-oriented universities & colleges?  Plasma east 07:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to argue this in two places. Go over to Template talk:NB Uni and argue it there. --Spinboy 07:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I know NOTHING about seminaries, but would Regent College qualify as one? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question...
Talk:Isabelle, Countess of Paris

message: Ah, so much not to "recognize" in these "royalist" circles! Major impediments to restoration of monarchy are the royalists.--Wetman 07:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added  four titles I initially found in British Library catalogue (there are more), but Worldcat has a much longer list. PamD 09:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications
Talk:Mazengarb Report

message: I like this article.  It could even be a featured article candidate, with a bit more work.  A forgotten part of NZ history.
Amygdala
:Thanks Wikipedian's - this article was very useful & should be promoted as it is so relevant to discussions in debate about 'youth of today' GrantB 03:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Comptroller of the Household

message: surely this is a typo?
can anyone confirm?
:No it should be spelled this way -- Francs2000 | Talk  21:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo?

message: These two pages discuss the same matter and have the same list.  I believe that the articles should be merged and a redirect placed at the other article. billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Treasurer of the Household]]
Talk:Death Is Certain

message: Has this list been cut and pasted from some internet source? Why is no context included? --Wetman 08:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Oliver Plunkett

message: Mine as well gauge some interest, and some ideas. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: I'm getting confused.  This site says Oliver Plunkett was born on "November 1, 1625", while the other site says he was born on September ll, 1629.  Which birth date is correct? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of birth confusion

message: As far as I know the test act was never introduced to Ireland in 1673. A proclamation was made that year in Ireland banishing catholic bishops and regular clergy and for the closure of catholic religious houses and schools.  Westminster did not legislate for Ireland in this period. Can anyone verify that the test act was extended to Ireland in 1673 from a reliable source? No mention of it on Plunkett's page on the DIB for example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.47.113 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Act in 1673 

message: "The second trial was claimed to be a kangaroo court" - it seems unlikely that this expression was much used in 1681, 89 years before the discovery of Australia. Can we have a source for this assertion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.10.15 (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kangaroo court

message: This article reads as a cross between anti-protestant diatribe and hagiography. The content about the trial needs to be removed from the lead, and the article needs to explain why he was executed from the English perspective. Essentially, his life, works and execution need to evaluated WP:NPOV neutrally. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Protestant sentiment  

message: Can we add to Legacy/Dedications to Oliver Plunkett/Other:
Oliver Plunkett St, Bandon, Co. Cork
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oliver+Plunkett+St,+Cloghmacsimon,+Bandon,+Co.+Cork/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4844f42e4463ef77:0x5bf3d342be5003e1?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzlsTtncTiAhWFTBUIHUzqDEAQ8gEwAHoECAoQAQ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.197.240 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy
Talk:Neosocialism

message: I'd like to propose splitting this article. It is clearly about two separate things - the early-20th century movement in France and the contemporary movement. Roniiustalk to me 03:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a look, the new meaning was added fairly recently in this edit:  .  I'm not sold that this is a concept that stands alone at all - why are "Wake Forest University economist Allin Cottrell and University of Glasgow computer scientist Paul Cockshott" 's book so important to talk about here?  A lot of the "references" are really just "articles Cockshott thinks proves his point" which is not really germane to notability.  I think the new "neosocialism" can just be merged to Towards a New Socialism, and even that article is shaky.  SnowFire (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article?
Talk:Valentia (Roman Britain)

message: I have moved this back from Valentia Province (Roman Empire) because 'Province' is not part of its name and also because there were other Valentias in the Roman Empire and so placing it in Roman Britain is more precise. adamsan  09:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: The map appears to contradict the articles on Flavia Caesariensis and Maxima Caesariensis. It shows Maxima in the North and Flavia in the South. Paul S (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These provinces are highly uncertain. — LlywelynII 08:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: * 
 — LlywelynII 08:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion
Talk:Harcesis

message: I don't know how it was spelled in Egyptian history of mythology, but in the Stargate universe, it is spelled Kheb, so I fixed it! :-D
There is also the entry Harsesis.  216.31.90.253 09:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kheb vs. Qeb
Talk:Wales (disambiguation)

message: The verb "to welsh" is commonly held to be non-PC; should there be some mention of this? Vashti 09:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:Wale (rapper) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Wale}}"
Talk:Open-source record label

message: Got some friends who know some friends, and the short story is we're thinkin about makin us some muzzak. Frankly its totally a hobby kind of thing, not a serious buisiness. I see web sites where you can submit, like, one song and other people can vote on it, but I was thinking more along the lines of releasing an entire album on the Net for free, and then maybe also selling physical copies that cost money. So that if you wanted, you could print out an album cover and burn a CD and print a CD label and stick it on, and I'd like that to be perfectly legal but if you buy it from us it's done for you AND autographed by us if you want. I'd like to make other people selling our exact album for money illegal without permission but allow sampling. So ... that's ALLOW distribution ... ALLOW sampling ... ALLOW certain uses but DISALLOW selling for anyone but the author?
Also ... is sampling or remixing commercial songs legal or illegal? I took a MIDI ringtone of a song, changed the instruments, took out some notes, added some notes, and mixed it together with some video game music. Is that legal? --Nerd42 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do, I'd suggest you follow the lead of Magnatune and lots of other open record labels and use a Creative Commons license (like this one). --h2g2bob 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really ... hmm ...
Talk:Southern Railway (U.S.)

message: "The pioneering South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company... ran the nation's first regularly scheduled steam powered passenger train .. on December 25, 1830. (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad ran regular passenger service earlier that year.)"
So, which was first? The SCC&RR Co or the B&O?70.145.94.239 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably B&O pulled its first passengers with horses? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal contradiction needs cleanup

message: I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: If anyone finds any links of real detailed history, leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. LiveFyre 06:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I'm not sure who was first, but this article is repeated pretty much word for word here. Somebody's copying somebody, and I have a feeling it wasn't the Southern Railway Historical Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.121.65 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy and Paste 

message: SOU logo displayed in article is incorrect. Southern had three trademark logos, the first is a stylized SR in an oval shape with an arrow going through. The second is most similar to one used, though instead of reading "Southern Railway, Serves the South." It should read "The Southern, Serves the South" (There are two variations in the font for this logo, and one used is still incorrect for either). The last, another circular one, reads "Southern Railway, Serves the South", but in all instances should have an additional band at the bottom that reads "Look Ahead, Look South". Please fix this error.
Links to diagrams and renderings of correct logos:
http://southernmodeler.info/Blueprints/SR%20Medallion%201948.pdf
http://southernmodeler.info/MasterGraphics/SR_Monogram_Old_Style.pdf
http://southernmodeler.info/MasterGraphics/SR_Monogram_Early_1940s_Diesel.pdf
http://southernmodeler.info/MasterGraphics/SR_Monogram_New_Style.pdf
http://southernmodeler.info/MasterGraphics/SR_Monogram_Late_1940s_Diesel.pdf
http://southernmodeler.info/MasterGraphics/SR_20_in_Nose_Herald_Late-era.pdf
SR6900 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo error 

message: Pretty bad that this article says nothing about the SR's history as a segregated and discriminatory (separate and unequal) railway. There's plenty of stuff discussing this on the web:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505232.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/installing-an-artifact-in-a-museum-that-hasnt-even-been-built-yet-180947712/?no-ist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.130.117 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregation
Talk:Thai Chinese

message: The current version of this article contains this passage:
:The vast majority of Thai Chinese belong to various southern Chinese dialect groups. Of these, 56 percent are Teochew (also commonly spelled as Teochiu), 18 percent Hakka and 11 percent Hainanese. The Cantonese, Fuzhounese, Henghua and Hokkien each constitute eight percent of the Chinese population and three percent belong to other Chinese dialect groups.
56 + 18 + 11 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 3 = 120%, but how can there be 20% more than all Thai Chinese? -- please fix! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage originally read:Of these, 56% are Teochew, 16% Hakka and 11% Hainanese. The Cantonese and Hokkien constitute 7% of the Chinese population each, and 3% belong to other Chinese dialect groups. Later edits messed up the figures. But I'm more concerned about the source of these numbers. The book source later attached to the statement doesn't actually contain these numbers. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix 

message: What does this article want to talk about? Thai people with some Chinese ancestry Or Thais of Chinese descent or Chinese people in Thailand? Dask0666 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity of information
Talk:Canard

message: The canard surface normally produces positive (upwards) lift which adds to the overall lift, whereas a conventional tailplane normally produces a downforce, partially cancelling the lift from the main wings.
I've moved the text above from the "Advantages" section here just because the signum (or direction) of the lift force depends solely on the profile of the wing and not on its placement. PLZ, point me a credible source, if I'm wrong. Maybe, the talk was on the "momentum", and not "force"??? --jno 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  signum of the lift force 

message: In order to fly straight and level the aircraft must be trimmed nose up, so that the mainplane is at positive incidence.  With a statically stable tail configuration, the trim requires downward tail lift, in opposition to the main wing lift.  If the aircraft were statically unstable, the tail lift would have the same sense as the wing lift, but the aircraft would be a classic 'whiteknuckles special' to fly, without an autopilot.  For a statically stable canard configuration, trim is achieved with the canard lift acting in the same sense as the wing lift. It's true that canards may deflect downwards, when say performing a bunt, but it is reasonable to refer to straight and level as the 'normal' condition for the aircraft. Gordon Vigurs 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  by 'normal' read 'trimmed for level flight'

message: With the addition of "antisemitic canard," I think we swing the proverbial barn door WIDE open by now listing every single combination of noun or adjective with the word "canard."  I don't think this is really what we want to do, is it?  Computing canard, naming canard, etc....if one's going to include one, seems like we would include 'em all.  Maybe it's just me, but I see no special meaning in the juxtaposition of "antisemitic" and "canard."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchandra (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Could Get Awfully Big
Talk:List of Amtrak stations

message: This list is far, far too long. It increased in size from 183 bytes to 412k bytes in this edit by . While it was good to reorganize the table, I think a lot of that information is just not needed in a list article. The routes that serve/previously served the station? Belongs on the station's article. Same with the closed date. Not sure why the station code was taken out of a column and put in parentheses. We should all analyze List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations for a standard, as it's rated as a Featured list. Visual editing will be invaluable when fixing this list. –Daybeers (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Station code should be a separate column. Open/close/rebuild dates (which are far too complicated for a list like this, and would require hundreds of citations) and date of agency closure (utterly unrelated to this topic) should go. (Date of closure might be okay for closed stations, but even that is iffy.) Former services should not be shown, though current services only may be worthwhile keeping. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

text: See previous discussion at Talk:List of Amtrak stations/Archive 1#Page length. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

text: For something of that size, splitting by state would be totally reasonable. ―cobaltcigs 02:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive page length 

message: It's been over 16 years since the Sunset Limited had service suspended on its eastern end - how much longer are we going to continue to pretend that these stations aren't effectively closed? I propose, in part to shorten the length of this article, that we move these to the List of former Amtrak stations. -MJ (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspended stations are effectively former stations 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :List of railway stations in the United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#List of railway stations in the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of railway stations in the United States" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]