lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Political media

message: This is an unsourced OR essay that is not encyclopedic. There are vague references to Marshall McLuhan's ideas of 60 years ago, but nothing more recent.  It contains weird statements such as: 1) "The Greeks could learn from the Egypt of the Pharaos that some risks could be suffered when medium and executives occur in personal union, concentrating too much power in one hand."  and  2) "As a matter of fact, private media companies became very powerful since the invention of the printing press, cinema, radio and TV, and in history the age of amanuenses (the manual copysts of Middle Ages) is perhaps characteristic in demonstrating the attention that usually official powers attribute to communication."  and 3) "Education is by some included in social media, and in this sense it could eventually be used as a powerful mean to introduce in individuals some "politically useful" concepts: what a man learns in his youth, in the phasis in which the fundaments of character are created (which many believe will seldom greatly vary after), is brought to him by family, schools and other clubs, and mass media. Apart from the studies of facts, education could be used (some suggest) as a mean for conditioning, usually practiced by emotional and mechanical learning. "  I redirected it to a more useful link political journalism. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better link
Talk:Pol Pot

message: I am a Cambodian and it is weird to have a surname that isn't one-syllable. Why does his surname have two? Sa-loth. Is this a special case within his family and its background? Haritesdikales (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saloth? 

message: change
"In May 1973, Pol Pot ordered the collectivisation of villages in the territory it controlled"
to
"In May 1973, Pol Pot ordered the collectivisation of villages in territory that the Khmer Rouge controlled" Prathegde (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Providing sources was unnecessary, this was a simple wording/grammar fix. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023
Talk:Patent

message: I think it would be relevant to add in the “Benefits” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage). 
Reasoning for inclusion: This empirical evidence contributes to a better understanding of how patent protection can impact the long-term value and durability of innovations. By referencing this study, the article gains credibility and depth, enriching the information available to readers seeking insights into the advantages of patents in terms of innovation sustainability and economic impact.
Requested edit:
A 2018 study using data from the Australian Inventor Survey (AIS) found that patented inventions experience a lower depreciation rate of 1-2% compared to non-patented ones.  AM13prime (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting an edit 

message: I think it would be relevant to add in the “Costs” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage)
Reasoning for inclusion: This inclusion helps address concerns surrounding the proliferation of low-quality patents and their potential negative effects on litigation costs and innovation incentives. The study's results provide concrete evidence that the fee adjustment played a role in improving patent quality by reducing the issuance of lower-quality patents. As the patent landscape evolves, these findings offer insights into the potential effectiveness of using fees as a policy tool to enhance patent system efficiency.
Requested edit:
Scholars have discovered that increased patent fees, resulting from the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1982, filtered out roughly 10% of the lowest quality patents, which may address concerns about the rise of low-quality patents leading to increased litigation costs and reduced innovation incentives.  AM13prime (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing this author's articles in several different Wikipedia pages is stretching it. One has already been placed. Regards,  Spintendo  14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting an edit
Talk:List of Polish proverbs

message: Does this article belong in an English Wikipedia ?
Wouldn't it better to place it on the national one ?--Kpjas
People from other countries are writing their proverbs here, so we also should. --Taw
:But in Polish ? so few people understand Polish...--Kpjas
::So what you'll say about page Chinese proverbs :). I think they should be word-by-word-translated into English, but Polish version should be left for error checking and correction purposes. --Taw
::: OK,OK.--Kpjas
I noticed an error in one of the Polish proverbs.  It appears on the web site like this: "Jak Bog Kubie tak Kuba Bogu" (As God treats Jake, Jake will treat God accordingly).  It SHOULD read: "Jak Kuba Bogu, tak Bog Kubie."  (As Jake is to God, so God will treat Jake accordingly).  This may seem like a small modification, but it actually changes the meaning substantially.  TGW
I don't know how to spell it properly, but what about "Nyed lapsa Kielbasa" (not for the dog is the sausage) ? -- hike395 23:57, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Plate tectonics

message: Why earth have plate tectonic  in the universe known while others planet have no plate tectonic 14.139.183.121 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology  

message: Why is Mercury not added to the list Other celestial bodies (planets, moons) even though it contains tectonic activity?
https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/tectonically-active-planet-mercury/
https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/mercury-joins-earth-tectonically-active-planet Clerk18890 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury
Talk:Profanity

message: This section seems to conflate slurs with abusive language, but the two are separate.  "Go to hell" or "fuck you" are meant to insult, and hurtful, but they're not slurs.  Likewise, calling someone a traitor is a slur, but not profane, and calling someone an asshole is a profane slur.  Calling someone a "greedy Jew" is bigoted slur, but not profane. 23.17.222.202 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slurs vs Profanity" is ill-defined 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Ilteme. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Ilteme until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Certes (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ilteme" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The opening line claims that profanity is "socially" offensive (socially offensive? what does that mean?), and then gives this as the reference for the claim: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profanity. The problem is that there is nothing in that reference using the term "socially offensive" or even "offensive." I think this is a poor, somewhat unthoughtful introduction. The article should stick closer to the dictionary meaning rather than WP authors' opinions. I'd like to change it. Objections?Chafe66 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's an unusual and confusing phrase. In this context, "socially offensive" probably means "rude" or "disrespectful" or "contrary to social norms." Jarble (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As that article explains, social norms are also pretty subjective and vary a lot. I and my Australian mates find at times that language we regard as perfectly normal, and not offensive in the slightest, sends us straight to places like Facebook Jail for short stays. "Socially" can mean what the people with power in a certain place at a certain time decree to be correct. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of that, but I was not really perplexed by the phrase, I just think it should be changed because the wording is unclear (as you've both just shown by offering different interpretations). Chafe66 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socially Offensive?
Talk:Polygon

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :900-gon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#900-gon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "900-gon" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :120-gram and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#120-gram until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 12:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "120-gram" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: What's a \frac{1}{2}-gon's name?  Or a 7 \frac{13}{19}-gon too?  We need the fractional names! Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place for publishing or asking about neologisms and original research. And this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article based on published references. You need to look elsewhere for your speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe somewhere else?  I didn't mean just on Wikipedia. Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat: this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article. Other discussion does not belong here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

text: A 7-gon, Schläfli symbol \{\frac{146}{19}\}, is one of many 146-grams (the denominator can be any odd number 1<n<73). So what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

text: And your {  } is a double cover of a henagon. —Tamfang (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You!  Also, can you make the page for a 146-gon?  I don't want it to be a redirect.  It's true name, I think, is a Hecatontetracontakaihexagon.  I'll get work on the Regular Polygon db of it.  It sadly won't be completely finished, but it's okay, right? Mariomaker-4 (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. There is nothing to say about this polygon, specifically, that is not true of polygons in general. It is not notable, in the sense that Wikipedia demands for articles: there are not multiple publications that cover it in-depth, independent of other polygons. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What if I make a... never mind.  I can't even make websites!  I'll ask someone else to make the page!  Yeah, that's a good idea!  Also, for now, it can be a redirect.  Okay?  I'm very sorry.  :) Mariomaker-4 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Add Names for Fake Fractional Polygons?
Talk:Palestinian Authority

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinian National Authority →  – 'Palestinian Authority' is obviously the common name of the entity. Media almost always refers to it as such, and when PNA is mentioned, it's always as a formal or alternative name to the PA. Britannica (1): "Palestinian Authority; Formally: Palestinian National Authority", Council for Foreign Relations (2) "The PA is headquartered in the West Bank ... Officially named the Palestinian National Authority", Aljazeera: (3) "The PLO then signed the Oslo Accords, which led to the creation of the Palestinian National Authority, or Palestinian Authority..." and more. It's clear what the common name is. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Support: Seems like a straightforward common name case. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Support: Ditto. Should be the other way around. Mannana308 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 April 2024 

message: The article mentions 138 nations recognizing Palestine. These figures are outdated. Please fix. Thetreehuggingjersey (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update recognition
Talk:Pi Day

message: Some organizations have taken to using the day for puns on their name in fundraising e-mails.  For example, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, for which the normal acronym is RPI, sends e-mails near March 14 in which it calls itself Rπ or RPi, and the engineering honor society Tau Beta Pi has also done Pi Day-related fundraising.  Does this belong in the article?  If so, someone other than me should add it because too much of what I know is "original research" (mainly, or really exclusively, reading the e-mails that have been sent to me).47.139.43.80 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a reliable third-party source mentioning them, those sound like good things to add to the elenfation section, but only as brief mentions, lest the section be overly tilted toward them. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Tau Beta Pi, etc., fundraising 

message: 22/7 is a better approximation to pi than 3.14 you know. Why would this be "approximation day" vs pi day?  Anyway, the one linked citation is broken and I find no other evidence of this actually being "celebrated"..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's no way to have a recurring date with those fractions, unlike 22/7. oknazevad (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  approximation day? 

message: Maybe the humorous aspect of the Pi-Day should be mentioned. As a mathematician I laughed a lot, when I first heard of the Pi-Day. But a lot of people I have talked to did not understand that kind of humor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.22.67 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  humor aspect 

message: Add a thing at the beginning of the page called "√-1 2³ ∑ π'"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.116.194 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: "an employee of the San Francisco science museum, the Exploratorium" isn't quite right, because there are other science museums in SF.  Y'all probably won't let me fix it by calling it "the best San Francisco science museum," but it kinda saddens me to suggest "a SF science museum" because that minimizes the huge importance of the Exploratorium in the history of science museums.  Oh well, maybe you can just make the link blinking or something. Briankharvey (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Exploratorium
Talk:Pope Martin V

message: this article has some problems with respect to Martin V's election, or rather, how his predecessors left office. I don't know the truth, but I put a small bit on the Western Schism discussion page.  Brassrat 15:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Every other person on Wikipedia is identified by their birth names, not titles or honorifications. Someone should move this page to Odo (or Oddone) Colonna. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In that source I find "He was in the full vigor of life being only forty-one years of age."  How was that arrived at for his age at time of being elected pope?  This wikipedia article has age 48 for this.
That source says 1368 for year of birth.  This wikipedia article has 1369; HOWEVER, I also see Jan/Feb, so was the discrepancy caused by having the new year start in March?  The Gregorian calendar wasn't introduced until 1582. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source used in footnote [5]
Talk:Prayer

message: Clearly, the article topic here is the comparative discussion of "prayer" in anthropology and comparative religion.
What the article should not focus on, by WP:SS:
*prayer healing: this is a very specific subtopic, mostly limited to the past century or so, mostly limited to the Western or Christian sphere. The thing already has its own page
*juxtaposition of religious traditions: Christian prayer etc. These are useless unless there is comparative material based on scholarly literature. Otherwise, just use "see also: Christian prayer".
What the article should provide:
*definitions of the term by academic field. This is not easy, as the term means vastly different things in different fields. 
*anthropology
*evolutionary psychology
*individual or group psychology
*comparative history of religion
*comparative presentation of religious teachings
Needless to say, all of it based on the relevant academic literature. 
--dab (𒁳) 10:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope

message: I have noticed that the lead has been significantly truncated recently, with information about the efficacy of prayer and history of prayer omitted. I can't date this change but I note there was no discussion on the talk page about rewriting the lead? I can understand rationale - to avoid controversial statements - however the lead must summarise all sections of the article, per WP:LEAD. I have reincorporated a couple of sentences that I believe address several topics within the article. I would appreciate some discussion here before these revisions are reverted. --Hazhk (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The traditional posture of prayer in medieval Europe is kneeling or supine with clasped hands.  Was supine (laying on your back) really a traditional prayer stance?  The only illustrations I've seen of someone apparently praying in that position is effigies on tombs, which I expect is an artistic convention rather than an example of how they actually prayed.  A quick Google search for medieval images of people praying returns almost exclusively kneeling (on one knee or two), and a few standing.  I'm sure I've also seen images of people praying prostrate as well, but they didn't show up in the search.  Did people actually pray in a supine position, or is this an error (possibly a confusion between supine and prone)? Iapetus (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supine prayers? 

message: :Greetings, this article fails the B-class criteria (#1). There are:
* "disputed statements" from 2009,
* "articles needing factual verification" from 2018 & 2020
* "Articles needing more viewpoints" from 2018 that sounds like balance issues,
* "Articles with unsourced statements" from 2021, and the lesser,
* "Wikipedia articles needing page number citations" from 2014 & 2020.  --  Otr500 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues and classification
Talk:Punjabi language

message: Change the image from what it is to ਪੰਜਾਬੀ,please, as the language displayed is not Punjabi. K1r4N-S0 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This image? It has Punjabi written in Shahmukhi - پنجابی and Gurmukhi - ਪੰਜਾਬੀ. I don't see why it needs to be changed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deativating pending consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 April 2024 

message: Hi, could we get the page unlocked now, please? نعم البدل (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , is there a specific change you'd like to make? The protection will automatically expire in a few days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  just wanted to add to the 'Software' section. نعم البدل (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could an  template already help? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: @Fdom5997, hello! sorry for the small edit conflict. could I understand why the reverting? my edits were mostly about the visual nature and editing what was already there. Juwan (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No what you put was not already there. If you are going to contribute, you at least *need* to have a source cited for your contribution. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: could you elaborate? I'll try to find a source if you explain what is wrong. Juwan (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits under "Phonology"
Talk:Pound (mass)

message: The "citation needed" on the # being used to mean pound as mass is by a link to another page with the citation.  Does anyone have access to a copy of this book to see it it has this info in it?
--154.5.81.243 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: I deleted the following statement because the citation not only doesn't support it, it says something completely different:
 clearly states that the reference is to money, not mass pound (currency), not pound (mass). Furthermore, the citation gives no information about the corresponding Greek text. If it is to be reinstated, a far better case is needed here first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible as evidence of translation of  

message: In the article, multiple times the “pound” is referred to as a way to measure mass. This is incorrect as the pound is a measurement of force which will change based on gravitational force. Mass will not change due to gravitational force. 69.5.125.147 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about a unit of mass. For the unit of force see Pound (force). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pounds as measurement of force, not mass 

message: I'm interested in knowing how the exact number was chosen for the redefinition of the avoirdupois pound in terms of the kilogram. Was it based on weighing the physical prototype of the pound? Just one, or were there several prototypes weighed? If so, who did it, and when, and how? And so on. — The Anome (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: it was all in the article, just not easy to find. I've refactored things so that it's clearer, including linking the International Yard and Pound article. — The Anome (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redefinition in terms of the kilogram 

message: In Pound (mass)#Current use, the text of a British law is included. It is lengthy and unnecessary as part of main article. As a reference, a citation to the source is all that is required. Perhaps move it elsewhere down at end of article? Senator2029 【talk】  23:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote of British law