lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Yosef Sprinzak

message: I honestly can't comprehend why this is. Why should he even be on WP Palestine, let alone high importance? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: High importance on WP Palestine?

message: Was he related to the late historian Ehud Sprinzak?  Zerotalk 10:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ehud was his grandson, by Amiram, another son. At least that's what Hebrew wiki says. Poliocretes (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Should we have an article on him?  I know him through his translated books, but I'm not sure how famous he is outside Israel in general. Zerotalk 11:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I, but neither do I see why not. If in doubt, you should probably turn to the relevant wikiproject. Poliocretes (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  relatives
Talk:Horio Yoshiharu

message: There is another article, Horio Mosuke, that is likely the same person as Horio Yoshiharu (since Mosuke was one of Yoshiharu's names). If this can be confirmed, Horio Mosuke should be merged with this article and turned into a redirect. Michitaro (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we be sure they're the same person? Except for name and service to Hideyoshi, none of the other data overlap. Even the kanji are slightly different. The Horio Mosuke in this article is 堀尾 茂助, compared to 堀尾喪助 in the other. However, of additional consideration is the painting in the article, in which the kanji for "Mosuke" is the same as this article (茂助). Mistake in the other article? Mistake in its source? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

text: After reading into the sources, I concluded that the two article were about the same person, and as there had been no discussion over the last eight months, I went ahead and merged the article Horio Mosuke, which was a stub of two or three sentence, into this article, and made the other title a re-direct. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horio Mosuke 
Talk:Rayford Logan

message: In my 1963 britannica, he's the author of the W.E.B. Du Bois article. Should that be mentioned in our Wikipedia article?Rich (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Logan contributed to [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]
Talk:Richard Aoki

message: According to http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Activist-Richard-Aoki-named-as-informant-3800133.php#page-2 he shot himself ; the WP page here says 'complications from dialysis.' (and references a no-longer-available article.). Someone want to figure this out? 169.229.195.137 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: cause of death

message: While this is not a BLP, it is still a WP:BIO, and as such we should be careful with including information with little verification in reliable sources for biographies. I have moved the allegations out of the lede, and named them as allegations - the information lacks wide reliable sourcing to be presented as non-controvertible fact.--Cerejota (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good decision, IMO. One report comes out and the media jump all over this story for 24 hours. Then they'll forget about the guy until something sets them off in 2017. We can wait to review the evidence carefully. In the meantime, the more important task is filling in other factual details about the article. If we think about the readership coming here, they're going to be folks who just read the news story and want to know the background—what encyclopedic information was already available? Pace, groupuscule (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A year and a half later, things have calmed down, so let's do it right. I don't think the weasel word "possible" is appropriate for the informant heading. There is no significant doubt that the man was an informant now. I also question the use of Fred Ho as a source. He is a musician, not an historian or journalist.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: informant allegation

message: Someone added a 'HEADS-UP' to the intro directing the reader to question the FBIs account of the subjects informant activities. 2601:989:200:3F70:199B:ECF8:8FFC:E0BD (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy edit in intro
Talk:Hugh Binning

message: Our article says, kind of weirdly, that 'In 1685, Jean "donated" the Binning family's home at Dalvennan and other properties, along with the Keir properties, to Roderick MacKenzie, who was a Scottish advocate ...'.  There was a Chancery court case that went in McKenzie's favour (in 1687 not 1685), and it doesn't seem to have involved Jean directly, but John (written as "Joannes" in the Latin case materials), so he seems to still have been alive then, unless the case was argued on behalf of an heir, but my reading of it doesn't suggest this. It does seem to say that the lands has previously been forfeited in 1680 (not "donated" in 1685), but someone better at Latin than I am should review this.  The official summary of the case in Latin can be found here:
* 
The fastest way to get to that text is to keyword-search for "McAnlish", the rare name of one of the jurors. 13:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of property to McKenzie
Talk:Richard Oastler

message: Richard Oastler is famous for two things
1. Campaigner for factory/child labour reform
2 Opposition to the new poor laws
Why then does the introduction,the first line of the whole article, begin?
Richard Oastler (20 December 1789 - 22 August 1861) "the Factory King" was a "Tory radical",[2] an active opponent of Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform and a lifelong admirer of the Duke of Wellington; but...'
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peepgreen (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to see how a correct statement of facts about the article subject can be described as 'misleading'. As to what he is 'famous for', the subtitle of the standard modern biography notes him to be a Tory radical and there is clearly some need to explain the attitudes that made him that, rather than one of the more normal (and more easily understood) flavours of Radical. The lede does discuss his activities on the two issues mentioned, so the objection seems to be that having called him a 'Tory radical', the text then explains what shows him to have been a Tory before going on to discuss the causes which were supposed to show him a radical. His own view was that he was simply a Tory, and that it was his Toryism that led him to take up the causes he did; how the poor should be looked after had been specified by God and Queen Elizabeth (who in their different ways were authorities of unimpeachable standing) and (as with Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, and free trade) it was dangerous nonsense to change the existing order of things. Rjccumbria (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Introduction
Talk:Plastic worm

message: I removed a lot of non-encyclopedic content, got rid of some links that included primarily marketing material, fixed a number of grammar and spelling mistakes, and added a stub tag. This page hasn't been edited beyond categorization/vandalism/vandalism revert since being created in Sept. 2006, so I figured being bold and cleaning it up would be appropriate w/o seeking input on discussion page. CredoFromStart 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup April 2007
Talk:Miklós Izsó

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.hung-art.hu/frames-e.html?/english/i/izso/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI!  21:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Humphrey Chetham

message: Requires further research and resolution.  Should provide specific circumstances of knighthood if he accepted one later.
Cy Guy (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is titled "Sir Humphrey Chetham" but says he refused knighthood. 
Talk:Humphrey Edwards

message: I have deleted and recreated this article as a stub.
This is because Wikipedia Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License allows commercial distribution, but the current licence used by the British Civil War website is Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which places a restriction "Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes." which the Wikipedia license does not.
Providing the requirements of the Terms of Use and WP:plagiarism are met there is no reason why information from the British Civil War website can not be summarised and and cited like any other copyright text. But it can not be copied under its copyleft licence into Wikipedia articles because its licence is more restrictive than the Wikipedia licence. --PBS (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyleft problems
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia/Recent Articles

message: This list is getting a little long for recent articles... Perhaps it could be shortened? --Krytan 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we should come up with a way update this list.  Maybe start organizing list by month article was created, then easier for someone to just chop off sections? (moving to main talk page, hope you don't mind). // laughing man 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would work. --Krytan 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten the list
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Greene County, Alabama

message: Please note that both S. R. MURPHY HOUSE GREENE COUNTY AL.jpg and BENJAMIN D. GULLETT HOUSE, EUTAW, GREENE COUNTY, AL.jpg are wrong.
Compare them with NHRP listings (S.R. Murphy: #82002025 , B.D. Gullett: #82002021). Buildings, particularly Murphy house, are completely different.
* Murphy house, can be easily seen with street view, 1km to the northwest of the house in picture.
* Gullet house seems no more in existence. It was in the area directly west of building in wrong image (corner of Eutaw Ave and Main Street, as in the NHRP listing - the original walkway is still visible) A few faint references:
** "TIDEWATER COTTAGES" IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY states that "In 1983, appropriate nine-over-nine sashing from the demolished Benjamin Gullett house in Eutaw was installed"
** Walking & Driving Guide to Historic Eutaw, AL. not listing Gullet house (while containing pretty every other historical building)
ProprioMe OW (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that at commons, where the faulty connection was made. Agathoclea (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong pictures
Talk:Per Hasselberg

message: Names are quite confusing. I was hoping to make an infobox. Can anybody clarify why he has two names, and his previous last name did not match his father's? Givemedonuts (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the given name, Per is a contraction/nickname for Petter, so he simply dropped the first part of the double name Karl Petter and then used a less formal version (like, say, a "Charles Peter" becoming "Pete"). Regarding the last name, Per Hasselberg's father's surname (Andersson 'son of Anders') is a patronymic surname, as is his own original surname (Åkesson 'son of Åke'). Hasselberg later adopted the name of his birthplace (Hasselstad > Hasselberg) as an oeconymic-style surname, which was a widespread practice in Scandinavia in the 19th and early 20th century as patronymic conventions were abandoned. Doremo (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the beautiful explanations. Even today it is fairly easy in Sweden to have one's family name changed. --Saidmann (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The only thing missing is why he used -berg instead of -stad. My guess is that -stad sounded more plebian, and that -berg had an air of German-sounding nobility to the 19th-century Swedish ear that the sculptor probably aspired to. Doremo (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps -stad is not plebian, but it seems to be extremely rare in Sweden. I never came across such a name, whereas -berg is very common. The reason is that things of nature like -kvist, -löv, -blom, -berg, -dal where popular when people tried to get away a bit from the -son tradition. As opposed to Germany, man-made things did not enter family names at all in Sweden. Perhaps the Swedes were more romantic. Then, as to "Hasselstad", Hasselberg would have ridiculed himself, because stad means town and city and his birthplace Hasselstad was a very small village. Today less than 100 people. --Saidmann (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I was thinking of some immigrant -stad farmers (of Norwegian descent) that I know and only guessing based on that; I'm not very familiar with the Swedish situation. Doremo (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Names
Talk:Peter Hayes (sculptor)

message: I have removed the notice of proposed deletion for the following reason: notability appears to be established by numerous references in monographs on ceramics, numerous international exhibitions and representation in major public art galleries (eg Scottish National Gallery). See . I will add some references. Hugh Mason (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's precisely I meant by self-published sources.  As the first section at the page notes, it's directly from Hayes himself.  The focus should be on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  The art galleries exhibiting his work can be have reliability concerns (having an interest in displaying and/or selling his work), so if there's possible independent critical reviews, that would be much better.  I've remove the proposed deletion notice as a minimal threshold issue.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for adding the additional reference. I fully support the ideals you express here in terms of independence and verifiability. I guess my practical observation would be that most practising artists don't work in an academic context and many that I've worked with professionally are totally uninterested in documenting themselves, preferring their work to speak for itself. It's not as if their work is peer-reviewed in the way that (for example) a practising scientist would often be, so there isn't some kind of citation index or similar that one can look up to judge notability. There is an argument that an artist's true notability can't really be assessed until their work is complete and society has had a chance to see their entire lifetime's contribution in perspective (ie usually when they are dead). In the meantime, I agree that a commercial gallery may well have an interest in selling an artist's work but I would have thought that major commissions visible in prominent public locations, and inclusion of work in a national museum's collection, is about as firm an indication of notability as most artists are going to get while they are still with us. Significance in the aesthetic arts ultimately has to be about opinion so I'm unsure how it is possible to find truly independent critical reviews: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Hugh Mason (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of Peter Hayes article
Talk:Biomass heating system

message: I found it hard to distinguish between what is capital cost and what is running costs when referring to cheaper or expensive. Maybe someone could put some clarification for me.  Nzkennys (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Citations 2, 6, 8, and 13 were updated
~~~~ Natpartenheimer (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations modified
Talk:Ingram Frizer

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 07:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: A group of people for English Literature I at SUNY New Paltz had to update this page for a group Wikipedia project. As you can see, everything is properly cited and updated and what have you. If you have any questions, you can contact me at wordforteens or our professor at RedcKnight.
Wordforteens (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Page: 15 March 2011 

message: Apart from crying out for a  tag, I reverted this because it's not what the reference says: Nicholl's opening on the cited page certainly bears this interpretation, but he goes on to blame the biographers in question for not "fully investigating the subject". Later on the page he confidently describes "the beginnings of Marlowe's dealings with the Elizabethan intelligence service", and he develops this in detail over the following ten pages. When I get time, perhaps I can add to the references. Hutchinson (2006), for example, has "Marlowe (playwright and spy)" and Honan names his biography Christopher Marlowe: poet & spy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is alleged by several biographers"
Talk:Safdar Sarki

message: tariq abbasi s/o nazeer hussain is a sindhi engineer who love sindh nowadys at karachi basically from panoakil sukkur  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.32.128 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tariq Hussain Abbasi 
Talk:Samuel Fielden

message: If you look at this image, his name is written "Samual". JBarta (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel or Samual?
Talk:Nganasan people

message: Hello everyone, as part of a project for a course I am taking on Siberia this semester, I will be adding lots of new content to this page.  Look forward to hearing your feedback. Tledford128 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Isaac Beeckman

message: circular velocity is conserved
Does the circular velocity here, refer to the property of an object with a rotational/angular velocity or to the property of an object in orbit?
Rotational/Angular velocity is indeed conserved.  The velocity of an object in orbit is conserved, but naturally this is thought to be a linear velocity under the influence of gravitational attraction from secondary body. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Statement that the story that Beeckman and Descartes met debating a public mathematical contest on a marketplace “is probably apocryphal” seems to be much too strong (except that the reference to “debating” may have been introduced by the Wikipedia editor, as it is not in the cited source). Cook, in the source cited, casts doubt on the story, but gives absolutely no reason for doing so, and I have never heard of any alternative account of how they met. The truth of the story may not be definitively established, but it is not inherently implausible, and there seems to be little if any positive reason to doubt it. It first appears, in fact, in the first comprehensive biography of Descartes, published by Baillet in 1691. Baillet may not have been 100% reliable on all points, but he apparently had access to many sources about Descartes life that have since been lost, and appears to have made some effort at accuracy. The work is not a popularizing hagiography. All subsequent biographers have, of necessity, relied quite heavily, though not necessarily uncritically, on Baillet (because primary sources about Descartes’ life are thin on the ground and meager in content). Gaukroger, in his very scholarly, detailed, and careful Descartes: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford, 1995 - more recent than the Cook article), questions some of Baillet’s claims, but gives full credence to the story of Descartes’ meeting with Beeckman in the Breda marketplace. I have rewritten the passage based on Gaukroger’s account of the incident. Treharne (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Meeting with Descartes
Talk:Ramkinkar Baij

message: The new link to the blog post referenced in reference 16 is the following: https://innereye.eu/kaberi/2012/08/31/rabindranath-tagore-in-balatonfured-hungary/ .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlactyol (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Mranmolv1 (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Please update broken link to reference 16

message: Removing :File:Rabindranath.jpg based upon the correction in commons
--AniVar (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing [[:File:Rabindranath.jpg]]
Talk:Isaac Ewer

message: I have deleted this article and recreated it as a stub. This is because the initial article was created using text copied from the British Civil War website. Their copyleft licence is not compatible with Wikipedia's 
Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License allows commercial distribution, but the current licence used by the the British Civil War website is Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which places a restriction "Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes." which the Wikipedia license does not.
Providing the requirements of the Terms of Use and WP:plagiarism are met there is no reason why information from the British Civil War website can not be summarised and and cited like any other copyright text. But it can not be copied under its copyleft licence into Wikipedia articles because its licence is more restrictive than the Wikipedia licence. --PBS (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyleft problems