lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:William King Harvey

message: The de-classified (formerly Top Secret) 1975 testimony of William King Harvey to the US Senate on his involvement and with Johnny Roselli and Project Mongoose in attempts to kill Fidel Castro is available on-line at the links below. This is an authoritative, highly credible, source of William Harvey testifying under oath on his activities, and should be included as a reference for the Career section. Unfortunately, I'm not sure my editing skills are up to the task. 
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33940  
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33930  
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33933  
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1390  
Yaman32 (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Reference 

message: In the career section:
“ The unauthorized operation tarnished Harvey's reputation.”
What unauthorized operation? This is the first usage of this phrase in the article. UsersLikeYou (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unauthorized operation?
Talk:Giorgi Japaridze

message: I see that some user has slapped a notability tag to this article, which will be removed.--86.125.181.105 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject's notability is questionable. The fact that Giorgi Japaridze published some works does not make him automatically notable. Notability must be proved via more reliable, secondary sources. All 3 external links are simply html pages from university's website. Their reliability is doubtful. Also i notice here copyvio. Article needs some inline citations. XXN (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 
Talk:Cox Mill High School

message: This article is about a Cabarrus County high school and the history behind it, same as the other Cabarrus County high school pages.  I'm not sure why this one would warrant deletion. --UNCCTF 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article it hasn't opened yet, how can it have a history? ---- WebHamster 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: Please consider adding references to the school that have appeared in newspapers or magazines. --Eastmain 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 
Talk:Club Disco

message: Minogue's official webpage lists this as a studio album, so I'm changing this page to reflect that. Even though some of the tracks appeared previously on the Hits and Beyond compilation, and even though the creation of this album was unorthodox (being pieced together partly from the remains of Heavy Disco), none of the tracks on Club Disco appeared on any other studio album, so I think it's fair to call it a studio album. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as a studio album 
Talk:Toni Preckwinkle

message: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/kim-foxx-receives-250k-donation-from-tpreckwinkle/   This is interesting news. 50.162.216.50 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizable political contribution BY Preckwinkle 
Talk:The Stuff of Thought

message: Just created the article today. Article needs in depth explanation of Pinker's arguments contained within The Stuff of Thought and a section on criticism of the work. Dpetley 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the book, would a paragraph or so on each chapter be appropriate?  Thanks.  Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes! I think that would be great. I've not finished the book and would defer to you if you'd like to add a summary of each chapter. Dpetley (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Pinker delivered a good talk at Google that summarizes the book in about an hour. You can find it on Youtube. This would probably make a good basis for additional paragraphs illustrating how language reveals our internal physical model of the world. -- SpareSimian (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article created (October 2007)
Talk:Historical fallacy

message: To infer that gas bubbles are a part of the process of making bread, that would be correct, that is not fallacious.
To infer that gas bubbles were an ingredient rather than incident to the process(though not at all incidental to the process), that information just isn't there to be inferred from the results of the process, it is imaginary, it is a black-box transformation of confusion to falsehood, and I can't figure out how it could have anything to do with "reading (aspects of the result?) into the content of the process". If these words have special domain-specific meanings, please use different words if possible, because they are nothing but misleading.
I don't know that the example is really the issue here, but there must be a problem somewhere in the article, because I'm the middle of its target audience and I've got little clue what it's trying to convey.Myas012 06:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a basically orphaned start of an article with a single primary source quote, that is not even clear what it is talking about. The "historical fallacy" does not appear in any list of fallacies, including the Wikipedia List_of_fallacies. An internet search just leads to this article Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not sure the bread example works
Talk:Incomplete comparison

message: "Learning Chinese is more difficult than learning Spanish." is acceptable only if the person learning Spanish is already fluent in a Latin based language. There is an inherent (unconscious?) bias here that the person is fluent in a Latin based language. E.g. is Chinese more difficult than learning Spanish for a Korean or Japanese person? 86.97.172.95 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point may be correct, but the sentence is at least a complete comparison, as opposed to incomplete, so it still suffices as an example of what the article is about. Tmusgrove (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent bias? 

message: As of now there is only one reference in the article, and it is to a dead link. It needs to be replaced with something from the Wayback Machine, such as:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071020184916/http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/tsw/comp-i.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmusgrove (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link
Talk:Masked-man fallacy

message: : Is it meant 'designators with identical references'? Andres (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly, I don't understand either version. Either this should be reworded in the article, or an explanatory link should be used on one or more of the terms. I don't know what article(s) should be linked to, though. - dcljr (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Identical designators

message: I've marked intensional fallacy to be merged into this article. The Fallacy Files blog mentioned that these are described as the same fallacy: March 2010, April 2010. Whether the intensional fallacy (or "selection-for" fallacy) discussed in What Darwin Got Wrong is the same appears debatable.
The masked man fallacy is also known as larvatus (an old name) and illicit substitution of identicals (so far seen only in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). —Mrwojo (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[intensional fallacy]]
Talk:Package-deal fallacy

message: I removed this passage:
: Use of this fallacy is also common in contract negotiation, where it is called iunctim or tying.
Because package deals in contract negotiations are not a logical fallacy in the strictest sense, are not always against the law nor generally frowned upon by the business community. Dhvrm 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package Deals In Contracts 

message: If it's true that a candidate is a conservative, then one can reasonably infer that he will oppose gun control and abortion. A fallacy would be "My opponent voted against against higher taxes and welfare, so it follows that he will oppose gun control and abortion".
Really, almost any example would be better than this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.226.133 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article mistakes inference for a fallacy
Talk:Parade of horribles

message: There is a good scene in Shakespeare's Henry V where he uses a parade of horribles. I don't have a copy on me now but it is when he invades one of the smaller French towns. <B>Troubleshooter</B> 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry V 

message: :Premise: If homosexuals are allowed to marry each other,
:conclusion then all people in heterosexual marriages will get a divorce.
The premise is not bad enough to qualify as a "horrible". Said: Rursus (☻) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misread. "Premise not horrible enough" is a good qualifier for "parade of horribles". Said: Rursus (☻) 06:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also not much of a parade. Only one bad outcome is mentioned. --193.1.172.188 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a well chosen example 

message: See slippery slope fallacy. Google has 900~ hits, the first few are wikipedia, the next few are random comments in blogs, sometimes referring to wikipedia. This needs a citation from an authority on logical fallacy. –MT 22:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy?
Category talk:Relevance fallacies

message: Why is the "Biblical literalism" article in this category?
I can't see how the content of that article expands on the concept of relevance fallacies.
There is only this one single quote by some professor claiming that "Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism." (in the "Pejorative use" section of the article). It is however not stated in any way what exactly is meant by that, nor any explaining example or evidence given. Certainly nothing that would merit the whole article being shown as part of a collection of articles on the topic of "relevance fallacies".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.70.254 (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that article and Qur'anic literalism from the category. I suspect it meant that the argument contains a fallacy, but more usually the articles in this category deal with types of fallacies themselves and not the arguments that contain them. That's just speculation though because, as you noted, the articles say little. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical literalism
Talk:HLA-B81

message: As with the other serotype articles, more effort needs to be made to make the prose accessible to the lay reader. Please explain technical language that the average man on the street will not know. — Brian (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, these serotypes are what they are, you cannot lie to make them something they are not to make the more entertaining. The failing of the Serotype page is not the fault of this page, urge the author(s) of that page to repair it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking you to make them more entertaining. I'm asking you to explain technical language. And I am urging the authors to repair the prose, but posting the banner. — Brian (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing
Talk:Nimiokoala

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Riversleigh rainforest koala →  – No evidence that "Riversleigh rainforest koala" is a more common name for this taxon than the genus name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Mammals has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 February 2024
Talk:Brachalletes

message: The current version of the text reads: "The species was assigned to the order Diprotodontia, suborder Macropodiformes, and family Hypsiprymnodontidae by McKenna and Bell in 1997, though it is placed in its own order by other authorities". I don't know where this is from, and it is definitely incorrect... I have the print version of McKenna and Bell in front of me, and on p. 58, this genus (not species: M&B is a classification to the level of genus only) is assigned simply to Order Diprotodontia, family unspecified. Fossilworks/Paleobiology Database (as at August 2022) assigns it to "Parent taxon: Diprotodontidae according to M. C. McKenna and S. K. Bell 1997" but again this is not supported by the facts. Also (via Google Scholar at least)  I can find nothing to support the statement "it is placed in its own order by other authorities".  J. Louys and G.J. Price, 2013 (https://doi.org/10.4202/app.00042.2013) place in Family Macropodidae with the comment: "Described by de Vis (1883b), the taxon was included in the family Macropodidae by Mahoney and Ride (1975), although they also suggested that it might be better placed in the Diprotodontidae. Dawson and Flannery (1985) suggested it possessed no characters diagnostic of the Macropodinae (long-faced kangaroos), and its placement remains uncertain, if indeed it is a valid taxon. We consider Brachalletes palmeri as a species inquirenda." I would suggest it be allocated in Wikipedia to Diprotodontia per McKenna & Bell, or Macropodidae per Louys & Price - slight preference for the former at this time based on Louys & Price's statement :) Tony Rees, IRMNG database (www.irmng.org) Tony 1212 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification
Talk:Modal scope fallacy

message: I would change this to "FALSE Necessity," as there are times when necessity is valid.JBDay 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Dhvrm 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

message: I consider the example provided to be confusing to the average user, because it is based in a semantic understanding of the word "necessity" that is new or unusual to most persons. I propose an alternative example:
a) Bachelors are necessarily unmarried.
b) John is a bachelor.
c) John cannot marry.
In this case, the example still bears out a degree of necessity that is not the case, but is far more clear. Dhvrm 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example: Confusing? 

message: There was an edit made to the article by 76.210.61.229 that looks like it belongs here:
"N.B. Actually this is a poor example. B does not follow from A (which gives no information about John), and, not knowing what was in the mind of the person who wrote this, must be assumed to be a given for the example to be valid. In the explanation, the writer proceeds to set up a straw man argument, another fallacy in which the arguer sets up a weak argument just to refute it. C does not in fact suggest that it is inconceivable for John to marry, merely that following from A and B he must be unmarried. (if P then Q, if Q then R, -> if P then R). Also, the writer states that only A is necessarily true, meaning that B is not given, and since it does not logically follow from A, there is no way to conclude that John actually is a bachelor.
I suggest a new example."
Djk3 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this and my previous comment, I have changed the example. Dhvrm (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth of example 

message: :Another example of fallacy by necessity stated less formally:
:
:"There are a lot of car accidents on this road.  We must reduce the number of car accidents.  There would be no car accidents if we closed the road.  Therefore we must close this road."  The necessity of reducing the number of car accidents is extended to imply the necessity of closing the road; clearly ignoring other plausible solutions to the problem of car accidents. [] []
That does not look like an example -- that's a different meaning of "necessity", surely. --174.119.182.107 (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road example 

message: Should this article be merged with the Modal fallacy article, which cites a source dealing with the “modal scope fallacy” among its sources? 50.81.209.157 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with “Modal fallacy” article?
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Proposed decision

message: Thank you for taking this case. Certainly, the ArbCom judgement will clarify everything. As a relatively new user (11 months in WP), I am not that much familiar with WP policies. I honestly thought that Commodore Sloat was uncivil to many users. I can not imagine that people in a good academic lab would be talking  like him.  But Kirill judgment shows that I might be wrong here. If this is indeed the case, and others vote like Kirill, I would like to apologize to ArbCom and to User:Commodore_Sloat and to correct my own behavior in WP accordingly. Biophys 00:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has been occasionally incivil, yes; but not to the extent that I could justify imposing a real sanction on him.  The two of you are productive editors; I'd prefer if you guys just stayed out of each others' hair and were able to go back to editing without some harsh restriction on your activity. Kirill 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I would certainly agree with your instruction to keep away of each other's edits. After all, that is something I was looking for. But my concern was more about other users who have a significantly bigger overlap of interests with Csloat than me.  It is really surprising that none of them provided any evidence. Perhaps they are too busy and do not want to be involved here. That is understandable. Still, I would like ArbCom to make an official judgement, which would clarify everything. If ArbCom decides that sanctions are not required, I would gladly accept this, just as any other decision. I am going to stay as far away of Csloat as possible, so it is perfectly fine if ArbCom decides that Csloat is not a problem for others. Biophys 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this makes a lot of sense, but I wonder what to do about articles where both Biophys and myself have been active editors?  The legitimate content disputes that started all of this will not go away and if we are editing the same articles, there is a risk that we will disagree about the edits to them.  (In particular, the WP:SYN issue may continue to create conflict).  Of course, I too will accept whatever decision Arbcom comes up with on the matter, and I'd like to take this opportunity again to once again apologize for my past incivilities and again announce my intention to edit productively and interact civilly at all times. csloat 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited. Commodore Sloat, do you agree? But I can make one prediction. If no other serious measures are taken by ArbCom at this point, then more and more users will be coming here to ask for the same "separation" remedy. I guess that Armon needs this remedy much more than me.Biophys 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Am I wrong here?
Talk:Young Germany

message: On 10 Octopber 2007, 68.107.148.93 introduced the uncited parenthetical assertions that Young Germany was banned because many, if not most, Young Germans were of Jewish descent. The two uncited assertions are:
*a) many, if not most, Young Germans were of Jewish descent;
*b) that that was a substantial reason for banning the movement.
I'm going to remove the edit by 68.107.148.93 until references are provided. Michael Bednarek 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited assertion by [[Special:Contributions/68.107.148.93|68.107.148.93]]
Talk:Experimenter's bias

message: turn us into== What type of experimenter's bias is this? ==
I've recently added a section on spiritual healing including a study published in 2001. This used experienced healers in the treatment (healing) group and "simulated healers" in the control group. Is there a type of bias caused by using "simulated healers" instead of experienced healers in the control group. What I'm looking for is the difference between assuming that the simulated healers cannot heal and knowing that they cannot heal.
Thanks,
Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Here is the entire article as it looked like before. The reason I removed it but decided to keep it on the discussion page is for the following reason: It is probably not any use to your average reader, but might be for someone with expert knowledge. --Spannerjam 15:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous article 

message: The experimenter's bias and the Observer-expectancy effect seem to be the same or similar. Therefore I suggest they are in the same article. That way confusion can be avoided for Wikipedia's readers. --Spannerjam 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Observer-expectancy effect is a subset of observer bias, but is potentially an article in itself. But, while it is so small, it could divert to the appropriate heading in this page Tim bates (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merger