lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Algebra of Infinite Justice

message: I became aware of her shortly after 9-11 when The Fresno Bee (California) published her jaw-dropping article, the only rational thing among the starting cacophony of war drums.  I doubt I'm the only one who for whom that article put her on the must-read map.  "The Algebra of Infinite Justice" appeared first in the British newspaper, The Guardian on September 29, 2001.
I suspect it was related to, Quoting Wikipedia's Arundhati_Roy:
 "In an opinion piece in The Guardian titled "The Algebra of Infinite Justice", Roy responded to the U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan, finding fault..."
...except obviously it was well BEFORE the invasion.  "Invasion," a nasty term Americans at the time did not use pointed at ourselves. 
As I recall, "Infinite Justice" was a Bush quote she was refuting.  She well argued that the 9-11 attack was not out of the blue, but almost to be expected. <BR> "If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place." <BR> She also explained what the title; "The Algebra of Infinite Justice" means.  http://www.globalissues.org/article/254/the-algebra-of-infinite-justice
A possible origin or seed of the book (or whatever that article was,) this extremely important article; "The Algebra of Infinite Justice,"  should be explained as a stand-alone.   (Just one example, her bio does not explain how that article made it to the Guardian/Bee/McClatchy newspapers.) <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:D4F8:43BD:288A:F0A2 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same title; - 2 weeks after 9-11 ?? 

message: :I am adding references and trying to sort out all the different places these essays were originally published. If no objections I plan to upgrade to start statusToandael49 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did it, changed to start classToandael49 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a stub anymore?
Talk:The Bell Curve Debate

message: That is very simple. The WEP code is the password you used to set up your original internet connection at your home. Thats all it is, a simple internet password. Just punch that in when the system requests it and away you go.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblahblah (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the WEP code for the PSP? 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
Talk:Book of Saint Albans

message: I find the article's text about hawking repeated many places on the web as if it is a quote of the original. According to William Blades, this is a "facsimile" of the original printing. It is barely readable to me and it is not much like what we have now. We are using a mix of 15th-century and modern language. It seems to me that we should either quote the original or use modern English. I'm not sure if the intent of this section is to project some of the feeling of the original text, or to actually give a list, so I'm not sure how that section of the article should look. That is, should we give modern bird names and spellings or the 15th-century version? I'd appreciate input from people who know more about this. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no objection, I will change this section to use standard Wikipedia style. SchreiberBike talk 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the changes based on original research, but I'd be much happier with an authoritative translation or at least clear printing of the original text. The text that had been there is often repeated on the web, but is very different from the 1881 printing, and I can find nor authoritative origin for the often repeated text. Again, I'd appreciate input from people who know more about this. Maybe the best thing would be to take it out entirely.  SchreiberBike talk 06:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawking (falconry) section
Talk:Christian Science (book)

message: ... is "Christian Science (essay)", which is unfortunate as the work in question was published as a volume (book). Not sure if it's worth renaming though ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be moved back to book. It's not an essay, and was moved to the current title without discussion that I can see. Are there are any objections to moving it back?. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This article's title

message: I once heard that there was a lawsuit filed against Twain over this book. Does anybody know if this is true? Pete unseth (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Twain sued over this book?
Talk:Evgeny Velikhov

message: Velikhov is currently regarded as one of the most important scientists in Russia.  More references to follow.
Evgeny Velikhov's copyrighted photo is uploaded to Wikipedia and may be found here:  It might be reasonable to add this photograph to the article under the fair use license, as I am not sure that any free photograph of him is available. Ilya Martchenko 21:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Would an interview with transcript with Evgeny Velikhov from 1986 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_7EE1F4A381C74DF4A2E5A0B1F5A0DC9B (I have a conflict of interest; otherwise I would add it myself.) Mccallucc (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link? 
Talk:Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States

message: It can't be 1989 ... it mentions Bill Clinton in it ... I dont have the book on hand with me to check, but that's gotta be wrong.  I will change it as soon as I can find the book or at least a webpage showing a 1992 or 1993 publication date.  Unless somehow I'm wrong and Dave Barry was able to foresee the future .... <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 09:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap, it is 1989 (according to Amazon).  How???  Did he publish the book, and then re-publish it with a few edits to include Clinton? Should I expect the 1997 edition listed on Amazon to include yet more text at the end?  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 09:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright page of the version I have says says "© 1989, 1997";  the 1997 edits seem to consist of two paragraphs about trhe Gulf War and Clinton inserted near the end of the last chapter... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 1989???
Talk:Delusion and Dream in Jensen's Gradiva

message: Right now the English WP has 3 entries dealing with the  Gradiva  (I will not consider here film adaptions, Dali’s painting etc.):
1.	Gradiva : one of three figures in the ancient Agraulide relief;
2.	Jensen’s Gradiva (novel);
3.	Freud’s essay Delusion and Dream in Jensen's Gradiva.
 My proposition : The three entries are mutually dependent on each other and should be combined under one lemma. 
 My argument is as follows: 
The ‘Gradiva’ is first and foremost a fictional character in Jensen’s novella. The protagonist gives this name to the first woman in the Agraulide relief he sees in the Vatican museum and transfers this name to a woman he meets.  Result : The ‘Gradiva’ of the novel is dependent on the figure of the actual existing relief. At the same time – and through this act – one of the three Agraulide sisters (Herse,Pandrosos and Agraulos, ancient deities of the dew), is given the new name ‘Gravida’: the lemma of entry 1. concerning the relief depends in its turn on the novel. One without the other is incomprehensible.
Freud could not of course have written his essay without Jensen’s novella. On the other hand, Jensen’s story would have sunk into obscurity without Freud’s analysis. It was Freud who gave prominence to ‘Gradiva’, to link now forever in people’s mind the first relief-figure to her new name ‘Gradiva’, to inspire the surrealists works, and to prompt the WP entries.
Presently the ‘Gradiva’ is scattered over 3 entries and - to paraphrase the title of Hauser’s exemplary study of the relief (Hauser, 1903), alas! only accessible to German speakers – is presented as  Disiecta membra der Gradiva.
These three entries are inextricably linked and should be combined.
Please leave comments on the Talk:Gradiva page.
--RM Vollmer 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 3 Gradiva entries in the English WP 
Talk:Dialogue on Translation Between a Lord and a Clerk

message: I wonder who decides "notability"? Wikipedia cheerfully hosts articles about film and pop stars of whom I have never heard and in whom I am not interested, yet raises questions about matters that are of scholarly interest. Personally I was most interested in discovering information on this "Dialogue" and just wish the article was longer and had more information - though it probably contains all that can be usefully said without reproducing the "Dialogue" in full.
I note, for example, that there is a lengthy article on Kim Kardashian, a talentless but beautiful (at least, when she has her make-up on) television personality whose main achievement appears to have been a fake marriage to some other nonentity. No one wants to delete that article - and I would not wish to see it deleted, even though to my mind it is totally lacking in "notability".
By all means let the editors of Wikipedia concern themselves with accuracy, but unless they wish to claim omniscience, stop deleting articles just because they are of no interest to those editors. *Every* article is of interest to someone and a contribution to the world of knowledge, whether it is about some minor star, minor insect or minor work of literature.
KendallKDown (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

message: I don't have time to populate the article with sources but notability is not in question see Google Books. I've removed the tag. If you believe otherwise than I request an AfD to settle the matter, and not restore the tag. -- GreenC 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable
Talk:Inside the Whale

message: I have moved this article back to its original concept as an essay. "Inside the Whale" is, and was, always an essay - published in book form and later included in other works. Don't have time to go through the rest of the article for the moment to check for accuracy, but the lead must be clear on that point.--Technopat (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding
Talk:Letter to His Father

message: http://www.kafka-franz.com/KAFKA-letter.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.86.191 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

message: The text says it's 45 typed pages, the caption says it 103 handwritten pages. Can someone with access to the sources correct one or both of these? Thanks. ColinClark (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction.
Talk:Life Without Principle

message: An anonymous editor removed the entirety of the section summarizing the themes in the essay, and left the following comments in her/his page edits:
 I am suggesting that this HIGHLY interpretive section be deleted. First of all, these are not 'themes' so much as they are someone's reductive moralizing of Thoreau based on their own misreading and political views. Second, since when are we offering thematic interpretations on Wikipedia?
 P.S. -- I am the former editor of the Thoreau Society Bulletin, the quarterly publication of the Thoreau Society. I am a member of the Thoreau Society's editorial advisory committee. I am also a PhD candidate in English at UCLA and a research fellow at the American Antiquarian Society working on a dissertation about the Transcendentalists--so I think I have some authority here.
I am restoring that section, as I think an article about the essay ought to contain a summary of what the essay means to convey. I invite this editor to make improvements to that summary to correct the defects she or he has found there. Moorlock (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm several years late to the game here but, honestly, that section is awful. I would support its removal, especially now that someone has added more of a narrative attempt at summarizing the essay. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also late but I agree, it's a pretty terrible section. I'll remove it unless their is a consensus that disagrees. BogLogs (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes
Talk:The Man Who Knew Too Much (article)

message: I suggest that this article be merged into The Insider (film). Unless there is a reasoned objection, I will perform the merge and redirect. Inniverse (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the content into The Insider (film)#Historical accuracy. Gobōnobo + c 20:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Greenpoint oil spill

message: This section does NOT read like an encyclopedia article.  It has an obvious bias, and it uses phrases like "calls were not returned," as if it came from a newspaper article.  Recommend it be removed or undergo cosmetic surgery. 74.136.204.1 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about timing of lawsuit 

message: Some of the material in this article is directly copied from its sources. For instance, the sentence "This stands to reason, as the spilled oil tends to lie deep underground, capped by a nearly impermeable layer of clay" is a direct quote from the source cited. It should either be placed in quotation marks, or paraphrased. Bjheiden 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying from sources

message: Are there no photos of the estate and some visual traces of the oil contamination? -- Simplicius (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: This http://www.blockmagazine.com/all_ears.php?title=lstronggthe_devil_s_dictionary_for_green&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 is a slightly tongue in cheek satirical piece. Not that it is inaccurate, necessarily but we should prefer it's sources - the EPA reort for example. Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and the trackback address? http://www.blockmagazine.com/buggeroff/trackback.php?tb_id=308 think we should drop this source. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I'm going to remove the quoted sentence about .4 ppbn causing a rate of .00001 cancer. I don't like removing quoted  material, but comparing oil concentrations with air concentrations is only a tad above hand-waving. Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm

message: I think there is another action, but I may be wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Litigation
Talk:No Treason

message: There were three essays in the No Treason series.  The Constitution of No Authority was the third and last of them, inexplicably titled No Treason No. VI.  The others were No Treason No. I and No Treason No. II.  Since the article is titled No Treason, it should cover all three essays in the series. 184.19.97.101 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three 

message: I added a new external link for the three essays. Please note that the numbering is not a typographical error. The three essays are correctly given as follows:
::No Treason: No. 1
::No Treason: No. II: The Constitution
::No Treason: No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority
The first, alone, does not use Roman numerals.
50.194.104.82 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The titles of the three essays 

message: Given the subject matter of opposition to the treason claims levied against Southern soldiers, the Civil War, and the involuntary Union, shouldn't Spooner's ardent abolitionist views be mentioned to give this article proper context? I say it is absolutely essential. Otherwise he could be easily painted as pro-slavery, a racist, or pro-Confederacy. He was none of those things.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.154 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Abolitionism
Talk:On the Universe

message: Thank you, AlexanderVanLoon, for your attention to this article!
I myself favor reference by Latin titles in many of these cases. However, at present, anyway, there is a Wikipedia-wide uniformity in using the titles as given in the Revised Oxford Translation for the works of Aristotle, and I wonder, for such a relatively obscure work, whether such a widely-used omnibus work ought not to carry more weight. Anyway, Google Books finds 38,000 hits for Aristotle "de mundo" but 725,000 hits for Aristotle "on the universe", so (recognizing that these numbers conceal various messy realities) I don't think this is very close to a clear-cut case even if we were to consider one work's common title in isolation from the others. Wareh (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your correction and explanation. What still isn't clear to me is why some works like Liber de Causis, De Proprietatibus Elementorum and Secret of Secrets don't appear in the Complete Works of Aristotle, either volume 1 or volume 2? I guess because they were written by a Pseudo-Aristotle, but so are some of the works which are included in the Complete Works. I'd like to know if these three also have conventional English names so I can correct these articles too. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These are works outside the Corpus Aristotelicum, i.e. while they may have been ascribed to Aristotle, they were not part of the group of Greek writings attributed to Aristotle that were passed down together in Byzantine manuscript transmission. More pragmatically, that corpus is defined by the judgment of modern editors who discerned a coherent corpus, especially Bekker's great edition. Since they're not in the Aristotelian corpus presented by Oxford/Revised Oxford, etc., I wouldn't worry about any more general principles of consistency. Instead we should just follow WP:COMMONNAME on a case-by-case basis, i.e., determine how each is most frequently referred to in English-language reliable sources. I wouldn't assume there's any reason to suppose they're not already correctly titled. For example, I'm pretty confident that Liber de Causis is the standard form of reference and should remain the article title. Wareh (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of the English title 

message: "occurs the substance which is made up of small particles and is fier, being kindled by..."</br>
Is this a typo? 've changed it to "fire" for the time being.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fier" 

message: How do we not it is not Aristotle, but a pseudonym? The article doesn't mention that.
CielProfond (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-Aristotle?
Talk:Santaland Diaries

message: I'm considering the capitalization shown in the table of contents of Sedaris' collection Barrel Fever and on NPR's web page on the essay to be authoritative as to the capitalization of the title of this essay. I've requested speedy deletion of the redirect at Santaland Diaries to make way for this article to be moved there, and I've edited this article to reflect the spelling with the lower-case "l". —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of the title 

message: I kind of wanted to play Santa land for my family after hearing it on a walk from this American life. Can’t seem to find it help me out. 2601:642:C302:2980:7C80:C821:3B14:AA62 (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are only for the purpose of discussing improvements to their articles, not for general discussion or inquiry on the topic. Largoplazo (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can you listen to Santaland
Talk:Stranger in the Village

message: I suggest redirecting this page to Notes of a Native Son, which already contains a summary of this essay.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree until there is more to write here. But try and merge and unique material if appropriate. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to merge or redirect pages. Can you please do it?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect
Talk:The Way to Wealth

message: The Way to Wealth was originally titled Father Abraham's Sermon by Benjamin Franklin in his last edition of Poor Richard's Almanack. 2601:583:681:8430:60C8:6B15:A6C8:2F0C (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Father Abraham's Sermon' by Benjamin Franklin in last issue of 'Poor Richard's Almanack' 

message: After listening along to the audio linked, it contains more text, proverbs, and aphorisms than the linked scan of the book. Does anyone have the source of the text being read by Bob Gonzalez? Is it his own edits? Would love to know. Edit: I have found this link, credited to an 1836 edit of the text: "The Works of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Jared Sparks. Vol. 2. (Boston, 1836), 2:92-103." Ignat980 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different text in the audio by Bob Gonzalez?
Talk:What Is to Be Done? (Tolstoy book)

message: The article says this is a work "in which Tolstoy describes the social conditions of Russia in his day." However, the title suggests there's more too it than that. The title suggests that Tolstoy is writing about what should be done to change the existing conditions. Anybody have any inkling of what he is suggesting should be done? Should probably also provide more info about how the book differs from the Lenin and Chernyshevsky works.Ileanadu (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info About the Book Needed 

message: Should there be support/a citation verifying that the title is a Biblical Reference. If not, is this the article writer's own conclusion? If the latter then this should be removed. If there is scholarly support that this is an intentional reference to a Bible passage it should be cited. Ileanadu (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support/Citation Needed re: Title Being a Biblical Reference  
Template talk:Wonder Woman

message: Should Olive Byrne be included in this template? This template is on the Olive Byrne article, & there will be much interest given the release of Professor Marston and the Wonder Women in three weeks. I think that Olive Byrne could be included at least in the Miscellaneous section. Peaceray (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spirit of be bold, I included Olive Byrne in the Miscellaneous section. Peaceray (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olive Byrne