lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:March for Life (Washington, D.C.)

message: There has to be some kind of official statement as to number of participants from the involved parties, including capitol police estimates.  I think there may be some validity to pointing out the simultaneous Pro-Roe demonstrations as well.eRipley 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Justanotherguy.  There are hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers at the event and usually very few pro-'choice' demonstrators in comparison. ...Andy120... 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is "lllllllllllllllllllllllko"??? Let's delete it. --- Mwr0 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The 2015 march had an abortion rights protest which stopped the march for 30 minutes, that's a significant presence. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/26/1360230/-New-Pro-Choice-Organization-Stomps-March-For-Life-in-Washington-DC --- Mwr0 (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was at the 2015 March and this simply is not true.  There may have been a slight delay but it certainly wasn't 30 minutes and there were hardly any counter protesters that could be seen.  With all the talk about what is an d isn't a credible source, Daily KOs can hardly be called credible. 50.38.206.216 (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Do you mean you added Reference 4, "Youth Turnout Strong at US March for Life", or Reference 7, "Official March for Life website–About Us" ? Refs 2 and 3 are to news sites. And I don't believe Wikipedia rules let you cite yourself as the source if you are an eyewitness who counts the crowd. --- Mwr0 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Reference 5, "Who had the worst week in Washington? Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.)." has absolutely nothing to do with the March or estimates of its size, but I don't know the right Wiki tag to mark it as such. --- Mwr0 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, Reference 14 is a duplicate of Reference 7 "Official March for Life website–About Us". --- Mwr0 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Attendance and Pro-Choice events
Category talk:Wikipedian Mitnagdim

message: Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, one of the largest forums for discussions between editors of Jewish articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism#Directory of participants and join or commence discussions at the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks for considering this. IZAK 06:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism

message: Can one the many members of this fraternity please enlighten me as to it's ethos and goals? I might consider applying for membership.... Telzer 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about joining
Talk:Selective reduction

message: Someone added an unsourced claim that selective reduction has been opposed (by whom? when? in what contexts?) as "a form of eugenics". This is a pretty specific claim (about an extremist position) and requires citation to reliable independent verifiable sources. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eugenics" 

message: According to Yaron et al., "Selective termination is employed in multifetal pregnancies, in the presence of an abnormal fetus, in order to improve the prognosis of the normal fetuses. The term elective reduction is used to describe reduction in twin pregnancies
for maternal medical conditions, psychological, or socio-economic reasons." Is this article confounding two different concepts? --PeeKoo (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the articles I read refer to "selective reduction" as being the aborting of some fetuses in a multiple pregnancy because multiple births are risky or because the mother or couple do not want a multiple pregnancy.  Those articles have been in the press, not in the medical literature, and since this is an encyclopedia, not a medical textbook, using the common term is most appropriate.--Bruce Hall (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective termination and elective reduction 

message: None of the articles that I have read, all non-medical, have mentioned using selective reduction for fetal deformaties.  The comment above makes me think that the reference to fetal deformaties does not belong in this article but in another article about another procedure or practice.--Bruce Hall (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fetal deformaties a reason for "selective reduction"
Talk:The Hand of God (book)

message: I've proposed merging this POV pushing perma-stub to its parent article, Bernard Nathanson. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime

message: There is some discrepancy as to the date this paper was published. Apparently it was posted to Social Science Research Network in August, 1999, but the citation is for 2000. I'm guessing that the paper appeared in print in 2000. Which date should we use? Either way, the date for this article (2001) is wrong. GabrielF 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Paper 

message: It seems that the critics of this paper have gone overboard here. It'll be great if someone trim down the criticisms section and could beef up the description of the paper itself. LK (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also think the article could use some graphs and other visual material to enhance the page. Some are presented in the paper. 65.92.81.102 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the paper and the criticisms and disagree.  Levitt started with a pretty tenuous proposal (that amidst, the maelstrom of social changes, he could statistically isolate abortion as pre-emptively killing criminals).  Foote and Goetz especially show that this was not well done stats analysis.  In addition, the Sailer criticism (essentially that looking at several years and ages rather than the snapshot of two years and crime done by people of all ages), the effect goes away.  Levitt did the equivalent of what the worse sorts of global warming deniers do (selectively cherry pick years from overall trends).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.42.81 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I also agree. In addition, whether the paper is right or wrong has nothing to do if whether abortion is right or wrong; after all, I'd doubt anyone would suggest killing underprivileged kindergartners as a solution to crime. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section overweight 

message: It seems strange that the coverage of the original paper and the responses just talks about abortion.  What about other factors that reduce unwanted births, such as rates of unintended pregnancy?  Federal funding to provide contraceptive access for poor started about 1970 (Title X and predecessors).  Also the 1960's saw the introduction of a new class of contraceptives (hormonal), which rapidly became quite popular.  Is there something different about those who get abortions vs. those who use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.  Article needs more coverage of alternative factors like this.  Zodon (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the focus solely on abortion?
Talk:Branch (computer science)

message: ==Untitled==
I've added the cleanup tag, mostly because of the last half of the article.  It says that branch instructions can be taken or not taken --- this is only true of conditional branches, not branches in general.  This is then mentioned again in the last sentence of the paragraph.  --Ferris37 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, it is completely true that a branch can be taken or not taken. Every branch is either taken or not taken. It is just that unconditional branches are always taken and conditional branches involve a choice. I think the article is pretty good on this point: it defines the terms taken and not taken, then tells us that unconditionals are always taken, conditionals depend on a condition. Is this not clear? NicM 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've added the cleanup tag, mostly because of the last half of the article.  It says that branch instructions can be taken or not taken --- this is only true of conditional branches, not branches in general.  This is then mentioned again in the last sentence of the paragraph.  --Ferris37 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, it is completely true that a branch can be taken or not taken. Every branch is either taken or not taken. It is just that unconditional branches are always taken and conditional branches involve a choice. I think the article is pretty good on this point: it defines the terms taken and not taken, then tells us that unconditionals are always taken, conditionals depend on a condition. Is this not clear? NicM 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Abortion in Finland

message: I assume that 12 weeks is first trimester, that is 12 weeks of actual pregnancy. But the sources do not clarify. Currently we imply 12 weeks gestational age, which according to gestational age is only 9 weeks of pregnancy because for convenience pregnancy is counted starting 3 weeks before one gets pregnant. But some countries count pregnancy as starting when one gets pregnant, so it would be good to have the definition of pregnancy under Finnish law. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term limit
Talk:Tomb of King Muryeong

message: 1) need to provide caption for the right hand side photo.
2) need to provide information about from where the photographs come. Gallery at National Museum of Korea? somewhere else?
수고하세요! Mumun 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: what a brilliant article! I love it so much!!!
--back to goguryeo 13:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  brilliant!!
Talk:Abortion in Iran

message: At one point this article says: "abortion has never been legal at any point in Iran's history," but another part says: "Legal abortion is still allowed in Iran[.]"  I don't have the information in front of me to determine which is correct, so I have tagged the article with the  tag in hopes someone else can resolve this apparent contradiction. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't really seem to have any contradiction, in its current version -Zahd (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction
Talk:Abortion in Sweden

message: The article seems to say that foreign women were not allowed to obtain abortions in Sweden until 2008.  That is certainly not true, as evidenced by highly publicized case of Sherri Finkbine in 1962.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Inaccuracies

message: Can anyone clarify the exact situation after 22 weeks?  The article in one place, says what the 18-22 week law is, saying nothing about the remaining case, and elsewhere simply talks about abortion after 18 weeks.  84.203.34.111 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If something still is unclear, don't hesitate to ask.Sjö (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent, thank you very much.  84.203.34.111 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status after 22 weeks? 
Talk:Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

message: The final two sections of this article seem like they might have some WP:NPOV issues. Is anybody editing this regularly? Would folks mind if I tried bringing those sections a little more in line with Wikipedia policy? Ekpyyrotic (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final two sections 

message: The article is incomplete in that it does not say what the penalties for violating the act are.  Is blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic a felony or misdemeanor or what?  How much fine/jail time should a violator expect to spend?  Goblinshark17 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional section needed: Penalties for violation
Talk:Cerebra (character)

message: *I re-rated this article as a B-class b/c it briefly summarizes every major appearance of Cerebra and includes structures such as infoboxes. Someone who is unfamiliar with her character would grab a good understanding of who she is and her importance to the Marvel 2099 line. Tullyman 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project
Talk:German Constitutional Court abortion decision, 1975

message: I have not altered the article other than to redescribe the "External links" as "references". I marked as "Secondary source" http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/germandecision/. Previously this was described as "Major source for this page (used with permission), which contains commentary not included here." I'm not sure how closely the Wiki article paraphrases the source. Is there a record of the permission? The source appears to be a personal project of Erik Rauch, who does/did science research at MIT not connected to abortion or German law, and seems to be anti-abortion/pro-life. The Wiki article doesn't seem to be POV to me, but it would be better to have an NPOV source rather than trying to filter out the POV elements of a POV source. jnestorius(talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source problem
Talk:Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic

message: The first section seems to be written with an opinionated undertone.Moonboy54 (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This no longer seems to be the case. Aurodea108 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hey, guys, would you mind if you just left this alone while I work in? Much obliged. THE KC (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no can do. Don't have enough tmie now. THE KC (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: Hi. LexisNexis seems to list the argue date for this case as October 15.
Looking at the scanned page from Justia.com, it seems clear it's October 16. Unless LexisNexis knows something we don't. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in argue date
Talk:Hodgson v. Minnesota

message: This article appears to be almost entirely lifted from , and is thus probably in violation of Wikipedia's policies on the use of copyrighted material.  I'm reporting this violation.  We'll probably have to delete the offending material, as this page doesn't look like it's heavily frequented.  Dkostic 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license ] and therefore is not 
compatible with Wikipedia policy. I reverted it to the non-copyrighted version as per policy. Thylark 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: As with all other Supreme Court abortion cases between Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women Health Organization, the infobox for this case states that it was superseded by Dobbs. I am not sure this is true.
Although states can now ban abortion completely, it does not necessarily follow that regulations that "do not further any legitimate state interest", as the Hodgson court found to be the case for Minnesota's two-parent notification law, are also constitutional, so it remains possible that this holding is still good law.
I am not aware of any state that presently has analogous laws to the one at issue in this case, but it is at least academically arguable that the "superseded by Dobbs" prompt should be removed for now. LunaticLarry (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status after Dobbs
Talk:Barnett Slepian

message: Why is Dr. Slepian described as a “murderer of children”. This is obviously inappropriate. 2600:8800:5A20:A200:C04E:AEF1:55BC:1EA0 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of subject
Talk:Tango (1998 film)

message: ... the following seems like original work ...."As in so many of Saura's films, the basic psychological love triangle is transplanted to a new arena, not that of Carmen nor of Lorca, but of the director of a production in Argentina that takes up a number of powerful historical themes, from the landing of many immigrants, covered by the soundtrack with Verdi's "Va, pensiero...", which recalls historical themes of rebellion and which are taken up when a danced representation of the Junta's repression is enacted.
There is less dancing than usual in Saura's films. Clearly, he has experts to work with, and the focus on the foot tracing catlike its path on the floor has the flavor of a point newly inculcated, and yet it is appropriate, and not the amateur mistake made by many dance filmmakers of concentrating the camera only on the feet or legs, which misses the whole point of the dance coming from the dancer's center.
The film caused some controversy by a lavish dance scene between Elena and Laura, that ends in a lesbian kissing scene. This was criticized by some tango fans who claimed that same sex tango, even being common, doesn't have usually a sexual connotation."
As such -- deleted . Luigibob (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Original work - OVERVIEW section
Talk:American Birth Control League

message: I've deactivated this template: could someone please explain the link? Thanks, -Will Beback 06:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not involved in putting it there, but I assume it's because the American Birth Control League is the predecessor to Planned Parenthood, which (amoung the many services it offers) is the largest abortion provided in the U.S. Lyrl 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but I don't see a reason to include this article about a group that did not advocate abortion (to the best of my knowledge). -Will Beback 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since this became Planned Parenthood, should these articles be merged?  This article is quite small as well.  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure a merger would be best.  The ABCL started in 1921, and it did not evolve into PPFA unti 1942.   That is a 21 year span where a LOT happened.  The ABCL is discussed in 12 different places in Engelman's history book (as the ABCL ... not PPFA) so it certainly treated by the sources as an independent organization.  As for article size: It is not that small, also I see that there is a lot of material missing from the article (based on the sources I'm aware of).  Plus, if it was in the PPFA article, that article would have to start at 1921 and have 21 years of history before the PPFA was even created.  So I'd recommend keeping them separate. --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some ref books to the Refs section, so future editors can more readily find material with which to expand this article. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't support a merger.  This is a substantial article on its own.  A redirect to Planned Parenthood would be confusing and take a while for people to find the information relevant to the period of time when it was named the ABCL. --Catavar (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above, I removed the merge template. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Women on Waves

message: I remember hearing about this in the news.  It is an appropriate topic for a Wkipedia article.  There are no 3rd party sources referenced.  There should be some articles in The New York Times, CNN, NewsWeek, TIME Magazine and the like.  And there should be some more information about both government and private groups which have opposed this group.DismasMama 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: *art installation
*cleared of charges in Poland
*hotline process
*2008 Canada
*human rights and Ireland
-Phyesalis (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: are you still watching this page Phyesalis? Thanks for the link to the Mediamatic installation.AnaSoc (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Very strong similarities suggest that Women on Waves and Women on Web are the same organization.Try to find info on the issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4 Women on Web (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women on web 

message: The article looks almost promotional, as if this was a McDonald's boat or something. It is assumed that every thinking person either supports or implicity agrees with the seafaring abortionists. It would be just as shocking if we had Rapists on Wanves or Pedophiles on Waves.  ADM (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncritical 

message: I'm looking for opinions from other editors about the wording in the opening sentence. I believe that "pro-choice" is the more common and accepted term, while User:CrossoverManiac prefers "pro-abortion." Rather than getting into a big edit war over this, I'm looking for input from other editors. Joyous! | Talk 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Women on Waves uses the term abortion. The article is about Women on Waves. Therefore the article should use the term abortion. AnaSoc (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording: "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" 

message: Lots has happened since the last edits on this article. I plan to add material from three peer-reviewed journal articles and maybe some updated news sources. Irish voters decided to legalize abortion in June, 2018, but it's too soon to tell how much influence Women on Waves had on this. I suspect that their influence was huge, as WoW's explicit purpose in traveling to Ireland was to "catalyze" the movement to liberalize abortion laws.https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/769/ireland-2001 It would be helpful to include this information, if we can find it.AnaSoc (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 time to update 

message: For this assignment, we did research into aspects of Women on Waves we feel have been underrepresented on the page, for instance the cultural precedent of overseas gender and sexuality-related work and activism within the Netherlands. We also looked into reception and reviews of "Vessel" as a means of exploring the cultural response to an organization like WoW.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePayne6467 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality