lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Perversion for Profit

message: I just completed viewing the movie, despite a a power failure. As far as I know, this is the very first time for me, that I've ever seen and heard, a person distinguish that males are, "homosexuals", and that females are, "lesbians". My reactions included, "Huh?!", and, "They don't know that the words, 'homosexual', 'homosexuality', et cetera, may be applied to males and females alike?!" Also, "Wait! Is this evidence of an error like that? Or, evidence that 'gay', wasn't in use just yet, to refer to male homosexuals?"
The article itself, has a line in it, using the word "gays", soon after using the word, "homosexuals", or is it, "homosexuality"?, as if the implication is that, "gay", has always been the word, when it hasn't been. I recall the 1970s, and how many people were having problems with accepting "gay", as a correct/preferred term.
("You're trying to tell me, that my Aunt Gay, is a male homosexual?!", &, "You're trying to tell me, that when Johnny came marching home, people weren't happy about it, but instead, wanted to become male homosexuals about it?!")
But my question is, are there other movies that have used those words in that context, or are there others, or, is this the only example, because it was mistaken in that context? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it more that they wanted to use the term lesbian but there is no males-only equivalent so thenuae the general term. Guessing you caught this on TCM Underground too? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homosexuality versus Lesbianism" 

message: PfP includes a reading of a passage from this. I found https://books.google.ca/books/about/Sex_Jungle.html?id=f3OEYgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y saying it came out 1960 by Don Elliot.
I dont think we have an article on Don Elliot (author). Is potentially notable? If not then how did his book get chosen? Did the film make him notable?
Sadly no sample on Gbooks. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sex Jungle]]

message: It appears that it was made in 1965, and that it was made by citizens for decent literature inc. Is this an orphaned work? How is it that all the magazine images in it are also public domain? Was there no copyright notice on the film was it not renewed? I'm curious. Victor Grigas (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The film does not have a copyright notice which was required of works published in the US before 1978.https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain As for the images of the magazines, they were likely unable to defend themselves when this film was made. Verumregium (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this film public domain?
Talk:List of wings of the United States Air Force

message: Should the wings from AFMC that are strictly admin wings be added to the list.  This is really a list of the combat wings (or at least wings with that are part of the combat structure).  For this reason the Weather Wings from the 1960-70's were not included.  Only wings that would meet the criteria of being AFCON (Air Force-controlled) establishments. The term AFCON applies to all those organizations under the direct control of Headquarters USAF for organizational actions. The Air Force reserved the numbers 1 through 999 for these permanent organizations, with the numbers 101 through 300 allotted to the Air National Guard.  So, the ESC, AAC and other AFMC wings without numbers are not really wings for the purposes of this list.
Chris
----
By that definition, the 11th Wing, Wilford Hall, the AF Academy, as well as most ABWs should also not be on this list as all of those Wings are "strictly admin wings".  An ABW by definition is an administrative wing that usually only consists of a Mission Support Group and a Medical Group.  The AFMC wings meet the AFCON definition since they are under direct control of HAF for organizational actions.  All of those wings were stood up as establishments utilizing DAF letters and G-series orders as required by AFIs.  The intent of the action was to redefine the Air Force Wing concept as more than just "combat structure".  I was one of the Manpower Analysts involved in AFMC's standup of those Wings.  Personally, I think the list shoudl be restricted to only active wings.  I think the inclusion of inactivated wings can create confusion for non-AF civilians looking at this list for an overview of the Air Force.
ELH50
____
Thanks for the clarification on the admin wing point, but don't those wings have history in the combat organization of the USAF.  If so, even though they are now "admin wings" they could be moved back to combat status - the 15th ABW is one example that I can think of.
As for the inactive wings - maybe break the list into active and inactive.  Also maybe a list for the ANG wings since they are not USAF owned wings as I understand it.
Chris
----
Some of the ABW's have a combat history--some go back to WW2--, some don't.  I think the AFHRA has several on their website.  I'll have to run this list by their site sometime.  I know some wings have gone back and forth.  I know when I left AFMC for USAFE they were still looking into numbering the Wings.  Some at Hill, Eglin, and Edwards got numbered during the reorg.  I believe they were looking at 500 series numbers, but I could be mistaken on that.
I like the idea of active, inactive, and guard lists.  Would definitely be a good goal to work on here.  The ownership of guard units has always been a sticky issue--look at the latest BRAC process.
I like your suggestions.  Will play with them soon.  Stay tuned...
ELH50
----
Maybe I'm missing something but what about the ANG 106th Rescue Wing on Long Island?
Lamjus 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Forward Look

message: The actual entry should be "Forward Look" (both capitalized).  Is there any way to change the entry accordingly?
:Yes.  Whenever you're logged in, you should be able to see a "Move this article" button on any article page.  Just used it.Bjones 20:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Forward Look is closely related Virgil Exner, therefore I propose it be merged into the Virgil Exner article. A redirect will remain so that those searching for Forward Look can easily find it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Ascribed status

message: Can religion be considered Ascribed on some level?
Those born into particular religions. -- LogicX 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: All 2409:4042:2E9E:357B:B516:1363:9F01:C1DB (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success means financial gain
Talk:The 101ers

message: Does anyone have any quality pictures of the band? I have searched on the internet and there aren't many and the ones that are online are blurry and of low quality. Underneath-it-All 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: Shouldn't the page be called "The 101'ers," as they were actually called, instead of "The 101ers"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.51.2 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title?
Talk:Thomasine Church

message: The current disambiguation page refers to three uses of "Thomasine" in a religious setting:
* As a synonym for Saint Thomas Christians
* As a general term for the School of Saint Thomas
* To refer to the modern Thomasine Church (the subject of the original page)
Since all of these are referred to as "Thomasine" in Wikipedia (including Talk pages) this disambiguation seemed necessary.
Note, however, that the third bullet is not an internal link, because the vote to delete the page for the modern Thomasine church stands as Wiki-policy. Lawrence King 02:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 4 March, User:Cryptic removed the third bullet, since we don't disambiguate terms that don't have Wikipedia articles.  Hopefully this won't lead to confusion, since the term "Thomasine Church" appears 25 times in Wikipedia articles, almost always in reference to the now-deleted bullet. Lawrence King 01:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current version of this page 

message: I cleaned up all the references to "Thomasine Church" that I could find in Wikipedia.  When appropriate, I redirected them to the proper place, or replaced them with external links.  When they appeared to be advertisements for the modern Thomasine Church in inappropriate places, I removed them.  This seems to follow the spirit of the deletion ruling. Lawrence King 02:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of references to this page
Talk:Chrysler minivan models

message: This page is a mess-missing capital letters, confusing, incomplete. There needs to be more clear references to the Dodge Grand Caravan and Caravan, Chrysler Town and Country, and Plymouth Voyager and Grand Voyager. I don't know enough about the topic to fix the article, but perhaps the article should be split into three: Dodge Caravan, Chrysler Town and Country, and Plymouth Voyager. Airline 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Maybe it's just me, but I don't care which locals of which unions build these things. I'm not going to remove it though because I know know how fanatical those guys can get.--bigjarom 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unions 

message: I agree with what Airline said above, I think this article has become a bit too large and needs to be split up into different articles, one for the Caravan, one for the Voyager, and the info about the Town & Country would e integrated into this page again. --ApolloBoy 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I was thinking. --ApolloBoy 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I split the article into four, but significant editing now needs to be done to the others to make them factually accurate for their new names. Airline 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone in favor of splitting this up?
Talk:Microplate

message: User:Royalmanns edit is really problematic. I don't want to simply remove it but is there some way I can highlight it for editing? 
Structurebiologist (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Highlight problematic edit

message: this artical tells the reader alot about what this plate looks like but never actualy says what it is otheer then to say it's used in science.Larquitte 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a microtiter plate?

message: Microtiter (Microtitre in Europe) is a registered trademark of Cooke Engineering Corporation, now owned by Thermo Scientific, and should be properly labeled as such. Trademark info can be found on USPTO site .
The proper non-branded term is microplate.
Sciencechecker (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademark Ownership

message: Any objections against using this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Microplates.jpg
It shows the 3 different plates and is more informative in my opinion. Panoramix303 (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different image 
Talk:Amos (prophet)

message: I visited the page of Amos here in Wikipedia in hopes that it will help me for one of my projects, but it turned out that it didn't have the information I needed.  Can someone add in more information about his teachings perhaps that will help not only me but also other people? Thanks! ---PrettyPetiteTalk 06:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information 

message: The year given as the start of Amos' 'prophetic career' (750BC) is not consistent with either the best estimates for the 'earthquake' (c. 760BC) during Uzziah's reign (791-740BC), nor does it fall within the reign of Jeroboam of Israel (793-753BC).
Can someone provide a quote from the cited source, or provide any other justification for why 750BC has been given despite more likely reckonings?!--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one answered your question in three years, I have replaced the 750 date with 760-755, and added a citation indicating near-unanimous scholarly support for that date. The source is a book by InterVarsity Press, which I'm sure would raise eyebrows with some scholars, but given the claim about near-unanimity of scholarship on this topic, I went ahead. If anyone wants to repeat the same information from another source, feel free. But I felt comfortable including it because this doesn't seem to be a controversial question.  Alephb (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: InterVarsity Press is a very reputable scholarly publisher, and its inclusion in beneficial. Ross.woods (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting year

message: This article contains at least a few sentences lifted from the entry on "Amos" written by Karl Budde, Kaufmann Kohler, and Louis Ginzberg, in the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1423-mos). For example, this passage has been copied over, more or less unchanged: "Amos' attitude marks a turning-point in the development of Old Testament prophecy. It is not mere chance that Hosea, Isaiah (ch. vi.), Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and almost all of the prophets who are more than unknown personages to whom a few prophetical speeches are ascribed, give first of all the story of their special calling. All of them thereby seek to protest against the suspicion that they are professional prophets, because the latter discredited themselves by flattering national vanities and ignoring the misdeeds of prominent men." Though the Encyclopedia is in the public domain, it still seems a little odd that it is merely cited as a reference. Is there some convention for crediting that Encyclopedia properly? Omphaloscope talk 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1906 encyclopedia
Talk:SODA Off-Road Racing

message: Personal reviews have no place in an encyclopedia: see the Neutral Point of View Wikipedia policy for more information. Also, contributions to article pages rather than to talk pages should not be signed with the author's name. Instead, their username is logged in the page history. --IByte 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No reviews, please

message: I removed the following text from the article:
Role as development for Grand Prix Legends
There has been speculation that SODA was actually effectively an early testbed for the physics engine that was to be used the following year in Grand Prix Legends.
Dave Kaemmer recently confirmed the game was entirely done by outside contractor Shawn Nash, and it contains no code used in other Papyrus titles.  Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a test bed for GPL
Talk:Hezb-e Islami

message: It's obvious the two should be merged, since they're variant spellings. The other has less pages linking to it (not counting the redirects that point to it) and this one has more info.  But perhaps there is a naming convention to follow here. NickelShoe 02:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Still no argument for disputation of neutrality? Paki.tv 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undisputed?
Talk:John Rees (journalist)

message: Stumbled across this page just now...It's presently an unsourced smear, but I don't have the information to fix it.  I added POV tag and cite requests and will put the page on RFC.  --FRS 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug through a bit on the Internet.  He was a police informant but I couldn't find enough material to justify calling him a spy.  The Washington Post and Skeptics.org found his reporting on Lyndon LaRouche legitimate enough to cite.  Added external links and made slight text modifications. Durova 23:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: John Rees, or someone claiming to be John Rees, re-wrote the article in this edit. Mr. Rees, if you are reading this, I would suggest you have another go at it, keeping these factors in mind: first of all, a biographical article shouldn't be written in the first person. Secondly, Wikipedia has a rule that articles must be based on published sources. I see that you object to material from Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates that you regard as incorrect -- I symphathize with you on that, I too think that those are very unreliable sources. But under Wikipedia rules, you either have to present rebuttal evidence from another published source, or make a specific challenge to the material based on the unreliability of the source. This can be time consuming. Best of luck on that. I have made some corrections to the article based on non-controversial things you assert about yourself, such as your nationality. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was Lithuanian. He left with the SS in 1944. 122.150.92.52 (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write by subject

message: That can't be Grace Metalious in the photograph with Nancy Reagan.  If it were Grace Metalious, it would have had to have been taken before February 25, 1964, the day that Metalious died.  Even assuming that it was taken before that date, long before Nancy Reagan became very prominent as First Lady, and even assuming that Nancy Reagan looked the same in the early 1960s as she did in the 1980s, the woman identified as Grace Metalious just clearly isn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey Jan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Grace Metalious  

message: Metalious died in 1964. Recommend changing photo caption. 2001:8F8:1D13:DF98:347F:ECC:1DFF:DC40 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo with Nancy Reagan not Grace Metalious
Talk:Criminal organization

message: According to the article the "German Army High Command" was indicited, but not convicted of being a Criminal Organization. However German Army High Command article redirects to Oberkommando des Heeres, which does not mention this. The article Oberkommando der Wehrmacht does claim that it was was indicted but not convicted. Is there a mixup between Oberkommando des Heeres and  Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or were both organizations indicted? 168.209.98.35 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Army High Command dispute 

message: I stumbled across this entry for criminal organization and believe that it needs to be cleaned up, written from a more neutral point of view (though I admit it's not overly opinionated either), and also requires more citations to some of the statements that are made (i.e. American political rhetoric).  
The section could be merged into the organized crime wikipedia entry by elaborating on the term's usage in today's 24-hour news cycle by politicians and celebrities alike. The pop culture aspect. 
I hope all that makes sense.  Look forward to hearing what everyone else has to say.
-Brian
(Bsheppard 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I toned down some of the political rhetoric. I also removed a weasel sentence. I will try to clean up the rest of the article later. Rintrah 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up Criminal Organization; and merge into Organized Crime 

message: Everything was merged smoothly in Organized crime per the unanimous views expressed here. No information was lost in the process. ~ Rollo44 05:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger
Talk:Insect flight

message: Perhaps the "current research" section ends with too many open-ended questions. This makes it read a bit like an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Also, the "basic mechanics" section might be a little too technical as it is for many viewers. Not sure how to best improve this, though. Jacoplane 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some observations

message: Hopefully the inclusion of the actual flight mechanics, and the relegation of the aerodynamics material to the "aerodynamics" section will improve the situation. Ultimately, the inability to insert nice, public domain illustrations hampers pages like this one, and maybe someone can address this in the future. Dyanega 04:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restructured, but really could use illustrations 

message: How did insect flight evolve in the first place -- is there any research?  Presumably the insect wing started off as some non flight related structure, then became useful for gliding and later for flying.  In birds and bats the wings of course are modified legs.  I would guess that's not the case in insects.  Was the wing originally perhaps some kind of temperature regulating structure? -- Rsholmes 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: Delayed stall appears to deal with aspects of insect flight, but is not very clear. Perhaps it would be better to merge it here with thegeneral discusion of insect aerodynamics? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I think that the size of the first picture should be made larger- unless it is at some standard size that I'm not aware of.
This is purely for aesthetic reasons. 132.77.4.129 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Size 

message: Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested?  Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets.  See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention.  See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics.  I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made.  Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed project of interest - organismal biomechanics 

message: http://www.flickr.com/photos/70259473@N00/1075266329
Just granpa (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayfly gill 

message: In the image shown under leading edge vortex generation, the sequence numbering 1,2,3 seems to be opposite to what it should be. The insect sweeps its wings from right to left on the downstroke, not left to right. 144.82.8.240 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerodynamics