lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Michael I Rangabe

message: Seems an awfully big coincidence that Michael I Rangabe AND his predecessor Staurakios both died on January 11...possibly an error? Clippership (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Date

message: I have put disputed tag because wikipedia is having 2 different story about 1 event. In article Charlemagne is writen: "Emperor Michael I Rhangabes recognised his status as Emperor under the title of Imperator Romanorum gubernans imperium"
In article Michael I Rangabe is writen :"In 812 Michael I reopened negotiations with the Franks, and recognized Charlemagne as "basileus (emperor) of the Franks"
I now reading book Georg Ostrogorsky : Byzantische Geschichte 324 - 1453 which speak about 3rd version and I think that this version is speaking truth. In story from this book Byzantine envoys in 812 has called Charlemagne emperor (real title basileus) and nothing else. They have not called him Imperator Romanorum gubernans imperium but only basileus. After hearing this words Charlemagne has been thinking that they have accepted him for Imperator Romanorum gubernans imperium  but on other side in Byzantium Michael I is speaking that they have refused his demands to accept him for Roman emperor. In this solution nobody is defeated and everybody is happy. Simple this is politics ... I have put disputed tag in both articles.Rjecina 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: much authoritative material for the  article Pyrlights (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Worley translated "A Synopsis of Byzantine History" in 2010, published by Cambridge University Press
Talk:Emperor Murakami

message: In the Kugyō section:
  ................................................... lifetime, 880-949
  .... time in office (946-949)
  ........... Kampaku (946-949), Fujiwara no Tadahira (藤原忠平), 880-949
** Kampaku, Fujiwara no Tadahira (藤原忠平), 946-949.Brown, D. (1979). Gukanshō, p. 296.
** Daijō-daijin, Fujiwara no Tadahira (藤原忠平), 936-949.Brown, p. 296.
** Sadaijin, Fujiwara no Saneyori (藤原実頼), 947-967.Brown, p. 296.
** Udaijin, Fujiwara no Saneyori (藤原実頼), 946-947.Brown, p. 296.
** Udaijin, Fujiwara no Morosuke (藤原師輔), 947-955.Brown, p. 296. 
** Udaijin, Fujiwara no Akitada　(藤原顕忠), 960-965
** Udaijin, Minamoto no Taka-akira　(源高明), 966-967
  
In the intial edit, I intended to present the dates during which someone held a specific court title, but that now seems too ambitious for a start-level article. The intention had been to explain the sequence of serial officeholders with these dates.
Instead, it's probably better to simply list the birth/death dates. Arguably, it might be possible (or even preferable) to include both sets of dates as the information becomes available ...? --Ooperhoofd 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be commenting on this specific case, but generally-speaking this kind of matter should be done in a very systematic manner, I think, because, I am assuming, that lists similar to this one may/should be added to other articles of emperors too. So, why don't you post something like to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan or other places. -- Taku 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How better to present these dates?

message: Article introduction states birth year to be 924 but is categorized as 926 births. Which one is accurate? -- अभय नातू (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent birth year
Talk:Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir

message: I'm putting a "copyvio" tag on this article. Here are some comparisons.
Wiki:
The Banu Musa brothers were among the first group of mathematicians to begin to carry forward the mathematical developments begun by the ancient Greeks (See House of Wisdom).
Mactutor:
The Banu Musa brothers were among the first group of mathematicians to begin to carry forward the mathematical developments begun by the ancient Greeks.
Wiki:
The Banu Musa brothers took a definite step forward, where the Greeks had not; The Greeks had not thought of areas and volumes as numbers, but had only compared ratios of areas etc. The Banu Musa's concept of number is broader than that of the Greeks. For example they describe pi as:
        "... the magnitude which, when multiplied by the diameter of a circle, yields the circumference."
Mactutor:
In another aspect, however, the Banu Musa made a definite step forward. The Greeks had not thought of areas and volumes as numbers, but had only compared ratios of areas etc. The Banu Musa's concept of number is broader than that of the Greeks. For example they describe π as [2]:-
    ... the magnitude which, when multiplied by the diameter of a circle, yields the circumference.
Wiki:
The Banu Musa also introduce geometrical proofs which involve thinking of the geometric objects as moving. In particular they used kinematic methods to solve the classical problem of 'trisecting an angle'.
Mactutor:
The Banu Musa also introduce geometrical proofs which involve thinking of the geometric objects as moving. In particular they used kinematic methods to solve the classical problem of trisecting an angle.
Wiki:
In astronomy the brothers made many contributions. They were instructed by al-Ma'mun to measure a degree of latitude and they made their measurements in the desert in northern Mesopotamia. They also made many observations of the sun and the moon from Baghdad. Muhammad and Ahmad measured the length of the year, obtaining the value of 365 days and 6 hours. Observations of the star Regulus were made by the three brothers from their house on a bridge in Baghdad in 840-41AD, 847-48AD, and 850-51AD.
Mactutor:
In astronomy the brothers made many contributions. They were instructed by al-Ma'mun to measure a degree of latitude and they made their measurements in the desert in northern Mesopotamia. They also made many observations of the sun and the moon from Baghdad. Muhammad and Ahmad measured the length of the year, obtaining the value of 365 days and 6 hours. Observations of the star Regulus were made by the three brothers from their house on a bridge in Baghdad in 840-41, 847-48, and 850-51.
The decision of what to do will be made by somebody else, but I'd recommend that this entire article be deleted as a blatant violation of Mactutor's copyright (November, 1999). I checked the history, and the offending material is in the original version of this page.  DavidCBryant 13:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation
Talk:Emperor Suzaku

message: In the Kugyō section:
  .................................................... lifetime, 880-949
  ... time in office (930-942)
  ........... Sesshō (930-942), Fujiwara no Tadahira　(藤原忠平),　880-949
* Sesshō, Fujiwara no Tadahira　(藤原忠平),　930-942.Brown, p. 294.
* Kampaku, Fujiwara no Tadahira　(藤原忠平), 942-946.Brown, p. 294.
* Daijō-daijin, Fujiwara no Tadahira　(藤原忠平), 936-949.Brown, p. 294.
* Sadaijin, Fujiwara no Tadahira　(藤原忠平), 924-936
* Sadaijin, Fujiwara no Nakahira　(藤原仲平), 937-945
* Udaijin, Fujiwara no Sadakata　(藤原定方),　924-932 
* Udaijin, Fujiwara no Nakahira　(藤原仲平), 933-937
* Udaijin, Fujiwara no Tsunesuke　(藤原恒佐), 837-838
* Udaijin, Fujiwara no Saneyori　(藤原実頼),　944-947.Brown, p. 295.
  
In the intial edit, I intended to present the dates during which someone held a specific court title, but that now seems too ambitious for a start-level article. The intention had been to explain the sequence of serial officeholders with these dates.
Instead, it's probably better to simply list the birth/death dates. Arguably, it might be possible (or even preferable) to include both sets of dates as the information becomes available ...? --Ooperhoofd 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How better to present these dates?
Talk:Emperor Taizong of Song

message: Basic information to explain in this article: why he used "Jiong" as his given name for part of his life, and "Guangyi" as his given name for another part of his life. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: Please see --Outlookxp (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History book 異迹略 is hoax
Talk:Emperor Uda

message: In the Kugyō section:
 ...................................................... lifetime, 836-891
 .... time in office (887-890)
 ........... Kampaku (887-890), Fujiwara no Mototsune　(藤原基経),　836-891
* Kampaku, Fujiwara no Mototsune　(藤原基経),　887-890.Brown, Delmer. (1979). Gukanshō, p. 290.
* Daijō-daijin, Fujiwara no Mototsune　(藤原基経), 880-891.Brown, p. 290.
* Sadaijin, Minamoto no Tooru　(源融),　872-895
* Sadaijin, Fujiwara no Yoshiyo　(藤原良世), 896
* Udaijin, Minamoto no Masaru　(源多), 882-888
* Udaijin, Fujiwara no Yoshiyo　(藤原良世), 891-896
* Udaijin, Minamoto no Yoshiari　(源能有), 896-897
In the intial edit, I intended to present the dates during which someone held a specific court title, but that now seems too ambitious for a start-level article.  The intention had been to explain the sequence of serial officeholders with these dates.  
Instead, it's probably better to simply list the birth/death dates.  Arguably, it might be possible (or even preferable) to include both sets of dates as the information becomes available ...? --Ooperhoofd 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How better to present these dates?

message: There seems to be some conflicts with the text in this article and other articles regarding the parentage of Minamoto no Masanobu.  In the Emperor_Uda#Historical_background section, Minamoto no Masanobu's father is given as Prince Atsuzane.  But in the articles Minamoto no Masanobu and Sasaki_clan, his father is given as Prince Atsumi.  Also, why is Prince Atsuzane not listed under the Emperor_Uda#Consorts_and_Children section? — Myasuda (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this conflict has now been resolved.  Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minamoto no Masanobu
Talk:Nennius

message: "Nennius the proto-Wikipedian: Discuss." (The identity of wiki-writers can be equally obscure, and articles can be "heaps of all that has been found", verifiable or otherwise) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Like " Some experts say that this was not the first compiled history of the Britons " As Harrison says of De Excidio  Gildas " did not write history[...] in the sense that Gregory of Tours did" - but that is not to say he did not write history.  And certainly he wrote using more sources than his first hand own knowledge, does this, then, make De Excido (part I) a "compiled history"?  What are we trying to convey here?  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
: No real clue - I just maintain the article - it's very low down on my interest scale. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Somewhat vague statements
Talk:Nikephoros I

message: "Nikephoros was killed in the battle, the second Roman emperor to suffer this fate since Valens in the Battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378)."
Does this mean to say that Valens was the only other emperor to die in battle?  What about Decius and the Battle of Abrittus? 71.87.192.36 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Died in Battle 

message: I don't know if this article was originally taken from a translation in a different-language Wikipedia, and that is the reason for its clumsy wording, but it needs to be rewritten almost in its entirety. It is currently too awkward to read. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite
Talk:Engelberga

message: I'm planning on making a few edits to this page, to provide more information on Engelberga, using sources I've found through my university studies. 
I'd like to add more information on her relationship with her husband and how this gave her more access to land and power. I think the references on the page currently are too limited, so I'll be using a wider variety of sources. Especially the information concerning her control of nunneries, which I'll be using an article by MacLean to add more information on this. Her control of nunneries is especially important to her position after Louis' death and also highlights how much Louis valued her, because he gave her so much land. I also think this highlights how different she was to other queens of the period, as she held more obvious power and influence. 
I'll also look at the Annals of the time to provide more contemporary information about her life and her movements. Again, this will indicate how active she was in the political sphere. I think this will give the page more depth and provide a more detailed overview of Engelberga's life. 
--Engelberga99 (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits 

message: I found an article which lists several of the theories about Angelberga's origins. Though this article, too, assumes the Supponid theory to be the most likely, it believe it would be a nice addition to the page.  
The article in question:  La Rocca, Cristina, "Angelberga, Louis’s II wife, and her will (877)" in "Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters | Ego Trouble Denkschrifte", p. 223, 2010 (https://hw.oeaw.ac.at/?arp=6490-6inhalt/Ego_Trouble_221_226.pdf) 
"If we adopt Stafford’s proposed stages of a woman’s life in relation to Angelberga’s successive yet simulta- neous identities as daughter, wife, mother and widow, the first thing to note is that her family origins are never declared in the testament nor in any other source. It is for this reason that historians still struggle to identify her family background. In 1921, for example, Giuseppe Pochettino surmised that she was a Lombard, of mod- est origins,17 while Hlawitschka connected her with the important family of the Supponids, whose various members held public office or served as bishops in the eastern part of the Po plain.18 More recently, Mathieu made Angelberga a daughter of William of Toulouse,19 while François Bougard has suggested the possibility of a Lombard origin, either through the Beneventan dynasty or a Brescian connection with direct descent from the last Lombard king Desiderius.20 From our perspective, all these conflicting hypotheses on Angelberga’s family background must be used to underline the fact that, even when her own relatives (brothers, uncles) ap- pear in charters or diplomas, they are never connected explicitly to the queen nor does she mention them as such. Only the painstaking research of Hlawischka and other prosopographers has succeeded in reconstructing Angelberga’s family connections." Regularclassicsstudent (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angelberga's origins
Talk:Nithard

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upgraded assessment to B status; changed needs-photo parameter to no; all based on timeframe in which the subject lived and categories in which article is classified; there is a decreased likelihood of large amounts of additional information or pictorial image being available. Removed needs-infobox; could be re-added if infoboxes are being added to many articles in this category at a future date --Lini (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment
Talk:Glynis Oliver

message: Yes.  Merge them.  When I went to the listing for Glynis Wein, I was supprised that it wasn't mentioned that she was the wife of Len Wein.  Then I saw the merge notice on top, and saw that it was mentioned in the Glynis Oliver listing.  I would merge them.  After all, you don't have seperate listings for other writers and their psuedonymns/maiden names, etc.  Anyone looking up Glynis Oliver could be directed right to the Glynis Wein listing.70.21.197.162 11:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Odo I, Count of Orléans

message: *"Adrien ( Bavarois ) et de Waldrada parent de leurs fils Willihelm comte de Blois et de son frère Odo comte d'Orléans.." -- Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident médiéval, K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, page 68.
*"Eudes, comte d'Orleans, fils du comte Adrian et de Waldrade..." -- Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (VIIe-Xe siècle), Regine Le Jan, page 528.
*"Le pere d'Eudes d'Orlean, Adrian etait le fils de Gerold, prefet de Baviere..." --Le Monde franc et les Vikings: VIIIè - Xè siècle, Pierre Bauduin, --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odo(Eudes) son of Adrian
Talk:Odo of France

message: In the first line, it says Odo was elected King of Francia but he is king of West Francia only.
Luisqsk (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Francia or West Francia? 

message: Currently, this page says that Adelaide of Tours was the mother of Odo. However, this is dubious. Odo's birth date is given as circa 857, however Count Conrad I was still very much alive by then, as he became count of Paris in 862. Adelaide is supposed to have remarried as a widow to Robert the Strong after Conrad's death in 864 or 866. But, she would have been in her late forties, if not early fifties by then, and Odo would then have had to have risen to prominence at an extraordinarily young age. For this reason, it is very unlikely that Adelaide of Tours was the mother of Odo. I have provided a citation that debunks this hypothesis.  UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, per the          Reliable Sources Noticeboard, FMG(Foundation of Medieval Genealogy) is not considered a reliable source. Which mean that article(published by FMG), written by a retired software manager, is not a reliable source. IF Adelaide is unsourced then she can be removed from this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of that. It is sourced on the Adelaide of Tours page, so it should not be removed right now. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: There is another source cited on the Robert I of France page that also says that Adelaide remarried as a widow to Robert the Strong, but does not state that she was the mother of Odo (or Robert I). . The source cited on the Adelaide of Tours page is The Capetians: Kings of France, 987-1328 by Jim Bradbury  also states that Adelaide remarried to Robert the Strong after the death of Conrad of Auxerre, and then states that Robert left two sons, Odo and Robert, but does not explicity state that Adelaide was the mother of Odo. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kansas Bear Considering that the sources cited on those pages (and this one) do not state that Adelaide was the mother of Odo, only that she remarried as a widow to Robert the Strong, should Adelaide be removed as the mother of Odo? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert I of France article cites, Riche table 4, which indicates Adelaide as mother of Odo, Robert, and Richildis. On Odo of France, cite Riche table 4. Make a note, next to the Riche reference, stating Donald C. Jackman's comment that Adelaide is not always accepted as mother of Odo and Robert(Comparative Accuracy, Donald C. Jackman, page 42). Unless you want me to do it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adelaide of Tours
Talk:Ignatios of Constantinople

message: The fact that Ignatius of Constantinople was a eunuch, particularly by force, had no canonical implications to his Patriarchal throne, as suggested in this entry. Canons from both the 1st canon of the First Council of Nicaea[1], and the 21st canon of the 85 Apostolic Canons[2] state very clearly that eunuchs, if either born as such, or forcibly castrated, may obtain and/or retain their seat as bishop.Meestro (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those sources check out. I'm removing the unsourced sentence in the article which claims that Ignatius' consecration as patriarch was against canon law.Enon (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eunuchs in the Episcopacy is Canonical 

message: The image currently in the body of this article is mislabeled - it doesn't depict the death of Ignatios of Constantinople. Ignatios is occasionally depicted with a beard for some reason (even in the Menologion of Basil II) but in the manuscript this image is stated to come from Ignatios is depicted dying while lying down, and without a beard. I have photos of the 1907 facsimile version of the folio that shows this - should/could I upload one of those instead? Pheletes (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: and this image makes it look like he was martyred. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Image in Article Body 

message: I appreciate the removal of "Patriarch" from the title, but why was Ignatius changed to Ignatios at the same time?  Doesn't look like that was discussed.  Ignatius is English, Ignatios is neither English nor Greek. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignatius to Ignatios 

message: This was raised above but not resolved. There is no mention of violent death, but the image makes it look like he's being beaten to death. I have seen Byantine images which dramatise theological disputes as physical combats, maybe it's one of those. At the moment though it just looks confusing. Tigerboy1966  06:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Violent death
Talk:Ramnagar, Nainital

message: Note:  Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article  --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition 

message: The November proposal to merge the census town article into the town article seems very reasonable on the grounds of overlap. That is, while they're not the same, they are so closely related that they are best discusssed in one place. Klbrain (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Liu Zhiyuan

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:George II of Abkhazia

message: What would be the English translation of 'строительная надпись'? Alæxis¿question? 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it can be directly translated. Interesting, however... --KoberTalk 04:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "dedicatory inscription" seems to be used in this context.--KoberTalk 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled