lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Taiwan Independence Party

message: There is a case before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Roger C. S. Lin et al. v USA  Civil Action No. 06-1825 (RMC), which web reports say are brought in the name of Taiwan Defense Alliance and a certain "Taiwan Nation Party" (with the same Han character name 建國黨). I wonder if it is related? – Kaihsu 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lin v USA''

message: Can anyone provide a reliable source that states the official name of the party?--Jerry 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [This source] says that it's called the Taiwan Independent Party, can anyone show me a source that says the names was changed to Taiwan Nation Party?--Jerry 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Does it support independence for tibet and xinjian etc?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  independence for tibet and xinjian 

message: This year in May, 2015 a new party with the same English name "Taiwan Independence Party" but different Chinese name "台灣獨立黨" and abbreviation "TIP" has been formed . Should anything be done about this article? 
Both English names listed on this article is correct:
* "Taiwan National Party" is referenced in Dr. Roger C. S. Lin et al. v USA .
* "Taiwan Independence Party" is referenced in this news article .
Another point worth noting is that sometimes "Taiwan independence party" is used as a term meaning "a party in support of the independence of Taiwan" . -- Jinbobo (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly created party with the same name
Talk:Jimmy Kennedy

message: Why is Jimmy Kennedy listed as a British songwriter? Surely Irish makes more sense.
:That's what I thought, as "British" is to do with the island of Britain, not including Ireland. Jvlm.123 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to the correct category - Category:Northern Ireland Songwriters. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Northern Ireland is exact, but Irish would not be.  As he was in the British Army, was a British citizen, and lived and died in Britain (UK) he might fairly be described as a British songwriter in addition to a Northern Irish one.  No reason why he can't be in more than one category.  Quite a few of us are :)  Hakluyt bean 18:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've updated the article to say that Jimmy Kennedy was from Northern Ireland, which is the case. Many people throughout this small island are very proud of the achievements of this gifted Irishman. bigpad (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't changed the text ....   but he was born in 1902, when Northern Ireland as a political entity did not exist.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: British / Irish

message: The entry states that he wrote the English lyrics to "Lili Marleen". However, I can find no version by him. Also, this reference states that he refused the request to write the English lyrics:
https://www.culturenorthernireland.org/features/music/jimmy-kennedy-irish-troubadour
Is this perhaps a confusion with Jimmy Phillips, who co-wrote the second English translation of the song? Jimmys Phillips and Kennedy are pictured together here, so evidently knew one another:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/from-left-to-right-jimmy-phillips-of-the-peter-maurice-news-photo/931708564
As Jimmy Phillips, a music publisher, eventually co-wrote the lyrics with Tommy (or Tommie) Connor, he may well have been the person who asked Jimmy Kennedy.
So, I don't think he translated "Lili Marleen" and that the reference to this should be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.181.234 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lili Marleen/Marlene

message: changed Istanbul IS AND WILL BE Constantinople back to Istanbul (Not Constantinople)
i cant find any reference to the first song title in Google, so i'm amusing the original title is the one its meant to be.
--DarkAxi0m (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed ''Istanbul (Not Constantinople)'' song link
Talk:Electro (music)

message: and 13 siblings are currently empty. It appears that they have been emptied by  in this series of edits. I make no judgment on whether those edits are correct. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there has to be as the genre within the respective articles did not reflect what was being said In the categories. what was there to discuss? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories emptied without discussion 

message: "The genre emerged with musicians Arthur Baker, Afrika Bambaataa, Warp 9, and Hashim. Seminal electro tracks included "Planet Rock" (1982) and "Nunk" (1982), both featuring its characteristic TR-808 drum beats."
What about Juan Atkins of Cybotron and "Alleys of your mind" and "Cosmic Raindance" from 1981, and "Cosmic Cars" from 1982?
It sounds more electronic than other "electro" and it's obviously more innovative than those making similar sounds after it.
Atkins called it "techno" before it was called "electro". 93.138.38.206 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan Atkins
Talk:Elishah

message: I've reorganized the text into a somewhat more coherent order, though there's still more work needed. Originally, this article began with a note on the Masoretic Text of Genesis, then skipped forward two thousand years to talk about the Septuagint, then skipped almost two thousand years to talk about the Septuagint, skipped forward a thousand years or so to discuss Lusitanian mythology, skipped back again centuries to Josephus, and finally ended with a tiny note on modern scholarship. Now the article begins with the Bible's references (Masoretic and Septuagint), followed by modern scholarship, Josephus, Jasher, and then Lusitanian mythology. I also made a few minor changes to wording to make that work, though I'm not done yet.Alephb (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganized

message: I've tried editing the last paragraph, but it seems on a second reading that it's just way too convoluted to understand in English, probably with some translation errors. Can anyone go into that paragraph, possibly looking at the original Portuguese sources, and edit it to make coherent sense in English?
Secret Broker (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yanked it out. The whole thing goes way out on a potentially off-topic limb (it little connection to the main topic of the article, which is about a biblical character), it's unreadable, it doesn't cite anyone who wrote in the last four hundred years, and it doesn't actually help an English-speaking reader understand anything about Elishah. Alephb (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear English in the Last Paragraph
Talk:D'oh-in' in the Wind

message: Why does someone/some people remove "smoke on the water" when I put it in the list of songs? The song was in the episode, Homer sang it when he was smoking the joint. Not to mention "Hair" and "Wear your love like heaven" are excluded out.
:That's because it was in another episode, Weekend at Burnsie's. Martarius (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoke on the Water

message: According to The Simpsons Forever, the correct name of this episode is D'oh-in' In the Wind (with an apostrophe after "-in"). Maybe I'm just being pedantic.
--PhoenixV 18:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On DVD this episode  is captionned and called by Mike Scully "D'oh in the Wind" - without an "-in'". What's right? --Xls 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "D'oh in the Wind" doesn't even make sense. The title is a reference to the Bob Dylan song "Blowin' in the Wind", which also has an apostrophe after "Blowin". This episode is listed in "Simpsons World: The Ultimate Episode Guide" as "D'oh-in' in the Wind", so the page should be moved. – PeeJay 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong article name 

message: What is the name of the very 60-ish and psychedelic sounding song in this episode please? Not 'White rabbit' though, the other song.. Dirk Diggler Jnr
: "Time of the Season" by The Zombies. I suppose you don't refer to "Uptown Girl";-) Mrbluesky 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The one that is playing after "Uptown Girl", not Time of the Season, White Rabbit or Incense and Peppermint, the OTHER one... :) 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song 

message: Isn't the line "I'm a doctor, not a gardener" a star trek reference?
:I think it could be a reference to anything. Martarius (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek Reference?

message: Can anybody confirm that this similarity was intended by the writers?
LarsPM (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seth and Munchie based on [[Ben & Jerry's|Ben and Jerry]]? 

message: Aren't the hammers just a reference to Pink Floyd? You really think the Simpsons writers are into slang for heroin? 66.189.54.220 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walking Hammers=Heroin? 
Talk:The Velvet Underground (album)

message: Valentin's mix wasn't widely distributed in Europe. One of the sources used only mentions CDs:
https://archive.org/details/seeinglightinsid0000jova/page/138/mode/2up?q=closet
The Closet mix was common in the UK and probably Europe too. The only LPs I could find with the Valentin mix are the 69 Canada, a rare 69 UK, and an 82 Japan. The more common 71 UK uses the Closet.
1969 UK: https://www.discogs.com/release/3224639-The-Velvet-Underground-The-Velvet-Underground
"contains the 'Valentin' mix of the album, by MGM engineer Val Valentin, as does the Canada edition, in contrast to all other worldwide releases prior to the mid-80's which instead contain Lou Reed's alternate 'Closet' mix."
1971 UK: https://www.discogs.com/release/607032-The-Velvet-Underground-The-Velvet-Underground
"Whereas Valentin's mix was used for the earlier 1969 UK issue, Reed's mix was used here."
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/velvet-undergound-closet-mix-vinyl-reissue.1125079/
"Well, since your only other option for the closet mix on vinyl is an original US or 1971 UK pressing, it’s an alright pressing." 92.237.185.52 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valentin mix
Talk:Taxation in the Republic of Ireland

message: Updated the Corporate tax section (in line with the updated Corporate tax article); added a new first section on the Structure of Irish tax revenues as I think it is useful for people to be able to "scale" the relative sizes of these taxes; added a shorter sub-section on International comparisons but this needs more to give precise assessments of Income, VAT and CT against OECD average? Also re-wrote lede to give an overview of the structure of Irish taxation and the core of Irish tax policy (e.g. the OECD pyramid). Britishfinance (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the sub-section on International comparisons to give the basic facts on Ireland vs. other OECD economies.  Again, the big caveat with all comparisons of Irish economic statistics with other jurisdictions, it adjusting for Irish GDP distortions. Britishfinance (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated and added upfront section on Structure of Tax
Talk:Refugee Council

message: It's DON'T BELIEVE THE TYPE, as opposed to HYPE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.122 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my mistake. I'll change it back. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: reuploaded public version of logo and added link to logo to the page
--Rcwebeditor2 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2012 

message: Updated & refreshed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufilala (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 2013 
Talk:Whitehead link

message: :Header added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove copyedit 

message: :Header added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Do you have a question?  --C S (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Reidemeister I moves? 

message: Not sure Whitehead really "discovered" it; rather, he found its connections to deep mathematics... AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Discovered"

message: Flip the central crossing Columbus8myhw (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknotting number is 1, not 2 

message: One sentence reads as follows:
"The Whitehead link complement is one of two two-cusped hyperbolic manifolds with the minimum possible volume, the other being the complement of the pretzel link with parameters (−2,3,8)."
In order for this to make any sense, it must be explained what "minimum possible volume" means. Minimum among what, exactly?
Minimum among all hyperbolic 3-manifolds? Among all orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds? Among all orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds that are knot complements? Among link complements? Etc.50.205.142.35 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "minimum possible volume" 

message: If the figure is manipulated so that the 8-strand becomes a circle, what happens to the other?  I did some doodling, and it appears that the other becomes an 8; hence, the two strands are equivalent.  If this is confirmed by Reliable Sources it ought to be in the article.
Is there a neat form in which the two strands have the same shape? --Tamfang (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Cundy and Rollett's "Mathematical Models" (2nd. edition, 1961), p. 59: "It may not be immediately obvious without a model that the configuration is symmetrical in the two loops". -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a symmetric view (under 180° rotation around an axis in the plane of the view) in Fig.22 of , given as a visual proof of the statement that it is symmetric in this way. I've included a redrawn version of the image here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beautiful, thanks! —Tamfang (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  metamorphosis
Talk:Sandbar Fight

message: How can the intro to the article plainly state that this IS a fight that happened, starting as a duel, etc? This is something that some sources claim happened. Its not a plain fact, we have no idea what really happened, even in the best-recorded cases. In the end it's a matter of what people chose to record happened, and there is a lot of variation among accounts. In THIS case, the very best case is that Bowie CLAIMED this happened to him (of course in reality others say the whole duel story was made up decades later and had nothing to do with Bowie). They claim this is a myth, and the actual original story involved Bowie being attacked by 3 desperados on the river. Wikipedia isn't here to tell people this is what happened, it's here to tell them this is what historians/experts THINK happened, and it's our duty to be fair and equal to ALL sides, no matter what we want to believe or are inclined to believe ourselves.
70.20.57.130 (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not established fact
Talk:Enumeration

message: Hi, sorry to drop in somewhat rudely, but being mostly interested in enumerative combinatorics I find this article shockingly unbalanced. For most ordinary human beings enumeration and counting has to do with finite sets, and mathematically this is also by far the most interesting case, (since once one hits infinite cardinality there are zillions of variations that are no longer distinguished by cardinality; I mean of course uncountably many (ordinals)). However this article hardly seems interested in that case at all. Finite sets only get marginal mention in the section on countable versus uncountable context. (The non-mathematically trained reader might also be confused by the idea of counting in an uncountable context.)
Also the following quote put me off a lot
If one works in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice, one may want to impose the additional restriction that an enumeration must also be injective (without repetition) since in this theory, the existence of a surjection from I onto S need not imply the existence of an injection from S into I
First I though this was complete nonsense because I had not noticed the reversal of the arrow. But in any case everybody knows proper counting requires a bijection, not injections or surjections, so it is unclear to me why this point is pertinent at all, and the remark remains utterly confusing.
Again excuse for the somewhat rude tone, but I really think this article needs a thorough rewrite for encyclopedic style and serving general public before aiming at some specialism. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very unbalanced article
Talk:Gigantomachy

message: Some more details found here: Gigantes. Alexander 007 19:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the material here is now edited at Gigantes where the Wikipedia reader is most likely to look. The Gigantes can scarcely be separated from the Gigantomachia. Any objections to converting this article to a redirect? --Wetman 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections. Alexander 007 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded back, should work now. Brand[t] 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it gives the Wikipedia reader some runaround exercise. The Gigantes can still  scarcely be separated from the Gigantomachia.Plus mistaking Gigantes for Hecatonchires (Giants with their thousand hands), asserting that Ossa and Pelion were piled on Olympus (to reach what,  Heaven!) . Some reading in primary sources that could be cited would improve the reporting aspect. If encyclopedic thinking is out of reach, then Gigantomachia could be made into at least further two tiny articles, on lost poems. --Wetman (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hecatonchires were hundred-handed, while Ossa and Pelion were indeed Giants (Aloadae). Brand[t] 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Camarilla

message: This article was started and apparently abandoned. It seems to be a topic worthy of an article, but it needs to be completed. --Metropolitan90 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet to be filled? 

message: As the "See also" sections show there are a great many terms with more or less the same meaning which have evolved in history and literature.
Not all of them would probably need an article of their own. I should suffice to deal with each in a separate section under a shared lemma.
Maybe we could begin by merging power behind the throne and camarilla since these two seem to be just too similar.
thanks,
KaiKemmann (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. While nuanced, there seems to be enough distinction that they are truly distinct concepts and not merely synonymous terms. "Power behind the thrown" implies actual power to get things done, but "camarilla" seems to involve a close circle of softer influence that may or may  without any actual power as such (in the later case, it is a model merely with explanatory power but not the predictive power one would expect in the former). Morgan Riley (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of [[Power behind the throne]] with [[Camarilla]] 

message: In the first para, is "traditional governance practices" quite the right phrase? I see what's being attempted here, but few things are more traditional than a camarilla. 
There's form for this kind of complaint going back to the middle ages and beyond- the attacks on royal favourites giving behind the throne advice and having more influence than the senior court office holders, let alone the nobles who "should be the king's chief counsellors"- as well as modern examples from constitutional polities, to be sure. On the other hand, modern constitutional monarchs are bound to act on the advice of ministers because it's the only way to secure democratic backing, but like monarchs once were, office holders who have the legitimacy of constitutional appointment can't help but be advised from all over. What office holder has not been? And if the monarch's favourite has been given a court office, or the president's favourite been named a special advisor, suddenly they become officials. 
To get people's backs up enough to be called a camarilla, or warrant the name by real influence, the group has to have something more special in terms of cohesion, distance from official public status, secrecy, and influence. And even then, it's very traditional. Arguably the restriction against camarillas is the non traditional, relatively modern innovation. 
Even "conventional", while much closer to the intent, suffers from some similar conceptual weaknesses. "Formal", "official", "legal", "public", "constitutional", or "structured" might be better adjectives. Public is the weakest- even normal government isn't always public. Random noter (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology
Talk:Life of Adam and Eve

message: It's as clear as mud what this means.  The guy in the comment above misunderstood it.  I obviously misunderstand it.  Life of A&E blatantly is about the same people and fall that Genesis writes about.  If the existing summary means something pickier like 'specifically Christian as opposed to Jewish', it should say so.  If it's trying to imply there are or aren't incompatibilities between this text and Genesis, it should explicitly disambiguate instead of dabbling in uninformative (interruptingly bracket-toting) quasi-double-negative faux-concision.  Readers shouldn't need to be mind readers to decrypt an executive summary. 92.30.46.246 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No undeniably Christian teaching II 

message: The following excerpts seem to indicate that this article has at least in part been copied and pasted from other sources:
"...a single source that has not survived,[2]:251"
"...early 3rd to the 5th century,[2]:252"
The reference numbers 251 and 252 (in superscript) have survived the copy/paste process.Tim Riches, Brampton, Ontario (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers 251 or 252 are simply the pages of ref #2. (It is an accepted way to refer to single page, see for example Help:References and page numbers). I wrote the lead of this article, and it is not plagiarized. A ntv (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this plagiarized? 

message: The First Book of Adam and Eve
by Rutherford Platt
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/398/398-h/398-h.htm#chap00 Per the Gutenberg poster:
* work of unknown Egyptians
* Parts of this version are found in the Jewish Talmud, and the Islamic Koran
* Egyptian author wrote in Arabic
* Later translations were found written in Ethiopic. 
* Translated to King James English in the late 1800's by Dr. S. C. Malan and Dr. E. Trumpp (worked fromn both the (the Arabic version and the Ethiopic version)
* Published as a section inside Forgotten Books of Eden (1927) by The World Publishing Company
* Text was extracted to electronic form by Dennis Hawkins (1995)
* Translated into more modern English by simply exchanging 'Thou' s for 'You's, 'Art's for 'Are's, and so forth. by Rutherford Platt? (2008)
Rick (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this Gutenberg ebook be referenced?
Talk:Surskit

message: Surskit in swedish means "Sour shit" (Snorlax means "Snot-salmon"). Would that be worth mentioning? --Ojan 17:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much not worth noting. urutapu 22:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish name