lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Spirit of the Times

message: There is no evidence in either the Spirit itself or the secondary literature to suggest that the humorous tales Porter published were based on, or reflected, any kind of folklore. I have therefore removed the assertion that they were from the opening paragraph. I can provide more references to support this contention if necessary.  Ferntowerpoet 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frontier folklore

message: I am wary of this figure. As far as I know, there is no evidence other than Porter's (probably unreliable) pronouncement that the Spirit had this number of subscribers.  Since scholars have, since the 1950s, been quoting this figure willy-nilly, it's gained some sort of currency - but for no good reason.  So, if nobody objects, I'll remove it.  Ferntowerpoet 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to both your changes. They are supported by sources, but you have not backed your changes with sources. If you can do so, I have less of a problem with it. — Brian (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should clarify. You did cite sources, so thanks. But we need to now indicate that sources are in disagreement, not just declare that your sources are superior to other sources. I will recheck my notes sometime this weekend and reinstate some of the things you have removed, indicating this disagreement. — Brian (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've provided the citations requested, and I'll check my books for the folklore stuff once I get home from work. — Brian (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all this. This debate about the circulation is bugging me, though. All the books/articles I've read which quote this figure either quote each other, in a circular fashion, or refer to an issue of the Spirit (can't remember which one off the top of my head) in which Porter makes the claim himself.  Neither of these is satisfactory - which is what made me want to delete the figure in the article. However, in order to prove this, we would have to engage in a very long de-bunking of all the relevant sources - which would take some time and might even count as original research (?). Ferntowerpoet 12:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 40,000 Subscribers

message: This might seem a bit pedantic, but I think it's important to emphasize the difference (in the first para) between settlers on or of the frontier with settlers near the frontier. The Spirit's most famous humorous writing was contributed by men who lived just behind the frontier (as usually defined).  The stories they contributed were not typically stories of frontier adventures, but encounters between settlers/visitors just behind it. I've changed the paragraph to reflect this. - Ferntowerpoet 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On/of/near the frontier
Talk:Roger of Wendover

message: The 1154 date in the Works section must be wrong. Roger wasn't even writing chronicles that early in his life according to the same article earlier. 71.111.208.137 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now copy-edited to clarify.  The work wasn't published in its entirety, but only the annals for the period from 1154 onwards. Jheald (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 1154 date
Talk:Mangrai

message: Please read this carefully before reverting.  YOUR OWN SOURCES correctly identify the spelling as Mengrai.  I have lived where the STATUE OF KING MENGRAI is located for 8 years.  I can send you a photograph of the correct spelling on the statue itself.  It is NOT spelled Mangrai.  Please do not revert.  Please change the title to the correct spelling (I could not). N0w8st8s (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, transcriptions of Thai into Latin script very often do not follow the prescribed official Thai transcription system (see RTGS). Wikipedia does try to follow RTGS insofar as there isn't a clearly established way of writing something Thai in English, such as is the case with, for instance, Pattaya, which in RTGS would be written Phattaya. The name Mangrai/Mengrai is not really a household name in English. Therefore, wikipedia willl follow RTGS, even if it doesn't appear as such on the one statue that you are familiar with. In RTGS, the name is spelled Mangrai. - Takeaway (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is not a transcription issue. Both มังราย (Mangrai) and เม็งราย (Mengrai) are used in Thai. According to the Thai Wikipedia article, "Mengrai" was used by พระยาประชากิจกรจักร์ (แช่ม บุนนาค) who published พงศาวดารโยนก during King Chulalongkorn's reign, and this spelling has entered popular non-academic use (names of places, organisations, etc.) Later scholars including ประเสริฐ ณ นคร prefer "Mangrai" as it is the form found in original historical sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non standard spelling of Mengrai corrected 
Talk:Eden

message: Aidenn redirects here. 
Could you explain why?
--Error 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See  and the first version of Aidenn. --Cyfal (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aidenn

message: Barbara Eden missing from the page, why? Eden (name) only tells about first name Eden. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Eden (name) does cover Eden as a surname, including Barbara Eden. I've added headings to help you navigate that page. Ibadibam (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbara Eden
Talk:Al-Bab

message: I removed the link to a barrel bomb as the link to Yahoo was not working.
Here is the original link and text, for anyone who wants to copy/paste it:
"On 30 November, a barrel bomb was dropped by an helicopter in Al Bab, Aleppo killing at least 120 people http://news.yahoo.com/20-dead-air-raids-syrias-aleppo-province-174930624.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UiLJ5pSflQAMxnQtDMD" <-- that link does not work. Did anyone confirm that link actually before linking in the main page of the article? Given that every side uses propaganda, I'd like to see cited material be of much higher quality, and non-existing links do not qualify for that IMHO.
84.113.183.242 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian conflict
Talk:Öljaitü

message: Isn't "Oljeitu" (of Oljeitu Temuuur) a posthumous name of Temur Khan of Yuan given after his death? How can Ilkhan Oljeitu adopted the name Oljeitu following Oljeitu Temur Khan enthroned in Khanbalik?--207.112.124.205 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:Nicholas Otto

message: This is a connection to the eethanol industry in the united states page. I am trying to get some info up her as I have time. Thanks for any help! Menkatopia 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an  tag so editors will know you're working on the article. Just remove it when you're done. Take all the time you need, and leave me a message if you need help. Realkyhick 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Belvidere, Kansas

message: # Please read  editing tutorial and  new contributor help page before editing the first time. This  cheatsheet is useful.
# Please add  inline citations, enclosed in "ref" tags, to ensure your new text is  verifiable.
# Please read  content guidelines for US city articles.
: Sbmeirow (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notes Before Editing The Article 
Talk:Oliver Ingham

message: To the best of my knowledge there is no proof that his wife Elizabeth was a member of the Zouche family. If anyone has actual proof, as opposed to an unsourced assertion in a secondary or tertiary source, the field of medieval genealogical studies would be excited to hear about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnh (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry of his wife
Template talk:ArmaLite AR-10 derivatives

message: I basically copied the pages from  into this template so I did not check to see if the articles are true variants or redundant as I'm in a bit of a hurry today. Sorry for any errors or omissions. --I already forgot 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, that was  pretty good idea. Might as well delete the old template template:AR15etc. This has certainly fixed any problems, and people can start adding the other designs based on the ar15/ar10 platform which havve pages on here. --Tom of north wales 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (untitled)

message: Is this really the best name for the template? After all, the AR-10 is included in its list. A rifle that predates the AR-15 can hardly be an "AR-15 variant". 71.203.209.0 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of not over complicating the template name and following the KISS method... yes the AR-15 is a variant of the AR-10 in the sense of a manifesting variety, however, the AR-10 was originally produced in limited numbers and was not the final or master/standard that was produced in far greater numbers (AR-15), is less notable than the AR-15, and the AR-15 spawned a much greater field of variations. Since the AR-15 is a variation of the AR-10, then its safe to say that the AR-10 is an early version of the AR-15 which would make the AR-10 a variation of the AR-15 and vice versa. True, it's not a variation in a manifesting variety but they are variations of each other. --I already forgot 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about Colt 9mm smg?--ZH Evers 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "AR-15 variants"

message: In what way are those derivates of the AR-10 (despite somewhat resembling its look)? -- Ishbane (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything but the gas engine is derived. BTW, could we separate the derivatives not using the Stoner direct impingement in the template? Ain92 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  HK416/417 

message: I removed the images; they were breaking the right-hand-side of the template. I am preserving the material here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Talk:FAST Card

message: This article's subject is obviously notable, but as it stands now the article text is barely rewritten from government web pages on the FAST Pass. This is NOT a copyright violation because those pages were produced by Canadian or U. S. federal government entities, but the tone and style of the article does not fit Wikipedia style right now. It will take a rewrite, but it should be worth the effort. I'll do what I can. Realkyhick 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm done now. It appears that the original article was a well-veiled advertisement for a firm in Alberta that expedites pardons for Canadian drivers that don't qualify for a FAST Card. I took out the advert parts and rewrote the useful stuff. Realkyhick 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Sanchia of Provence

message: Where is this from? If it is taken from a book, it would be plagiarism.
:"Richard rose to hear what the men from Bohemia had to say and at the finish he burst into tears. He would accept the crown, he said, but it was not through greed or ambition. His sole object was to assist in restoring prosperity to the German states; his honest desire was to rule justly and well. It was clear to the German delegation, and to the throng of adherents and servants who swarmed into the hall to listen, that he was happy over the fulfillment of his great wish. It must have been quite apparent also that Sanchia was delighted beyond measure. Now she would be a queen as well as her two older and patronizing sisters."
--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced quotation
Talk:Alfred d'Orsay

message: Recently the file :File:Alfred, Count D'Orsay by Sir George Hayter.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 01:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutly ! The actual portrait seems to be painted by Joseph Boze. -- Spiessens 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Alfred, Count D'Orsay by Sir George Hayter.jpg]]
Talk:Owain Lawgoch

message: I have removed references to the 'Center for Welsh Studies' from the article. They are pushing a very contentious point of view based on minimal supporting documentation and with no proper quality control. If they can prove their claims, great, let's put them in, but they haven't, so they don't belong there..
The article is still desperately short of citations for some of its more contentious claims. My guess is that most of them come from Carr's biography of Lawgoch - I don't have a copy of this. If anybody does, please put them in.86.182.118.94 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This passage seems suspect:
Welsh soldiery and longbowmen who had fought for Edward I in his campaigns in North Wales remained armed and sold their services to Norman kings in their battles in Scotland at Crecy and Poitiers.
Surely, by the time of Crecy and Poitiers, the kings in question would be better described as English? The Norman dynasty, and any English holdings in Normandy for that matter, were long gone by the fourteenth century.Chuntuk (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Kings? 

message: I've amended the article, I've been doing an overhaul of Gwynedd related articles using the dictionary of Welsh biographies and other sources. But yet a lot of citations remain, could someone come forward with references for some facts written in the article? Cltjames (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article update 
Talk:South Africa Act 1909

message: The South Africa Act decided that Dutch and English were the official languages. Afrikaans did not extist at those times. Afrikaans became a seperate language from Dutch in 1925 (officially). The Dutch was the official language of the Union of South-Africa till the end of the union in 1961. In 1961 the new Republic replaced Dutch for Afrikaans. Dutch and Afrikaans were synonims till 1983. See: w:nl:Erkenning van Nederlands in Zuid-Afrika and w:af:Erkenning van Afrikaans *use google translate* --I90Christian (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch

message: I think that the warning at the top of the article can now be removed, more relevant books having been added and sources quoted Vaaljapie (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of warning
Talk:Shinran

message: She has not been mentioned in the article by now.  Here it is said:
:Eshinni (1182-1268?), a Buddhist nun and the wife of Shinran (1173-1262), the celebrated founder of the True Pure Land, or Shin, school of Buddhism, was largely unknown until the discovery of a collection of her letters in 1921. In this study, James C. Dobbins, a leading scholar of Pure Land Buddhism, has made creative use of these letters to shed new light on life and religion in medieval Japan. He provides a complete translation of the letters and an explication of them that reveals the character and flavor of early Shin Buddhism. Readers will come away with a new perspective on Pure Land scholarship and a vivid image of Eshinni and the world in which she lived. After situating the ideas and practices of Pure Land Buddhism in the context of the actual living conditions of thirteenth-century Japan, Dobbins examines the portrayal of women in Pure Land Buddhism, the great range of lifestyles found among medieval women and nuns, and how they constructed a meaningful religious life amid negative stereotypes. He goes on to analyze aspects of medieval religion that have been omitted in our modern-day account of Pure Land and tries to reconstruct the religious assumptions of Eshinni and Shinran in their own day. A prevailing theme that runs throughout the book is the need to look beyond idealized images of Buddhism found in doctrine to discover the religion as it was lived and practiced. Scholars and students of Buddhism, Japanese history, women's studies, and religious studies will find much in this engaging work that is thought-provoking and insightful."
Now it's 2008 according to gregorian calendar, we can mention her in wikipedia. Can we not?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.231 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.231 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eshinni 

message: Reported as being found in March 2008. Shouldn't that be 'what is thought to be the ash remains of Shinran Shonin ....' How the heck would they know for sure. (I don't read Japanese so can't comment on the references.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashes of Shinran Shonin 

message: Gutoku is not a name. It just means "I" in the humble language of the Japanese monks. 126.194.26.237 (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutoku
Talk:Shippan Point

message: This article claims: "Shippan Point (or Shippan) is the southernmost neighborhood in Stamford, Connecticut, located on a peninsula in Long Island Sound." Now, if this is a correct statement, there is no reason to have another article named "Shippan, Connecticut" since the two are the same thing. If this is incorrect, then the article must change, anyone with knowledge on the subject should add their input.Rpgman456 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't the same thing. Shippan is a distinct neighborhood north of Shippan point. There's actually an intersection with a "Shippan Point" sign that seems to pretty well separate the two. Noroton 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

message: The Shippan and Shippan Point sections of Stamford Connecticut are two distinct neighborhoods.  I grew up in Shippan - the first house on the left as you enter Soundview Ave. from Cummings Park.  Look at the homes on Shippan Point; a lot of them are mansions with private beaches, where Shippan proper has more modest homes and a gated community.  I can't see describing them as the same (let alone similar) neighborhoods only because of their close proximity to each other and their common nomenclature. (Romsk 23:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shippan vs Shippan Point
Talk:Piggybacking

message: Is there any reason not to move this content into Piggyback? It seems like these evolved separately.--Goldfndr 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Piggyback? 

message: There should be a disambiguation page featuring all terms starting with piggyback. I would work on it myself if I had more time.Sebwite 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Maybe include a "not to be confused with" line or just a simple reference to the PiggyBac Transposon System. Tushar Shrotriya (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PiggyBac
Talk:Fawley branch line

message: Table needs work (work needs table?) Britmax 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are on the subject of the Hythe Pier Railway, could you just check the template in which i created which is now on Hythe Pier, Railway and Ferry...? Simply south (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good diagram for the Railway and Ferry page. My reason for including the pier was to say yes, this is the same Hythe but the pier railway is not connected to the branch line, look here's an article about it. The water that runs under the pier is Southampton Water at this point, not the Solent, by the way. Britmax (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: About 75% of the text under reopening proposals describes ancient suggested schemes that have long since been discarded. This is part of the local government process, no doubt, but it is not "notable" to read that someone suggested something in 2015 and nothing came of it. It needs to be pruned.
Incidentally it's hardly proper that all the citations under the history section are from subterranea britannica, an online encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary document and should source itself on secondary sources. If Wiki as an online encyclopaedia sources itself entirely from someone else's online encyclopaedia, isn't that a bit, well, unethical? And incestuous?Afterbrunel (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals that came to nothing
Talk:Simon of Tournai

message: 'All of his surviving works show an orthodox Catholicism.' As opposed to what - heretical views? The fact that he taught theology at Paris rather suggests that his works would be of an orthodox catholicism (that of the 12th-century Church). Either this needs further explanation, in which case this sentence would be unnecessary, or the preceding summary explains it, in which case it's also unnecessary.Katiehawks (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A superfluity?
Talk:Ken Jernstedt Airfield

message: I believe Mt. Adams cannot be seen from 4S2, it's up north behind the hills north of Columbia river, on the Washington site. What can be seen from 4S2 is Mt. Hood, which is at the end of the valley to the south. 37.85.236.232 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture: description - Mt. Adams?
Talk:Petronilla de Meath

message: I believe that this article looks more like a start than a stub class article. Does anyone know how I would go about requesting a review? Thanks! Alexandrathom (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Start class?

message: Autor of this article stated that according to ecclesiastical law witchcraft was a heresy. I agree with that but in this article it is a mistake because witchcraft was condemned as heresy in papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus issued by Pope Innocent VIII on 5 December 1484. So I recommend changing this part. Bartosz.rebelski (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft as Heresy
Talk:Alfred von Arneth

message: What I found most remarkable about the German article on this guy was that apparently most of his first source publications are to be found on the net. I would like to suggest that somebody more versed than me with the technicalities of these things should put in the links to the online publications into the list provided in the article feeling that among the users of the anglosaxon Wikipedia there might be some who might be able to read the original texts, and this is an internet encyclopedia after all, isn't it? --Terminally uncool (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications found on the net
Talk:Poultice

message: Not a single reference for this article.  Let's get to work. Mmoyer 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: The removed link (to a freelance writers' page) did not actually provide corroboration of the point the ref. was provided to 'prove'. The single use of a phrase/terminology within a clearly POV article, itself only included as an anecdotal part of an article pertaining to something completely different, (i.e. veterinary usage of home-prepared poultices on horses as treatment), does not constitute an academic reference providing substantiation of an assertion.
Furthermore, the page referenced states clearly at the bottom that unauthorised use or reference of the work is strictly forbidden without prior permission.
We are never so short of actual relevant ref's that we need to create\engineer\manipulate sources to fit a given point. Having no references is infinitely preferable to having incorrect\irrelevant sources lazily cited as evidential corroboration of questionable material. Thanks. Codeye (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of alleged 'reference'

message: Does this drawing have historical value? I mean was it found on a tomb or something b/c the quality is so bad I'm not sure why it's being used at all. Wouldn't a photo be better or at least a better drawing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the drawing of the poultice 

message: The content relating to poulticing in horses is poorly referenced and comes across as an opinion/instructional test rather than factual and informative. Should this section be removed or heavily edited? 81.135.69.124 (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructional rather than informative?