lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Superconductivity

message: The lead sentence says
:"Superconductivity is a set of physical properties observed in certain materials where electrical resistance vanishes and magnetic flux fields are expelled from the material."
The Elementary properties section describes it as a "thermodynamic phase" so I'm wondering if this should be in the introduction.  Or, since Type I and II are different phases, maybe it should be described as "Superconductivity is a class of thermodynamic phases observed in certain materials in which electrical resistance vanishes and magnetic flux fields are expelled from the material"  Also should the word "cryogenic" be in the lead paragraph, to indicate for general readers that existing superconductors require cryogenic temperatures?  I'm not a physicist so I'm just bringing this up for discussion. --ChetvornoTALK 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it simple. Class, thermodynamics, phases... is too much even for university-educated people. And let's wait about this 'cryogenic' part a little, though it should be mentioned that most tech. important uses require low temps. And oh! - what are "magnetic flux fields" now?? 68.199.122.141 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Yeah, "flux fields" LOL.  Gotta be one or the other. --ChetvornoTALK 01:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the introduction describe it as a 'phase'?
Talk:Great Lakes

message: It'd be nice to see a location map. The satellite and other maps, as zoomed in as they are, don't reflect it's location within the US. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location map 

message: The vertical scale doesn’t match up with the graphic, (eg lake Michigan’s maximum depth of 925ft doesn’t match with the scale on the left).
Also, the Lake Ontario block in that graphic is mis-sized vertically compared to the others. 
Is a corrected graphic available? 72.73.26.250 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth / volume graphic 

message: Why does this article, like articles of all the Great Lakes, use imperial / US customary units first, despite that Great Lakes are also in Canada, a country that uses metric units?
--40bus (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of the five Great Lakes, four are partly in Canada and partly in the United States.  The fifth is entirely in the United States.  I don't say that's the reason, because I don't know.  But there it is.  And if the articles started using metric first, to begin with, one could then ask, "Why does this article ... [you can fill in the rest]," and secondly, the article on Lake Michigan would arguably need to be different. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units
Talk:Peter Kropotkin

message: Here's the exact quote from the source:
 The anarchist Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921), following Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76), the arch opponent of Marx in the First International, considered Marxism, and its Leninist variant in particular, a centralizing authoritarian ideology. In Communism and Anarchy, Kropotkin argued that State communism was a contradiction in terms as: “... without freedom the whole structure of co-operation would collapse” (Kropotkin cited in Morgan, 2003: 129)
(attn @Peaceray) -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is misleading. Communism and Anarchy was written in 1901, so it could not react to Marxism–Leninism directly. His attitude after the October Revolution (source) was more complex and pragmatic: While he re-affirmed his principles, he expressed support of the Revolution, and great respect for Lenin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxim-Leninism
Talk:Quedlinburg

message: It is questionable that Quedlinburg was anything other than a territory. Yes, the last Abessess was a Princess of the Holy Roman Empire, but some counts also obtained this title and it did not change the status of their territory. I have never seen any evidence or proof or factual history showing it was a territory. The 1815 treaty suggests, Quedlinburg was subsumed under the principality of Halberstadt, not becoming a part of a principality of Quedlinburg.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.19.194 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: *994 as a market established Quedlinburg was in the 10.-12. cent. the prefered place for the german kinks to celebrat eastern
*With 1200 half-timbred buildings it's one of the tallest monument sites in Germany.
ssepp(talk) 16:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed from article because of unclear language

message: Is there any merit to mentioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quacks_of_Quedlinburg on this page? If so, how and where? -Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quacks?
Talk:Cosine

message: See the previous item on this discussion page for why this should remain redirected to trigonometric functions. To have a separate article on "cosine", there would have to be some insight in it that cannot be fit into the latter article; none is present here. And this version is poorly written: using "trigonometry" twice in the lead sentence in this way is redundant; "The definition of the cosine is as follows: Cosine=adjacent leg/hypotenuse." is way too vague, since it hasn't even been mentioned that a right triangle is being referred to; "It is abbreviated as cos θ" is inadequate because θ has not been previously mentioned or defined; "For instance, the cosine of a triangle with a hypotenuse measuring 5 feet and an adjacent leg measuring 4 feet, the cosine is 5/4=1.25." is not even a grammatical sentence; "As you can see,...." is no good because second person references are to be avoided in an encyclopedia.
Please do not replace the redirect again until you first obtain a consensus to do so.  Duoduoduo (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring redirect
Talk:Jenin

message: I mean no disrespect but I do not believe that there has been international recognition (yet) in the UN or any other body of a "State of Palestine".  Please clarify why this nomenclature is used?  thanks. Truthfortruth'ssake (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked your query.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification... 

message: this article states that Palestine is a state. This is not a true fact. 73.107.190.184 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: State of Palestine addresses the matter sufficiently; "state" is correct. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not correct. The leaders of Palestine have refused to be a official state as long as Israel exists. They insist only on borders "from the river to the Sea". 2600:1700:2000:63F0:B9B0:5299:C111:6A62 (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023 

message: Why is this listed as "State of Palestine"? It is not recognized by the UN as a full State. What is the criteria for an area being called a State? 2601:1C2:100:D520:31CB:CA65:F13A:546E (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:Iron

message: Putting cost of the compounds per 100g will be useful for knowing it's worth and whether it's needed for a chemistry lab. There are variety of reagents ranging from commercial to L.R.. So I'm expecting Wikipedia team to put it asking with other properties of chemicals. Shivaramsenthil (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemicals and chemistry 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sharleen Lawrence (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth
Talk:Parliament of the United Kingdom

message: Please update this article to include the single seat for the Reclaim party held by Andrew Bridgen 82.37.83.242 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Bridgen and the Reclaim Party 

message: Yes i agree they should update it GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement  

message: The section on broadcast media is quite light on detail.  I recall that there was a lot of resistance initially to the proceedings of the Commons being broadcast at all.  At first broadcasting was only on radio, with TV cameras added later.  Can such information be added to the article, please? --Viennese Waltz 11:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of broadcasts
Talk:Integer sequence

message: I think this material should be merged with sequence; integer sequences should be reserved for
sequences whose terms are integers. --AxelBoldt
:Integer sequences ARE sequences whose terms are integers. (see the first line) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 May 2005‎
Is it really necessary to include a long list of named sequences here, when we have a perfectly good category page with essentially the same information? (And btw, what is the approved method for creating internal links to category pages?) —David Eppstein 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with sequence?

message: To me (a non-mathematician), the definitions of definable sequences leaves the term "statement" underdefined, so I would like to understand what a statement is, i..e. is it a finite algorithm definition, must it terminate after a finite number of steps, etc. 198.60.22.24 12:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to the Definition of a Statement?

message: Here is a specific sentence-by-sentence explanation of why the previous version of the article isn't accurate.
:The sets of computable integer sequences and of definable integer sequences are both countable, with the computable sequences a proper subset of the definable sequences (in other words, some sequences are definable but not computable). 
:: ZFC cannot prove that the set of definable integer sequences is countable. In some models of ZFC, every integer sequence is definable. But, more importantly, ZFC cannot even express the sentence "every integer sequence is definable"
:The set of all integer sequences is uncountable (with cardinality equal to that of the continuum); 
:: This is provable in ZFC
:thus, almost all integer sequences are uncomputable and cannot be defined.
::The uncomputable claim is provable in ZFC, but not the claim about sequences that cannot be defined
:However, there exist non-standard set theories or non-standard underlying logics, where every integer sequence is definable (for example, if all sets are countable).
:: ZFC proves that "the set of all integer sequences is uncountable", but it is still the case that ZFC cannot prove that the set of definable sequences is countable, because there is no formula of ZFC which holds for exactly the definable sequences. Again, ZFC cannot even express the sentence "every integer sequence is definable".  This is not related to nonstandard set theories or to nonclassical logics, it is just a property of ordinary ZFC.
:— Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line by line explanation
Talk:Hyperreal number

message: in the subsection on the "intuitive approach", the following claim is made: "the true infinitesimals are the classes of sequences that contain a sequence converging to zero."  This is an oversimplification that will not always be true.  Depending on foundational assumptions, certain infinitesimal classes may not be representable by sequences tending to zero. Tkuvho (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  oversimplification 

message: The section headed "Properties of infinitesimals and infinite numbers" does not mention any properties of infinite numbers. Shame, because that's what I wanted to know about. Tesspub (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Properties of infinite numbers missing.  

message: This is incorrect; using Keisler's treatment  \mathrm{d}x  and  \mathrm{d}y  are infinitesimal increments along the tangent line while  \Delta x  and  \Delta y  are infinitesimal increments along the curve. So  y'(x) = \frac{\mathrm{d}y }{\mathrm{d}x} = \mathrm{st} \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} . 58.169.240.244 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The derivative of a function ''y''(''x'') is defined not as ''dy/dx'' but as the standard part of ''dy/dx''" 

message: This sentence "The transfer principle, however, doesn't mean that R and *R have identical behavior" is misleading.  R and *R do have identical behavior as long as you don't write down statements that involve both standard and non-standard numbers.  In the example, \omega is a non-standard real whereas the dots ... are interpreted in the standard way (with the set of standard integers) (in other words, with a set that is undefinable in *R).  Mixing standard with non-standard is really the only way that "non-identical" behavior can occur.  If you stick with "all standard" or "all non-standard" then the behavior is identical.   MvH (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's if you restrict yourself to first-order logic.  The models don't have all the same properties in higher-order logic.  I'm not sure whether "behavior" is the right word to explain this; maybe you can offer an improvement? --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no test that could distinguish (N, R) from (*N, *R). Everything proved for (N, R) holds for (*N, *R) and vice versa. Only if you compare (N, R) with say (N, *R) will there be different properties. Higher-order logic hides, but doesn't solve, the issue by moving it to first order set theory.  The point is, the behavior is identical, as long as whenever you replace R by *R you also replace N by *N,  Z by *Z,  Q by *Q etc. MvH (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  identical behavior.
Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem

message: This section 2.5 is only reported by the NY Times and Wiles has had no comment on it. Saying there was renewed interest from serious mathematicians due to Vaughn seems inconsistent with the sections immediately above where there is clearly work being performed on it all through the centuries including just before Vaughn's money became involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.196.159 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewed interest from serious mathematicians 

message: There is a short section in the article beginning with While Harvey Friedman's grand conjecture implies ... It strikes me as irrelevant, and honestly, rather stupid. It contrasts with the rest of the article which is so well written and sourced. I propose to delete the section. Can I get some support from mathematicians? --Herbmuell (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added in 2010 by R.e.b. (Special:Diff/373497345), whose taste in mathematical interestingness I tend to trust more than those of most other editors, even the ones who frequently edit mathematics articles here. The issue of whether FLT has an elementary proof is still as far as I know unresolved and directly relevant to the question of whether Fermat himself could have had a proof (the previous sentence in the article). See also McLarty 2010 (), Grosholz 2017 (), and McLarty 2020 () on exactly this issue, and especially the final section "The Wide-Open Question" of McLarty 2020.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, David, thanks for your reply. There is no information about R.e.b. on his user page, contrary to your page. This grand conjecture is very broad, it's not in formal mathematical language, so it's impossible to prove or disprove. It smacks of talk of mathematicians over a cup of coffee. But no problem, we disagree on this, and you have done much more reading than I, so we let the section stand as it is. --Herbmuell (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the program of reverse mathematics makes this quite a precise and formal conjecture, not vague. Unfortunately Wikipedia rules prevent me from saying more about why I trust R.e.b.'s judgement on this sort of thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about Harvey Friedman's grand conjecture 
Talk:Colorado

message: This article is assessed as B-class. Part of the criteria is:  There are several unsourced sub-sections that surely should be referenced since they go beyond "the sky is blue".  Otr500 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore. Wow (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: The state of Colorado is not named for the Colorado River. While this seems like a simple enough explanation of the state's name–similar region, same meaning, same people doing the naming, etc.–the origins of the state's name are not usually described in modern reliable sources beyond that it is the Spanish word for "red" and "ruddy" (see Britannica and Colorado Encyclopedia). Two years ago, I asked History Colorado this question in order to put the matter to bed. Most of the 26 August 2021 response from Sam Bock, then a public historian and exhibit developer at History Colorado, is provided below (I've removed the polite greeting and send off from the email):
I hope we can  put this persistent (and oft-repeated) misconception to bed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to IP  who corrected the incorrect material added during these revisions. Please discuss on talk and provide sourcing that substantiates claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorado River and the state's name
Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

message: In the first paragraph of the "Section 3" section, please change 'or given "aid and comfort to 'or "given aid or comfort, to match the actual text of the section. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:85B2:69:8BBB:FE63 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: —Sirdog (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024
Talk:Multivariate normal distribution

message: Previously the PDF said covariance matrix Σ had to be positive-definite. I fixed it to PSD for covariance matrix. I would also say symmetric but the article on PSD includes symmetric as part of the definition so I'll use that definition. Wqwt (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I misunderstood - it needs to be invertible thus positive definite to write down the PDF in that form, otherwise it is like zero variance  Wqwt (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox PDF requirement on covariance matrix 

message: User 174.168.4.26 has recently added three references to an SSRN preprint. The preprint is based on a student's Honors thesis (see link in section 4.3 of the preprint). There's presumably nothing wrong with the preprint but it might be preferable to cite more authoritative sources. Eldacan 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More authoritative references? 

message: In the subsection titled "Bivariate case", the notation [XY]' is used twice. But that notation has not been previously defined and, in fact, is not used in the other sections of the article. Its meaning should be clarified. SometimesRPC 18:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation in Bivariate case 

message: The article's subsection "Bivariate case" states a formula for the limit of the major axis of isoline ellipses as |\rho|\rightarrow 1:
    y(x) = \sgn (\rho)\frac{\sigma_Y}{\sigma_X} (x - \mu _X) + \mu_Y.
  
and then provides a reference . However, the cited reference is just a formulation of the statement of the conditional expectation of the bivariate normal:
\operatorname{E}(X_1 \mid X_2=x_2) = \mu_1 + \rho \frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}(x_2 - \mu_2)
The reference discusses this within the context of estimation, which IMO complicates the statement unnecessarily. It seems more consistent to remove the reference and cite the Wikipedia article's own section.
 M hoehle (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula for the limit of the isoline ellipsis' major axis in the bivariate case
Talk:Left-wing politics

message: Pretty crazy that this is not a leftist statement. The idea that human flourshing is measured in "development" is the issue: "development" is itself a capitalistic idea, and not leftist. 
Describing leftism by the language of not-leftists is no good. Imagine describing why it's good to eat sugar from the perspetive of someone who hates sugar - that's just silly yeah? CrickedBack (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see our page at WP:NOTFORUM. You are stating personal views that are not supported by most credible published discussions of this issue. Please provide links to published mainstream sources that support your concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ""claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated." 

message: Change "Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in the French Estates General." to "Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in the National Assembly."
I checked and it comes from the seating of the National Assembly and not the Estates General. Source: https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate
Other Wikipedia articles contradict this one by correctly stating that it comes from the National Assembly and not the Estates General: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum TheHadiRahim (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . The source cited also mentioned the National Assembly, so not sure how this came about. ― novov (t c) 02:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "Estates General" to "National Assembly"
Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

message: There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks Slywriter (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undated Citation Needed tags 

message: PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity.
See: Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization Narraburra (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad paper, incorrect twin concordance, for example. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization