lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Abstract labour and concrete labour

message: The introduction was too long so I put everything except for the first sentence into the first section called "Origin". I've also moved the picture from the upper right to the left of the first section. I'm not happy with that place, but it seems to be the least worse.--Tomvasseur (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed intro and image placement 

message: I have tidied up the notes and references in the text that I wrote.Jurriaan (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: I would appreciate it if Bob Rayner would refrain from chopping chunks out of the article without explanation, by "royal decree" as it were, since in that case I have to reinsert all the bits again and reference them separately when I develop the article further.Jurriaan (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism
Talk:Asiatic mode of production

message: This article fails completely to address the most fundamental and important aspect of the topic, namely, what the Asiatic mode of production is. Is it a mode by which urban industry is fueled by rural resources? One in which cottage industries in the countryside are the chief engine of progress and development, rather than urban businesses? Is it one focused more on labor than on mechanization? What distinguishes the Asiatic mode of production from other modes of production (e.g. the European mode) and what defines it?  Discussions of controversy, impact, and significance of the theory can come later. LordAmeth (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Fortunately, my reading supplied the explanation itself, which previous Wiki editors have failed to provide. So, I added it. This article still needs a ton of work, though. LordAmeth (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion
Talk:Nishinomiya-Najio Station

message: The current title of this article is Nishinomiyanajio Station, but the photograph of the station facade clearly shows the name as Nishinomiya Najio Station.  Should the article be moved to reflect the sign?  Slambo (Speak) 11:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the title have a space?
Talk:Consumption of fixed capital

message: Capital Consumption Allowance should be merged into this page. To the best of my knowledge, the two terms are used interchangeably (it is just that the BEA prefers one, and the UNSA prefers another). For an example of them being used interchangeably, see e.g. II.E.7.b and III.A here  (found via Googling "capital consumption allowance" "consumption of fixed capital").
--cfp (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Category talk:Ontario provincial electoral districts

message: I've update all ridings, re-categorizing those that are now defunct, and those that came into existence for the last federal election and this provincial election. There are 109 ridings listed, because there are two split articles, for which I have suggested a merge. Mindmatrix 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category updated to reflect 2007 status
Talk:Exchange value

message: Is this a wikipedia article or a student paper?  I've read most of the first half hoping to find out what an exchange value actually *is*, and all I'm learning is what it *isn't*.  Plus irrelevant asides about shiny cars that taste of lemons or somesuch bollocks.  
Perhaps someone who knows what they're talking about might like to try their hands at a rewrite.  It would be greatly appreciated
82.68.20.86 (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The article could do with more discussion of Adam Smith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: Ton of literature out there to draw on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research and almost no sources? 

message: it tries to describe different aspects of value and it completely fails. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead is incoherent.
Talk:Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet

message: According to "A fair dinkum Aussie Baronet" Mark McGuiness SMH 16/2/2005 he will be succeding as the fourth Baronet. Not sure if its official yet or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 10:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was written some time ago.  The son of a baronet will have an unqualified right to succeed, it's just a formality. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
* The result of the discussion was no consensus to move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to the official Standing Council of the Baronetage the succession still has not been proven, http://www.baronetage.org/unproven.htm. Therefore it is incorrect to name the page Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet, it should be Rupert Clarke. Even more, for Rupert Clarke, it would be illegal to name him like that. Demophon (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose move to Rupert Clarke which is a a disambiguation page for all the baronets and more. Perhaps Rupert Clarke, Jr. would be better. Or his full name Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke. Tassedethe (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose move to Rupert Clarke, which serves as a disambiguation. Agree with Tassedthe that Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke is better (I don't agree with Rupert Clarke, Jr.; Rupert Clarke III might be better, since he is the third). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move: Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet -> Rupert Clarke
Talk:Freudo-Marxism

message: why are deleuze and guatarri not in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.227.69 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Where does this information come from? I am relatively sure that this is not the case. The Super-Ego is an internalization of heterodox values forced upon the individual by society (which is the process linking Marxism and Freudianism). The Ego merely tries to bring the demands of the Id into accordance with those of the Super-Ego, saying that Ego and Super-Ego are shaped by the Id is a gross simplification, which furthermore reduces the interplay of forces (the more biological Id and the more socio-cultural Super-Ego) by omitting exactly that causal interface which makes Freudo-Marxism a valid theoretical endeavour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.227 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ego and Super-Ego shaped by Id
Talk:On Contradiction

message: The origin of On Contradiction is not a straight forward as you expressed. Although there are sources that claim the essay is the result of lecture notes, according to Lee Feigon's book, Mao, A Reinterpretation Mao has disavowed the lecture notes. He probably was concerned about being seen as a plagiarist. Therefore, it is not fair to claim On Contradiction is wrought from those notes. Additionally, the essay Stuart Schram noted in his book The Thought of Mao Tse-Tung that Mao only wanted people reading the most current versions of his work. He wrote that both On Practice and On Contradiction were officially published over ten years after those lectures. In that time the essays could have been thoroughly revised in order to reflect Mao's more current thoughts, so although the lectures were definitely a seminal part of Mao's journey as a thinker, they were not necessarily responsible for On Contradiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammcallister (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy involving the conception of "On Contradiction" 

message: Mao seems to criticize "metaphysicians" in a similar way to the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle (who met regularly up until 1936, a year before this piece of writing was published) AslanFrench (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any overlap with logical positivism?
Talk:Rentier capitalism

message: .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.130.106 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  the origins of the term are in adam smith, and it's actually a broadly liberal concept, not just a marxist one 

message: Just recording a forthcoming book by Brett Christophers on rentier capitalism (due out in about three days):
 RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forthcoming book Christophers (2020) 

message: The article says: 
""" but capitalist theories such as the natural "euthanasia of the rentier" famously put forth by John Maynard Keynes have been abandoned in light of the increase in rent-seeking behavior seen over the past century """
This is inaccurate. According to this website (https://mises.org/wire/keynes-and-euthanasia-rentier) (already cited), the term "euthanasia of the rentier" has been abandoned because it pre-supposes that interest rates and savings are unrelated. Quote: "For Keynes, interest is a purely monetary phenomenon, determined on the market by the demand for, and the supply of, money. As such, it is divorced from people's ability to save and thus accumulate capital." This puts carriage before the horse. Keynes original idea was that demand for money determined interest rates (which in this case is sort of a stand in for the value of money, i.e. inflation or deflation). Basically Keynes, suggested interest rates were determined by inflation/deflation. In reality, it's generally agreed that interest rates determine inflation/deflation. The causality is reversed, thus the reasoning associated with the original term is fundamentally flawed. It's a historical quirk where the term as additional meaning beyond approval or disapproval of rentiers. 
Regardless, none of these citations suggest that the term has been abandoned because of an increase in rent-seeking behavior. As best I can tell, economists didn't just start approving of rent-seeking behavior after seeing it. As far as I can tell there has never been any sort of approval of rentiers by anyone, aside from rentiers themselves. I think this part of the article should be fixed. Leaving it in is likely both to confuse people and/or give them the wrong impression of the history. 
- 136.142.159.85 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect and Biased Assertion.
Talk:Reproduction (economics)

message: I have started to add the notes this article, and aim to complete that in the next few months. User:Jurriaan 1 October 2011 23:45 (UTC)
"There were nine main factors which Marx largely ignored in his construction of reproduction schemes when he modelled the circulation of capital (through the constant transformations of money-capital into production-capital and commodity-capital and vice versa). These omissions have been noted by various Marxist and non-Marxist authors"
It is incorrect to state that Marx "ignored" most of the nine factors listed below this subject heading, if by this is meant that he was *unaware* of these factor as component parts of the subject matter of political economy. Even a cursory look at the whole corpus of Marx's work on political economy will show that this characterization to be false, for example in the very first line of the 1859 Preface.
It would be more accurate to state that Marx deliberately *abstracted* from most of these factors in the construction of much of the theory of capital, and not merely here with regard to the theorization of reproduction schemes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.102.199 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: you cannot separate the economic from the political just like you cannot separate the political from the economic hence the term political economy. Also both cannot be considered without sociology (society) hence the close relationship between the three disciplines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, everything is connected to everything else, and therefore inseparable from everything else. My writing is inseparable from oxygen. Why? Because I need oxygen to breathe while I am writing. My writing is also inseparable from gravity, because gravity keeps me in my seat. Naturally my writing is also inseparable from electric power, since without it my laptop on which I write does not work. In this way, it is easy to see that everything is connected to everything else. But if that is the case, how can we understand the connections between phenomena? That is the question. We are forced to separate out particular interconnections and disregard others for the time being, because otherwise there would be too much complexity to deal with. As explained in the article, Marx is primarily concerned with what is required for the enlarged reproduction of capital, and how the life of society as a whole must be reorganized and modified in order to make this possible. Certainly, politics, culture, ideology etc. play a role in that. These can be integrated into the analysis as it proceeds, but the analysis has to start off with questions such as "what is capital", "how does capital reproduce itself"", and "what is required for the reproduction of capital." This is a prerequisite for understanding the role of politics, culture, ideology etc.Cambridge Optic (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "economic reproduction"?
Talk:Simple commodity production

message: The article in its current version fails to point out that Engels' and Marxists' following Engels interpretation of Marx is considered to be wrong according to a large fracton if not majority of modern Marxists, for example see http://marxmyths.org/chris-arthur/article2.htm The Myth of ‘Simple Commodity Production’ by Christopher J. Arthur, --Schwalker (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation 

message: Listen, there has been a lot written on petty commodity production and exchange, especially since Marx and Engels died. Why not dig into the literature? Van der Linden and similar researchers have written about petty commodity producers (they do make up the majority of workers in the world and so the predominant form of commodified labour is not free wage labour).
Furthermore, it would be helpful if you actually list the different forms petty commodity production can take. I only see farmers and artisans. There are over a dozen forms. You have only listed two. Majority of workers in the world depend on this form of work. Why not expand the article and turn it into something which reflects the significance and importance of petty commodity production in 21st C capitalism, especially in the Global South. Workers of the World by van der Linden is a good place to start. If I had time, I would contribute. I have put it on my to do list however. 
I look forward to this article's expansion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  two cents
Talk:Tetragrammaton Labyrinth

message: Is the sixth volume the final one?  Comic Gum's new release site (http://www.comicgum.com/00_new.asp) has a short blurb about that volume, and when I sent it through an online translator, it said something about the "last volume."  Can somebody who can read Japanese confirm that so that this article can be more up-to-date?  MayumiTsuji (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the title listing it specifically says "最終巻" which translates to "final volume", so yes volume 6 is the last one.--十八 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last volume?
Talk:Universal class (philosophy)

message: The section on Marx here is completely mistaken - Marx thought that the proletariat was the first and only universal class. For example, from the Communist Manifesto:
"All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority."Squarish (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's nonsense to say that Marx thought any other class than the proletariat was ever universal
Talk:Clock angle problem

message: Lots of content seems to have been deleted. I've reverted back to an older edit. Apologies if I've accidently deleted some content.
Nick Connolly 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to last sensible version 

message: I noticed this page is quite often corrected to what the editor thinks are the right equatrions. 
To prevent this a bit I requested for pending changes: level 1 protection  see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection and 
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Clock angle problem  
Hope you agree. WillemienH (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#23 January 2016
WillemienH (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested pending changes protection 
Talk:Use value

message: no discussion and state exemplary for a simple concept, but didn't check state of > yr ago, when it was placed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag removal 

message: This section appears to consist almost entirely of criticisms of Sweezy and Uno, and interpretation of Marx, phrased as the positions of Wikipedia, rather than attributed to reliable source. This seems to violate either WP:NOR, if these are original contributions by a Wikipedia editor, or WP:NPOV, if these are in fact the positions of sources which are being endorsed, rather than described, by the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The role of use value in political economy 

message: Might want to briefly mention that Marx's main contribution to political economy was 1) analysing the two fold character of labour, according to whether it is expressed as use-value or exchange value and 2) the treatment of surplus value independently of its particular forms as profit, interest, rent, etc.
The use-value of one particular commodity (labour-power) is very important for it produces more (surplus) value than the commodity itself is worth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between labour and labour-power = surplus value 

message: This article on use value has become a mess. It has been repeatedly re-edited by people who don't really have a clue about the topic. It will need to be substantively rewritten to restore a quality text.Jurriaan (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we have to present a mainstream view, rather than letting this article reflect the views of a minority who actually believe in such concepts. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess
Talk:World communism

message: This article is already referenced in the article communism.RYNORT 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted

message: The tone of this page is terrible, it's definitely not appropriate as per the Manual of Style, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Editorializing
On top of the single source, which isn't even quoted accurately in the second case. Bertcocaine (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this written by a journalist? Or just copied from  

message: This article, with very few sources, doesn't seem to have a topic separate from the communism article. What's it for? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of this article? 

message: But finding specific relevant cites for bits of the article will take time. Maybe I will try to do that later but I’m not well read on communism and the like 2601:282:847F:1F0:4864:E78D:9829:A51E (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI Marxists.org is a big potential resource for cites 

message: Almost the entire article is unsourced and hilariously opinionated. Heavily disputed interpretations of history among scholars are presented as fact. It reads like a manifesto. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @PrecariousWorlds I am a leftist and even I recognize this. I think an article on this topic would be helpful, but it is evident that this article as it is currently written is not up to Wikipedia's standards 98.116.173.242 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'd say this article should probably be merged into Communism PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious POV issues
Talk:Frank O'Dea

message: I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only contains the basic information on the subject, and of low importance, as I do not feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article. Cheers, CP 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment
Draft talk:Critical Acclaim

message: it is not fair or accurate to put words into someones mouth or specify a band or group they may not like. thus i am removing the part about anti flag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamsenn (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: not correct

message: Is this fair to say things song is criticizing people with Liberal political views or is it just criticizing those who criticize soldiers? There is a difference. (JFerreira 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Neutral Point of View 

message: I have deleted the part about the reference to Perez Hilton. The lyrics aren't "Tabliod, Gossip queen, worthless man" but Tabloid, Gossip we want less real thus not referring to Perez Hilton at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.193.57 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong
Talk:Arshadul Qadri

message: There is nothing wrong with this article.  Please elaborate on what you think is wrong with this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.172.61 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: This article is far from neutral. Is needs to be heavily edited, or else cut down to stub-size. --Wasell(T) 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:POV]]
Talk:Mini-VGA

message: I am working on a product now. I like the small size of mini-dvi or mini-vga connectors. Anyone know which manufacturer are making this connectors? And if I have to pay and license or patent fee to use this connector?
:I'm pretty sure this is just a proprietary Apple connector. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can I buy mini-dvi or mini-vga? 

message: I'm trying to fix my mini-vga as a wire seems to be loose. I could use any tips on how to take the connectors apart. Redantdc (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:RD or irc://irc.freenode.net/hardware. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know how to take apart the connecters? mini-dvi or mini-vga? 

message: Isn't this more a proprietary Apple standard?--87.174.77.88 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so.  There is nothing yet in the article to suggest otherwise. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this… 

message: I was under the impression that this was an apple specific product but this article and the wikipedia VGA connector article imply it may be used elsewhere, can anyone clarify? Plugwash (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so.  There is nothing yet in the article to suggest otherwise. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  does anyone use this except apple?