lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Psychoanalytic feminism

message: This article starts well with an impartial and mostly representative description of psychoanalytic feminism, but quickly deteriorates into descriptions of how feminists, gay people and transgendered people are psychologically damaged, citing some highly dubious and unrepresentative articles including some that take issue with the substance of the theories not by addressing the theories themselves, but by questioning the psychological well-being of their advocates. If I had the relevant literature handy, I'd dig into this article immediately, but at the moment it should be considered highly suspect and unrepresentative. User:Tecoates 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the 'criticism' as it concerned Feminist and women's studies in general and was not specific to Psychoanalytic feminism. S Sepp 10:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly tendentious and aggressively anti-feminist description
Talk:Cultural feminism

message: This article contains information about cultural feminism, yet does not present any counterpoints against this theory.User:Matt620 21:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, however it would certainly be excellent to add some support and criticism to the article, if someone has something in mind.  NickelShoe (Talk) 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No counterpoint 

message: There are too many misandristic statements that either aren't cited or aren't in a format appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "Men suck." instead of "Jane Doe, a cultural feminist, says that men suck.http://www.somewebsite.com/") 
women's differences are not only unique, but superior.
women are kinder and gentler than men
the "woman's way" is the better way
women’s capacity for openness to emotional experience
women’s lower levels of aggressive behaviour and greater capacity for creating peaceful coexistence
Women are inherently more kind and gentle.
if women ruled the world there would be fewer wars and it would be a more just place.
Females value ideas such as interdependence, cooperation, relationships, community, sharing, joy, trust and peace.
If these glaring issues aren't corrected, a proposal for deletion or merge with misandry might be appropriate. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too much POV and OR
Talk:Jasmund National Park

message: I think there is a small mistake about the hights of the cliffs. 161 m above sea level it is the hight of the Piekberg not of the cliffs, where the Königsstuhl (Rügen) is the highest. The highest cliffs of the Baltic Sea coastline are on the Møns Klint  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.194.97 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small mistake 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:2019 -_Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_03.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 2, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-09-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Feminist existentialism

message: I'm removing the NPOV tag because...well because there's barely anything on the page at all, and nothing at all that seems POV.Vesperal 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am having serious problems with this article. Of all its sources, the only one which connects the two topics of feminism and existentialism is  and it clearly rejects the connection in its abstract. I can't help but wonder if this is a hoax. —Cupco 04:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: There are existentialists influenced by feminism and feminists influenced by existentialists, but "Feminist Existentialism" is not a subfield that anyone describes themselves or others as working within. The fact that it has no entry in the SEP (plato.stanford.edu), which has excellent representation of feminist philosophy, is evidence of this fact. And I say this as someone who loves both feminist philosophy and existentialism. This page should probably be deleted, or replaced by a page on "Feminist Phenomenology" which is actually an interesting field of work. Jazzcowboy (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist Existentialism is not a term or distinction made by professional philosophers
Talk:Lesbian feminism

message: — Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

message: Unfounded claim that Eugene Lewis identifies as "a lesbian feminist in the ideological sense"?
The citation is:  Lewis, Eugene (1997). "Reflections on Patriarchy: A Comparison of the Gendered Worlds of the Sex Industry and the Chronicles of Narnia". Journal of Women in Culture and Society., but looking at the 1997 journal tables of contents, there is no such article. 
Searching for this article title, this quote, or his name yields no result suggesting this claim is true. It's certainly fascinating, but I don't believe it to be true. Hotfemoid (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded claim that Eugene Lewis identifies as "a lesbian feminist in the ideological sense"?
Talk:Faris al-Zahrani

message: Faris az-Zahrani's piece in Sawt al-Jihad (meaning the original Sawt al-Jihad in KSA) was mainly a rebuke against the Wahhabi cleric Safar Al-Hawali and al-Jazeera.
209.121.88.198 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I find the article as currently displayed to contain several occurrences of non-neutral speech (in particular the adjective "important" used to refer to the literary production of the article's subject) as well as phrases indicating that the contributor speaks from an ideological point of view.
Although I assume good faith, it would be well for someone to vet the article. As I am not logged into Wikipedia and lack the authority to undo changes, and since I also think that this problem affects the whole entry, I suggest a veteran contributor check it. 2A01:CB04:48E:AD00:D928:65C6:79CD:A2FC (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality
Talk:Religious feminism

message: Contributions to Women as theological figures welcome.
Actually, in the Bible, it says for wives to submit to their husbands. I'm all for the Bible, but I would want an equal balance relationship with my wife. --66.218.13.96
In respose to this comment, the Bible has been translated incorrectly in order to manipulate the masses in believing that women must submit to men.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.77.193 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Women as theological figures

message: "Nevertheless, feminism has so profoundly influenced Islam, especially among Western Muslims, that Muslims as a whole do not realize Islam was ever not feminist"
Does anyone else think this needs a rewrite? I'm by no means an expert on Islam or Feminism, but Feminism has come about in modern times, while Islam has been around since the middle ages. How on earth does something so recent 'profoundly influence' Islam to a degree where people don't realize it's been influenced? It feels a lot like Islamic propoganda, and feels like someone's twisiting the meaning of 'feminism' Nato 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Islam 

message: I added this tag because the article in its present form appears to violate WP:NPOV. The article doesn't appear to contain a single piece of criticism or other information from an opposing POV, and appears to be written in an essentially triumphalist tone. The hope is for a neutral, enclopedic exposition of the subject fairly presenting the views of both proponents and critics and letting readers decide for themselvs. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Why is this called "religious feminism" and not "feminist theology"? I've never heard the term "religious feminism". It seems to imply that there is some difference between feminists and people who hold religious beliefs. This is just not so. It isn't "religious" it is a form of theology and is known as "feminist theology". The title should reflect this per WP:Name. Phyesalis (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my goodness, a polite and well-reasoned explanation (it's been a rough WP day). Great, sounds good to me. Thanks for helping me see it in a new perspective. Phyesalis (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The article is tagged for December but there is no discussion of what's being disputed. If there is no discussion, the tag should be removed. Phyesalis (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The date was added to the POV tag by a bot.  It was really added in June 2007 by Shirahadasha who discusses why above.  I've changed the date to avoid confusion.  Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - thanks. Maybe we could get more concrete criticisms? Not that I doubt the assessment, but specifics would give other editors a head's up as to where to focus their efforts. --Phyesalis (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What dispute?
Talk:Vlaams Belang/Archive 2

message: This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it, merge it with another article, and/or redirect it to another article. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen64 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for deletion

message: I've made some changes as discussed above:
* 'In dutch' external links: Removed completely - most readers won't be able to read them, those who can would probably mostly read the dutch version, which can have them if they want to.
* Discussion about American press: Not really relevent in the scheme of things to VB - not very important to an encylopedic article about them. (How about we talk about electoral successes/failures or representation in elected bodies instead?). The paragraph seemed to be there so we could include or discuss some external links to American media, it didn't help explain or talk about VB though. It also failed to meet wiki POV standards in my opinion.
* Other external links: Removed any link which requires registration - most people won't want to pay for to view the articles, it's best to keep the number of external links as low as we can.
* Blogs: I removed the blog (for some reasons see above) mainly because it was a blog which are probably best not to link to in the first place (regardless of who did or did not write it)
-- Joolz 17:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tricky one to decide upon, but I think for now it should probably be kept because its from a reputable source and provides one set of views and gives some sort of context to the issues involved. I don't think simply because it only provides one POV it should be removed, but if it were to disrupt the balance of the external links then there may be a case. At the moment I *think* the balance is OK. -- Joolz 19:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: This article contains some serious mistakes about Vlaams Belang (VB). Some examples:
*VB does not  support "restricted immigration" but does support the deportation of women wearing a muslim headscarf
* VB is not a new party, but is the same as Vlaams Blok, the party that was condemned for racism in 2004.Vlaams Belang is only the new name of the party
These are two major mistakes in the first lines of the article. Therefore the article is absolutely not NPOV
:*Support the deportation of women wearing a Muslim headscarf??? This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Please give your source.
:*Of course Vlaams Belang is a new party.
:--Jvb – August 16, 2005
:Let's see cites for your claims please. -- Joolz 18:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information about Vlaams Belang
Talk:Standpoint feminism

message: Authors such as Kristen Schilt in her article Just One of the Guys describe the "who" as transgendered men, who posses women skills but still receive more advantages and benefits as a man than previously as a woman. I'm not sure how to cite that in the main article though... :). CallMeTasteless (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  who 

message: The first definition given states that Standpoint Feminism argues a point, but a theory cannot technically argue something, only describe certain points of an aspect of reality. A better definition could, instead, say that Standpoint feminism is simply the view that women's experiences and viewpoints lend more to the understanding of the world in general. --Erinbooze (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the most accurate definition 

message: :Before Christmas 2017 I put in a request for Justice for Men and Boys to be merged into Mike Buchanan. The discussion is here.
:On 3 February 2018 I requested that Gender feminism and Victim feminism be merged into Social construction of gender as prejorative descriptions of social constructions of gender. The request is pending here.
:I've read the technical description of how to merge articles, but it is clear as mud to me even how to add the templates. I decided to leave it to those who knew how. I wouldn't know how to go about merging  with Standpoint feminism either. 
:I knew there was a backlog but I didn't realise they could stay pending for such a long time. I thought it was like AfD or RfC, that eventually an administrator would draw the discussion to a close and do something with it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've proposed and completed a number of mergers, and I know how easy it is to forget about them because I've forgotten about some of my own merge proposals until I was reminded months later by another editor! As you have discovered, mergers aren't closed by administrators; it's all up to us plebeian editors to do it. Regarding your proposal to merge Gender feminism and Victim feminism into Social construction of gender, the discussion has already started at ; I just added a !vote there. Thanks for your response. Biogeographist (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Other merge proposals

message: Under the heading "Establishing a standpoint", there seems to be an inaccuracy or possibly graffiti:
"He then went to say that while both the ..."
The preceding paragraph does not explicitly reference anyone, and the footnote points to "Tracy Bowell", presumably a woman.
(I just stumbled across this page and I'm not in position to edit it.) Espensj (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed
Category talk:Words

message: what is the point of this category? articles about the concept of "word" surely? Why is Mannaz listed here, then? Sure, it's a word, but so are thousands of other article titles. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: I agree: no point in listing "normal" words here (else > 90% of all pages would be listed here), and "special" words (foreign, short, long, strange,...) should be listed in the appropriate subcategory.
As I see it, this category is
# a place to list more specific categories of words
# a place to list ("meta") articles about aspects of words
but definitely not the place to create a list of concrete words. — MFH:Talk 14:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  agree: no point in listing concrete words here 

message: Isn't this exactly what wiktionary is for? -- nae'blis 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  Wiktionary has a very tight format, great for quick access to certain kinds of info, but not suitable for discussions of complex aspects of words.  We recently had a case where two paragraphs were moved from the Wikipedia article on Britain to the Wiktionary article, on the grounds that they discussed the etymology of "Britain" and were therefore "about words".  Within an hour someone working on Wiktionary had asked on their talk page: "where did all this encyclopedic information come from?"  So let's not assume that there are no cases where discussions of words don't belong in this medium. We don't do dictionary entries, but just the same, we often do words.  --Doric Loon 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiktionary?
Talk:Agnatic seniority

message: I'm removing the following paragraphs:
:Succession from a brother to another brother (or to other male relatives within the same generation) was of necessity very useful in historical periods when the average lifespan (even in the wealthier classes) was so short that even the eldest children of a parent were usually not yet adults at the time of the parent's death. This was usual when living conditions and nutrition were poorer, leading to early health problems, and when monarchs themselves personally participated in violent activities such as duels, raiding, and war.
:When the average human lifespan sufficiently increased, primogeniture began to dominate as order of succession. Primogeniture is the practical opposite of agnatic seniority, as younger brothers are excluded in favor of the first-born son and his heirs.
They're unnecessarily vague, but the basic statement they make (that the average life span was so short parents usually died before their children reached adulthood) appears simply incorrect to me, particularly since "parent" usually refers to the father.
Let me explain:  life expectancy at birth is irrelevant to this - the question is whether, having reached sufficient age to have kids themselves, the median father still lived another 14-20 years.  That's a much weaker statement that life expectancy at birth being age to have kids + 14-20 years.
Keep in mind that even before the advent of hygiene and public health, some 5% of the population were older than 60 at any given time, which just doesn't mash with high infant mortality and the statement in the article.
If you can actually provide estimates, time periods, and a verifiable statement, put it in, but this really looks like a typical misunderstanding of what life expectancy is to me.
RandomP 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe this is nonsense 

message: Does anyone else see a potential problem with the following sentence?
: Sons of princes who did not live long enough to succeed to the throne were of course unsatisfied with such limits.
~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but it is not literally wrong. How would you improve it? —Tamfang (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Insert "those", i.e. Sons of those princes who did not ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD09:D500:99FA:6897:BF75:D41A (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unsatisfied dead? 

message: On the Ibn Saud page it says he has 45 sons, but on this one it says he has 37 which one is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.131.5 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn Saud and number of sons.
Talk:Celebrity Poker Showdown

message: Um? Isn't that just a fancy, roundabout way of saying "game show"? -Silence 10:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and so changed. Also added it to the Game show page. MKaiserman 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreational documentary?

message: Would be nice, since the show highlights the charities the players' support, to perhaps list them all here - but it would clutter up the page for each tournament or require a massive re-formatting of the way the players are listed. Thoughts? MKaiserman 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could certainly be added for the winners of each season, if not each game, I think. Quentin mcalmott 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List Charities?

message: I reverted the Contradiction tag as it was placed without explanation and I simply don't see a contradiction on the page. -- Robster2001 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction Tag

message: Should we add a "Memorable Moments Section"?
Mentioning moments on the show like (but not necessarily limited to):
*A) The three ace flop.
*B) Dennis Rodman walking off the set.
*C) The river coming down on the small of Sarah Silverman's back ("If I had nickel...").
What do you think?
71.168.139.165 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a chance. I watched most of the series, and I don't remember any of these "memorable moments". Plus, there are many memorable moments that I could add. In the end you get an article that is bloated with a list of "me, too" additions, that it has no encyclopedic value. However, if you can find sourced information of memorable moments — I seem to remember an entertainment critic pointing to Ben Affleck's loss as the seminal moment of a career plunge — then those can (not necessarily should) be added.—Twigboy 04:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorable Moments Section?

message: Shouldn't it read "Celebrity Poker Showdown was a celebrity game show on the cable network Bravo.", since it is just over five years from last episode? Or how this show can be considered as active? I would not. 85.217.39.33 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Celebrity Poker Showdown that bring back memories, Hadn't thought about til I saw this pop up on my watchlist, anyways if you see an error remember this is a Wiki, Be bold as you are welcome to fix errors yourself :) ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  is/was? 

message: Surely it was notable? Imagine Reason (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the theme music?
Talk:Brindabella Range

message: A merger of Brindabella National Park into this article proposed as it is a very minimal stub and perhaps the content would be better developed as a section within this Brindabella Ranges article.--A  Y  Arktos 11:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite an active wikiproject on protected areas of the world. They would probably not be happy with the national park being made a sub-section. --Martyman-(talk) 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Brindabella National Park 
Talk:Tim White (referee)

message: Any details on what caused his career ending injury!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.18.247 (talk • contribs).
He was knocked off the ring apron into the cell wall, causing him to fall to the floor heavily on his side. Jericho inflicted more punishment on him for failing to return to the ring to count a pinfall. This included several shots to the head and being thrown into the cell wall again. The injury initially occurred from the first bump. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaneo619 (talk • contribs).
The suicide attempts, and the hiac stuff is all kayfabe to my knowledge. 142.162.205.90 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Injury 

message: Was he really trying to commit suicide or is it just a storyline thing? I'm thinking the latter, but it's kinda hard to tell. ForteKane (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicides 

message: He passed away today. 2600:1014:B11F:869A:295D:1290:30CE:E40F (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death