lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sokal affair

message: The section "Similar incidents" bears a notice from November 2015 that it may stray too far from the topic, and invites discussion here.  Sadly, in the one year and more that has elapsed since that notice was posted, no other editor has seen fit to comment.  Possibly the editor who posted the notice may have got more traction with an RfC.  FWIW, I'll give my opinion of the question, and hope to see some other comments here, before ... let's see, 2020?  Who knows, I may even start an RfC myself ...
*Remove:  I think that the list of "similar incidents" should be removed in its entirety, since it strays so far off-topic as to essentially constitute another article.  That would leave only the reference to the , which would then no longer be a "Main category" reference.  Better still would be to replace that reference by one to a new article on Academic publishing scandals, incorporating the removed contents, also in the .  If I can make time – and barring any better suggestions – I'll do so myself.  yoyo (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *I went ahead and split the section off into List of scholarly publishing hoaxes. fgnievinski (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar incidents 

message: Why is Derrida the first citation for the SA being called a Hoax. The Lingua Franca issue published prior to Derrida's Le Monde piece does that same: http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9607/tsh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3902:b10a:484e:8f3a:c810:4ae6 (talk • contribs) 
:Fair enough, I swapped it out for that source instead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derrida Cited for "Hoax" 

message: The article could use a Legacy section because it is being discussed to this day. Critics of the current university and peer-review system will bring this up on a daily basis. Many detractors of mainstream academia want more experiments like the Sokal Hoax to test journal's integrity. At the same time, Sokal continues to be scathingly criticized by those who point out that peer-review processes aren't set up to detect insincerity on the part of the writer, and that the current peer-review protocols stress distinction between considering an article to be worthy of publication and considering the article to be genuinely good or insightful. 2601:18D:C180:F6A0:0:0:0:718E (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Many of these terms are not familiar and I linked those. Why delinkify? Greatder (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but there may be WP:SEAOFBLUE problems here, plus, I'm not sure whether the given links help the reader understand the sokal affair. The point of the quote is to highlight the gobbledygook that was submitted as the text, and not necessarily to explain to the reader these concepts as they are at best tangential to the sokal affair. Theheezy (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delinkify?
Talk:Symbolic logic

message: I'm wrestling with the current state of articles in Wikipedia that fall under the general topic of logic.  Many of these articles are quite good.  Some are not.  But most are a hodge podge, with conflicting definitions and notation.  
I want to avoid people working on A changing B, people working on B changing C, people working on C changing A, and around and around the merry-go-round.  To avoid this, we need a tree structure, something with logic at the top.  But what comes next?  Does the next level contain philosophical logic and mathematical logic?  If so, then were does symbolic logic go?  I'm trying to fix the state of affairs where "symbolic logic" is just an outdated word for "mathematical logic", because I think there is today a stronger distinction between the two.  
Several appeals on the logic project page have gone unanswered, so I'm trying to do something myself, but it is a big job, and I could really use some help. Rick Norwood 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new work
Talk:Schrödinger equation

message: Is a wave function a vector?
"A wave function can be an eigenvector of an observable" 88.111.117.83 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a vector on a Hilbert space. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave Function is a vector 

message: I'm no expert so maybe I'm just confused, but under the section "Separation of variables", the first sentence after the equation, it says, "The operator on the right side depends only on time; the one on the left side depends only on space." but the left operator is i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} and the right operator contains the \nabla^2. Then, below the next equation, the next sentence says, "Substituting this expression for \Psi into the time dependent left hand side shows that...".
Am I confused? The two places seem to contradict each other. It seems to me the first sentence is wrong. It should read:
"The operator on the right side depends only on space; the one on the left side depends only on time."
That is to say, should the words "time" and "space" be swapped in that sentence?
(P.S. Due to my lack of experience editing wikis, if my observation is correct, could someone make that change other than me. I get this deep only once a decade or so, so it would be better for everyone if I just watch. Thanks.) BornRightTheFirstTime (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, but next time just take a chance. Give an edit-description and if you are not comfortable add a topic just like you did but post-fix: "Fixed possible typo..." for some one to check. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you and will do. See ya around 2033. :-) BornRightTheFirstTime (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible typo under "Separation of variables" section. 

message: @EditingPencil Thanks for your recent edits. I want to encourage more qualitative physics and less math. 
I think we should expect readers of this article to include interested first physics undergrads. For example, in my opinion the section on "Probability current" should be describing what the heck probability current is and why it is related to Schrodinger's equation. It should be a summary only; they should not be faced with a proof. There are lots of other articles for details, eg Probability current Johnjbarton (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Yeah, I agree. I have moved it. But I'm not sure if the bit about phase can stay or go. I don't mind either way so I'll let anyone here decide. EditingPencil (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less not more math.
Talk:Septuagint

message: This sentence is incomplete: "Updating the English of Brenton's translation."
I would fix it if I knew what it intended, but I don't, and there is no reference directly attached to it that I can check. Dgndenver (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: this sentence did not make sense, so I removed it. Thank you for highlighting its existence. Veverve (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this sentence fragment mean? 

message: :""
– I believe that two different accounts are here mixed up. It is the Letter of Aristeas, not the "later tradition", that told of six scholars from each of the 12 tribes. Conversely, it is the Talmud (Megillah 9a), not Aristeas, that told the miraculous story of each scholar identically producing the same translation. Aristeas says the opposite: "So they set to work comparing their several results and making them agree, and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied out under the direction of Demetrius." So this part of the article needs to be revised with one or more good sources. Zerotalk 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  mixed up accounts 

message: Are the groups of books given in  actually derived from manuscripts of the Septuagint, or are they an editorial addition by Wikipedia editors?
: Many other language articles, including the Greek, don't include them, although the English and Russian articles do. However, the Russian and English lists aren't identical and the headings differ. The English list seems to be missing the Book of Odes, for some reason only listing the Prayer of Manasseh, and uses the heading "Wisdom" where the Russian uses "Didactic" () and "Poetic" ().
If these headings are in the manuscripts, do the referenced citations support this? If so, this should be made clearer. It would also help to provide the Greek being translated here. If they are not in the manuscripts, then I think they're misleading since they lead the reader to project an anachronistic interpretation onto the list. – Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups of books given in "Textual history"
Talk:Sam Raimi

message: I have two sources: Sam talks about how he took years off of feature directing to work on the art of gardening here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Wh7HQQnV4
Also he talks about it a lot in this podcast here: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-nerdist/sam-raimi/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.193.244 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam is also a Gardener
Talk:Principality of Sealand

message: There seems to be a lot of edits on the sentence in business operations about Sealand's titles and a few celebrities who own them. I originally added this sentence "The principality also sells noble titles on its online store, such as Lord and Baron. Some notable individuals who possess titles from Sealand include Ed Sheeran and Nas Daily." Which had sources for both individuals at the end. I have recently seen that there are a lot of edits regarding this topic, first with Ben Stokes being added to the list of individuals with no source, and now some BBC presenters, also unsourced. I think the general topic is notable enough as it generates a share of Sealand's publicity (especially the Ed Sheeran claim as he is very famous), but there needs to be some consensus about this section in the article, especially as the list of unsourced celebrities who are being added grows by the day.I would probably recommend using my original edit, but probably take out Nas Daily and just have Sheeran. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheeran, Wogan and Fogle are all mentioned in the source. So, the material can't be removed on the basis that it's unverified. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I just noticed that, I am not too familiar with Wogan and Fogle. I knew Sheeran was sourced though. I feel like my original point still stands that the section has been pretty volatile recently and I fear that more people will just arbitrarily change the individuals listed there. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's potentially an argument for removal based on triviality. DrKay (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the whole thing should be removed (it is how they make money), but I think having more than one individual on there is trivial. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire Sealand operation is pretty trivial - it's just a long running scam operated by some dodgy chancers. I'm surprised the article takes it so seriously. The idea that it's an actual micronation with a monarchy is preposterous. This was once a WP:FA! --Ef80 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like your opinion, man. – The Grid (talk)  16:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable People Who Own Sealand Titles
Talk:Sylvia Plath

message: The Musical settings section I added was previously removed as unsourced. I have restored it with sources for each work and claim, and removed what couldn't be sourced properly. Please feel free to comment, correct, and add works. It would be a pity to not feature musical settings, as they are intrinsic to the reception of Plath's poetry and the way her legacy is being presented. Musiktheaterpedia (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical settings 

message: There is already a small amount of detail about Dylan Thomas (see second paragraph of "College years and depression"). On page 123 of his 2008 book Fatal Neglect: Who Killed Dylan Thomas?, David N. Thomas goes on to say this:
:"That same year [1956] Brinnin's [John Malcolm Brinnin] book had a completely unforeseen consequence. Sylvia Plath was on holiday in Europe with her boyfriend, Gordon Lameyer. They discussed Brinnin's account of Dylan's last weeks. She vehemently argued that Brinnin should and could have prevented the poet's death. Lameyer disagreed as strongly, and the conflict severed a friendship that was already in trouble. He decided he wanted to be rid of her and, in April 1956, Plath returned to England, straight into the arms of Ted Hughes. ... Within two months she was married to him, a man and a poet she saw as Dylan Thomas incarnate. Too much like Thomas, warned Olive Prouty her benefactor. Whilst Caitlin [Caitlin Thomas] had been wonderful about Dylan' behaviour, would she, Plath, be able to put up with Hughes' philandering? Prouty also reminded Plath that she herself had told her about his aggression, cruelty and unkindness. Six years later Plath left Hughes and in 1963, the year that marked the tenth anniversary of Dylan's death, she killed herself."
I wonder if any of this detail deserves mention in the article, perhaps in a footnote? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dylan Thomas]]
Talk:Symbolist poetry

message: A few questions:
* So now we know who they were influenced by and who they influenced, but who were they themselves?  What are some examples?
* Why was the poetry called "symbolism"?
* Was it just a historical movement or is it a general type of poetry that could, theoretically, be found in 14th century Italy?
Also, a few comments: Symbolist Poets was a poor name for the article, for two reasons.  First, since the second word in the title was capitalized, if anyone ever wants to link to the article, he will have to Write It Like This; see naming conventions.  Second, it isn't actually the name of your subject, is it?  You want to discuss a type or movement of poetry, rather than a set of individual poets who made up the movement, no?  Again, see naming conventions. --LMS
I will give this a going over at the weekend, Larry. Symbolist poetry is one of my long suits (see also Marina Tsvetaeva, both an Acmeist <B>and</B> a Symbolist poet (quite an achievement!)). sjc
:Do'y think this ought to be merged with Symbolism (arts)? --- Smerdis of Tlön 20:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: An anon added a reference to "Ahmet Haşim" in the article.  Who's he?  -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ahmet Hasim]]
Talk:Shotgun

message: The headline image shows the SRM M1216, listed as a "revolver-action" shotgun. The M1216 blurs distinctions with it's unique magazine, but I believe calling it a revolver is still incorrect, as in practical terms the weapon simply has multiple magazine tubes all attached together, and the "active" tube feeds into the chamber in much of the same manner as any other tube-fed shotgun. True revolvers fire the cartridges while they're still within the cylinder, with the chambers of the cylinder acting as the actual firing chamber.
For true revolver shotguns, there's only a few, but the Armsel Striker, MTs255 and Pancor Jackhammer would fit the criteria better than the M1216. Personally I would suggest replacing the M1216 and instead representing a common semi-automatic shotgun, of which the Benelli M4 or Saiga-12 would be well-known examples.--Jaffaceksi (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline picture's "revolver-action shotgun" 

message: The fact that they are featured under the made up sub type “snake charmers” is as the kids say dumber n hell Godofshore (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combo survival shotguns are their own subtype 

message: The circuit judge by Taurus is a modem example of a revolving shotgun Godofshore (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  One modern revolving shotgun does infact exist 

message: The heading sheds no real light in design features and relies heavily on opinion Godofshore (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe the design features for various uses is superfluous
Talk:Saudi Arabian–Iraqi neutral zone

message: Project Gutenberg has the 1991 CIA World Factbook online. I managed to find the entry for this place. I have copied it below if anyone wants to use it to improve this article:
Iraq - Saudi Arabia Neutral Zone
Geography
Total area: 3,520 km2; land area: 3,520 km2
Comparative area: slightly larger than Rhode Island
Land boundaries: 389 km total; 191 km Iraq, 198 km Saudi Arabia
Coastline: none--landlocked
Maritime claims: none--landlocked
Climate: harsh, dry desert
Terrain: sandy desert
Natural resources: none
Land use: arable land 0%; permanent crops 0%; meadows and pastures
0%; forest and woodland 0%; other (sandy desert) 100%
Environment: harsh, inhospitable
Note: landlocked; located west of quadripoint with Iraq, Kuwait,
and Saudi Arabia
People
Population: uninhabited
Government
Long-form name: none
Type: joint administration by Iraq and Saudi Arabia; in December
1981, Iraq and Saudi Arabia signed a boundary agreement that divides
the zone between them, but the agreement must be ratified before it
becomes effective
Economy
Overview: no economic activity
Communications
Highways: none; some secondary roads
Defense Forces
Note: defense is the joint responsibility of Iraq and Saudi Arabia
I hope this helps. - Hoshie | 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1991 CIA factbook info. 

message: This article is extremely poorly written as it leaves the reader with the most important question of all: What is the current status of the Neutral Zone?Loomis51 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly,  what is the current status ???  --Jor70 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written 

message: "...the first instance in which the Wahhabi state had deposited territorial instruments at this institution..."?
I doubt that "the Wahabi state" is NPOV, and how many times does any state "deposit territorial instruments" anywhere?. Chopped. --Snori 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wahabi state 

message: Notes 2, 4, and 5 doesn't cite the name of the treaty between Iraq and Saudi Arabia that settled the border. Name of treaty should be indicated. --Mistakefinder (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What treaty? 

message: Way too much in this article depends on "The Straight Dope", which itself is like Wikipedia, in that it's a pretty good source from which to find sources, in many cases. But Adams didn't include any here; I'd think we could do a lot better. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straight Dope 

message: The hover box on it's hyperlink does not show text(it still shows an image). Can someone who knows how it works fix it? Viral weirdo (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the hover box system has been fixed because it's rendering properly now. For what it's worth, what was causing it was the  placed at the top of the article instead of the bottom (where it should be per MOS:ORDER). Personally, I fixed dozens of articles like that while the bug was still active. — W.andrea (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hover Box
Talk:Supernova

message: The concept of the red supergiant problem was mentioned very briefly in this article, now slightly less briefly.  It now has its own article which I feel is unhelpful out of context and not sufficiently notable in its own right.  Hence, redirect it here and expand if necessary.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged.  Lithopsian (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red supergiant problem 

message: This sentence is problematical.  It refers to supernovae described in the previous sentence, but the previous sentence makes mention of two sets of supernova, so "these" is ambiguous.  It could also seem slightly confusing, since we've had modern astronomical telescopes for at least 30 years and so would have expected to observe these supernovae as described.  What the sentence is really saying is that any Milky Way supernova that occurs "now" would be expected to be visible in our modern equipment.  I'm struggling to reword it in a way that is unambiguous, perhaps alluding to the unexpected lack of recent detected supernovae, but still succinct enough for the lead.  Any ideas?  Lithopsian (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at revising that paragraph, but I'm certainly not committed to my phrasing. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  These supernovae would almost certainly be observable with modern astronomical telescopes ... 

message: The existence of "three-digit designations" needs to be better explained, particularly with SN 2023ixf. Urhixidur (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: The following sentence should be edited, "The brightest recorded supernova was SN 1006, which occurred in AD 1006" with the word "occurred" replaced by the word "observed". (This page is protected so I can not edit it myself.) Philip Tymon (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  occurred vs. observed 

message: The article currently says supernovae occur in the Milky Way on average about three times every century. This rather contradicts the statement about Kepler's Supernova in 1604 where four centuries have passed without any new observed supernova in the Milky Way. Any thoughts on how to reconcile this? Brandmeistertalk   12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is enough extinction from interstellar dust, a supernova in the Milky Way can go unobserved with the naked eye. Kepler's supernova was 6 kiloparsecs away, whereas the Milky Way is 27 kiloparsecs across. Praemonitus (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency in the the Milky Way
Talk:Scopolamine

message: The difference between hyoscyamine and scopolamine is an epoxy (C-O-C) ring on the latter.  The reaction to form this ring would, I suppose, be catalysed by an 'epoxidase' rather than a 'hydroxylase' enzyme. Indeed, in the text this enzyme is identified as  6beta-hydroxyhyoscyamine epoxidase.  Yet, in this diagram, the enzyme is named as 'hyoscyamine 6beta-hydroxylase'.  I think that this is an error in the diagram : I think that this final enzyme of the diagram is mislabelled on the diagram.  I do not know how to change this. Please will somebody check and change this Boleslaw (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect labelling of enzyme in diagram, 'Biosynthesis in Plants' section 

message: How is scopolamine produced for medical use? Is it derived from plants, or completely produced by chemical processes? Can someone add that to the article? Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it produced?