lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lied

message: Is the word Nibelunglied also derived from the word lied?
Gokul
Yup, Nibelungenlied just means "Nibelung song" (or "song of the Nibelungs" I guess). Adam Bishop 16:19, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong: They distinguished between "Lied" as a piece of music, sung, and "Lied" as part of literature (see Lied in German Wikipedia). The Niebelungenlied is part of German literature. (There is no such song. See Epic_poetry) Habibie 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say that as a translation "Song of the Nibelungs" works for most purposes. It is foremost a very long poem but it is unknown if it was a ever sung in a strict sense of singing (or having a melody belonging to it). But if you count "reciting a poem" as singing then you get the sense of song / lied in this case. 46.115.87.2 (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't think "concertos virtuosos" means anything, really, though a "virtuoso concerto" would be a concerto for a virtuoso (two articles you might want to check out). In general, a concerto is a piece for solo instrument and orchestra (though less often it can be for two or more solo instruments and orchestra), unless it's a concerto grosso. By the way, if you have any questions like this in future, a better place to ask is at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Camembert
If anyone here can read hebrew there is a much larger here piece at the Hebrew Wikipedia.  193.164.126.17 14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsorted text

message: The mention of this manga/anime in the opening paragraph smacks of 'in popular culture'; I have removed it. As a matter of elucidating the meaning of its title, the article for Elfen Lied contains a link to this article; there is no such benefit in the reciprocal link.
--Macabre Deified (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. The only thing that surprises me is that you feel the need to explain yourself in this detail. --Peter cohen (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly no less explicable than your need to share that insight. --Macabre Deified (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elfen Lied 

message: In the last sentence, I tried to make a correction: "lied" found its true sense in the Romantic era, and it is generally associated therewith. However, the genre is not of Romantic era.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdoganerkan (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: LI=19 cm 1.ED 124.107.42.132 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  .math
Talk:Horizontal bar

message: The excerpt does not describe any form of modern High Bar work, and, to a gymnastics professional in the united states, is really quite baffling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  70.128.30.140 (talk • contribs) 
I'm awesome  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt is bogus 

message: Is there any difference between Horizontal bar and Chin-up bar? Shouldn't these articles be merged?
93.175.237.107 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They are different. The horizontal bar is a standardized, free-standing apparatus used in gymnastics, whereas a chin-up bar is a non-standardized apparatus used for play or exercise. Lambtron (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Chin-up bar]]?
Talk:Wasserfall

message: Maury, why did you delete where it said Wasserfall inspired Project Nike? Was that factually inaccurate? -- Cabalamat 19:31, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasserfall and Nike 

message: What is the reference for this excerpt "Wasserfall was essentially an anti-aircraft development of the V2 rocket, sharing the same general layout and shaping. Since the missile had to fly only to the altitudes of the attacking bombers, it could be much smaller than the V2, about 1/4 the size. The Wasserfall design also included an additional set of fins located at the middle of the fuselage to provide extra maneuvering capability"?
The german wikipedia contains a review in the wasserfall article stating it used different techniques (like the engine and guidiance) and had another shape... so it wasn't further development of the V2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.71.146 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong statement

message: Was the first successful launch in February or March 1944? Drutt (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: First launch

message: The form factors appear to have differed, even if the aesthetic was similar:
Statistics given in each article suggest that Wasserfall was not only smaller, but a more lissom airframe, at 9.086:1 compared with V2's stouter 8.485:1.
So the airframes seem to have been rather more than just a scaling-down of the one to achieve the other's form.
Can we rephrase in a less misleading manner? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:80E5:45F6:A2F8:23FD (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "essentially a much scaled-down version of the V-2 airframe"
Talk:John Browning

message: The photo of the great man is reversed (like the famous Billy the Kid 'Left-Handed Gun') The loading port of the take-down .22 semi is on the wrong side and the buttons and button-holes on his clothes are the wrong way round for a gent. I just Googled it and that photo always seems to be reversed - but that doesn't make it right!
Paul J Williams (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Reversed

message: "Browning Arms Company was established in 1927, the year after Browning's death on November 26, 1926, in Liège, Belgium." is not correct when compared with the history of the Browning Arms Company (founded in Ogden, Utah, in 1878). Was something else intended here? The company was founded a year before Jonathan Browning (father of John Moses) died in 1879. Looks as if the generations and sequence of events have got muddled. Suggest delete sentence. 185.13.50.215 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later work and life 

message: The article text says he fathered 22 children total, and then clarifies that 10 were with his wife Rachel Theresa Child, which is reflected in the Infobox. Should the Infobox not reflect all of his offspring across his polygamous relationships? 192.77.12.11 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Children should be counted?
Talk:Billie Jean King

message: Just a note that 2003–2015 has been archived. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 2003–2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians
I refer you to footnotes 181 & 182 which I have not cited properly.  I endeavoured to do this, but then the links of the articles disappeared.  Can you improve the citations please, according to the rules?Andrew Rabel (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I'm at a loss on why one of Kings most vital stats is being removed. It has been here for well over a decade, is used by the WTA and Tennis Hall of fame. I'm talking about the removal by a new editor of "King won 39 Grand Slam titles: 12 in singles, 16 in women's doubles, and 11 in mixed doubles. Why on earth would this be removed? The Tennis Hall of Fame talks of the feat extensively! The [www.wtatennis.com/players/110100/billie-jean-king#bio WTA tells of it] in her bio section. It heads the Billie Jean King website. The History Channel looks at it as important.
We seem to have a newer editor who is also editing as an anon IP removing it as useless wording that no one cares about. Baloney! It's a huge part of her persona that is sourced everywhere. The Tennis Hall of Fame tells of her 20 Wimbledon titles too. Those weren't just in singles... they are a total of all her Major titles there. I have no idea why anyone would remove these accomplishments from here... and also from the Serena Williams article. It is supposed to be their job to bring it to talk if someone disagrees with their removal of longstanding consensus. They may not realize that fact even though I've explained it to them over and over... so here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of longstanding info on title numbers
Talk:Ebionites

message: Why have opinion of non muslims have been quoted under heading of Islam. it's distortion. editor to address this issueRashid37009 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, the 'confusion' may have gone way back to at least the 19th century in the USA when nontrinitarians (some were leading lights in academia, banking, industry, and society) were sometimes called 'Mahometans' (in what the 'describers' could have thought would be 'conceptually illuminating' (but which could have been 'taken as a slight' by practicing Muslims, if they had heard it). MaynardClark (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam

message: A segment of text was removed:
"In a 2007 polemic, a Messianic writer asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah observance and acceptance of rabbinic understanding of "neo-Ebionites", who are defined as those who accept Jesus as Messiah, reject Paul and claim Moses as the only guide for Christians."
by User:Lovemankind83 with this text:"Hast nothing to do with the articles subject"
Contact the editor:
mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Lovemankind83
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lovemankind83
Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere? MaynardClark (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - I agree with User:Lovemankind83 that the removed text is not relevant to the article - it is not a view held by the majority of scholars - WP:UNDUE says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" - and the source is questionable (WP:QUESTIONABLE) as it is a self-published website written by one person with no editorial oversight - Epinoia (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had asked, "Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere?" (nto whether THAT comment ought to be included). MaynardClark (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern reception 

message: I suggest that all contributors to the Ebionites article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on.  So we have a lot of work to do. :) —-Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has an unclear citation style
Talk:Motion Picture Association

message: I'm guessing that it's probably too soon for another requested move, but I see "Motion Picture Association" rapidly becoming the WP:COMMONNAME, especially among those news organizations that are particularly involved in the entertainment industry. I'm just going to document a few here for the next time this comes up:
* 
* (multiple instances, actually, but this one is typical:) 
* (again, multiple instances, a typical one:) 
* 
* 
* (again, multiple instances, a typical one:) 
* 
* 
* 
* (One site that's not, strictly speaking, news: the United States Copyright Office:) 
The cites above are a little heavy on the Karyn Temple resignation story, but that's mostly a matter of the timing of the search; that's the most recent significant news involving the MPA. TJRC (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Motion Picture Association" rapidly becoming the Common Name 

message: Should Netflix be recognized as the 'Sixth Major Studio' that happens to be operating outside the traditional Hollywood Studio System? It's almost exclusively streaming, yes, but it's become a major production company that's significantly changed the way the film and television industries operate and distribute their content; both in America and abroad. Disney+ and HBOMax are arguably two of the biggest by-products of Hollywood's significant emphasis on streaming in the business.Internet Informant (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a sound point but until reliable sources start describing Netflix as such then we can't really refer to it as a "major" studio on Wikipedia. Part of the problem is that the term is anachronistic and refers to a time when production studios owned vast sound stages. It's not a good fit with the modern era of film-making but the term has stuck. Betty Logan (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  The point of WP:NOT and WP:NOR is that WP always follows and it never leads.  It's up to the journalists at the trade papers like THR and Variety to decide whether Netflix should be considered a major film studio. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Five Studios, and Netflix
Talk:Dementia

message: I removed this sentence from the intro paragraph. It was uncited and unclear what it means. Consciousness is a philosophical concept that is arguably impossible to even verify in other people. It can be added back if it is cited and properly explained. Finnigami (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consciousness is not affected." 

message: I am Yaser GHAZAL a student in Üsküdar Üniversitesi in Istanbul Türkiye and Iam taking Special Topics in Neuroscience course with Dr. Öğr. Üyesi AYLA ARSLAN during summer course 2023 and editing this article is part of the tasks assigned to me so i ask for your support Yaser GHAZAL (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and welcome! You might be interested in reading WP:Questions, for information on where to ask for help, and WP:Student assignments, for information on how student assignments are handled. I notice you posted this question on multiple pages, try to avoid this since it fragments discussion. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello everyone  

message: — Assignment last updated by Kiki6789 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

message: — Assignment last updated by Ejohnson08 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Science Writing
Talk:Indian food

message: 20 Sept 03
Made "Indian Food" redirect to "Indian food". Copied all text to new page. 
There was no existing text on old Talk or Discussion page at this time. User:200.141.118.233
: Logging in and using the "Move this page" feature is a lot nicer, as it preserves the edit history in one place. (I've done that now.) -- Oliver P. 23:26, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Willebrord Snellius

message: Do we have a source for the statement that Snell produced a "new method" for calculating pi? The (few) sources I've read simply have him in the list of those who used the polygon method to squeeze out a few more digits. John D. Goulden (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snell and Pi 

message: that topic is notable enough and the section is long enough. fgnievinski (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split section on triangulation
Talk:List of companies of Canada

message: Should some of the actually American companies just redirect to those pages? Ford Canada, for example, would be essentially the same as Ford Motor Company, would it not? Adam Bishop 00:18, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: American companies

message: Just a suggestion, but why not just put a asterisk or something of the sort after a companies name to denote if it is foreign owned,rather that putting it in brackets. it would also work for other companies such as Labatt's, which is still a canadian company, with operations based in Canada. but is just owned by a belgian brewer. just a suggestion though.
:I think that is a good idea but does get quite complicated as some companies are only partially directly foreign owned and others are partially indirectly foreign owned (Shares of RBC for example being owned by an investor in the Belgium). I think this article should be divided into three categories. 1(private companies), 2(public companies), 3(crown corporations). The second section would be divided into 1(more than 50% subsidiary owned) and 2(less than 50% subsidiary owned). What do you think? If you agree with this idea, should this be used for other articles for other countries in the same manner? Canking 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: time traveller from the future here. im inclined to include any business which has any degree of independent branches in Canada, whether foreign owned or not. i prefer inclusiveness in this case. the division sounds good, if someone knows how to determine it and has the time and inclination.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: let me raise my somewhat useless protest against list articles that serve essentially the same purpose as Categories. this list would be more interesting if there were some businesses that deserve their name on this list, but dont deserve an article. its all redlinks and bluelinks. the redlinks should definitely say what the businesses are, while also showing references as external links. so should the bluelisted ones. and nonlinked names need references as well as their area of business. i added the incomplete tag, essential for a list like this. Oh, and the title: if its only current companies, as the heading indicates, then the title should reflect the exact nature of the contents, say "list of canadian companies currently in business". a little more description at the beginning would be nice as well. i will try to fix some of this, maybe, someday. i hope, if there is anyone working on this a lot, that they will consider these ideas. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List vs. Category
Talk:Aspartame

message: Our article at Science by press release highlights:
Aside from needing to clarify the nature of the "findings" (which seem to have been involved in the "aspartame scare"), all mention of this is missing from the present article and that seems to be a noteworthy gap to patch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramazzini Foundation (2005)
Talk:Geometric phase

message: I felt the article needed some simple examples to help the reader understand what it is about. I added two. --ShanRen 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 
Talk:Representationalism

message: Any facts? Who are "we" in "We do not concern ourselves with any differences in meaning...?" Any reference? Any quote? Is this more than name-dropping? Wetman
Please see User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text for information on the origin of this text. Please feel free to clarify, depersonalise and tighten up the language. EdH 05:17, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

message: Representative realism should be merged with this page and re-directed. Any objections? Banno 21:11, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
*agree, with no objections in 6 months, im goin for it. how about Indirect realism aswell? Spencerk 07:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Talk:Rosh HaAyin

message: The correct English spelling as far as I can tell is Rosh Ha'ayin. See these English-language articles from 3 well-known publications that cover Israel daily:
*Rosh Ha’ayin outrage. Sept. 8, 2012. Jerusalem Post. 
*1.5 billion barrels of oil discovered near Rosh Ha'Ayin. August 17, 2010. Ynet. 
*Israeli company finds oil beneath Rosh Ha'ayin. By Lior Zano, Dec.24, 2009. Haaretz.
There is more discussion here: commons:Category talk:Rosh HaAyin. It may be changed to commons:Category talk:Rosh Ha'ayin or commons:Category talk:Rosh Ha'Ayin. One of the talk page links will work. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling the name of the city
Talk:Giuseppe Ungaretti

message: I've removed the poem. Possible copyright infringement, and in any event Wikipedia should not contain the actual works of authors, but merely external links. Kricxjo 16:28, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Dear friends, I've a problem with your phrase on Ermetismo and Fascism: "(Ungaretti remained)...a supporter of his Blackshirts and National Fascist Party". Ungaretti became a friend of Mussolini (but when he was socialist), and formally U. subscribes the manifesto of the Fascist Italian writers, but, as explained on the biography of Piccioni, he was not a supporter of his Blackshirts and National Fascist Party, and sometimes he was imprisoned for subversive talkings against Fascism (also if every time Mussolini set free him). So I think it'ld be right to delete that phrase, and insert only:
"Ungaretti joined in the Fascist Party, signing the Manifesto of the Italian Writers".
Tell me what do you think about. Ciao, --Egonon (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Soffici and Jahier are not militarist, and Malaparte only in the first period (in 1931 is against Hitler and Mussolini); I think it's not right to generalize all these writers as "militarist" --Egonon (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soffici, Jahier, Malaparte
Talk:Trotskyism

message: Beyond My Ken has twice replaced the word "Trotskyist" with "Trotskyite", and has asked for evidence for my assertion that this is a term of disparagement. In the first place, in the very paragraph in which he made this change we can read - attributed to Collins Dictionary  - that "A Trotskyist may be called a "Trotskyite" or "Trot", especially by a critic of Trotskyism". Beyond this, there are many sources for this assertion. Notably, a letter in The Nation (August 31 - 7 September 2015) describes the term as "derogatory" and a "slur", and goes on to state that "The difference between “Trotskyite” and “Trotskyist” is a bit like the difference between the “N-word” and “black” or “African-American.” As I recall, the pejorative “Trotskyite” was coined by Stalinists, casting Left Opposition followers of Trotsky as anti-Soviet fifth columnists and/or fascist agents. The slur “Trotskyite” is thus a sort of etymological character assassination of the man and his supporters.  The word “Trotskyist,” on the other hand, is a neutral term that merely refers to an adherent of Leon Trotsky. It does not deride or endorse those it refers to and/or Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, etc."
Wiktionary defines Trotskyist as "A supporter of Trotskyism" and Trotskyite as "(derogatory) An advocate of the communist doctrines of Leon Trotsky". A review of Mary McCarthy's The Group comments that "Oddly, McCarthy, whose sympathies also ran in that direction, insists on using the derogatory term “Trotskyite” rather than “Trotskyist” throughout the chapter". review of Rossana Rossanda's notes that "the derogatory Stalinist epithet ‘Trotskyite’ is used throughout the text ... and not just where it might be appropriate - in other words, where a Soviet or other orthodox communist is accusing some heretic, whether rightly or wrongly, of Trotskyism." Sociologist Jeff Weintraub writes "Historically, comrades, the correct term is "Trotskyist." "Trotskyite" was a derogatory slur, with conspiratorial overtones, used only by Stalinists and their fellow-traveling dupes--more or less the way Republicans in the US like to talk about the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party"."
It is also worth noting that a Google search for "Trotskyite" produces 190,000 results, while one for "Trotskyist" produces 13,400,000. In these circumstances, there needs to be a compellingly good reason to replace the commonly used neutral term with the much less common form widely regarded as derogatory. Since none has been provided, I will restore the original term. RolandR (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this overwhelming evidence of your position.  You are clearly correct, and I completely concede the point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derogatory term