lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Historiography of the Pauline Epistles

message: Discussion from WP:RfD about a request to delete this, archived here:
Note that historiography is writing about history rather than of history. Historiography is meta-analysis of descriptions of the past. The analysis usually focuses on the narrative, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians. As such I don't believe this is an appropriate redirect to that article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's an awfully fine hair to split! To me, discussions over authorship are just one aspect of the historiography of a writing (which is clearly subtly different from the historiography of an event); i.e. they are meta-discussions about the writing. So I would say that it's basically on-point, unless someone wants to write about e.g. the history of various translations, at which point it would properly become a separate article. Noel (talk) 15:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's my point. Authorship discussions are only one part of the historiography of a writing! So it's not appropriate to redirect to a more specific article that only covers one aspect of that topic. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but do we have any other content at all on the historiography of the Pauline Epistles? If not, then the redirect serves a useful purpose, which is to send anyone looking for content on the HofPE to whatever material we do have on that subject (albeit on a limited subset of that topic). It's not like the canonical bad redirect ([Emperors of Foo] - [Foo]) which sends you to an article which covers a lot more material, other than the topic of the redirect. About the only argument I can see for ditching this is that it will stop links to HofPE showing up as a red link (and thereby inciting someone to write it). Noel (talk) 12:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Category talk:Nazi SS

message: Perhaps this category should be called Schutzstaffel instead of SS? Fuelbottle | Talk 18:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people are more familiar with the term "SS" than the German name. 24.44.34.146 05:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problem is that "SS" is too ambiguous; See SS (disambiguation).  I think the category should be called Schutzstaffel (SS), which is unambiguous and contains the full name as well as its common abbreviation.  — JonRoma 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Renaud de Courtenay

message: Obviously somebody's ancestor eh. Why is he in Wikipedia but my ancestors aren't? --Wetman 19:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are actually two Rrenaud de Courtenays, father and son. The father died in 1190. It is the son who died September 27, 1194 and who was the father of Robert de Courtenay. The father married first Helvis du Donjon and Corbeil and second Maud FitzEdith. The son was born of the father's first marriage. He married at his father's request, Hawise de Curci, daughter of William de Curci. Maud and Hawise had the same mother, Maud d'Avranches, and were thus half sisters. The Wikipedia page on the Feudal Barony of Oakehampton explains the structure of this family in detail. 
ChuckRFord (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogical Corrections
Talk:Antoni Radziwiłł

message: Born in Berlin?--Emax 19:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Was the photo of Friedrich Wilhelm Ferdinand Anton (Teplitz 31 Jul 1833-Berlin 16 Dec 1904); m.Sagan 3 Oct 1857 Marie Dorothee Elisabeth de Castellane (Rochette 19 Feb 1840-Kleinitz 10 Jul 1915). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mctr (talk • contribs) 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Photo was not correct!
Talk:Renata Tebaldi

message: So which one is she?88.167.22.75 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  illustration with 'friend' 

message: Section currently opens "She [Tebaldi] went off to spend a Christmas holiday with her father's brother, her uncle Valentino, at Pesaro. There, as operatic destiny would have it, Valentino owned a small café where the famous former diva Carmen Melis came to buy pastries."
While this might be the style adopted in a biography and appreciated by some readers, I do not believe this level of details or the "as operatic destiny would have it" is befitting for an encyclopedic article. Any opinions? Sam Sailor (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further reading it appears that large parts of this edit is taken verbatim from this book, c.f. the extract found here. Sam Sailor (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carmen Melis 
Talk:Gauge boson

message: Someone should say, in this page and the Force carrier page, that force carrier particles are the same thing as gauge bosons, if this is correct.
scienceman 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force Carrier Particles 

message: "The conflict between this idea and experimental evidence that the weak interaction has a very short range requires further theoretical insight."  Excuse my ignorance, but is this because of quantum gravity?  Even if we don't exactly know the answer, why does the proximity of certain gauge bosons affect weak interactions?  I'm just trying to understand this from a layman's point of view.  --71.199.2.101 (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proximity for Weak Interaction 

message: It is stated that due to gauge invariance that gauge bosons need to be massless (since they violate gauge symmetry)- this is incorrect though since gauge symmetries are not 'real' symmetries like space-time symmetries. I believe the real reason we want to start with massless gauge bosons is because unitarity is violated by massive gauge bosons at some high energy. This point has been addressed by nima arkani-hamed. I don't understand all the details though so I won't change the article itself, but someone should.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.52.220 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: gauge symmetries are real. Dauto (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Gauge boson 

message: "The three W and Z bosons correspond (roughly) to the three generators of SU(2) in GWS theory."
Can someone explain the "roughly" to me?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.8.8 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The original symmetry is SU(2)xU(1). It is broken to produce a new U(1). The original 4 generators were all mixed, and the new ones are superpositions of them. The new Z is not specifically one of the original generators. Hope this is helpful and all pedantically correct. Setreset (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  rough correspondence
Talk:Thelema

message: If nobody objects, I'm going to remove all references to these individuals.  They're not notable people within Thelema at all.  Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. They or their systems have articles. They are indeed notable within Thelema, though disliked by OTO (which does not define Thelema). , what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Lees, Nema Andahadna, Kenneth Grant 

message: The list article is uncited (18 years!). It is short enough (without a TOC) to fit inside the Thelema article. Or simply provide a link to :Category:Thelemites in the See-also section.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Merge doesn't solve citation problem. Every single entry is cited in the linked article. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did a good job adding citations and/or citation-needed tags to each entry. Still not sure why it needs its own article. I cannot imagine it will ever grow. There are only 36 items on the list (10 still uncited). That's not a lot. Also, the letter section headings are distracting; it's a far more interesting list to just scroll through, not search. Below is a better rendition (if you put the # back to *; I used it to count the entries).    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would the list never grow? Vontheri (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Um, it's still a living religion. Why would you think the list would never grow? There are a number of living people on the list, and there are most likely articles that could be added if support were added to the relevant articles. I'm sorry you're distracted by the alphabet, but I see no reason to change the headings. Not sure why you are discussing it here rather than there. Skyerise (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[List of Thelemites]] into [[Thelema]]
Talk:Caradoc Vreichvras

message: Removed from the article:
:The Welsh Triads depict Caradoc as a close confidant of King Arthur, and if some genealogies are to be believed they were in fact cousins.
After reviewing my copy of the Welsh Triads (Rachel Bromwich's masterful work, mentioned in the bibliography of the Wikipedia article linked to above), I was unable to find this stated. Caradawc Vreichvras (as Bromwich  standardizes the Old Welsh form of his name) is mentioned in Triads 1, 18, 38, & one version of 71; Caradawc is mentioned with Arthur only in Triad 1, which with 71 Bromwich argues are late Triads, perhaps dating to the 12th century. In fact in her notes on Caradawc, Bromwich states that their earliest mention together is in Chretien de Troyes' Erec, l.1719 -- which was written in the last half of the 12th century.
If this is typical of the level of scholarship of this article, then it is in serious need of work. -- llywrch 20:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Baikalfinansgrup

message: This is merely a start to this article. A quick google search only came up with 24 results, however seeing that this "company" just bought Yuganskneftegaz i thought that it deserved an article. Surely more is to come out about this company. 578 21:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The energy group placed its bid only after a Houston court issued an injunction to several western banks to prevent any financing for a Gazprom bid."
:That statement is incorrect. The Houston court ordered to frease all transaction of "Yukos" for ten days after an american shareholder of "Yukos" filed for bankroupcy of "Yukos". In fact it was said that he was hired by "Yukos" in order to interfair with Auction of Yukos's package of "Yuganskneftegaz". But since Houstor court has no jurisdiction in Russia it obviosly did not stop the auction, but it could couse problem for new owners of "Yugansknefetgaz" if they are to ask for credits in western banks. --DimaY2K 17:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houston court 

message: "It was founded only a few weeks before the auction." One article said "last week", is there a date? - Jerryseinfeld 19:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data 

message: Does anyone know why no other firms bidded for Yuganskneftegaz? From what I read in newspapers, it seems that it has been severely undervalued. I would have thought that some large western firm (e.g. Exxon) would have been more than happy to pay a higher price to secure a new source of oil. Maybe it is illegal for foreigners to own such assets in Russia, or maybe they just wished not to offend the russian government with hopes of future rewards? If anyone knows the reason, I think it would be a valid addition to the article. Thanks in advance.
UnHoly 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How can anyone not understand this? - Jerryseinfeld 19:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 
Talk:Industrial society

message: ￼what is industrial society 2A03:2880:13FF:77:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ucsp 

message: The redirect Industrial labor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Industrial labor]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Ford v Quebec (AG)

message: Obviously, we can't write the whole thing in the article, however, we can maybe try to summarize it in clear and easy to understand terms. I will try to do that here. Feel free to correct any mistake you see:
Sections 58 and 69 were invalidated because the judges were of the opinion that 1) commercial expression is indeed protected by both Charters of Rights and Freedoms, 2) the limitation imposed to freedom of expression were not justified as "it did not demonstrate that the requirement of the use of French only in ss. 58 and 69 is either necessary for the achievement of the legislative purpose or proportionate to it." and 3) the sections created a discrimination based on language, which section 10 of the Quebec charter does not allow.
-- Mathieugp 22:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to add links to relevant concepts and changed the words "not reasonable" to "not justified", if it's not clear enough I can work on the opening paragraph again. The words I used are common Canadian legal jargon, maybe they can seem to lack neutrality to the lay person but this is unintentional... You're right I haven't read the complete decision, but I've taken two courses in constitutional law, so I just assumed those were the arguments (often) used based on how the article was written when I first read it. --132.204.219.5 19:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary
Talk:George S. Parker High School

message: For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George S. Parker High School
----
Why has this school an article in wikipedia? The current version of the text does not answer this question. Is anyone able to make the article more appropriate for an encyclopedia by describing the importance of this particular highschool? Otherwise we should propose deleting the article. --Besserwissi 22:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: "Under the coaching of Tom Klawitter, the girls basketball team has been a dominant force in the state almost every year since the early 1990s. Since the late 1990s the Parker football team has also been an extremely dominant force in the state."  This tells me nothing about how they are actually doing.  Is this a Division I school?  What sort state achievements has this school had since the early 1990s that make its girls' basketball team "a dominant force in the state" and it's football team "an extremely dominant force in the state"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alethiareg (talk • contribs) .
:I took out the uncited claims. We can find something better to say than grandiose claims (winning a few isn't "dominant"). --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 
Talk:Breeder

message: I believe the article is in need of a resigned title and opening paragraph in order to differentiate it from the much more commonly used slang word. The opening paragraph is the worst offender, and anyone reading it without realizing this page is not about the slang will think this page is vandalized. 172.109.136.105 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite
Talk:Corporatization

message: "In general however, 'corporatizatioon' means only the establishment of a corporation, provate, public, profit-seeking, or non profit-seeking, national or local. Using it as a term with political connotations is seriously misleading."
The article as it stands represents a singularly biassed point of view, which needs countering. Corporatisation is a precise legal term, especially in a business environment, and should be left that way. At best the article should also be edited to refelct he fact that it represents a political point of view that is in fact rather American, and anyway has no place in a section supposedly devoted to business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.136.58 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Politicisation

message: Ben@liddicott.com (Talk | contribs) "the word "Major" is there to let the reader know that the list is not exhaustive, and these are broad headings." You've got railroads, highways, electricity, water. How many more are there? The word major is subjective and can NOT be here. - Jerryseinfeld 23:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: …places them in the control of government-owned corporations. This is often seen as a step towards full-scale privatization
This line is oxymoronic; if they're government-owned, they are by definition not private. Therefore this has nothing to do with privatization. Nagelfar 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Nagelfar 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it just needed to be clarified for distinguishing between the break down of corporate to state structure. Mostly for purposes of the article being understood in terms of the different connotations of "corporation" being considered as 'privatism run amok' versus 'privatization run amok', the latter I see as more of a misconception as in reality that should be a more laissez faire noncorporate condition. This though, may just be a matter of ones ultimate view of Corporate Personhood. Nagelfar 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Contradiction

message: I think this article on corporatization -- the formation of corporations, as in Limited Liability Corporations -- with privatization, the spinning off of public assets and agencies as corporations. 
The history of corporatization reaches back to 1100s and the formation of the merchant guilds, and on to the craft guilds of the medieval period (at least in the West). Any article on corporatization that leaves out Charters, Guilds, etc., is deficient. See Douglas Rushkoff, Life. Inc. 2009.
There is also the moral dynamics of moving from businesses in which all owners are held liable, to limited liability corporations, where, as the term suggests, their joint liability is limited. The problem of moral hazard, and moral displacement, then become issues -- all part of corporatization, one would think. 
By limiting the definition to privatization, we miss the opportunity to convey this rich background and these very human consquences.Gsmcghee (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused with privatization?
Talk:Cicero, Illinois

message: The racial makeup of the town is 48.27% White, 1.12% African American, 0.89% Native American, 0.97% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 44.71% from other races, and 4.01% from two or more races. 77.44% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.
Now, 48.27+77.44=125%?
Fadetoblack 23:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The population figures in the infobox contradict the information in the demographics section. Can anyone sort things out? Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to update with information from the 2010 census, but I'm not sure where that information is available.  H Padleckas (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: I've removed this section due to a lack of citations. It appears to get used as a way to promote non-notable gangs. Dkriegls (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Gangs 

message: How is it pronounced. It could be "sisero" or the more correct "kikero"? QuentinUK (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: So, when was the name changed from Hawthorne to Cicero? If the Hawthorne Works were opened in 1905, the change must have occurred after that. Maikel (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Cicero since 1857. I think Hawthorn is an area, not an incorporation was a subdivision from before then. Cicero is all that is left of a township bordered by North Ave., Western Ave., Pershing/39th St., Harlem Ave. Chicago annexed some of it, Stickney Township got some, Oak Park and Berwyn went their own way.  Town of Cicero's site. Moon Joon (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change
Talk:Faust (band)

message: The article says there are two Fausts, which I believe to be true, but gives no details of the second. Should I assume it's based around Jochen Irmler, possibly with some or all of Steven Wray Lobdell, Lars Paukstat, Michael Stoll, and presumably a drummer. Actually I'd like the drummer to be the woman who drummed with them at the RFH in 2001 (or maybe 2002). BTLizard 11:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Fausts 

message: I have done my best using the official Faust Discography, and other sources like allmusic and discogs, to separate the Studio Albums from other releases. Even so, there are several of which I am unsure, because their discography is so freaking complicated. Does a DVD of all new material count as an album? What about an album that is half new studio material and half live versions of old stuff? What about a compilation of unreleased material later re-billed as a studio album? Faust are truly an organizational nightmare.
My reason for trying to separate the studio albums is because I haven't yet found anybody who can accurately answer the simple question "How many studio albums has Faust released?" I whittled through their discography and moved everything else to a big "Other" section so that whoever originally wrote the list's hard work will not be lost. I am not saying the section I made is correctly named or even necessary. You may separate it into further subdivisions or delete it or re-merge it if you think I am wrong. I am simply trying to make it more clear to people unfamiliar with the band, what Faust have actually released in terms of studio work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.226.91 (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for bringing some order to the album list. I don't have any immediate answers to your queries – I think that some research will be necessary – but you've made a great start. --Bruce1eetalk 09:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio Album Separation 

message: I've become a big Faust fan of late, and something's driving me up the wall - I could swear a snippet of 'Krautrock' was featured as theme music for some sort of series or documentary run on PBS in the USA sometime back when, and could swear I even found confirmation at some point - but now I can't remember what show that could possibly have been!  Am I nuts, or did it happen?  (And no, not just getting confused with "Newton's Apple" and Kraftwerk's Ruckzuck.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.198.138 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'Krautrock' as theme music for 1980s PBS show?
Talk:Latin (adjective)

message: from VfD:
This page consists of a single paragraph that should simply be merged with Latin (disambiguation), the only non-discussion page that links to it.  Also, the information in it is already present in the Wiktionary entry for Latin.  (Note that there is a move request in progress that would move Latin (disambiguation) to Latin; I don't believe that this affects the reasons for deleting this page.) --LostLeviathan 23:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)