lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ad feminam

message: This article only discusses the term as an error. Words such as this (as with womyn/wymyn and herstory) were generally coined with specific purpose to make a specific point, which is entirely missing from this article. These neologisms are not "errors," whether in Latin or English.  The originators of "herstory" for example (Mary Daly?) did not believe that "history" is related to the masculine pronoun. It is a play on words to make a point: that history as commonly taught has a masculine bias. 
Seems to me that efforts to characterize these arguments has "errors" rooted in lack of English/Latin knowledge might be a very good example of what "ad feminam" was coined to describe. Stuart Strahl (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality in question

message: Could the origin of this mistake be because the common translation of ad hominem is usually "against the man", whereas if you wished to be gender neutral you should probably translate it as "against the person"?  Seajay (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the mistake? 

message: Feminazis fail at English. "Ad feminam", "womyn", "herstory"? What's next, "fimail"‽ 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, taking political correctness to the level where people are changing problems which aren't there is just moronic (history, which is of course not etymologically related to the pronoun "he" or "his"). Ad feminam is another blatant display of lack of linguistic knowledge. Does this even deserve an entry?! --BiT (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, if we were to institute an intelligence requirement for the subjects of our articles, it would devastate our coverage of wars. --Kizor 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This would be failing at Latin, actually. Kairos (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: So this is the level of understanding we come to expect from Wikipedia participants? To label ideas and approaches (for instance, approaches that try to create new meaning and change a language that is purported to be value-neutral even though it is deeply implicated in power relations) they have no clue about as "X-nazi"? To deploy dummy stereotypes with no care for critical analysis? And to agree with this empty thinking style? 71.179.220.201 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I respect an intelligent, independent and self-sufficient woman, but it is this sort of fringe garbage that makes no one take feminism as a whole seriously. Is this even commonly used????? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow.

message: This topic needs more examples of so-called "ad feminam" arguments beyond "is it your time of the month?". I'm failing to see much use for this phrase beyond the hormone reference. Surely we already have a word for attempting to discredit an argument based on sex - sexism. If the "ad feminam" conccept is separate from this the difference needs to be more clearly explained, otherwise it seems more suited to Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. Kombucha (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples?
Talk:Appeal to motive

message: When is an appeal to motive a valid argument, can we have examples of both a correct and an incorrect appeal to motive?
How does one prove motive?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:90E:A200:B935:53EC:B5FA:423 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When fallacious vs not fallacious 

message: I'd like to suggest that the Ukraine example used in the article might no be ideal. It is obviously a reference to Trump, and while it may be accurate, there are surely other equally apt examples that do not inject politics into the equation. Again, I'm not questioning the accuracy of the statement, just suggesting we'd be better served by keeping politics out of articles that aren't political in nature.
2601:18F:4101:4830:2CCF:D30A:BD57:F5FA (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine example 

message: The first example of the fallacy, about ACME and advertising, says literally "they were *probably* biased". While the advertisement is surely not *proof* of bias, the posterior *probability* of bias is certainly increased, meaning the statement is not fallacious. Laurent Meesseman (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical association
Talk:Effort heuristic

message: This is not to say a student conciously figures this out. It comes from a repeated series of events at each grade level when the student sunconciously creates a graphical correlation between how hard they worked on an assignment/project/test and what was the resulting grade outcome.[1]
1. ^ Doug Johnson - Former alcoholic and current lazy genius all wrapped into one
:I'm inclined to suspect the above text, particularly the citation.  The mis-spelled words don't help any User:Pedant (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspect text
Talk:Manouri

message: Hello dear Wikimembers! I would like to inform you that more info has been added on the Greek article. If someone would like to expand the present article translating it into English it would be great. The Greek article is no more a stub and I think translation would offer the same possibility to the English. --Arismanouras (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Green Gables (Prince Edward Island)

message: Is there any particular reason the talk page consists entirely of what appears to be an earlier version of the article? Awien (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly didn't belong here, so I deleted that content today.  PKT(alk) 15:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? Why? 
Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 14

message: The very formulation "what is it about" betrays its own unencyclopedic bias. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on the 'What is it about?' sections 

message: On 2005-10-13 an editor made a suggestion about the overall structure of the article see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 1. The proposal came to nothing.
On 2007-01-19 an editor made suggestions about the the overall structure of the article, proposing an overarching schema which might have left several lively areas of discussion without a home: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 6. The proposals did not gain consensus: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 7. But on 2007-08-14 remarkably similar-sounding proposals re-surfaced.
If a desire exists to re-litigate certain points, perhaps we could highlight such points, taking into account the water that has flowed under the bridge and the overall thrust of discussions in the Wikipedia community. My take: grandiose overviews may sound fine, but they can impose a limiting structure, ill-suited to the fluidity of our multi-editor body, Specific lists and formulations can distort the debates and distract us from directly and collectively improving the text of the article, which can grow and multiply organically outside any straightjacket.
-- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chimaera of an overall structure
Talk:Ruthven, Ontario

message: Ruthven has not only homed one noted athlete (Meghan Agosta)
Acclaimed tumbler Zane Bezesky, who has currently trained along side internationally famed tumbler Troy Maillis: www.jonesbahamas.com/txt.php?a=13785
See the Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCEvJQ0hgk
Presently abiding in Gainsville, Flordia, USA. He lived in Ruthven, Ontario, & is related to the owner of the Derkach Farms.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Ruthven Has Not Only One Noted Athlete that was Homed there''' 

message: Ruthven Also Has:
Has at least 1 Public school. Many tree nurseries, in fact, one nursery is named Ruthven nursery, many orchards (Esp., apples), some vineyards, greenhouses, & a Kingdom Hall. Ruthven in general is noted for being a picturesque place well landscaped, & beautiful, & it smells better then most of Leamington, & the Wheatley, it is beautiful ESP for a flat area around it, it has some hills, & has nice view of the lake.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Ruthven Also Has:'''

message: Ruthven school has face some hardships, but is still going.
The Ruthven public school was defaced a while ago, I didn't see anything in the local papers, I saw it digustingly defaced, thank goodess it was fixed & repaired. This was before someone stole a statue of an angel there, at the school, which was there for a memorial of a recently deceased student.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The Ruthven Public School:'''
Talk:Everson Griffen

message: The URL for the player stats is incorrect. NFL.com changed all the URLs to the player profiles. Workingonwikis (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Yes, that is why the article was in , along with 14,000 other articles. I fixed this one.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2020
Talk:Entoprocta

message: This article is about a phylum, not a mere order. Therefore, we should list the classes of the phylum, instead of listing the mere families in whatever order of whatever class of the phylum they happen to be. Even if all classes in the phylum except one are long extinct and fossilized, we should list the fossilized taxa. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.140.237 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all ITIS gives. --Philcha (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the ranks of listed subdivisions

message: "Entoprocta" and "Ectoprocta" (alternative name of "Bryozoa") are confusing to non-zoologists, who need some help - I found them confusing, and the English translation "anus inside" for "Entoprocta" and the counterpart "anus inside" for "Entoprocta" are the best I can think out. --Philcha (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Entoprocta and "anus inside"

message: Could anyone clarify? Also there is still a lot to be done here...
Are there any other photos avail .of member of this phyla?
Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No other photos on Commons. This phylum is not monotypic. Danger (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FIST (Free Image Search Tool) got me nothing useful. --Philcha (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Much to expand on
Talk:Telescoping effect

message: Is this the same thing as when people say "Feels like we just met yesterday," or, conversely, "I feel like I took that test forever ago..."? Thanks,--Uhjoebilly (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feels like yesterday...? 

message: I've filed a nomination for Wikipedia:Did you know at Template:Did you know nominations. Once it goes through, it'll appear on the front page in the "Did You Know" section. You can follow it below. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: Due to the lack of secondary sources in the article (independently of whether they are out there or not) I do not feel that I can talk much about the content itself. However I will try to make some comments on how to improve the article.
As first idea: See WP:lead, where it is explained how the lead of an article should be. In summary: it should summarize the ideas of the article. It should also be short (specially for a short article like this one, and not technical.
Right now it does not fulfill any of those characteristics.
*You could  (should) move any content that is not present in the body of the article to existing or new sections: Examples of possible new sections to move content from lead: description, history, famous examples.
*You could then summarize the article in the lead in a non technical manner including some info from each section.
I paste here some further comments on format that I made at the deep dyslexia article; in which some of your class-mates are working, and that also apply here (Examples are from their article, but as I say, similar mistakes appear also in your article).
*Capital letters: I do not think that the models are names by themselves. I do not think they merit the use of title case. In text I would change them to lower case (and unbolded as proposed above): e.g. I would change The Morton and Patterson (Dual Route) Model is based upon the to The Morton and Patterson (dual route) model is based upon the. Similarly titles should be changed to sentence case (e.g:Dual Route Model would be Dual route model).
*I would also increase the number of technical or important (for the article) terms linked from this article.
*Another recommendation at this moment is that you try to increase the numbers of articles linking to this one (In a sensible way: the idea is not to do inside wiki spamming :-). In which articles would make sense to have an in-text link to this article? In which others makes lots of sense to include this article in the see also section? If you are not sure on how to do it you can say here possible related articles and we can take a look at them and how to do it.
Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments for improvement
Talk:Angell Park Speedway

message: Sun Prairie Firemans Park in the Prairie, as I write this, is an unreferenced stub. I think that since the park is connected, at least to some degree, to the Speedway, it would be appropriate to combine the two articles. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 
Talk:Xinh Mun people

message: Are they also called Puộc or Pụa? Badagnani 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate names
Talk:A maiore ad minus

message: A quick Google search shows that this expression is sometimes spelled a maiori ad minus, e.g., in the Wikipedia article Talmudical Hermeneutics (and probably in the Jewish Encyclopedia article from which it was copied). Wheelock's Latin (6th ed, p. 172) says that comparative adjectives, unlike other adjectives in the i-stem third declension, do not end in -i in the ablative singular. Was maiori a mistake, or had it become standard by the time the expression was commonly used in philosophical discussions? Should we mention the alternate spelling here, quietly redirect it to this article, or leave things as they are? This same question also applies to the article A minore ad maius. Peter Chastain (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some googling and it appears that a maiori could be a mistake from Medieval Latin that occasionally gets repeated. According to this page, the medievals often mistakenly used the dative when the ablative was called for, and some of these expressions have persisted, like a priori and a posteriori. I'm guessing that this is also how a fortiori originated. I don't really know, though, and I'd love to see a more authoritative source. I've been exploring the literature surrounding a fortiori recently, and I get the impression that a maiore either didn't get corrupted by the medievals or got restored afterward. Cicero wrote in §23 of Topica, "Quod in re maiore valet valeat in minore." That's not quite a maiore, but it's definitely an ablative singular and it's about the topic of the present article. So, I think a maiore is the way to go. But definitely yes, if we can find an authoritative source for it, we should include a note about the medieval grammatical confusion and its aftermath. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  maiore - maiori
Talk:Eo ipso

message: Is "eo ipse dixit dominus domino" a common phase?
—DIV (128.250.204.118 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In longer phrases 

message: Is "eo ipse" just another grammatical form?
—DIV (128.250.204.118 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms 

message: The Kierkegaard quote does not seem to provide any clarity to use of the term "eo ipso".
In fact, the Danish specifies a female artist, which is directly relevant to the reviewer being "gallant". If the reviewer acknowledges her (the artist) as an artist, then - eo ipso - he should restrict himself to addressing her artistry. If he instead seeks, gallantly, to speak e.g. of her sustained beauty, then he is addressing her as e.g. a woman, perhaps a desirable one - which is actually to insult her as an artist, since he is not addressing her as an artist at all.
Further, since she is someone who has actually chosen to live her life in expression of a particular ideal (an artist), if he has not made such an existential choice, but is e.g. only a bumbling mish-mash, perhaps a 'gentleman-reviewer', then his error is double - misunderstanding her, as a result of misunderstanding himself. While she has chosen to be something definite, he expresses only that he has not understood even what it is to choose.
Talk of Ideals requires qualitative clarifications, and the term 'eo ipso' is useful in concentrating the mind on the differences, the distinctions.
A quotation of this sort, without clarification, serves only to discredit the source and genre.
WigglyWoggly (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance
Talk:S. T. Dupont

message: Dupont is a lesser known but highly collectible French pen and lighter manufacturer.  The page is under construction and I am hoping that other wikipedians will help me fill in the historical and collectible significance.  - BMcCJ 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At issue is whether or not the company has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in third-party sources.  Looking at the French Wikipedia link below, there is only one reference, which is the company's own website.  Do you have any links to places where the company or its products are discussed or reviewed by a third party (i.e. someone unconnected to the subject) such as a newspaper, magazine, or trade journal?  Such referenced would clearly establish notability.  That the article exists at French Wikipedia means little, since they may or may not have inclusion criteria different from the English Wikipedia; also it may be a deletable article in French as well, but no one has gotten to it yet.  Please provide links or print references to establish notability, and the article will probably be kept.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recently added references, especially the Gizmodo article, are a good start.  More articles like that Gizmodo article will only help this out.  This article now appears to be about a notable company.  I have removed the db tag I placed.  Keep working on this!  Good luck.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please see: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ST_Dupont
for the French entry for ST Dupont... Wikipedia needs a version in English!
- BMcCJ 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any translators available?
Talk:Arguments for eternity

message: A vacuum is a singularity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.45.212 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

message: I would suggest that the final section of the final sentence of the article, "However, the question still remains that this would mean that either god a) always existed, or b) was created, which effectively comes back to square 1: what created god?" be removed as completley misses the point of God. If God was created, that suggests that there is something more powerful than God, and so God couldn't be God if there was something more powerful than him. Gorillazx1 (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence 

message: It is the same topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eternity of the world]] 

message: I think it is difficult to apprehend how each of the arguments relate to eternity. Some of them seem to be advocating more for the existence of a God rather than the existence of an eternity. Are these arguments set here to prove that because eternity exists, therefore God must exist? Again, it is all rather pieced together, not very cohesive. Sirwigwam (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost in arguments for what I don't know
Talk:Distinction without a difference

message: Recommend protecting this page because it is being brigaded by users of the Reddit subreddit The_Donald (see: www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/8m2opm/wikipedia_used_an_example_of_kellyanne_conway/ )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.9 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we disallow any overtly political content until this has blown over. Porphyro (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed the Kellyanne Conway example twice; while I would tend to agree that that's a correct example, I don't think it is appropriate for inclusion. The source details only that she said it; it does not support an interpretation that she was using it as a "distinction without a difference" from "lying", and so using it as an example seems a little like OR. It is arguable that she meant "things that we consider facts, which we have an alternative source for than you seem to". In any case, I would suggest that the page avoid overtly political examples from the very recent past, but I am open to discussing it further. Porphyro (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Conway example isn't strong.  You have to know the political context of the post-truth administration she was the mouthpiece for, to see that she was making a new term for "lies".  Without that, the words alone can be taken more innocently as you indicate, conveying an actual difference. Correctrix (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

message: this page has some good examples. 
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Distinction-Without-a-Difference
i'm not sure if its acceptable to use them here though. Gjxj (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. After reading the example on this page, i have no idea what it means 2600:1006:B32D:ACD4:81A9:28AB:3EC:55C2 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  need better examples..
Talk:Ridge

message: Whats a Ridge? I have reson to believe that it its also a name, because my friend Ridge likes halo and school. Deathtopplintheir40s 01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Ridge is also a person by the name of Ridge, if a ridge is a person then a ridge cant be a mountain hill or whatever! Eat this you person, Ridge just loves Noodles! --Metal to the Max! 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition? 

message: Can be of much smaller dimensions. For instance a tectonic compressional bend of moderate extent and similar geomorphological forms. Article must accommodate all. Arminden (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller forms than mountain ridges 

message: They need to be ordered. There is no systematic organisation of the listed types by logical criteria: by genesis (volcanic & magmatic, tectonic & seismic, ice, whatever), by topography...
And are these really THE MAIN TYPES?? I wonder. Looks like quite a random list. "Reef" as main form? And the "reef" is the only sourced one in the entire list. Arminden (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types; systematic, sourced list needed