lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mardijker people

message: I was unable to find any reference to the Mardijker people in the Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Worldmark Encyclopedia of Cultures and Daily Life, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of the World, Oxford Reference Online, ProQuest, Thompson Gale Powersearch, New York Times Historical Backfile. 
Seashunt 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a very quick mention of them in Ricklef's History of Modern Indonesia (p. 85 in the 2nd edition). This book is widely regarded as perhaps the best modern history written about Indonesian. says they were free Portuguese-speaking Indonesian soldiers. Context was the First Java War of Succession (1704 - 1708) Apart from that, you are right, sources are pretty thin. Merbabu 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to verify information 

message: There must be some sort of Portuguesse descent among all of this people, considering that they were taken from Malacca and are taken as war captive? There were recorded of 200 marriage of history in Malacca by the Portuguese and many taken by the Dutch are Portuguesse speaking people, though they don't seem to identify who among these people are descendant of the Portuguese. There aren't many Portuguese Eurasians left in Malaysia (or so they claimed to be the descendant while being possible that they are actually slaves of the Portuguesse who spoke the language), i have visited Kampung Portugis in Malacca and the population didn't look very Eurasians to me, and they looked more  Moluccanish or Indianish rather than Eurasians. But then it's almost hard to tell when they have been intermarrying with other Asian while carrying believes that they are descendant of the Portuguese. I met some people in Kampung Tugu's church who also claimed to have Portuguese descent. The Dutch also promote Protestantism which meant that they have to abandon their Portuguese way of life and believes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.212.34 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguesse descent? 

message: If someone knows, the IPA pronunciation is needed as it's not obvious.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation needed
Talk:Dragonnades

message: The article contains the following lines:
"On January 17, 1686, Louis XIV claimed that out of a Protestant population of 800,000 to 900,000, only 1,000 to 1,500 had remained in France but his campaign was in fact detrimental to France's economy as many of the Huguenots who chose to flee France possessed important skills such as silk-weaving and clock-making and optometry, which were a hugely valuable addition to the economy of the countries that they fled to, especially England and Prussia."
This implies that somehow it was an inherently good thing that the Protestants were forced to leave France (use of the word "but"), and only detrimental because of the loss of valuable skilled labor.  NPOV issue.
::Dragoon (not dragon, in English) is just a type of soldier, NOT a particularly obnoxious one. I tried to make this clear.
::Evangeline (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Franco-Russian Alliance

message: I took the sentence "The Italian Fasces and the German Imperial Eagle can be seen on the curtains above." away from the caption to the satirical image, because it is most likely wrong. The two figures represent the lands of the characters: the fasces bear a phrygian cap with a French cockade, while the double-headed eagle is a symbol of the Russian Empire. 78.34.61.191 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited caption 

message: In the history section, 
"As a result of the negotiations, the representatives of the Russian and French general staffs signed a military convention on Aug. 5 (17), 1892, which provided for mutual military aid in the event of a German attack. By an exchange of letters between Dec. 15 (27), 1893, and Dec. 23, 1893 (Jan. 4, 1894"
There are dates in parenthesis, there seems to be no indication whatsoever, why! I don't know the reason, if there is any, please clarify it.Akash (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity? 

message: How is this sentence meant to go?
>>This led to the defeat of Germany the battle of the Marne, to the collapse of the Schlieffen Plan, and finally to the defeat of Germany.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.31.157 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos? 

message: One instance of the use of 'Triple Alliance' connects to the wrong triple alliance.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.208.224 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in hyperlinking 

message: The article presents the history of the alliance but not the terms of the treaty.  There's no mention of the fact that the alliance did not require France to support Russia in a war with Japan (unless Britain joined the war). This condition proved awkward during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905.
 
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms of the Franco-Russian alliance ?
Talk:Senate of France

message: I was curious to find out who the statues in the front of the chamber represented, and was surprised to find out that not only are there no pages that indicate this, but that it was brutally difficult to find the info anywhere on any site - but I finally tracked it down at  and  (photo caption at top): From left to right, they are Turgot, d'Aguesseau, l'Hôpital, Colbert, Molé, Malesherbes and Portalis. MisfitToys (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statues

message: general notes for updaters/interested parties:
the Sept. 25, 2011 election results will need to be added once the results are finalized and a new senate president is elected. i'm waiting on final results to start compiling changes.
for what it's worth, the french version of this page has loads of great information, far beyond what is in the english-language article, that should probably be translated and placed in this article. any takers? ;-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.110 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  forthcoming updates (26.09.2011)
Talk:Panama scandals

message: Can anyone translate the caption on the caricature? tnx - Nudve 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --128.36.43.157 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) -- Nudve (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caricature caption
Talk:Fisc

message: I don't understand why there is a whole article on the term "fisc" that refers solely to the early medieval Franks. In historical writing, the term is widely used as a reference to other royal or state treasuries, whether ancient, medieval, or modern -- e.g. the Byzantine fisc (which, incidentally, operated rather differently than the Frankish model). The article should be expanded to more general coverage. Horatio325 (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, it should properly explain what it is. I can't understand from the article what the word means. The first sentence should read something like "In medieval feudalism, fisc (etymology notes) was..." What it actually says is "fisc applies to..." but fails to say what it is. The Manual of Style guidelines for the lead section are the way they are for very good reason. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  rationale and/or scope of this article?
Talk:Exposition Universelle (1889)

message: The second paragraph was nonsense.  I tried to fix it but don't know enough about the subject to know if I'm correct. --Kitsunegami (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractions 

message: Should the Eiffel tower be mentioned in the top section? seems like its significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.150.188 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eiffel Tower 

message: This paragraph exists in two places, under legacy and under the section for two of the Palaces. I don’t see any connection in the article between the library and the palaces so perhaps it should be removed from there and left under legacy? But I’m not at all certain which placement is better. Claudia (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate Schœlcher Library paragraph
Talk:Encyclopédistes

message: This article is stubby and incomplete, and List of contributors to the Encyclopédie has less than a bare minimum of explanatory text at the top - how about moving the list material to this article? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the face of overwhelming public indifference, I have been bold and done it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I suggest we move this to Philosophes. Thats what they called themselves. Tourskin (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The article currently refers to claims made by some one named Frank Kafker who doesn't seem to have earned enough interest, notoriety, credibility or fame for an article of his own, thus I think it would be appropriate to refer to the source of this claim if it is to be left in the article. Bjorn.Persson (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Kafker is well known for scholarship on encyclopedism. That an author is notable is not necessarily connected to whether that author is a reliable source. Regardless, it's unnecessary and maybe undue to include an attributed statement like that given such a tiny amount of text, I think. The current article is kind of embarrassing considering the influence these people have on Wikipedia. It's been on my to do list for a while now. Would you care to take a stab at another formulation of the lead? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source and reference 

message: The article still has far from adequate coverage of this important intellectual undertaking, which massively influenced the course of thinking of the educated classes over the next century, and to which we owe many of our present attitudes, conventions, conveniences and institutions.
We need more factual content.  For example:
* How about a few more statistics, e.g. How many articles in all?  How many by women authors?  Proportion of women authors?  Some demographics on the authors' origins and affiliations?
* How about a few more quotations from historians of thought testifying to the influence of the whole enterprise?  To the reactions against it, and by whom and what institutions?
yoyo (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The following Oxford Reference item might be useful:.  yoyo (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still stubby
Portal talk:Sports/Sports and games news

message: As of January 6, the only news featured here are about American sports and sportspeople. Aren't there news from the rest of the world worth to be mentioned?--Nitsansh 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but when I started updating this page on a regular basis, the page hadn't been updated in literally MONTHS. So I keep updating it with the most current & relevant stories from American Sports. If you or anyone else out there have any international sports news that seems noteworthy, please feel free & put it up there. I did try to keep it somewhat international at some point, putting the retirement of Ian Thorpe in there. I don't pay enough attention to international sports to be able to adequately update it. Sorry.   Mientkiewicz5508 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem common to many curent events articles in Wikipedia. Basically, Wikipedia isn't a news bulletin. Besides that, we have Portal: Current events/Sports which documents sport events on a daily basis, so I see no need to have sports news in the main sports portal. That also seem to concentrate too much on American team sports. It's hard to put the blame on American editors, because that's the news they get in the media. --Nitsansh 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only in America?
Talk:Lisette de Brinon

message: Was it Franck or Frank? Lisette was born into a Jewish banking family in Paris, of which there was only one called FRANK. The French frequently add a c when not necessary. If so she could well be a cousin of both Jean-Michel Frank, the banking heir-decorator, and Anne Frank, who was also a member of that family.Kitchawan (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maiden name
Talk:Anna Creek Station

message: The S Kidman & Co website indicates Anna Creek Station is 14,800km^2 not 34,000km^2 as stated in the article. There are however two adjacent holdings (Peake 8,877km^2, Macumba 11,063km^2) owned by the same group which may have been included in the 34,000km^2 figure. Combined there are 23,000 head of cattle on the properties in May 2011.
Kthbn (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of station confusing 
Talk:Count of Foix

message: "Pierre-Bernard" died at 7 years old but had 2 sons? What?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot be 

message: The two pages are redundant. No information was lost or obscured in the process of the merger. Linking was made simpler and more convenient, as no longer does one have to scan a paragraph for the name of a particular count, but can simply go to the list. Also, the redirects were not fixed, so this revert fixes many links. Srnec 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three pages are redundant, true. That's why I merged Counts of Foix into County of Foix, since Counts of Foix was giving a history of the County, and retained List of counts of Foix as the simple, easy to use list. Michael  Sanders 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I was not aware that you had merged Counts into County. (You could have put that in the edit summary.) Now that you've fixed the redirects, I have no objection to the current structure. Thanks. Srnec 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: We have two listings for Henry II. The first is Henry II of Navarre and the second is Henry III of Navarre & IV of France. What is the best way to reconcile numberings?Novangelis (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a typo.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry II 
Talk:Reflections on the Revolution in France

message: I think this is a pretty good description of Burke's argument. I removed a reference to Plato in the statement about Burke's "human-heart" based government, and I'm not convinced that the rest of the statement should remain. Plato, at any rate, makes no sense as an antecedent for Burke's thinking. The section on Intellectual Influence still needs editing for both content and style. Dactylion (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Work still needed

message: Monarchist? Why is Burke called a Monarchist?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.204.157 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchist? 

message: The Background reads like a vindication of Burke's attitude to the events of 1789 and not a statement/ summary of fact(s). Specifically, rather than offering a rather negative critique of the mob, what caused the mob to revolt might be worth a mention. I'll say more if (respectfully) we can address this matter first. I have no dog in the race but a revolt without causes seems like a wanton riot which hardly says it, at least not for this writer. Thank you. M.H.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.242.146.148 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Burke supported the Americans from 1774, but not the French in 1790. It seems a contradiction. The common theme in Burke's time was Montesquieu's belief that the right to own property is an essential part of liberty, that is often removed by an autocracy. American property interests were under threat in 1774, and French property interests in 1790; those of the nobility and the church.78.16.82.235 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A vindication of Burke.
Talk:Sophie d'Houdetot

message: This is tabloids' stuff. Who cares whom she went to bed with ? Its says there she's a writer, but there no mention of any publications. What did she write ? The quotes have been translated into gibberish. --Anne97432 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worse than bad 

message: Was she truly a courtesan, a prostitute? Did she charge money for sex, or did she simply have lovers? She has this category. This should be clarified. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostitute? 

message: The two preceding comments are both correct. The previous article was translated from French wikipedia, although that was not acknowledged. The French article strangely devoted most of its space to quotations from people who saw Sophie d'Houdetot and her lover Saint-Lambert in their old age, without explaining why she was famous. Some serious errors were made by the translator. "Siècle des Lumières" means "Enlightenment", not "circle of lights". "Mémoires d'Outre-tombe" means "Memoirs from Beyond the Grave", not "Memoirs of Autumn". Neither Sophie nor her cousin Louise d'Épinay was a courtesan; Sophie was presented at court, a far different matter. Sophie was not a writer. A previous contributor moved this article from a listing under Houdetot to Lalive de Bellegarde. It is hard to imagine where that idea came from. The figures quoted in the article call her d'Houdetot, the main source is Buffenoir's book which calls her d'Houdetot, Rousseau called her d'Houdetot, all reference books and serious literary histories and biographies list her under d'Houdetot. I have used the title "Sophie d'Houdetot" following the usual practice these days, as in "Émilie du Châtelet", "Françoise de Graffigny" and "Louise d'Épinay"; it was more common in times past to call them all "Madame de" or to use the noble title, "comtesse de" or "marquise de".--Panpichon (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision and move
Talk:Carib expulsion from Martinique

message: The title of the article and the text indicate the Caribs were expelled from the island. But to where? It doesn't mention. If it is not known where they went, then that should be made clear at least. --Hibernian (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Carib Expulsion to where?
Talk:Jean-Nicolas Corvisart

message: A well-structured article and clearly organized article. Made a few edits under "Biography," adding links to the wiki articles on significant terms and figures that were referred to. Prior to that there were no links. 
There is a lack of variety in sources in the "As Napoleon's Physician" section. I suggest backing up claims with more sources rather than repeatedly referencing a single source. 
There may be a slight confusion in the article as well. In "Biography," it is mentioned that Corvisart dies 4 months after Napoleon. In the following section, however, it is suggested that Corvisart dies before Napolean, and the quality of physician care following Corvisart changed: "Upon Corvisart's death and Napoleon's eventual decline in health, a marked difference was noted in efficacy of care and treatment style among the doctors who assumed the post as Napoleon's physicians."
Please clarify this apparent contradiction. 
Also, consider removing the term "ironically" in the last sentence of the Biography section. This introduces an element of subjective evaluation on the author's part. 
The last paragraph in the "Legacy" section lacks sources. Please add. 
Overall, a thorough analysis and an informative read. 
Emarti84 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your critique and review of this article. I misread the source that you referenced in the 'As Napoleon's Physician' portion of the article, which is the portion that I wrote. I have corrected the statement--the passage I was reading from stated that the doctors who assumed the 'governmental physician' or 'chief physician' role upon Corvisart's death were not as competent as he etc. Unfortunately, the English sources that reference Corvisart are limited, but I will continue to try to find additional sources to provide variety and support for this portion of the article. Again, thank you for your comments and very relevant suggestions. Mpatel58 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the review! I went in and ended up taking out the last Legacy paragraph, because I realized it was mostly a summary conclusion paragraph instead of providing factual information.Aeisenstadt1 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I will take out the word ironically. I will also fix the contradiction of the dates that both Corvisart and Napolean died. Samuelkou (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique
Talk:Franco-Polish alliance

message: I am translating this article in Franch and the following sentence is not clear for me.
"French reluctance to invest in its allies (especially Polish) industry, strengthening trade relations (buying their agricultural products) and sharing military expertise further weakened the alliance."
Which country sell agricultural products to which one? Poland to Germany? Czechoslovakia to Germany?
Same question for the share of military expertise. Who was sharing military expertise with who? Poland with Germany?
Thanks for your clarifications. Could you please also answer in the french talk page? Thanks. Skiff (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear to me, from the historical and textual context that the text is referring to Poland and Czechoslovakia selling agricultural products to France and France sharing military expertise with Poland and Czechoslovakia. Mikon (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence not clear
Talk:The Plain

message: Why was this in the Infobox?  The Plain was never an official party or club or subset of either.  It lacked a coherent ideology. Political Syncretism page lists no color.  No citation showing they were represented by a color is listed; no color listed on the French mirror page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaine_(R%C3%A9volution_fran%C3%A7aise)). Skingski (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Colors Grey?

message: Removing the label of the Plain as a political group.  As the wikipage for this states, "A political faction is a group of individuals within a political party that share a common political purpose."  Sources like Schama, Bernard etc. do not support the notion they had any common purpose, philosophy or ideology.Skingski (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Political group
Talk:Werner Best

message: This article is in a miserable state. 201.29.191.17 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first post above, in relation to the article, was written in 2007. The article has been greatly improved since then. It can use added detail and cites at this point. Kierzek (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article seems to need additional sources.Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been done. Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: "Prior to September 1939, as an SS-Brigadeführer, Best while head of Department 1 of the Gestapo oversaw organization, administration, and legal affairs."
This sentence needs to be re-written but I hesitate to do so since I fear I'd change its actual meaning.
:Well, it was not badly written, but I tweaked it. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be glad to copy edit and check the additions, when I have time. It would be good to see some detail added to this time frame. Kierzek (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to  for taking the time to make some major improvements with WP:RS citing the last few days. The article is in better shape. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just happened upon the page and noticed it was in need of some work. Happy to help.--Obenritter (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nazi state and World War II