lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tao

message: Just wanted to say that I am actually impressed with this article. This is by its nature arguably the most difficult wikipedia article to write (assuming a sincere interest by the authors to be NPOV), and I think it is well done. 
Of course many people may read this article and say "ok, wait...what?", but that's kind of the point. Anyways, I just wanted to drop by and say good job, and I sincerely hope the article stays (roughly) in this form. Short is definitely best, and academia has little place here outside of historical references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.227 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not that bad

message: The Tao is a supposed (there is no globally accepted and well recorded evidence) divine field and lifepath.
It's not the personhood of the cosmos as for example the Abrahamic person-god.
On the other hand, the Tao is supportive of life and of personhood (before the person merges with the supposed "universal whole").
Even in some rare heresies in which the Tao can be neutral when not nurished (or negative towards an evildoer); still it has prosopophilic (friendly towards the personhood of man/humans [or even animal personhood according to variant criteria of personhood]) nature.
Indirectly friendly towards personhood; or directly friendly towards personhood but not personhood itself (because many doctrines exist).
A common misconception is that native East Asian culture can be atheistic at the core (antispiritual) and spiritual at the same time. Usually the texts which promote that are metalogically shallow.
For example, CGTN in an indirect way, tries to present as Communism-friendly many archaic beliefs. Usually without specific analyses about the supposed core linkage, but with generalities and stories. We can erroneously claim that Jesus was a Communist for sharing food, or that Hitler was a kind person for working long hours for his country. Rhetorical/oratorical claims might seem impressive, but can be flawed if the examination approach does not include metalogic analysis of the component notions within the elaborations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  2a02:587:4107:9e00:c1bd:91f8:1207:801b (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[personhood]] issue 

message: would be nice if it said 'history and origins' and then went all 'Chinovision' on the subject. That way modern additions get a natural place, and the subject content rather than worldy instantiation can take prime. 84.241.194.69 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originated in China due to adv civ early on, is a generic eastern origin/dominant, but no way generic to China or Chinese (racial/nationalist misrepresentation) 

message: I think Tao is a pretty borrowed-into-English word at this point, right? Thus, I don't think it should be italicized as a foreign-ism as per MOS:FOREIGN. Remsense聊 01:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics?
Talk:John Byron

message: I found some info  here which seems to prove notability for him to have his own article as he is also the father of Lord Byron and seems to have influenced his works somewhat... are there anyobjections to start a new page on John (Mad Jack) Byron?--Sasquatch 20:40, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
:That's a different (British Army Captain) John "Mad Jack" Byron.  — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Byron (II)
Talk:Terence McKenna

message: This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of WP:RS. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Find a RS that supports this statement. MarshallKe (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that niche pseudoscience isn't going to have explicit criticism by WP:RS as they simply won't bother. A lot of credible science doesn't even get critical evaluation.  Novelty theory is in "not even wrong" territory, it relies on false descriptions of history, misapplications of mathematics, denial of physics all to defend an illogical premise. I think that by looking at this we can see that it easily meets the requirement of "Obvious pseudoscience". JSory (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm not even certain calling it pseudoscience is enough given that it was barely scientific to begin with. TBase2 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

text: The bias and general hostile tone of the sources [10, 11] is suspect and not illuminating. Grammatical errors and repetitive insults (prophet of nonsense) undermines the value of these "sources." I do not think the statement "novelty theory is pseudoscience" is backed up effectively at all by the sources indicated. 2600:8800:7299:6E00:C1BD:FED:360A:4235 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience" 

message: Thank you for reviewing. Terence directly addresses concerns his views may be considered "mystical" in the clip linked below (fast forward to the end), as he currently is labeled "a mystic" in the first sentence of this Wikipedia article:
"Now I've been accused of mysticism... ... ... And worse."
Is it accurate to label McKenna a mystic, given his frequent criticism of gurism of all kinds, including "Swami Contempo or Guru Garagekey"? Walkingsocialcatalyst (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not letting me link to McKenna recordings on YouTube here Walkingsocialcatalyst (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove "mystic" as a label because McKenna was not only not a mystic, but also he mocked being thought of as a mystic (search YouTube for the Peculiar Humor of Terence McKenna (Part 1). 143.178.181.54 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To remove the label, you would you have to be convincing that NO sources labelled him as such.  We don't decide he is a mystic or not, the sources do, we just print what they print.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023
Talk:Sesamstraße

message: Anyone able to place a infobox here? Thanks. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

message: Gettas, Gregory J. (full citation on main article): One of the first co-productions.  In 1970, Nordddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR), "a primary affiliate of the German national ARD network", began to broadcast the American show dubbed into German.  "In 1971, NDR began producing and inserting a few segments that incorporated elements of the German national educational curriculum" (p. 57). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Should Sesame Street be integrated? Conny (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate 

message: e.g. "Established characters such as Rumpel and Samson were retired", but then in the character list and later samson is said to be main character and " - present" Nonsense. 47.69.165.80 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated and contradictive
Talk:Music history of the United States during the colonial era

message: Added a lead ˜˜˜˜  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily huval (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the below section from the article. If there was anything that could accurately be labeled "jazz" before 1900, it was not yet of national importance. The below text seems not to deal only with post 1900 aspects, and IMO the link to Cajun music is dubious (and need I say that Cajun culture is not native to New Orleans as seems to be implied). -- Infrogmation 00:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello, why are shape notes discussed in this article?  Shape notes were invented around 1801, a full quarter century after the end of the colonial era.  Opus33 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shape note

message: I think this article is very interesting, but it bothers me that there are no citations. I want to use the information on this page as a starting point for my own research, but the lack of citations is making me unsure of what is true information and Original Research. Could someone please clarify why nothing is cited? Guitdrummer89 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I dislike striking the lead paragraph entirely, but it's nothing but anachronisms and irrelevancies.  Neither Mozart nor Haydn penetrated America during the colonial era, the Marine Band wasn't founded until two decades later, and it's tough to claim that opera was popular in the colonial era when the first one to be performed in the US wasn't until 1790.  The rest of the article is of a piece, jampacked with unsupported and uncited assertions, and requires much work.   Ravenswing   07:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess.
Talk:Lithic period in Mesoamerica

message: "While it is universally accepted that the peopling of the Americas had occurred by c. 11,200 years ago..."
This to me seems to be highly POV, as Clovis' earliest dates go back 11,500 radiocarbon years (about 13,500 calendar years), and the new dates from Monte Verde are almost "universally accepted" among archaeologists. I'll take the initiative and make a very minor edit to make it seem less POV. Debate is welcome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.99 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citationneeded template to the edit; disputed facts should cite a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universally accepted? 

message: ¿huh?  What is "a pre-projectile point horizon" ???  wtf?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.231.33 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be clarified, but Googling "pre-projectile point horizon", in quotes, turned up explanations on the first page. Agyle (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-projectile point horizon
Talk:Marque

message: No need to have project article templates and rankings on what is only a redirect. CZmarlin (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

message: Is a marque the same as a make of car?  Peter O. (Talk) 01:24, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
:A marque is a "make" in the brand sense.  E.g. Ford, Mercury, Lincoln are all marques, but they are not makes; all of them are made by the Ford Motor Company, sometimes in the same factory. —Morven 05:44, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
::I always think of Ford, Mercury, Edsel and Lincoln as makes/brands of cars, while the marque is a model (ie Galaxie, Montclair, Citation and Capri) of the car make. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 03:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marque-vs-make

message: There are many things which do not seem completely neutral but the worst, I think, is:
Toyota's Lexus brand is exemplary. Brianjd 06:53, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
:I disagree.  It is not a qualitative statement but a quantitative one:  Lexus is one of the most successful marques in terms of vehicle sales in the world.  I re-read the article and fail to see much POV about it... --SFoskett 16:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
::I disagree; it's markedly POV, in that it's written in an editorial, conclusion-making manner without citing references or attributing opinions.  I'll think about what could be done to revise it. —Morven 18:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
----
Are there any continuing NPOV issues? I see the NPOV tag is still up but discussion apparently has ended..... -Willmcw 02:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There are a lot more failed marques that should be noted, such as the ill-fated Edsel70.109.72.185 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edsel 

message: :Category:Brands is a category within :Category:Branding which in turn is a category within :Category:Marketing. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Marketing]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Branding]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Brands]] 

message: Why is the rank section only partial and there's no link to the original list? Chevrox (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rank
Talk:Scottsdale Fashion Square

message: I just removed several sections/paragraphs on areas near, but not part of the Mall.  They don't belong in this article.  However, they would be good in an article on Scottsdale itself.
But this article isn't about Scottsdale, it's only a about a Mall that's located there.
I tagged this article to draw attention to what you are reading now.  If anyone can justify restoring what I deleted, by all means do so, but as they were, they just did not seem relevant. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Irrelevant Content
Talk:List of Great Books

message: Ah. Compare  and  which are "the" reading list according to the Annapolis and Santa Fe websites, respectively. They are identical. Clearly the intention is that the two colleges only use on reading list. I'm going to make sure the St. John's College, U. S. article matches what's currently on the website, describe it as the St. John's list, and make this list redirect to St. John's College, U. S.. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annapolis list = Santa Fe list
Talk:Kowloon Motor Bus

message: This article failed the ga nominees because of a lack of references. Tarret 19:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination failed

message: The version before the redirect contains valid information about the bus fleet which can be merged here, but it does need references. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Kowloon Motor Bus fleet]] 

message: Can we add the bus route details (section 5.1) back from an older revision (Kowloon Motor Bus)? I think it is encyclopedic. But someone removed it for being "non-notable info" (and that user has since been banned for socking). However, if we want to add it back we may need to check for outdated parts or any errors.
Hkbusfan (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Wikipedia:NOTADIRECTORY. Matthew hk (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: And probably WP:OR. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But I remember when I was in primary school I wondered what the letters in KMB routes meant, and my dad found this article for me. It was very interesting. Hkbusfan (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus route details
Talk:Rush–Bagot Treaty

message: The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.  —Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move request

message: Hello friends,
There are several errors of fact on this particular article that I suggest be changed.  The Rush-Bagot Treaty did not become a treaty approved by Congress until the year 1818.  In the year 1817, Acting Secretary of State Richard Rush and British Minister to Washington Charles Bagot exchanged a series of notes.  The notes exchanged between Rush and Bagot in 1817 actually constitute the "Rush-Bagot Agreement" which is distinct from the "Rush-Bagot Treaty" (ratified by US Congress onApril 28, 1818).  The Rush-Bagot Agreement stipulated that British North America and the United States could each maintain one vessel (not more than 100 tons) on Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain.  The remaining Great Lakes could harbor two vessels from British North America and two vessels from the United States.  It was an agreement of demilitarization, but it did not completely eradicate all military vessels from these waters. Looking forward to hearing thoughts and suggestions on this matterDdperk80 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous Errors
Talk:Retirement plan

message: The content within this article suggests that a wikiproject on labor or something similar would be the best fit for this article.EECavazos 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiprojects 

message: I merged all the content here into the Pension article as the material here was mostly redundant to that article.  There also seems to be (judging from the talk page) a more active group of people working on it.
Dhollm (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Pension article 
Talk:401(k)

message: This can be readily seen by simple calculation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.108.99 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence in Taxation section is false 

message: starts from the 400 billion dollar medical expenses, and the one man that started it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.33.32 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  401k 

message: KiwiSaver isn't a tax deferred arrangement (it has no tax offset or effect on your net income). The statement in paragraph two of Other Countries implies that KiwiSaver is an equivalent scheme to a 401(k) (noting that the UK and Australia do have similar, albeit not identical, schemes). Happy to discuss, but I'm going to remove the NZ reference unless there is a specific point to it being a comparison (that NZ does not have an equivalent). Roche-Kerr (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Countries (KiwiSaver)
Talk:Angela Merkel

message: By late 2022, Germany was importing 55% of its gas, 34% of its oil, and 52% of its coal from Russia.
It should be By late 2021..., and that's what's stated in the article from the Telegraph. Tolmount (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023 

message: Economic and labour policy: https://www.scielo.br/j/rep/a/NkLQRSRKffhz5TN6nfnHkxH/?format=pdf Actualcpscm (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting sources for future reference 

message: She is not seen favorably at all since 2022, neither in Germany nor elsewhere. This article should note this. Malecide (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide some sources for that? It‘s quite a strong claim and would probably need at least two good reliable sources, unless we attribute it as an opinion. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking negotiations of accession of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO in 2008 while Russia was still weak, green-lighting Russia's invasion of Georgia afterward, Nord Stream 1 and 2, pushing for Minsk treaties, not doing anything about Russian spy infiltration of Germany, tolerating Putinverstehern in her party etc. Malecide (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s your own analysis, but Wikipedia is not a place for sharing personal opinions in articles. We can’t write that Merkel is „not seen favorably at all“ based on individual editors objecting to her policies. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Russian policy must be noted somewhere in the lede 

message: I've updated the official website of Angela Merkel. During her active time as politician, she used https://www.angela-merkel.de/ but that site has now been blanked since at least 20 December 2021. As former chancellor of Germany she has a federally funded office which has an official website since June 2022: https://www.buero-bundeskanzlerin-ad.de/. This gets regularly updated with official statements, events, contact info etc. while the former website remains blanked. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe an archive of the old website could be included. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point, I've updated the external links accordingly. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website
Talk:Opera Boston

message: Removed text:
While this looks all very well on the surface, the company's managing director (Carol Charnow) staged a palace coup and threw out Richard Conrad, who had  originally founded the company as the Boston Academy of Music, twenty years before, and broke his heart.
He had lost his voice in a tragic gay-bashing attack and had recovered some of the magnificent form that earned him a vocal disc debut with Dame Joan Sutherland and Marilyn Horne, in the 1960's. He had presented  many "Best of Boston" seasons  and was critically acclaimed (Boston Globe/Herald) as well as gaining international notice, especially for the "Boston" version of Verdi's Masked Ball, with Ray Bauens, Marion Dry, Robert Honeysucker, and Ellen Chickering, all of whom were Boston artists who had left the Boston Lyric Opera.
Much of this could be restored if verified, dates added for the events described and a few POV phrases removed. Andrewa 03:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement is a very pointed version of what happened, most likely written by someone with a grievance. In fact, it reads as though it were dictated by Mr. Conrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.101.252.250 (talk • contribs) 15:33, December 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly sympathetic to him. On a slightly different tack, it sounds as though Richard Conrad and Boston Academy of Music both might warrant articles, or at least redirects to and mentions in this one, which badly needs expansion. Andrewa 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It proved very hard to track down much on Richard Conrad apart from his own website, but I've created an article.  All are welcome to improve it.  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Talk:RFD

message: see Talk:VFD
and I put it back because newbies have no clue.
come-on! be nice to newbies!
:If newbies have no clue that they want "WP:RFD" rather than "RFD", then are they really going to have a clue that redirects for deletion even exists, and there is an abreviation to link to it? Joe D (t) 19:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Referencing
Talk:TD

message: TD is a common job title in the computer animation and visual effects industries, rather than "the most senior technical person". They work on creating visual effects shots in movies, and computer animation scenes in games, and are often responsible for a specific part of the process, eg "Lighting TD", "Character TD". I'm beginning to think the Technical Director article needs to be split, else editors here will continue to perpetuate the error of incorrectly lumping this distinct usage in the visual effects and computer animation industries under "most senior technical person". We are dealing with different usages of the term "Technical Director", which need to be disambiguated. —Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical directors in visual effects and computer animation industries
Talk:Saint Phocas

message: Full of errors. I'd add a "disputed facts" tag, if that hadn't been rendered so disreputably by misuse. Wetman 04:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors