lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Bomber gap

message: A section in the article, "Gap disproven", describes a U-2 mission (2020) on 4 July 1956 which overflew Engels, spotted 20 Bisons, and settled the question.  This appears to be incorrect information.  I have looked through new declassified CIA Crest reports and in it it laments that Engels was specifically not observed between 1954-1958, and in May 1958 it was calling for an overflight:
* LONG RANGE AVIATION, Central Intelligence Agency, December 23, 1958.
This overflight was Mission 8005 conducted in December 1959 and it observed 37 Bison aircraft.  However it is other studies based on factory reports in 1958 that led the CIA to revise the figures downward before this U-2 observation.  The CIA site also shows Mission 2020 was on July 9, not July 4, and was confined to areas west of Moscow.  No photography was available of anything on the Volga River was available between WWII and 1959 according to the CIA document for Mission 8005.  I am pretty certain most of the information about Mission 2020 in 1956 targeting the bomber bases is anecdotal and may need to be removed. -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion here is simply the date and number of the mission. As you can see here, Knutson talks about this mission all the time, and in this particular example, was kind enough to present the very photograph in question. According to another source this mission was not 2020 but one in 1959, so we just need to figure out which one it was. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 1956 overflight of Engels

message: Hi! The link to Stanley Baldwin remains unclear for non-specialized reader. Could it perhaps be explained? Tazmaniacs 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, fixed! Maury 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: It's surprising there is no category for USA Shadowboxing - a prevalent, virulent and resistent political phenomena. 
--Philopedia 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Creation Suggestion 

message: The opening sentence has a poor choice of words - "unfounded belief."  As the article later points out, their were at least two indications that the gap existed - that is, foundations for the belief.  The first was the Soviet Aviation Day demonstrations.  The second was the early U2 recon intelligence.  It should be pointed out that the Aviation Day demonstration was most likely an intentional deception on the part of the Soviets.  Based on this evidence, the conclusion of a bomber gap is founded and reasonable.  It is easy to sit back with 20/20 hindsight and criticise, but given the times and Kruschev's threat, "We will bury you!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.108.34 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence
Talk:History of mints

message: Dear Nisbit, thank you for your contributions! I don't have access to the 1911 encyclopedia right away, but I think there are two elements in the current article which might reflect an influence from that source. First of all, the coins of Lydia are referred to as the oldest in the world. Modern scholars tend to date the Lydian coins to the late 7th century BC (not 8th century). They are certainly the oldest coins in the Western world, and other ancient Mediterranean coins are inspired directly or indirectly by the Lydian coins. However, the oldest types of Chinese spade and knife coins are about as old as the Lydian coins, and thus might actually have preceded them. The other thing I worried about was the Persian and Indian coinage traditions as having been instigated by the greeks. Depending on how exactly you define 'Persia' this might be true in the Persian case. Although coin production within the Persian Empire began already when the Lydian tradition was inherited by the Persians after they had annexed Lydia, and Greek coins were known by Persian merchants, the production of coins in 'Persia proper' began only after Alexander's conquest. The Greeks should not be credited for the introduction of coin production in India. By the time Alexander's armies reached the Indus, the Indians were already minting their own coins. (I'll just be a little nasty now: The peoples of Asia were more industrious than the Encyclopedia Britannica expected in 1911:-)). Alfons Åberg 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised that the 1911 Britannica is flawed. Please go ahead and edit the article so that it better reflects modern scholarship. Nesbit 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The peak of civilization?
Talk:Jefferson station (Jacksonville)

message: The title that's actually used for this station is Jefferson Station, per JTA. Additionally, the current title is natural disambiguation which is preferable to a parentheses.--Cúchullain t/c 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind telling that to everybody else who has a Jefferson Station? -------User:DanTD (talk)  19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? This is currently the only article of that title, and it's demonstrably the title that's in use.--Cúchullain t/c 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What it means is that just because it's the only article doesn't mean there aren't other Jefferson stations in the world. This one is specifically along the JTA Skyway. We can use the name in the lead paragraph and infobox, but simply calling the article "Jefferson Station" is too disambiguous. -------User:DanTD (talk)  20:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if other stations are called that, we only disambiguate existing Wikipedia articles. Since there aren't any, "Jefferson Station" would just redirect to the longer title, making the added verbiage unnecessary.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title
Talk:San Marco station

message: The title that's actually used for this station is San Marco Station, per JTA. Additionally, the current title is natural disambiguation, which is preferable to a parentheses. The parentheses here is also insufficient; JTA runs many, many bus stations; this one is specifically a station of the JTA Skyway.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again. San Marco Station vs. San Marcos Station. The only disambiguation is the lack of an "s" in the JTA Skyway station. Both need the qualifiers. --------User:DanTD (talk)  19:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Per the WP:NATURALDIS policy, "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization". There are no other "San Marco Station"'s and the lack of an "s" effectively distinguishes it from the Texas station. And the station is never called simply "San Marco", which everyone in Jacksonville would identify with a neighborhood or San Marco Boulevard.--Cúchullain t/c 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but "San Marco" vs. "San Marcos" are too close. Plus the station in Texas is an Amtrak station with no sign any other railroad is going to use it, and the one in Jacksonville is a Monorail station of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority Skyway. --------User:DanTD (talk)  20:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They're effectively distinguished by the different spellings, and on top of that I've added hatnotes to each article for anyone who's confused.--Cúchullain t/c 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but when you read them aloud, it's easy for them to sound similar. Regardless, there's still the distinction of the one in Jacksonville being a JTA Skyway station, and the one in Texas of being an Amtrak station. -------User:DanTD (talk)  17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If people are confused, the hat notes will get them where they want to go.--Cúchullain t/c 17:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title
Talk:Riverplace station

message: The title that's actually used for this station is Riverplace Station, per JTA. Additionally, the current title is natural disambiguation which is preferable to a parentheses.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title
Talk:Kings Avenue station

message: The title that's actually used for this station is Kings Avenue Station, per JTA. Additionally, the current title is natural disambiguation which is preferable to a parentheses.--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's specifically a JTA Skyway station, hence the previous name. -------User:DanTD (talk)  19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you mean by "Fram follower". This station is demonstrably called "Kings Avenue Station", not "Kings Avenue". As there are no other articles titled "King Avenue Station" the parentheses aren't necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kings Avenue Station, of the JTA Skyway. -------User:DanTD (talk)  20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your point. Of course it's a station of the JTA Skyway. We don't need to add the parenthetical unless there's some other article to distinguish it from, and there's not.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, because it is one, we do need to. In answer to your other query, Fram is another editor/administrator who has habitually tried to rip up naming conventions of train stations that specifically identify the articles as being for train stations and the agencies in charge of them. Many of us on TWP have had some heated arguments with him and others on his side who destroy naming conventions for Sacramento Regional Transit District stations and MAX Light Rail stations. -------User:DanTD (talk)  21:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't appreciate your implications. So far as I can tell, there isn't another article called "Kings Avenue Station", so no, disambiguation is not needed. And I don't know what "naming conventions of train stations" you're talking about, but they don't trump the article titles policy.--Cúchullain t/c 21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

text: And I've told you why: It's because they often share names with other structures, other sites, and other subjects. At least Cuchullain leaves the word station in the names, but even that can be a hassle when you have other types of stations with the same names, like power stations, fire stations, coast guard stations, etc. Also, it's not really a question of whether there are articles for them or not. -------User:DanTD (talk)  17:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is, we only distinguish between existing articles. Disambiguation is only required when "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" per WP:DAB. There are no other articles called "Kings Avenue Station" so far as I can see.--Cúchullain t/c 18:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title
Talk:State action

message: The DeShaney case appears to be misinterpreted as holding that the DCS was not a state actor, while it actually holds that DCS was not constitutionally responsible for Randy DeShaney's, a private actor's, abuse of Joshua DeShaney.  This should perhaps be corrected to more accurately reflect the ruling.
While Shelley v. Kramer's holding is properly stated in this article, its application as precedent has been quite limited, which should be reflected in the article in order to properly characterize what generally constitutes state action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wamccart (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Scio High School

message: The physical address (38875 NW First Ave) doesn't match where the school is actually located (north of 4th and Main). I assume that's the office of the district and/or the middle school- the high school is several blocks away. I've left the address alone and updated the coordinates to point to the high school itself. tedder (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Location
Talk:Denis Lebel

message: Did he as the article has no update on this. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Lebel run in the 2018 Quebec election?
Template talk:Sleep

message: See Archive 1 for discussion on the old vertical SleepSeries template.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: I've been watching this series, and I think that this is better than the giant bar on the right. Good job!
Having said that, I am wondering if REM sleep and non-REM (NREM) sleep should be separated into two different subjects.
206.135.101.49 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at that K.murphy 13:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There already are two seperate articles on REM and non-REM, I changed the sleep article to make that more obvious K.murphy 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Having created the vertical bar originally, I must say, it sure has progressed nicely.--Once in a Blue Moon 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a better idea

message: What is the intent of the giant, four-color, four section bar at the bottom of the template?  The links are incomprehensible and non-obvious.  It appears that they are more for some sort of quick-reference link jumping, but only if one knows the super-secret code.  Single letter links to other templates and categories are not helpful at all to the average reader or editor, IMHO.  And it seems to defy many of the guidelines from Wikipedia:NAVBOX#Navigation_templates and Wikipedia:Navigation templates.  What are the options to improve this, but de-clutter, so as to avoid the section being deleted entirely? — MrDolomite • Talk 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final section problems
Talk:Daniel Roemer

message: Can you please allow this item to be edited? It was initially deleted because I used quoted text that was also used on another web page. This resulted in a blatant copyright violation. I will not use any similar text in the future.
Pastordonn 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assume good faith here — go for it.  --Haemo 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Don't be officious

message: Just a little note of support for this one; one of the shortest, sanest non-rules around... ! - Purples 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! May I call you "Perp"? Bishonen | talk 07:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  (How's that for short?) •Jim62sch• 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !! (I beat Jim62sch) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hooray....
Talk:Flokati rug

message: I removed the first part of the second paragraph, which was probably a copy&paste copyright violation from http://www.flokati.com.  Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flokati_Rug&diff=169206783&oldid=162812272 and http://web.archive.org/web/20070328002659/www.flokati.com/flokati.php (which is from an earlier date).  The text in question was:
The Vlachs were sheep and goat herders, producing dairy products sold during the winter in the plains of Trikala, Thessaly, Macedonia and as far away as Odessa. In the Spring, the Vlach women would weave flokati rugs for use primarily as clothing and bedding for their tents, keeping them warm during the long winter months. They would also sell flokati rugs at bazaars during the winter. This tradition continued for centuries and didn’t cease until the early 1960s.
From http://www.flokati.com/flokati.php 
Feel free to replace it with a new text. --Rubik's Cube (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not... --Rubik's Cube (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article sounds like an advertisement. 67.119.2.186 (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Panagiotis Markouizos

message: For what reason is he notable? --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He won at least four times the national championship, and competed in the World and European Championships (see the ISU link for the results of the years 2000-2004). -- 89.58.152.38 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Good evening, 
Mr Markouizos won the National Championships exactly 6 times in a row. No participation in 2004. 
Best regards,
--Elżbieta Flisak (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Variable-frequency oscillator

message: "A variable frequency oscillator (VFO) is a component in a radio receiver or transmitter that controls the frequency to which the apparatus is tuned."
The above is not encyclopedic and neglects all the VFOs found in stroboscopes, oscilloscopes, many other sorts of test equipment, cable modems, tone dialing, musical instruments, sirens...Cuddlyable3 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper definition 

message: 1. "After a while this thinking was combined with the basic ideas of heterodyning and mixing described under purpose above."
This sentence is missing something.
2. "A plot of a VFO's amplitude vs. frequency may show several peaks, probably harmonically related."
I don't think this is a legitimate statement. That "probably" is not convincing.
3. "The effect of VFO phase noise on a transmitter is that random noise is actually transmitted either side of the required signal."
To or by "either side of the required signal"? The sentence is not complete.
ICE77 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper sentences
Talk:Micro Center

message: I have removed the list of stores, and, the ad-copy regarding what services MC offers. I'm trying to get this less ad-y... SQL(Query Me!) 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm trying to get this less ad-y... 

message: Should I add this to this article or is there another article that lists companies that put you back on their snail mail list a certain amount of time after you asked to be taken off? Bostoner (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: AN IP editor () just made a series of edits without any comment, which removed all the references and the  formatting from the "Key people" section.   He/she also removed the Chief operating officer and Chief financial officer, but added an unsourced entry for "Edward A. Mershad (VP)".  The only sources I can find say that he is VP of the parent company, which is not relevant here.
I propose reinstating this version, as being in line with the guidleines for "key_people" in , supported by references.  If anybody has a comment, please say so now...--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Things got worse - that same IP editor added unsourced and irrelevant figures for the net worth of those key people in the Infobox.  I have reverted their changes.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key People in Infobox 

message: I noticed this article has an Awards section that doesn't seem very notable. I would propose that this section be removed - WP:ADVERT. Arthunters (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion in this Article?
Talk:Haidar Abdel-Shafi

message: Just want to say thanks to all who have added material to this article in recent months. This is an extremely important entry about an important individual. By the way, many on the pro-Israel side feel he was a more practical community leader, who would have found ways to make peace by truly representing Palestinian interests, but also by being open to more constructive solutions. So it's good to have all this information. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article edits 

message: I de-POVed article to the best of my ability. Let me know if anyone has any particular comments.Watchingthevitalsigns 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De-POVed
Talk:Nam Nao district

message: Nam Nao was created from Amphoe Lom Kao, not Lom Sak. It's clearly written in the royal gazette source mentioned. 
Pop according to the POpulation and Housing Census of 1980 : 7810 perrsons ; 1279 households; of which 1135 households (6916 persons) are classified as agricultural households 
Pop in 1990 13919 persons;2867 households; 2473 agricultural households; 12 433 persons within agricultural households  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.123.61 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Waterbeach

message: The article says its north of Cambridge. Is that 1 mile north, 10 miles, or a 100? How far?
:6 miles already added by another editor.--Lidos (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How many miles north?

message: I have added the Salvation Army to the main text; as there are three churches in the village it is invidious to leave one out! And I have added the web-sites of St John's and the Salvation army to the list of links; unfortunately the Baptist Church does not seem to have a web-site. --APRCooper (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churches 

message: A new article on RAF Waterbeach will be drafted by me in the coming months, so relevant paragraphs will be removed from the main article on the village. The guidance of WP:CFORK applies. In the meantime I have slightly expanded the RAF history section. I live in Waterbeach.--Lidos (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: New article on RAF Waterbeach created by Harrison49 on 29 May 2012 - thanks!--Lidos (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF Waterbeach 
Talk:Future of the Left

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.96.201 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Enchanted (video game)

message: ESPN Integration?
Can you provide a source for this? It sounds like nonsense. IanLamberson 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How come it says Developer(s) Nintendo?
I doubt they would develop this.--Sgtcook (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developers 