lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan

message: There seems to be some date of death. Oxford University says its 1405, whereas the monument at Dunkeld Cathedral, say earlier, at 24 July 1394. Others seems to say 1406. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've done is use a source published in 1879 to trump modern historians who give 1405. That's something we should not be doing. Especially when modern historians note that he was active in the 1400s. Even some nineteenth century historians were aware that Alexander was receiving correspondence and payments in the 1400s (Memorials of the Family of Wemyss of Wemyss, p53). Anyways, we should not be using centuries-old sources against modern ones. One thing we could do is track down a modern and reliable source that notes the effigy's inscription.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death datetime conflict
Talk:Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

message: Before i revert the last edit: Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley will stay in office until his retirement date of Aug. 1. Therefore Moseley resigned on June 5th but nevertheless he was in office as CSAF until August 1st. With an eye to this special situation we should mention this in the table. --GrummelJS (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the June 5th date for it is not needed. Neovu79 (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as a historian a have to disagree with that. --GrummelJS (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to an extent but this page is suppose to be about the position of CSAF. Gen Moseley's resignation should be mentioned in his bio page, not the CSAF page for historic purposes. Besides, official DOD records have him as the CSAF until August 1st. Neovu79 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignation of Moseley

message: I realize that this is probably original research, but I had lunch today with Gen Norton Schwartz (ret), and he referred to himself as the 19th Chief of Staff of the Air Force. He specifically mentioned that the Wikipedia article was incorrect, and I promised to fix it for him. Anyway, I fixed that article, but then I clicked over here to see where the counting error came from. Comparing WIkipedia's list to the Air Force's list, Wikipedia has three additional names: Generals Loh, Eberhart, and McNabb. There are several other sources referring to Gen Schwartz as the 19th Chief of Staff (e.g. here and here), and the only source I can find (through cursory Googling) that lists Loh, Eberhart, and McNabb as CSAF is Wikipedia. I wanted to bring that to y'all's attention, since that's a much bigger editing project than I have time for at the moment.  Your thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwclough (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Loh, Eberhart, and McNabb?
Talk:Archibald Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas

message: As this article is rated B-class by several other projects, and technically meets the word of all the B-class criteria for WPMILHIST, I have no problem assigning it that ranking. However, I do believe the article could be significantly improved by some simple format changes. Firstly, the image of the seal at the top left corner pushes the entire intro paragraph and table of contents into the center, which is awkward. Second, there are way too many sub-headings, and the text would look meatier, denser, more comprehensive if many of those were removed. I think. LordAmeth 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPMILHIST Assessment 

message: Uhm. What does the term “loser” — introduced in lead by Brendandh in the edit at 2007-03-13T22:14:02 — mean in this context? --Xover 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what Tyneman means see here. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. An unfortunate thing to put in the lead on a biographical article. Sufficiently so that it sent me on a vandal hunt when I saw it. I also don't see this covered in the main body of the article. Perhaps an alternate way to communicate this information might be preferable? --Xover 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Loser”? 

message: Paul Barlow's amendment, changing 'being the death of Edmund Stafford, 5th Earl of Stafford' to 'killed' changes the meaning. Did Archibald kill Edmund - or cause his death? Shipsview (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Killed or 'being the death of?

message: 'Douglas was given the post of 'Lieutenant-General in the waging of war through all the Kingdom of France.'  Surely this title Lieutenant General of France in the middle ages signified a rank comparing to head of the army rather than the modern army rank of a lieutenant-general.  Suggest pipe link be removed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See here: . Think rather the article on Lieutenant General needs to be improved! Various of the Douglases and others were also "Lieutenant" of the Kingdom of Scots, a considerably higher rank than the contemporary military usage. Brendandh (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieutenant-general??

message: The recently added Marjory should be Mary, I think. Mary Douglas (b c1390) "elder legitimate daughter"?  m. (1406-7) Sir Simon Glendonwyn of Glendonwyn (b c1378, d 1437) ('Stirnet' & 'thepeerage')  Shipsview (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughters
Talk:Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas

message: What's the story with the section stub right after his death? Is there more that should be said there? LordAmeth 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's more recognizable with this name. Making the article harder to find for is not good. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: I have reverted Pompeymagnus change because when James went 'on the Crusades', his destination was the Holy Land. Shipsview (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Crusades

message: The entry has been changed on the grounds that Archibald was 'almost certainly incorrect that he was an infant when his father left'. The justification is that he was not provided for in his father's will and 'this is considered a strong indication that he had not yet been born'. The 'like a cook-boy' was probably an insult regarding his being illegitimate rather than a description. However, we should perhaps remind ourselves that a period of nine months elapses between conception and birth and it is certainly possible his father left home unaware of his wife's pregnancy. So, this is not proof of illegitimacy.  Shipsview (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life
Talk:Belknap, Louisville

message: I recreated the article without the copyvio's I know about here: Talk:Belknap, Louisville/Temp.  If there are more copyvio's in there, please anyone remove those as well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article without copyvios 
Talk:Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park

message: There are not "ospreys" Pandion haliaetus nor snow partridges Lerwa lerwa in Ordesa. Osprey might be only a vagrant or very rare in migration in this mountain area. Instead of "Snow partridge" the species is Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus (perdiz nival in Spanish), a scarce bird in the alpine areas of the Pyrenees, being this bird a clear remnant of the last glaciation period.
88.1.129.49 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Chickasaw, Louisville

message: There's a flag on this article saying it has too few links to other Wikipedia articles. I'm seeing a lot of links to other articles. The density of links seems to be a big higher than average, is what I'm seeing. So I'm removing that flag.  Stanleydanley (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  not enough wiki links?
Talk:Socialist Workers Organization (New Zealand)

message: this article is far from neutral and appears to have been written by a member of the NZ ISO. No NPOV. Is also outdated - the organisation is now just called "Socialist Worker". The article doesn't mention any of SW's activities after the ISO split in 1997 - eg. Workers Charter, Residents Action Movement, involvement in the Unite Workers Union.
: As noted by the contributor above, there are problems with this article. The article as a whole lacks a NPOV. For example, this statement:
: "After a period of working together the core of the former ISO felt that the SWO was dominated by elements who had not broken from Stalinist organisational practices and politics and split to refound the ISO"
: ... asserts an opinion about the cause of the split in the SWO. There are conflicting views about this. These views are not presented fairly, as a NPOV requires.
: Also, the article cites no sources. For a statement like this:
: "It came as a shock to them then when they found that the leadership of the SWP (Britain) had entered into discussions with the CPNZ and they only reluctantly fused into the new Socialist Workers Organisation at the behest of the SWP"
: ... it's difficult to see that any reliable third party sources could exist to verify it. Presumably, the alleged discussions were private and unpublished. Therefore, this represents original research. OR breaches Wikipedia policy. (The prohibition on OR, of course, is to prevent users from presenting unverifiable personal theories as knowledge in the encyclopedia). 
: It also contains irrelevant information. This sentence:
: "The new ISO was initially confined to Dunedin but has since experienced some modest growth."
: ... does not belong in this article, as it does not relate in any way to the organisation under discussion. The irrelevant claim appears be included simply to promote the International Socialist Organisation.
: Finally, again as noted above, the organisation described in this article changed its name four years ago. It has not been known as the Socialist Workers Organisation since 2002. 
: I am flagging these issues on the main page as I intend to do a substantial edit of the article to remove these problems. I also intend to do a Redirect to a new page, to reflect the change of name.
: In the interests of consensus, I will give others a chance to respond on this page before starting the edit.
Wikipedian382 06:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mohsen Sazegara

message: He is referred to as Dr. Sazegara, in several interviews and press reports (including reports from radio free europe), and also in the iranian reformist press. just google "dr. mohsen sazegara" or "dr. sazegara".  
however, if anyone has a verifiable source that he doesn't hold a doctorate degree, please mention it before removing  his title from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnetj (talk • contribs) 
:I placed a reference stating that he does hold a doctorate degree from the University of London. I also heavily editted the page and added tags here to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I also added wikilinks to this page from several other pages mentioned. Hopefully we can get more people to help with this biography, and get some more traffic here as well. Pepsi2786 04:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr.? 

message: There are a few things this article needs which I cannot seem to find. If anyone comes across any of the following things and can contribute to the betterment of the article, I'd appreciate it.
*Date of Birth
*Place of Birth
*Fair use image of Dr. Sazegara (The current image does not provide any documentation for the fair use of said image. It should probably be removed.)
-- Pepsi2786 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the article needs 

message: If anyone is concerned about the NPOV of this article, please speak up, so that the necessary edits can be made to fix the article. I asked for clarification from the editor who put the NPOV tag on the article (back in August!), but as the edit was done by someone from an IP address and not a normal login, I have heard nothing back.
If I don't hear something from someone on what can be done to fix whatever this NPOV problem may be soon, I am going to take down the NPOV tag. Thanks. -- PEPSI2786talk 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's been more than a month since I requested an explanation for the POV tag and received none, I have removed it. As always, feel free to correct anything you believe to be wrong. -- PEPSI2786talk 03:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 
Talk:Ozias Humphry

message: I have merged the Ozias Humphry and Ozias Humphrey articles. Also removed proposed deletion notice - IMHO: if an artist is sufficiently notable to be elected as a Royal Academician, he is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia (to delete Humphrey would also leave a 'gap' in the list of artists named in the RA piece. Paul W 11:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How out of date is this article?  Are his works still in the Morgan collection?  The intial article came from the Brittanica, so we don't guarantee that it's still up to date.  Corvus cornix 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date?

message: I eased the terms "perhaps" of Jane Austen to "said to be" of Jane Austen.  The arguments against this portrait being Jane Austen are strong and compelling, although there is little doubt that it was some member of her family. Artemis-Arethusa 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure "said to be" is weaker than "perhaps".  I think there is much doubt that it was of a member of her family, though clearly owned by one later. Johnbod 23:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  It's certainly not her. Artemis-Arethusa 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "claimed to be...".  My impression is that the fashion argument is less strong against it than the fact that Austen's family were in no financial position to commission such an expensive portrait of a daughter probably some way pre-"coming-out". Johnbod 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a perfectly reasonable edit.  It is "claimed to be", but it cannot possibly be her ("perhaps" allows for some possibility, after all).  I should not have spoken about whether it was or was not some member of Miss Austen's family, as I am not familiar with the history of this painting -- not my area of expertise and I apologise.  There are several different good arguments against this painting's being of Jane Austen.  I had thought of the expensive-portratit-middle-class-clergyman argument as well, which is a good one.   However, the fashion argument is in fact very strong -- near watertight to anybody familiar (in a historian's capacity, not as a recreational reader of popular fashion histories) with the fashions of that era.  You cannot fudge that painting to as early as they want to. Artemis-Arethusa 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rice Portrait
Talk:Germantown, Louisville

message: For the sake of categorization, when should we say the neighborhood was established: 1870s, 1890s or something else? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When established 
Portal talk:Architecture/to do

message: Comments from Featured Portal review-
*Leave subheadings out of "Selected article"
*Intro abit to long
*Maybe the featured pictures box(the big one) shouldn't be there, just link in the current featured pic.
*The "Did you know" and "News" sections could use more frequent updates.
*The "Selected picture" section should include an image credit directly in the text.
* A box giving an overview of major topics should be created; the current "Articles" box is rather deficient in its breadth.
::I've made a start on this in my Sandbox - if anyone would like to lend a hand, I'd be very appreciative. (BTW to avoid confusion - I've pinched a article list from the biology portal, so there's lots of "cell structure" and other extraneous information there at the moment.)--Mcginnly | Natter 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 2

message: This subject is a neverending debate on online sword forums. The constant argument detracts from this article, and also adds unnecessary length. Therfore i propose spliting off the section into an article of its own (I havent figured out a good title yet). Please vote below.--Knife Knut 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose it being a seperate article. I would prefer to salvage it in some way, perhaps even mentioning that the debate exists and simply providing references to who says what. I seem to remember the Arma website has plenty to say on the subject. It's amazing how worked up English speaking people get about the Katana; the Japanese Katana page is remarkably concise and stable by comparison... --M.J.Stanham 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. I hope that remains the case.--M.J.Stanham 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off European Vs Japanese swords. 

message: User Freepsbane contenously refuses to look at any sources, yet insists they be used. He is being abusive.
(wrong I have read you're sources and almost without exeption they don't directly or indirectly suport you're claims)--Freepsbane 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further disputes. 

message: I'm going to try to cut the intro down a bit. It's pretty long as intro go and contains a lot of information which is later duplicated. This is part of my ongoing work to reduce the length of the article without omitting anything. Chris Cunningham 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing work in the intro 

message: I've heard it said that the folding method created a mesh effect, which in turn added strength to the blade. Article also makes no mention of Masamune, whom contributed to the shape and structure of the katana. Dessydes 03:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No strength?
Talk:Limerick, Louisville

message: Limerick Louisville?  Shouldn't this be Limerick Historic District?--Bedford 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:History of Raël

message: If this is going to be seperate from Raëlism (and given the size of the two pages, |I guess that's probably a good idea), you might want to add a paragraph or two at the top just saying what Raëlism is and pointing to the other pages. I have a vague idea because I've heard the name before, but I'm not sure how many other people would without reading those pages. Mark Grant 12:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ===(cur) (last)  12:50, 4 January 2007 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs) (firefox printing issue)===
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.  
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Peer Review

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.  
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  12:50, 4 January 2007 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs) (firefox printing issue)

message: Why does "Raël" redirect to "History of Raël" instead of the other way around? "Raël" would be the logical title for this article. wikipediatrix 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  title 

message: Please see comments at History of Raëlism. I believe that the subject matter of these two articles is rather confusing unless the two articles are merged, as being separate, it creates a severe content fork. Dr. Cash 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review
Talk:Weapon X (Exiles)

message: I'm not suggesting that all trace of Weapon X be removed from the Exiles article - it definitely needs to be mentioned, and the 'Weapon X' section probably needs to stay there. But as it stands, the Weapon X section has more info about individual Weapon X members than the Weapon X article itself. I think almost all of that information belongs here, not there. --Mrph 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal - Merge 'Weapon X' section of 'Exiles (Marvel Comics)' into this article

message: Merge - --Mrph 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Closed with a decision to merge - as noted above, keeping a link and brief summary in the Exiles (Marvel Comics) article. --Mrph 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project
Talk:Prairie Village, Louisville

message: I've added a lot of content on the area. Including some about facillities and programs located in the nieghborhood. Demographic info is hard to gage as it is lumped in with Valley Station in the census.M-BMor 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Prestonia, Louisville

message: The page Prestonia should be moved to Prestonia, Kentucky or Prestonia, Louisville. Prestonia is the name of an Intel CPU and of a plant (family Apocynaceae). See :it:Prestonia. Semolo75 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation
Talk:The Chakachas

message: :http://home.scarlet.be/~pin17653/chris.htm including some mistakes about certain names...  Stephan KŒNIG 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Les Chakachas 

message: Their first style, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, was clearly cha-cha-cha.Dogru144 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: original style
Talk:Smyrna, Louisville

message: Is this article worthy of existing? A google search for this neighborhood finds nothing except for a school named Smyrna in Louisville. The one reference (http://kentucky.hometownlocator.com/ky/jefferson/) doesn't have any information about Smyrna - it doesn't even mention the name! Gbear605 (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Smoketown, Louisville

message: A list of notable residents would be appropriate..is it possible that musician  Mickey Baker  lived here? 74.142.6.166 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What about  Muhammad Ali  ?  74.142.6.166 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Residents 