lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sincerity

message: Feelings are qualia and therefore not communicable by ordinary language. Or any language, for that matter. Read Wittgenstein and weep.
The last point in the main article is probably incorrect, and it is also contradicted by the first point under "See Also" as well as the OED and most reputable etymological sources.
Where does the idea that sincerity has been under assault by several modern developments such as psychoanalysis and postmodern developments such as deconstruction? One could view them as ways of getting rid of the barriers that hinder sincerity. Hackwrench 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article seems to want the "without wax" etymology to be true. I've changed the POV "The OED ... sadly informs" to "The OED ... states". The etymologies given seem to be clear that there is no substance to the "without wax" etymology, so why does the article think that the etymology is controversial? "Some people" (these are weasel words) might well believe this false etymology, but that's no reason for the article to be sentimental about it or to promote it as a possibility. — Paul G 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and took out some more things from that section. Calling the first etymology a "story" and "charming" also felt really POV. I figure if the reader gets that far in the article he can make his own judgements about the "without wax" etymology. --Shroom Mage 04:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument for the OED's statement is never given with source, though. Three citations are given of experts simply stating it's improbable or not correct, but none explaining what evidence ties the word in its Latin form to the earlier Indo-European alternative, or why specifically the "without wax" story is invalid. Wikipedia standards require sources for that sort of definitive statement, so we shouldn't treat an unsourced statement as definitive either. I grew up hearing the "without wax" story, so I probably have a bias, but a source should be found for treating the "one growth" version as definitive. Merennulli (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion of false etymology 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a reference in the etymology section to Dan Brown's book Digital Fortress, in which one of the characters gives the "without wax" etymology? It is a spoiler and it might not be relevant, so I haven't added it. — Paul G 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference: Digital Fortress 

message: The Bad faith article needs help from available editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Bad faith]] article needs help from available editors 

message: The formatting of the quotations section makes it difficult to read, visually distasteful, aesthetically displeasing, and it sucks.
Actually, I really don't think this section belongs in this article, but maybe that's just me. I'd recommend removing it, or at least cleaning it up somehow or other  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.230.101 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations Section
Talk:Gluten

message: Why was this cut: DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the claim that modern wheat has more gluten is supported by only one source  and a secondary source that relies only on that one original source. To present this claim in wikivoice without any sort of context is unwarranted. I'll be reading both of these sources to see if they are better than mere assertions of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern grain does not contain more gluten

message: There are at least 15 pivotal citations from papers published with "U. Volta" participating. Frankly, I wonder if U. Volta is also editing this page. None of that is a problem per se, but the article should be a balanced look at the current state of knowledge, not a place for one person to trumpet their research. U. Volta seems to think gluten is a toxin created by the modern food industry and it is leading to a worldwide growing plague of disease. U. Volta might be right, but this extreme position needs to be given voice in proportion to the evidence. I'm sure U. Volta is a credentialed expert, but balance is required. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: One researcher might have [[WP:UNDUE]] influence on this page

message: an illness only described in the book series redwall, the book called martin the warrior. there are no current known situation of flurgy twinge and the only recorded case was of a big strong hedgehog. unfortanatly after the experience he could never laugh again  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.182.71.11 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely fictitious. Wordreader (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  flurgy twinge 

message: Lede states: The spectrum of gluten related disorders includes celiac disease in 1–2% of the general population, non-celiac gluten sensitivity in 0.5–13% of the general population, as well as dermatitis herpetiformis, gluten ataxia and other neurological disorders.
Other consumer products states that a small number of consumers are at risk when gluten is used unexpectedly in products.
But is (potentially) 15% of the general population a small number of consumers?
23:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'small' number of consumers 

message: Since we evolved eating grains even before Homo sapiens rolled around, why is gluten so bad on a small percentage of Sapiens? Was there a gene mutation that popped up along the way?
Thank you for your reply, Wordreader (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: in the 50s wheat was crossed with a japanese crabgrass. The resultant plant was shorter and produced higher yeilds with nitrogen supplimentation without falling over. 2600:1006:B05C:D63F:1C17:288:6A30:1C22 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query...
Talk:Murder by Numbers

message: I think that unless someone involved with the movie directly says that they pulled from a specific murder as inspiration there shouldn't be any crimes in the header of the article. It's only hypothetical and is based upon the opinion of the page's editor. While there are some similiarities between those things, there are countless other cases that could be considered similar. Unless the writer/director/actor/janitor or someone else involved in the movie wants to make a definate statement we cannot include those in the article. We cannot make generalized statments based on someone's theory. I'm removing it from the header of the article. If someone wants to add it they need to either find proof or give a REALLY good reason as to why it should be included. The only way those could otherwise be included is if someone were to tack it on as a sub-category. (Even then they really should have references.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the Leopold and Loeb comparison will remain as that has a reference to confirm it's validity. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the hypothetical comparisons

message: Needs completely re-done. Any takers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsharkymd (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:Berimbau

message: Please be aware the different people have different names for the same technique (and different techniques for the same name) - just because some technique differs from what you call the technique does not mean it's an error here. 
What to do about this I don't know, other than to warn people that names differ. Andrew 22:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Can someone please fix the very first .jpg which is appearing as text rather than a photo, right at beginning of article? I don't know how. Mona-Lynn 04:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. It's actually the first '.' that was misplaced leaving: "xxv.v.v." The basic rhythm isn't syncopated, every hit coming on the beat. Focomoso 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was and am willing to add the phonetic pronunciation if someone wouldn't mind giving me the pronunciation. Zer0Nin3r (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The berimbau is similar to the bobre, bobora, rindirindi of central Africa and mascareigne islanders...none of them are stated here!Domsta333 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Kinjite

message: Is biting forbidden?  I would expect it to be banned, since it is normally in the same category as eye gouging and "below the belt" attacks, which are banned in sumo wrestling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.67.97 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biting 

message: I think the list in the article is not complete.  I'm pretty sure that sumo wrestlers are not allowed to spit at each other (spitting in the opponent's face could be used to disorient him if it were allowed), and not allowed to grab the loose knot of the mawashi if it comes un-knotted-- you're only allowed to grab the part of the mawashi which actually encircles your opponent's waist.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sumo no-nos 

message: This is not an actual Kinjite but more of a minor breach of etiquette: after you push your opponent out of the ring, you're supposed to stop, not push him again to make him go flying off the platform into the front row of the audience.  The great Yokozuna Hakuho often does this, and has been reprimanded, and publicly apologized for it.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another no-no
Talk:McKenzie River dory

message: Hi all, have added some new info based on research we are doing on McKenzie River type watercraft being introduced to the Colorado River in the southwestern United States (Fulmer's MOJA, San Juan 1947). As for Grand Canyon, the first McKenzie type craft was Fulmer's GEM in 1955, and the first Rogue River craft was PT Reilly's SUSIE TOO and Martin Litton's PORTOLA, both on Reilly's self guided 1962 river trip. tomhazel@grand-canyon.az.us 11-2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRFWTommartin (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new info added 11-2009 

message: Hi all, I have added some references from Fletcher. One of these days when I get the book on Fulmer written, there will be more references on this page. So much to do, and so little time! Yours, Tom  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRFWTommartin (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  references added 12-2009 

message: This source covers some of the boat's history. It credits Veltie Pruitt with building one of the early functiona boats of this design and Pat Barnes with bringing them to Montana. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I believe that this article should be merged with Drift_boat.  The content is 99% the same and from my (admittedly layman's) perspective the McKenzie River dory is simply one local version of the common drift boat.  If there are enough distinguishing features and history to really set the McKenzie River dory apart, it would probably be sufficient to have a section devoted to it (and any other significant variations).
Thanks!
T.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.23.141 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Sorry to be so late. Here it is in 2014 and I am finally adding those citations as requested and I promised to do back in 12-2009! Might as well add a photo!RRFWTommartin (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References Updated 12-2014
Talk:Restoring the Lost Constitution

message: I personally agree with most of the content of this article, but I'm not very comfortable with how it's being presented.  Presenting a single side like this without a prominent note (like, say, a box) that the content represents the author's opinion rather than the prevailing one just seems off for Wikipedia. —Brent Dax 04:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've removed the lengthier sections because to be quite frank, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, the sections are more of a personal review of the book than an actual encyclopedic and neutral look at the book. If someone who can re-write them more neutrally can go over them, I have no problem with the synopsis being extended, but the sections I removed were just not encyclopedic. Despite how closely they took from the book, those sections were more one person's original research and review of the book than an actual synopsis. I did, however, find several meaty reviews to create a criticism section.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've added an infobox, and intend to chew through this article with the aim of aligning it with the Wikiprojects Books non-fiction article template. This should take care of the POV complaint, as well as rendering it an article about the book, rather than simply a summary of the book. Comments? FusionKnight (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Infobox 

message: The concepts presented in this book have received criticism in a fairly active debate during the pass half decade—yet there is no criticism section in the article.  We need to find some sources and get the article to fairly represent the other sides of the debate to balance the article.  N2e (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism
Talk:Long Island, Maine

message: Would it be improper to expand this article to talk about the ongoing development of the Long Island Rec Department?  Likewise, could we discuss the destruction of the historic Spar Restaurant and its monstrous replacement?  
Additionally - it would be useful to list all businesses that operate in the town since it's not that many, even out-of-home businesses, so that there is a readily available public record. 207.237.245.171 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Article 
Talk:John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute

message: While comprehensive, this seems unduly biased against Bute.  Calling John Wilkes a "journalist" is a bit of an overstatement, as the North Briton was little more than an organ for anti-Scottish sentiment.  One issue actually landed him in jail for slander.  
Was Bute even in the Lords during his Premiership? I always thought he was a Scottish peer and at this stage was not a representative. Timrollpickering 00:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography it was his wife who had that title, but Bute was elected a representative peer in 1761 (and had previously been one from 1737 until 1741). This was, however, a month after he was appointed Secretary of State for the Northern Department. Timrollpickering 20:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is not disputed that Bute's successor, Grenville, took office as PM on 16 April 1763.
But the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica gives Bute's date of resignation as 8 April 1763.   And a calculation from the dates and figures provided by 10 Downing Street (Total time as PM: 317 days) also indicates he resigned office 8 April.  And Marjie Bloy agrees on 8 April 1763.
I'm about to edit the dates in office.  If anyone reverts, please provide credible references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.72.45 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resigned 8 April 1763 

message: Could include some of the caricatures, especially the one which shows him as a giant boot (doesn't seem to currently be on Wikimedia Commons, unfortunately)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue, is that you could read through the article without understanding that he was one of the most hated men in England during some years. AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: caricatures

message: This article might say something about Bute's activity encouraging and laying out the garden at Kew for Augusta, which ultimately became the Royal Botanic Garden Kew? It's generally considered an important achivement in the history of botany and gardens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.218.42 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kew

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :The Earl of Bute. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#The Earl of Bute until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Earl of Bute" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I removed statements that Bute was a Tory from the article. The statement that he was a Tory is in contradiction to the article at Tories (British political party)#Friends of Mr Pitt (and wasn't cited). Historylikeyou (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Tory?
Talk:Flying banana

message: More context is available at the redirected location.  Joyous 00:53, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Flying banana was also the trading name of a bus operator in the area around Great Yarmouth, United Kingdom
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/great-yarmouth-flying-banana-bus-1-5718799
http://eastnorfolkbus.blogspot.com/2015/04/tbt-flying-banana-buses.html
82.69.45.180 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Talk:List of United States Presidents who served more than one term

message: Feel free to change/modify/revert my edits, but my interpretation of the title of the article means "served two or more COMPLETE terms" and not "served IN two or more terms."  So, I removed George W. Bush and explained why he's not included.  Strictly speaking, the article should be named "...served more than one term" to include George W. Bush.  I added Grover Cleveland because he served two terms!  The title doesn't say "consecutive."  Hopefully those edits make sense. --Doctorcherokee 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It seems to me that the number of terms served is less important then the number of terms a president was elected to serve.  This more accurately reflects the purpose of describing a president as being "two-term" or "one-term" -- that the president had succeeded in obtaining the support and will of the people.  Lincoln didn't serve two terms, but he was elected to a second term and I think that's what is more important.  Conversely, Truman and Lyndon Johnson served the majority of two terms, but were both elected to only one.  I do not think that they belong on this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.204.217.73 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Two Term" President
Talk:National Heritage Area

message: based on NPS contact list (Aug. 15, 2009).  Cleanup required.  I will try to get to it.
BradK (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas Listed are not accurate 

message: Something is wrong here:
#The External Links section points to the National Park Service's National Heritage Areas website
#This provides a Microsoft Word file (of all things) which states that there are 49 such entities. This is reflected in the article. (I would think it safe to assume that nps.gov keeps such material updated.)
#But the Blackstone Valley#Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is not on the list.
#But the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a National Heritage Area, I'm pretty sure. And has been for some time.
#And the Blackstone Valley article sure seems to think so. It states "The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor  is a National Heritage Corridor...", with the link pointing to this article.
So either the National Park Service's list at nps.org is incorrect, or I and the the Blackstone Valley article are wrong. Although it would seem odd for such a major entity as the NPS to publish incorrect information, maybe they just dropped the ball. The fact that the list is in Word format is odd. Maybe that's not the only odd thing about the doc.
I have assumed this to be the case and consequently added Blackstone Valley#Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor to list. This raises (or, as the moderns like to (incorrectly) say, "begs") the question, what other omissions are in this article.
FWIW, the article now contradicts itself: it still states that there are 49 National Heritage Areas, but there are now 50 entries in the list. Until a thorough review is made, I'm not sure how to resolve this. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't easily find any definitive, official list of these places. --doncram (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

text: A "printable list of all 49 Heritage Areas" is available in Word document format from link here as file "contact.DOC".  That seems to be an official list, with official names of the areas, similar to National Park Service documents listing their National Historic Landmarks (NHLs).  Like the list for NHLs, this could be incomplete if there have been subsequent changes.  The current version there is dated November 2010 however, so it should be pretty current.  My quick count confirms 49 items in it.  So it seems the article should be revised to list just these 49.  The "John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor" is one of several "corridor" ones included in the list.  So if there are currently 50 in the wikipedia article, it is some other one that is not a National Heritage Area. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  something is fishy 

message: The president signed S.47 which designated some new National Heritage Areas, added them to the list. Several don't have existing articles yet. Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Heritage Areas added