lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Convulsive therapy

message: External Link moved here as not currently working.
*The History of Shock Therapy in Psychiatry (This page is not opening)
:I have reintroduced the reference to the article's new site. Also, I removed the notice about merging with electroconvulsive therapy, because this one is a more general treatment of all kinds of shock therapy. Furthermore, due to its lenght and completeness, it is no longer a stub. --R.Sabbatini 12:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link not working 

message: Really what this article should be titled is conlusive therapy.--scuro 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your and NMG20's comments make sense to me.  All therapies listed on this page cause convulsions, and all don't use electric shocks.  I'll start working on this page. Chupper 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  title change for article 

message: This article claims that shock therapy is a treatment designed to induce a state of medical shock - I can't speak for all the treatments here, but this is certainly untrue where electroconvulsive therapy is concerned, where the therapeutic mechanism is believed to be the induction of a therapeutic clonic seizure. Effectively, this means that this "shock therapy" works by electric shock, as one would intuitively think.
Put simply, there is no way a seizure could cause medical shock, which is a state of acute tissue hypoxia, as in anaphylactic shock or hypovolaemic shock; even in the massively prolonged, uncontrolled seizures of status epilepticus, the mechanism of damage is build-up of neurotransmitter, not hypoxia. The brain's ability to autoregulate cerebral perfusion pressure is maintained except in severe haemodynamic compromise, and passing a current through the brain doesn't do anything to a patient's haemodynamic status.
Similarly, the descriptions in this article of "malarial fever therapy" don't deal with medical shock, "insulin shock therapy" specifies hypoglycaemia as its therapeutic mechanism, "metrazol shock therapy" and "pharmacological shock therapy" specify seizures. None of these have anything to do with shock in the medical sense of the word.
I'm therefore going to make clear that the mechanisms of these treatments are not fully understood, but have nothing to do with medical shock, and have requested citations where I think they're needed. Nmg20 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that motion. --scuro 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You have the patience of Job.--scuro 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References supporting this definition of shock therapy needed
Talk:List of English words with disputed usage

message: I think it merits noting in the entry for REFUTE that the more precise word to use when meaning "to deny" (other than deny...) would be REPUDIATE.
:'Rebut' is not, I think, a counter-refutation; I don't know where that comes from. I don't think there is any way of countering an authentic refutation. I understand 'rebut' as 'present an argument against', and 'refute' as 'prove to be wrong'. https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/rebut-refute/ So a refutation decisively wins an argument; a rebuttal is just another skirmish in the battle. I think 'repudiate' is somewhere between 'deny' and rebut' - I think I'd expect a repudiation to have some reason associated with it, while (whilst?) a denial might consist of nothing but the word 'no'. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage may vary; in debate-team circles and pro versus con writing (e.g. the quasi-famous League of Women Voters' San Francisco Voter Guide), the order is argument, refutation, rebuttal (then the other side's argument, and the first side's refutation, and the now-defending second side's rebuttal; or these can run back-and-forth, e.g. argument, counter-argument, refutation of first argument, refutation of second, rebuttal of first refutation, rebuttal of second).  A rebuttal in this sense is an attempt at counter-refutation and defense of the original argument, just as the earlier refutation is an attempt and not always successful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your remark. However googling 'refute rebut' turns up a page-full of results that all support the idea that a rebuttal is an argument against, and a refutation is a proof that an argument is wrong. So at least there should be a citation to support the view that refutation is no different from rebuttal, just in a different order; and it should be mentioned that this makes sense only in the context of debating-society jargon. And there should be some mention of what appears to be the more common view. I plan to make that change once I can find a good RS for the majority view; blogs and web-only dictionaries don't inspire me with confidence. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:SMcCandlish I am unable to locate the LWV San Francisco Voters Guide. Can you provide a link? Alternatively (you mentioned it for the sake of an example) can you provide another source to support the interpretation that refutation doesn't imply proof? Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words with Disputed (or Erroneous) Usage:  Refute 

message: This is irregular. 
The Manual of Style links here, yet this article appear to be an ordinary article, not a "metaarticle" directed at Wiki editors. 
Please clarify if the advice and recommendations given here apply to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Contested_vocabulary. CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style
Talk:Julius Fučík

message: In this article, do we need to add a separate section about the fictional ship, the MV Julius Fucik (which played an important role in the Soviet invasion of Iceland in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising)? The reason I ask is because, when I saw this article's name, I thought it was referring to the ship!
Gokul
There is also a composer with that name, Julius Fucik, lived from 1872 to 1916, who wrote the "Entry of the Gladiators" and the "Florentine March".
: It's not a fictional ship. IMO 7505322. Tupsumato (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've created Julius Fucik (disambiguation) (with just two names) and Julius Fucik (composer) (currently a stub). Feel free to contribute anything. --Rossumcapek 15:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they related? Septentrionalis 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Julius Fucik was uncle of Julius Fucik. I am not sure if that information have place in articles. Jklamo 13:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguations 

message: Julius Fučík (journalist) died in 1994 in Paraguay. Infos about him on wikipedia are partialy complete exept.... he wasnt as "cool" as most ppl think. All about this "hero" You can find in Václav Černý's book "Pláč Koruny české" ("The Tears of the Czech Crown"). Lets make a world history more reliable (or just reliable)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoman68 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  errata
Talk:Angel Manfredy

message: "half Puerto Rican, half American"? What's that about? You can't contrast Puerto Rican with American unless you move Puerto Rico to a different hemisphere. Nor does it make sense on a political basis, given its status as a commonwealth of the U.S. Someone with more knowledge of this pugilist's ethnic background--if it really matters--should fix this.
I don't think this should have been on the page: 
"Please mail site to lourdesow@***.com or edit here - Marc Manfredy(Family of Angel)"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.232.204 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Putout

message: MLB seems to prefer "putout", perhaps this should be changed.... Dze27
:Major League Baseball indeed refers to this as a "putout" in the official rules.  ESPN does too. This page should be moved. -- Minesweeper 09:20, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
What happens if the 3rd strike is not caught and 1st base is occupied?  The rules clearly specify that the batter is out immediately in this case (without any need to tag the batter or first base) but who gets the putout?  The catcher didn't do anything, so I would assume the pitcher? Tzadik 22:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: What about, say, when the infield fly rule is called, but the fielder who supposedly could easily catch the ball, fails to do so?
If every out results in a putout, that should be stated (if sourceable); if not, then the exceptions might also be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does every out result in a putout for someone? 

message: The article has a basic error in its structure.  Career high putouts is listed under the All-time single season records heading.  A separate section for career stats should be created.
66.134.81.237 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single season records section
Talk:The Marais

message: I'd like to see some evidence that homosexual people lived in the Marais during or before World War II (we certainly weren't called "gays" then) or that French homosexuals were deported by the Nazis. This seems like a bit of retrospective assumption to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.128.11 (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any evidence regarding the Marais, but French gays certainly were deported during the Holocaust. See I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual by Pierre Seel. - Montréalais—Preceding undated comment added by Montrealais (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 November 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that the article has factual errors, please feel free to amend it.olivier 06:12, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Use of Roman numerals for centuries is standard in French, but not in English. Therefore, the style should be:  nineteenth century or 19th century, not XIXth century.   —MJ—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.13 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Note 

message: Significant portions of the article and a large majority of the language used appear specifically to either promote The Marais in some way or simply to advertise it, neither of which are, to my knowledge, the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic source. Some adjectives such as "outstanding", the liberal interpretation of citations or even just their omission entirely (including, amusingly, a citation needed next to "according to sources"), and having nearly two-thirds as many photos on an article about a portion of Paris than the entire article of Paris means that either incredible rewriting or just a total purge and starting from scratch are necessary. Until then, the warnings will stand. Thanks. --JJ Liu (Dylan Smithson) (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re; Written like an ad/travel guide
Talk:The Farthest Shore

message: How comes this poem is not mentioned in the article?
Like the entire part of crossing the dry land is basically the story of the Divine comedy:
- There is a wanderer and a guide wandering the dry land (=afterlife) vs. hell.
- At the and of Dante's poem they escape hell by going to the end/deepest circle and reach paradise, while in le Guin's book they escape the dead lands by going to the end and reach the healed living world.
- Even climbing the mountains of pain has its counterpart with the purgatorio.
2A02:8389:2281:0:D06F:BEE1:DB68:A866 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fascinating, but do you have a source discussing this? Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
Talk:Raga

message: I was thinking if addition of a list of ragas would be good or not. I learn classical music and am giving 3rd year exam. I was wondering if I could add a list of ragas.
202.142.117.105 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but only with cites to reliable source(s). See WP:RS on what qualifies as a reliable source, and WP:CITE on how to add a source. Welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Such lists may already be covered. Please check List of Ragas in Hindustani classical music and List of Ragas in Carnatic classical music, before you look at further steps. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: Perhaps the mention of non-constructible sets should be deleted. While I think it is technically a correct comparison, it's not particularly relevant, and the comparison is lost on anyone who doesn't understand the field from which it comes from, which is something that can be expected. Awelotta (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-constructible sets" in Description section 

message: I think there is an error in the following picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Melakarta.katapayadi.sankhya.72.png
Indeed, for ragas n°41, 47, 53, 59, 65, 71, it should be da2 instead of da3.
:  by User:Charlie Rem. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the picture of the 72 ragas
Talk:Dalbergia

message: I've removed the redirect from the above mentioned page. Rosewood is an article in itself and should not have its talk page redirected to here. Mouse Nightshirt 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed redirect from Rosewood Talk page 

message: Is a link to photos of woods from the Dalbergia family with information on them a valid link. The site in question has no advertising www.russianwolfstudios.com/Rosewoods-%28Dalbergia%29.php -Woodfanatic (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss link

message: It is stated that Dalbergia sissoo is used as food for larvae of some Lepidoptera species including Bucculatrix mendax. The wording suggests that this butterfly or moth not only eats the Dalbergia species but that they are farmed for some purpose, what purpose? This information may belong to the (very brief) Bucculatrix mendax article but the comment is written here, where the statement was found. There is no picture of Bucculatrix mendax but pictures of other Bucculatricidae species suggest it's not for their beauty.150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larvae food
Talk:Iain Duncan Smith

message: I have noticed since the last time I read this article (which was many years ago) that reference to IDS's decision as leader to whip against allowing gay couples to adopt children (in 2002) has since been removed. Surely this information is relevant to a factual article about IDS and belongs, along with his 2012 vote to support gay marriage, in the same part of the article? A link to the vote and the debate in which several MPs mention the imposition of a three-line whip can be found here 
I have now (re)added this to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.119.66 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting case. If or when we get a decision from the Supreme Court it might be worth including in IDS's biography but even then probably only a sentence or two. There's probably an article on the point of law (it sounds like the Public Order Act but the grauniad doesn't specify) and if Supreme Court hear the case, it's probably worth an article of its own. The DPP appealing from a mags court to the Supreme Court on a point of law on a fairly minor offence is unusual and definitely deserves to be documented somewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision to whip vote against adoption by gay couples

message: I'm not familiar enough with WP's policies to edit this in directly, but shouldn't there be a reference to the fact his case has been appealed as far as the Supreme Court?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/31/dpp-supreme-court-appeal-protesters-tory-scum-iain-duncan-smith Basiclife (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting case. If or when we get a decision from the Supreme Court it might be worth including in IDS's biography but even then probably only a sentence or two. There's probably an article on the point of law (it sounds like the Public Order Act but the grauniad doesn't specify) and if Supreme Court hear the case, it's probably worth an article of its own. The DPP appealing from a mags court to the Supreme Court on a point of law on a fairly minor offence is unusual and definitely deserves to be documented somewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case going to the supreme court to reverse acquittal of  those who called him "Tory Scum"
Talk:IBM Business System 12

message: Sayeth the article:
:New tables can be created by inserting a row into TABLES, and then rows added to it by inserting into COLUMNS.
Uh, what? Don't you mean that columns can be added to it by inserting into COLUMNS? I haven't used BS12, so I'm not sure. I've made the change in the article, but please revert it if I'm mistaken. Neilc 22:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rows? 

message: Shouldn't there be a "GROUP BY d.Deptnum" in the SQL-Example just before "HAVING"?
O. Jacot-Descombes (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQL Example 

message: The development of BS12 in Uithoorn was still active in Q1 1987. Janaaa3 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop of development?
Wikipedia talk:Biochemistry basic topics

message: Just a couple points: this list of basic topics mentions nothing about nucleic acids or nucleic acid biochemistry, ignores genetics and cell biology, ignores bioenergetics as a topic, ignores intermediary metabolism as a topic. Can you say you've even begun to talk about biochemistry if the idea of a metabolic pathway is absent? Dwmyers 18:07, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Talk:September 14

message: 891 - Pope Stephen V  isn't it pope Stephen VI - nr V died in 817 and i didn't found the exact date of september 14 maby someone can put it also in the right article.
:No, Stephen IV died in 817. Stephen V died in 891 and Stephen VI died in 897. See explainations at Pope-elect Stephen. Švitrigaila 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope 

message: Why isnt britney spears son on list of births on this day
:We don't automatically add offspring of famous people on here once they're born, unless they  come from actual royalty. Ms. Spears being a "pop princess" doesn't count, and her husband is only famous for being, well, her husband. -- Cjmarsicano 06:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has standards. Additions aren't simply added by public opinion. There are rules. What exactly has Brittany's baby done of merit? Kingturtle 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Spears Federline 

message: Perhaps if it is not significant enough to have its own page, especially given that I could not even find it in a more general web search, it should not have an entry here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merpius (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism, I removed it.  ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Slagpendence/Slagmagedon Day"? 

message: Hall-Mills Murder case.  The victims were discovered on September 14, 1922.  The deaths of Pr. Edward Hall and Eleanor Mills were scandalous and famous in America in the 1920's.  Newspaper Coverage of this story and the ensuing trial went on for years.  L. Thomas W. (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall-Mills  

message: According to http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/flight-earls and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/planters/es02.shtml, the Flight of the Earls occurred on September 4th, not 14th.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvillazon (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight of the Earls 

message: As there is a heading for Eastern Orthodox Liturgics, I suggest anything marked "Eastern Orthodox" be moved there.  It might make it look a little presumptuous that this leaves the whole section western-centric, but there you go - someone decided the Eastern Orthodox should do their own thing.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  holidays and observances
Talk:Ford Anglia

message: "The new styling was matched by a new engine, something that the smaller Fords had been needing for some time - a 997cc overhead-valve straight-4. Acceleration from rest was still, by the standards of today, sluggish, but it was much improved from earlier cars"
I had the pleasure to drove an Anglia with the 997 engine for one week 7 or 8 years ago (the car wasn't restored). The brakes were a real nightmare by today standards. But the engine was marvelous. 39 hp in such a light car can give nice accelerations.
The 997 engine was tuned by Cosworth in a F3 engine giving around 100 hp, the best of its time.
Ericd 22:19, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a discussion forum.  The Anglia had three speeds and a usable top speed of about 70 km/h - perfectly acceptable for rambling around B roads.203.39.81.92 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the late 60's early 70's,  Anglia's were a common sight in USA quarter mile drag racing, heavily modified for speed. A quick search on flickr will turn up hundreds of classic photos. Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: American Drag Racing

message: This section describes the available engines in terms of x KW (y HP) However, the horsepower figure is the tax or fiscal horsepower rating, not the actual power output, so this ought to be changed to something more meaningful, or the KW figures deleted. Emmajnation (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglia A494A (Australia: 1949–1953)
Talk:Skein relation

message: I think it would be good to move the computation of examples of the Alexander-Conway polynomial to Alexander polynomial (where Alexander-Conway polynomial currently redirects).  That way, this page could be for more general statements and theory about skein relations, and we don't fill this page with just examples of computing Jones, HOMFLY, etc.  --C S (Talk) 05:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move example and general theory
Talk:Robert Fisk

message: Consider the following:
Can somebody kindly produce a reliable source for the terms "fisker" and "fiskee"? I note that Andrew Sullivan's original "fisking" was not a point-by-point rebuttal but instead a familiar, short three paragraph attack. The formatting of Sullivan's criticism fails to meet the definition outlined above. Indeed, I can't find a single "fisking" of Robert Fisk anyplace (lots of random criticism, yes, but nothing that can accurately be described as a "fisking"). Perhaps this needs rewording. Wikispan (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search shows that this term is used quite often. As for what you might call a reliable source, well if you mean the OED or something like that, they are far too slow to catch up to be relevant. The term exists, there is nothing abusive or untrue in the paragraph, it is one of the more notable things about the subject. It would be biased and misleading to omit this point from the article. If the rules you want to follow say otherwise, it is the rules that are wrong. Luwilt (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it may have made more sense to start a new thread rather than trying to restart this one, which has been inactive for 13 years. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Fisking