lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stop, drop and roll

message: I've expaned this page and removed the expansion tag. If this isn't sufficient, please retag.
perfectblue 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: de-tagged

message: I recently heard they changed this, but i'm not sure to what. Does anyone know anything or where to look? Evaunit666 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHO CREATED THE STOP DROP AND ROLL?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.46.146 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the article with the same question, and see that it has not been answered since 2008 -- ten full years. I hope someone researches this. 2601:205:8200:83:129A:DDFF:FEAB:63A8 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: When did this slogan originate?

message: When would you ever find yourself on fire? Isn't it better to just pat out the area?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you for real? Almost nobody ever expects to find themselves on fire. Yet every year many thousands of people do. "Pat out the area"?? Yeah, if your cigarette set your shirt cuff on fire, I guess you could do that. But if your entire friggin' body has gone up like a torch (say, in a house fire, or an accident with inflammible materials), stop, drop, and roll IS "patting it out."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.68 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why would one need to use this technique?

message: In which countries is this taught?  AFAIK it's not taught in the UK.  I hear it is taught in the USA.  Some indication of how widely this technique is taught would be relevant to the article. 109.180.69.55 (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which countries? 

message: Should it be mentioned in this article, or perhaps in a disambiguation page, that this term is sometimes used to refer to candy flipping, i.e. consuming both LSD and MDMA simultaneously? It's not a particularly common expression, but it is used, such as in the song "Planet Health" by Chairlift. —Michipedian (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candy flipping
Talk:Pope Evaristus

message: Due to the scarcity of information on this Pope, this article seems unlikely to progress beyond stub. Loyola 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So Evaristus is probably venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, but I couldn't find a reliable secondary source which provides that evidence. I looked at several Eastern Orthodox calendars (Greek Orthodox and Orthodox Church in America) and neither had an entry for Evaristus or anyone matching his description, on October 26. So, if he is venerated in Orthodoxy, what is his feast day? Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox Church 

message: "However, in the Roman Martyrology he is listed without the martyr title, with a feast day on 26 October."
Please read contents from this link (Please translate the content from the this link (more or less translation, please to mark and copy entire parts of the text) here https://translate.google.pl/?hl=pl#view=home &op=translate sl=en&tl=pl
Please be understanding that the text from the link is in the language it is in.) http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10654.msg243335.html#msg243335
Source: http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10654.msg243335.html#msg243335 Szukający Prawdy (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   The alleged doubt about the martyrdom of St. Evarist of the Pope
Talk:Pope Gregory II

message: Is Pope Gregory II a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as a pre-Schism bishop, he is considered glorified to the Eastern Orthodox. His renown is minor enough that hey may not get much veneration in a liturgical way, and many EO tend to downplay the stature of Bishops of Rome in general. But I think it is safe to say we could add the Eastern Orthodox Church (and Oriental and Assyrian) to the infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox Church
Talk:Pope Hormisdas

message: This article is in need of some major cleanup, and it doesn't display well on a resolution of 1920x1200.
The following comments (which are not in quotes) look like opinion, from a very partisan point of view:
-- It is obvious though from the context in which this quote was written that all this means is that the communion between the two is renewed. For example it is obvious from Sacred Scripture that Christ and the members of His Church are mystically united but who then would say that the members of the Church and Christ are equality? Of course Christ is greater than us! Unity does not mean equality and therefore this quote cannot be the basis for claiming the equality of the two Sees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.74.11 (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor display, poor quality.
Talk:Andrew Drummond (author)

message: http://vo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Drummond
Includes photo an lotsa links, if someone wants to canabalize it...
T L Miles 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the Norwegian but the Volapük Wikipedia.  Agree we should grab the photo and links though. --Jim Henry 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone sent me the Norwegian version 
Talk:Pope Julius I

message: I am planning on rewriting the Christmas section as in its current state it implies that the pope at this time mainly made the decision to officially set Christmas day to the 25th of December due to its relation to Sol Invicta and Saturnalia. This is a common and widespread theory but not backed up by much factual evidence. This source (https://web.archive.org/web/20121224142733/http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Hippolytus%20and%20December%2025th.pdf) discusses how Hippolytus of Rome in his Commentary on Daniel (who was writing in the early 200’s AD, ~70 years before Aurelian) believed that Jesus was born on the 25th of December 5500 years after Adam. Hippolytus also believed Jesus was conceived on March 25th, the Spring Equinox and a Passover. Therefore, born exactly nine months later on what the Romans believed was the winter solstice (page 14). The source ‘The Book of Christmas By Jane Struthers’ mentions this in part in the Making a date section.
There is also an argument from early biblical sources citing the Gospel of Luke. At the start of the gospel Zacharias a priest of the house Abijah preys to the lord in the temple and conceives a child with his elderly wife, the child is John the Baptist and is six months older than Jesus. Priests of the course of Abijah served on the 8th and 32nd weeks. The Protoevangelium of James (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html section 8) records that this was around the day of atonement. So, it must have been on the 32nd week at the end of September. Making John born in June and Jesus born in December (full explanation https://taylormarshall.com/2012/12/yes-christ-was-really-born-on-december.html).
There is also evidence of correspondence between a patriarch in the east asking the pope to clarify when the ancient records stored in Rome indicate that Jesus’ birthday was (https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2018/12/21/dubious-claims-pope-julius-i-decided-that-jesus-was-born-on-25-december/). Billgates2 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the Christmas Section
Talk:Pope Leo IX

message: Aren't nearly all, if not all, of the popes (except the living) now saints? Why would this be embedded in his article name? Even the 1911 Britannica lists him simply as Pope Leo IX. Is it just a misinformed entry or is his sainthood unique to him? Or is it a consequence of the "after effect" of history where his fans try to elevate his stature while and after he is pope, where they create myths about the subject, such as the stories about his saint-like behavior during his lifetime? Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, most popes are not declared saints. But looking at other Pope articles, who also happen to be saints, they also do not have "Pope Saint" in the beginning title. I think it works well enough to have it noted his sainthood and feast day in article (as is) and can be seen in the Profile, he still has his official Pope Saint title above his portrait. So I think your edit was fine75.73.150.255 (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of Saint from his name

message: "Bruno found some consolation in music, in which he proved himself very efficient." I realize this line comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but it makes little sense, at least in current English. Is it supposed to read "proficient"? Mahousu (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficient in music?
Talk:Pope Lucius I

message: Is it his head or not? This section (Tomb) needs some clarification.
"Pope St. Lucius' head is among the few relics to have survived the Reformation in Denmark. However the Norwegian researcher Øystein Morten[7] started wondering if St. Lucius' skull might have been mixed up with the skull of the Norwegian king Sigurd Jorsalfar (1090–1130). This skull had also been kept in the Danish National Museum collection in the 1800s until it was donated to Oslo University in 1867. Danish experts from the National Museum then studied the skull, using carbon dating which concluded that the skull belonged to a man who lived between AD340 and 431, nearly 100 years after the death of St Lucius in 254. So the skull in question never belonged to St. Lucius, who died around AD 254. The results also rule out that it may have belonged to the crusader king Sigurd.[8]"
Ikjbagl (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over the head
Talk:William B. Franklin

message: Article say he was US rep to Paris exposition of 1888, but WP does not indicate an exposition in 1888.  There was one in 1889.  Please check and correct.  Thanks  Hmains 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two references in the list (Eicher & Warner) that agree with each other and say 1888. Perhaps they meant that he served on the planning committee in 1888 for the 1889 exposition, but since neither reference is specific about that, I changed it to 1889. Hal Jespersen 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was named as commissioner in June 1888 according to his biographer and local records here in the York County Heritage Trust, following his retirement from Colt. I have amended the wording. Scott Mingus 12:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Exposition
Talk:Pope Marcellinus

message: This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Marcellinus died in 304. The day of his death is not certain; in the "Liber Pontificalis" his burial is wrongly placed at 26 April, and this date is retained in the historical martyrologies of the ninth century, and from them, in the later martyrologies. But if we calculate the date of his death from the duration of his office given in the Liberian Catalogue, he would have died on 24 or 25 Oct., 304.
This article uses the April date. Has further research confirmed that?
Rbraunwa 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death 

message: Marcellinus in the Marcellinus and Peter article and Pope Marcellinus are the same person. Believe me, I am one of people who is named after him. The year of death is the same, both are martyrs, and have the same location. The feast dates, however, are different. Pope Marcellinus is in April while Marcellinus and Peter is in June. But here is my source confirming further that this person is the same, saying that the feast is in June:  - mind that you have to click X all the time to remove the annoying login screen before being able to read it for a short time.
Further, I have a proof in the form of a book in Indonesian, which says that Marcellinus was a priest before becoming a pope - which exactly matches the description of both articles - with feast date on 2 June. Consider for a merger of these article w_tanoto (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a way to suggest this formally. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. I think that a request needs to be posted at the top of both discussion pages. Good luck! Student7 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The confusion needs treatment in the article. I am not so sure they are the same person, but there could be a discussion. -editeur24 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Is Pope Marcellinus currently an official saint in the Roman Catholic Church or not? The article suggests both things.-editeur24 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pope Marcellinus]] and [[Marcellinus and Peter]]
Talk:Pope Mark

message: Is the section "papal styles" meant to imply that during his life these styles were in use? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so - we should probably drop this before some date, but which one? Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal styles
Talk:Ruth Schönthal

message: According to the biography in  . Women and Music in America since 1900: an Encyclopedia, p. 595,  "she dropped the umlaut when she came to America" -- at age 22, and her musical career was all of it subsequent to that. I have therefore moved the page. DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: name
Talk:Pope Paschal I

message: this edit is unacceptable; the sources therein are forums and blogs. Please read WP:IRS and try to understand what sources are acceptable to Wikipedia as reliable. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Elizium23. cookiecrumbstoliveby.wordpress.com is no WP:RS, while heiligenlexikon.de seems reliable (they have an impressum listing the contributors, the coordinator is a theologian and a retired protestant pastor, so I personally would believe them at least if the facts given are not subject to modern-day disputes).  --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

text: It's no good idea to revert after a discussion has been started. Please remember WP:3RR and remember that 3RR is only the last red line. You already started an edit war. I think Vollständiges Heiligenlexikon is not reliable, since it's too old. I don't see why you added the category "Early Church stub". The article is no stub. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable sources
Talk:Pope Paul I

message: The article says: "He adopted an independent tone in informing the imperial Exarch in Ravenna of his election,...", but the last Exarch of Ravenna, Eutychius, had died 5 or 6 years previously in connection with the fall of Ravenna to the Lombards. 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Paul is still alive today in mey not in body but in spirit" What's that supposed to mean?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Karteileiche (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul is still alive today in mey not in body but in spirit 

message: I Removed English Name Parameter Because English Name is Deleted on English Wikipedia and Back the English name Please Because the Infobox Name of The Old Changes of this Page is Becomes Bad,The Infobox Name and the Page Name is Similar.For Sample, The Page Name is Pope Paul I and the Infobox Name is Pope Paul I Too but the Orginal is, The Page Name is Pope Paul I and The Infobox Name is Paul I Not Pope Paul I and You See that the Deletion of English Name is Making English Wikipedia Pages So Bad.Administrators Please Back the English Name Simple Lang Ako (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello Wikipedia Administrators Read this Please You want this to See! 

message: I think details of Paul's canonization should be  given as with every other Pope Saint, I can't seem to find them anywhere 94.189.133.139 (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonization
Talk:Pope Pontian

message: Do we have a ref for his papacy beginning 21 July 230? My breviary says he didn't become pope until 231. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't acceptable as a reference for something this ancient -- word of mouth isn't going to cut it either. Jeff Carr (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is, indeed, one of the most reliable sources for this sort of thing. However, you can also see Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2000) in which McBrien mentions Pontian's death is actually the first precisely recorded date in papal history. It is found in the Liberian Catalogue.  Hfeatherina (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Papacy start date
Talk:Ergun equation

message: I am currently in school getting my bachelors in Chemical Engineering.  We recently went over this equation, and it is an important equation in Chemical Engineering.  It deserves its own page, simply because it is actually comprised of two equations, and this Ergun equation is valid over a huge range of conditions.  My professor put an emphasis on this.  I will update the page.
I signed up after making that comment, for reference.
In my opinion, the Burke Plummer and Kozeny-Carman equation articles should be merged into this one, since the Ergun equation is more widely applicable than either of the others, but they are all directly related to each other.  It is also a nice theoretical model to see, since it represents an equation that was derived from a good intuitive guess, giving a widely applicable and accurate equation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.88.33 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pope Siricius

message: Although the Website Religion Facts says that Pope Siricius was the first Bishop of Rome to style himself Pope, more weighty resources say that the title of Pope was from the early third century used for any bishop in the West. 
For quotations like this, people really need to QUOTE from those 'more weighty sources'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stygian-sulfur (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pope Sixtus III

message: The last half or so of this article makes a case that Sixtus was the "Beast out of the Earth" in Revelation.  I think it's very interesting, but I have some concerns.
* It's largely (completely, actually) unreferenced.  (see WP:V, WP:CITE)
* It seems rather POV.  (see WP:NPOV)
* It reads to me like original research.  I'm basing this mostly on the fact that I've never heard of this (a weak criterion) and the lack of sources (a stronger one).  (see WP:NOR)
I think the article would be well-served if this information were sourced and sectioned off, or removed if inappropriate.  What are others' thoughts?  --Wayne Miller 20:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - the reference to SIX III being interpreted as a fufillment of the Revelations prophecy needs to be verified; the closing of the article, with the claims that Roman Catholic historians and theologians "minimize information about this period" and - even more importantly - the assertion that the Theotokos theology of the 3rd Ecumenical Council is "distinctly Roman extra-Biblical Maryology" is evidence of obvious and unhelpful bias. --Nathan 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and remove it, unless anyone else has any further thoughts.  --Wayne Miller 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "666" connection 

message: All other references I can find give a death date of August 19. What is the reference for August 18? Thisdaytrivia (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Death 

message: Was he involved with the "miracle of the snow"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Mary Major
Talk:Pope Soter

message: I have actually spend some time reviewing the various sources on this subject. There is very little information out there regarding Pope Soter, and this is confirmed by I think all the sources I have to date consulted. Everything I have found in those sources, some of which explicitly say something along the lines of "This is everything known about the subject," can already be found in the article. On that basis, I have to think that the article is as complete as it can be, given the current level of information available on the subject. I have on that basis assessed it as B class. Personally, I do think that it could reasonably be placed as an A class, given there is no more information regarding the subject out there. I do not myself know if it ever has a real chance as an FA, given its brevity, but I do know that there is substantially more information on every other Roman Pope, so there would be no need to merge any of them into a list. If none of the others are moved to the list, it would make no sense to move this one on its own, so it will probably remain a separate article. But I myself haven't found any other information to add to it. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding assessment
Talk:Pope Telesphorus

message: If there is historical evidence of his martyrdom, it might be good to give some idea of what it is. The rest of these early popes have a tradition of being martyred for no reason except it looks good on their resumes. Why do we think Telesphorus was actually martyred?--Syd Henderson 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because St. Irenaeus writes he was - and this notably in a list which sounds a bit like "then came Linus...; then came Anacletus...; then came Clement...; then came Evaristus...; then came Alexander...; then came Xystus...; then came Telesphorus the glorious martyr". This looks like that, whatever others did, St. Irenaeus does not attach the martyr's crown to just any old Pope (as it were); he seems to think that St. Telesphorus's martyrdome was somewhat of an exception, so maybe he really meant it. And writing no more than 70 years after the event maybe he should know. But if I am rightly informed, he doesn't mention more details. It is not implausible though (in any case) that even Emperors who did not run a "grand persecution" in Nero's or Decius's or Diocletian's style might, on the occasion, have killed the leader of their own capital's Church. (After all, even Hadrian's predecessor, Traian, whose name is not linked to any specific persecution and whom later centuries hailed as the most Christian of the un-Christian emperors - and they would never have gotten this idea about Hadrian - , is known to have continued persecution because he writes so in the letters to Pliny.)--2001:A62:3E7:A101:904C:2746:A6EA:6326 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Pope Urban I

message: I have begun expanding this article and referenced my information. Help would be appreciated. Gavin Scott 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded

message: According to my best attempt at searching, the term Coemeterium Callisti appears exactly once in English Wikipedia, but it does appear elsewhere. A bit of digging revealed it is also known as the Catacomb of Callixtus which has an article on en.Wikipedia. I've just wikilinked that but I was wondering if there is there any reason we use this term on this page here? Kiore (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coemeterium Callisti 

message: Despite a lack of sources for many aspects of his life, we have an exact birth date, extremely unusual for people of the 2nd Century AD.  What's the source for this?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by        IP58.69.101.221, who appears to have added numerous unsourced dates to articles. I would delete it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date source