lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Immaculate Conception

message: In some of the Marian apparitions (like Lourdes), the Marian apparition claimed to be the Immaculate Conception. Should that be mentioned in the wiki page about this? Acdc250 (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided these statements are sourced reliably, I think the Immaculate Conception's history in apparitions could serve a valuable role in furthering understanding of how the doctrine became doctrine. Perhaps it could be its own section. If you want help, let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Marian apparition that St Mary claims herself to be the virgin Mary of immaculate conception is Our Lady of Gietrzwald in 1877. Acdc250 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll look into it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! A related claim is that St Mary said that she is the immaculate virgin in our lady of the golden heart in Belgium around 1932 and 1933. I am not sure whether this claim implies Mary was immaculately conceived. Acdc250 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

text: For our lady of Gietrzwald, can the catholic news and website, Aleteia, be considered as a source? You can see the article about our lady of Gietrzwald at https://aleteia.org/2017/10/18/our-lady-of-gietrzwald-polands-only-approved-marian-appearance/ Acdc250 (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Aleteia is a blog aggregator and not a suitably reliable source for our citations. Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Claim of Immaculate Conception 

message: The short article about the play could easily fit under "Artistic representations". Manannan67 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Where is this WP:original research? John Paul II affirmed this on 19th June 1996, citing the Council of Trent DG 1973.
The exit corrected an error of the WP article according to which:
. 
. 176.200.83.11 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without any sin for all her life
Talk:Irish mythology

message: I've changed the Tragedy of the Children of Lir from one of the "greatest" Irish stories to one of the best known, partly because it's a value judgement and therefore not NPOV, but also because, as an Irish mythology buff, I think it's one of the worst. Personal taste and all that.
--Nicknack009 08:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Lir
Talk:Infinite product

message: This article is probably very non-ideal, but when I needed this material a while ago it was hard to find, and so I figured wikipedia would be a good place to hold it.  Please feel free to change it around and make it more encyclopedia-like, even more so than usual. :)
----
We probably need a little caveat about negative numbers: the log formula won't work without problems in that case. Maybe use a different log which is defined on the negative reals? --AxelBoldt
:A product of negative coefficients does not converge; it can at most flip. --Yecril (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

message: "Therefore, the logarithm log an will be defined for all but a finite number of n"
neither makes sense nor true as I understand it. One can easily imagine a sequence which converges to 1 that is not finite. one simple example is a(n)= 1+(1/n) where n is an integer. This of course is not limited for a being real, for example think of any oscillating function which dampens to 1. this might have been a simple typo the author made, but i don't understand his/her intention, so i am timid to edit this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.61.161 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is a left-over from careless editing.  Some sources allow a finite number of 0 factors and still call the product convergent if the product of the non-zero factors is non-zero.  Probably that is the meaning. I'll try to fix it. McKay (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Statement
Talk:Intelligent design

message: https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Britannica does explain intelligent design, this is where it is explained in full detail: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics tgeorgescu (talk)  23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: user:tgeorgescu - that’s a good article, I particularly liked the mentions of Fisher or Hardy-Weinberg more than the focus on Paley and IC.  But from the OP briefness I cannot tell what they meant by “align”.  Perhaps from the brevity they didn’t get very far in the details and are just talking the lead here versus how what they pointed to starts.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that they are referring to the much more neutral tone of other encyclopedias. E.g. The lack of the term 'pseudoscience' in the linked articles. Similarly, Intelligent design - Citizendium does not make such a definitive conclusion. Stating much more objectively that "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, in its present form, ID cannot be regarded as scientific because the claims made by its proponents are not testable." BeLikeBritannica (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is one of tone, not of meaning. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The meaning is different. Labeling ID as pseudoscience is a conclusion, not universally agreed, nor objectively measureable, nor even adequately supported by referenced expert opinions. Stating that the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that in it's present form ID cannot be regarded as scientific is a neutral objective statement of a fact. Nearly all statements from organizations rejecting ID don't use the perjorative term 'pseudoscience' BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ID pretends it is scientific AND , therefore ID is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  BeLikeBritannica, this is covered by the FAQ. The goal of the FAQ is to avoid wasting time on useless discussions, like this one. --McSly (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please align with reliable sources 

message: The second paragraph does not seem to fit the heading, afaict not legislation and not obviously anti-evolution. Should we move it or remove it? Also, first paragraph should have some decent cites, FA and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a pretty unsatisfactory section. It makes only peripheral (uncited) reference to Intelligent Design. I'd be for its wholesale removal. -- Jmc (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the first paragraph, which is under-cited, can be cited using the references in Anti-evolution legislation. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intelligent_design#Anti-evolution_legislation]]
Talk:Infrared

message: It seemed to just stop at 37, but the article went over 80 14.198.104.117 (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, the browser went haywire mid-load 14.198.104.117 (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are parts of the references gone?
Talk:Iridium

message: :The density of this element is only slightly lower than that of osmium, which is generally considered to be the heaviest element known. However, calculations of density from the space lattice may produce more reliable data for these elements than actual measurements and give a density of 22650 kg/m³ for iridium versus 22661 kg/m³ for osmium. Definitive selection between the two is therefore not possible at this time.
This paragraph doesn't exactly make sense. It reads as if there's some uncertainty, but it seems to say that osmium is denser both experimentally and theoretically.
Yet density of Osmium given at Osmium as well as at Web Elements is 22.61 x 10^3 kg/m^-3, (not 22661) meaning that the wiki has a typo (which was apparently carried over from a typo at Los Alamos National Labs. Moreover, unless someone has a better source, it doesn't look like the actual precision of the calculation goes to the nearest kg/m^-3.
So that's why I'm editing the page. (I was just looking for some pretty pictures of the rainbow colors, man. Where's the party?)
--Munge 05:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent typo on density 

message: I don't know if this is entirely accurate.  The Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary contains many times what would be expected of Iridium, but still can be considered a trace element.  The reference for this does not use this phrase.  Jokem (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   iridium-rich clay 

message: Although currently not up to FA standard, I believe that this article still meets GA guidelines. Any thoughts? 141Pr {contribs} 20:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so as well. There are a few instances of things that need to be more specific (citations) and the list of isotopes may be out of date? Other than that I don't see many parts that need to be expanded upon that aren't better covered in their own articles (though Production might be served well by including (or linking to an article with) details on the manufacture and purification of iridium, as well as separating that from the statistics on global production from USGS (which are always going to be 2 years behind). What information needs to be updated under the Precautions section that warrants the banner? Reconrabbit (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN?
Talk:Immanuel Kant

message: What is the relationship between Kant, Moral Epistemology, and Meta-Ethics? Thank you. :) :) :) Thephoenix 1689 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant's Relevance to Moral Epistemology and its Relation to Meta-Ethics 

message: What the hell does 'pre-oriented' (introduction) mean?  Do you mean 'affected', 'determined by' .... ? 82.39.166.176 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Talk:Ice age

message: The last sentence in the intro states "The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years," but is not supported by the three links provided. The third link does project a 500,000 year delay, but the second posits only a 50,000 year delay. The sentence should be changed to something like: "The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period by 50,000 to 500,000 years," 184.170.161.43 (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: Data provided about the anthropogenic delay in the next ice age is misleading 

message: :
That last phrase needs rewriting; it looks like an orphaned fragment. Does it mean later glaciations would also be delayed (as seems redundant, if more than one would otherwise be expected within that demi-megayear)?  Or that the second future glaciation would be delayed by even longer?  Or, on the contrary, that this delay makes a second and third future glaciation more likely? —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  and likely more after 

message: Hello, considering this photo 
"An artist's impression of ice age Earth at glacial maximum."
there has to be considered that the sea leve during an ice age is 120m lower than we have now. 
So this vision should show much more soil and less sea according to the seabed map.
Have a nice day, Michael Palomino
history: http://www.hist-chron.com/index-ENGL.html
Signature: ---~~ 2A02:1210:5295:F000:B5C6:49FA:3183:B9FE (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in an ice age right now. What? Also, since last time we were out of ice age 2.5 million years ago the sea level was lower. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo is not correct - the sea during an ice age is about 120m down 

message: Link 35 to a 2004 Scientific American article is broken. 68.193.241.245 (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 35 is broken  

message: The article says the last interglacial period lasted 28,000 years, and the current interglacial period started 11,700 years ago, but then claims the next ice would start 50,000 years from now if not for human activity. That's not credible. 24.76.102.121 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The estimate for the next ice age is credible but it is just one of many estimates and the text is unclear. I have deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies
Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia

message: [material copied from aryaculture.tripod.com] Nittin Das (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic Religion in Arabia  

message: There are many proof and evidence that shows that there was existence of Hinduism in pre Islamic Arabia.You can search in Google. Black tusk division (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, bring the sources here for discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism in pre Islamic Arabia
Talk:I Have a Dream

message: What  was  martin   dream  about  america 197.186.5.140 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Having quickly glanced through the article, I've noticed that there is an absence regarding Dr. King's later thoughts on the speech (particularly those he reiterated in his 1967 interview with Sander Vanocur). To summarize, he said that his 'dream' has "...at many points turned into a nightmare..." and regarded the speech as overly optimistic, in light of the resistances to further civil rights advancements and the Vietnam War, both of which he viewed as parts of or results of the evils (his 'Triple Evils' as he called them) he thought the USA was complicit in. All in all, he had essentially disavowed his speech - prior to directly commenting on the speech, he mentioned that integration as a sole focus of the Civil Rights movement wasn't enough without a "revolution of values" and quoted James Baldwin, saying "What advantage is there in being integrated into a burning house?" The interview can be found here. With all of that said - considering this interview, as well as Dr. King's later stances prior to the end of his life, I believe this should be noted in the article under the 'Legacy' section. Also something of note is how it is often misconstrued by modern-day conservatives as an advocacy of solving racism via a 'colorblind' approach to society (rather than seeing 'colorblindness' as an end goal to strive towards). I can understand the latter not being included but I think it is important for the article to include King's own later thoughts on the speech as a good way to show what he thought about the progress made during that time. Kyle Tatum (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. King's later thoughts on the speech 

message: Hello! I am a student, and I can't find information about what time Martin Luther gave his speech. Does anyone know any information about this? If the information is somewhat known, maybe it could be put up with the date at the top of the page? David S. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time
Talk:Iran–Contra affair

message: If i'm from another planet, which one are you from 'in your brain'? 2601:406:8402:15D0:35F5:F2F7:642E:EFBA (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nibiru.84.54.71.182 (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  God or alien? 

message: The 1980-81 period needs to elucidated and footnoted in this article. For example, reference https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000504340006-3.pdf ; The meetings with Casey, Barnes, Connally, the Karubi brothers, and Hashemi; quotes from Arens or Yitzhak Rabin. The opening focus on the political scandal obfuscates the actual history. Sort of like an article about an opera focusing on the critical reception. The scandal is important, but convictions for felony or treason don't stem from scandal, they stem from actions, so the historical arc should structure the article. Sustain4people2 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Thrust needs clarification 

message: The translation of the title into farsi and Spanish is not called for by wikipedia conventions. It would be better to put the pages themselves https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ir%C3%A1n-Contra in the links at bottom maybe, but I don't know how Wikipedia regards the process for developing or linking across languages. 2604:2D80:D682:4300:D8F:F6C0:85F3:327F (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening distractors 

message: Should be called a conspiracy. Per WP's definition of a Conspiracy, I think this should be included in the first paragraph. It sums up what the Iran contra affair is about. Bunch of people doing illegal things in secret. 2600:100F:A110:AB7:8852:675C:B532:1DF3 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We call it what RS calls it. Most call it "scandal". Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why call it scandal? Should be conspiracy
Talk:Irina Krush

message: The account of Krushes role in the Kasparov vs. the world match contains a lot of subjective phrases. It doesn't read very much like an encyclopedia. Zargulon 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it makes it sound like she played against Kasparov and gave him a good run for it, when in reality it was very much a group effort Pubuman 18:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Four paragraphs is way too much for one game! Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed they were. Besides, the ref behind the mention of her "husband" links to an article that mentions Charbonneau as her boyfriend. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they have apparantly married recently but I can't find confirmation anywhere.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: An anonymous poster changed her status to married. Shouldn't that have a reference? I can't find a source for that on the net... --Gereon K. (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://paulhoffman.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/the-knightmare-continues/ --Gereon K. (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Has she had previous marriages before this?  I think that should be included if she has. 71.248.176.157 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant: changed her status from unmarried to married. There is no indication however for a previous marriage. --Gereon K. (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage 

message: The FIDE site has an application for a WGM title from 2002 . Since she got the men's IM title in the year 2000 I wonder whether this makes any sense. The norms for her IM in 2000 would have been more than enough for the WGM title, so why did she not become WGM in the late 1990s? --Gereon K. (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGM after IM? 

message: We need better pictures of Miss Krush for this article.  How do we go about doing that?  OGBranniff (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 
Talk:Indistinguishable particles

message: Section "Exchange Symmetry" under "Quantum Mechanical Description of Identical Particles" says of an operator "Because it is unitary, it can be regarded as a symmetry operator," where the phrase "symmetry operator" is linked to the Wikipedia article Symmetry (physics).
The linked wiki page does not use the phrase "symmetry operator." Would someone please change the wording or define the term for non-expert readers? (Sorry, !)
Norbornene (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Symmetry Operator" 

message: I think it is not nice to use identical and indistinguishable as synonym as it is done in the introduction and title. In a Boltzmann description the particles are identical but certainly distinguishable by their trajectory (this is formulated nicely in the first paragraph).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:500A:DD40:61AB:D719:E302:3339 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. See next topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical vs Indistinguishable 

message: We have exchange interaction which is not linked in this article.
I added a section to exchange interaction based on Griffiths and some other refs. IMHO is better than most of what is in this article :-( Johnjbarton (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange interaction
Talk:Carbon compounds

message: Could you be more clear about the defining difference between what is considered the organic and the inorganic chemistry of carbon, please? 213.253.39.xxx (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a defining distinction, but it probably covers carbon compounds not including chains of carbon. 62.6.213.xxx (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: But there needs to be some kind of motivation or at least descriptive characterization, even if there are several competing versions. 89.217.9.26 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

text: In that case, shouldn't the study of  allotropes of carbon be "organic chemistry" instead of "inorganic chemistry"? Because all three forms of allotropes contain chains of carbon. Wilsonbond 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organic compound says that the usual criterion is the presence of the C-H bond. 193.128.127.33 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aren't the bonds in graphite and diamond covalent? I guess they become organic then, and it's fine, the definition is really just supposed to be suggestive. 89.217.9.26 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I notice that the carbon halides, the carboranes, and the use in metal alloys are given separate sections, not under inorganic compunds. Does this mean that they are considered neither organic nor inorganic? 89.217.9.26 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of organic and inorganic chemsitry of Carbon

message: Girl 106.193.201.78 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon compounds