lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Beauport

message: Nice work, Mathieu.  However, a few things that could be improved.  The tone of the article is (in my opinion) over-biased to Wolfe and his actions.  While he is the aggressor and deserves more attention, Montcalm is not entirely passive.  A few things that might help the balance:
* a summary of the French defences (including troop counts and how long it took to construct the Beauport line)
* how does Montcalm react when the ships pass the city? (presumably the Samos battery is the result of Montcalm's reaction, but this is hardly clear as currently written)
* According to Parkman, Montcalm moves forces significantly toward Montmorency (reinforcing the left) when he realizes what Wolfe is up to in the opening moves of the battle.
-- Magic♪piano 14:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right that the focus is too much on what Wolfe is doing. I will see what I can gather to address these points. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement suggestions
Talk:Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge

message: *The battle of Moore's Creek started in Febuary 1776
*The battle ended in April 1776
*The Patriots won the battle against the Loyalists
*They were victorious
*Over 850 Loyalists were captured days after
*The Patriot victory helped to check the Loyalist sentiment in the colony
*The Patriots had only one man killed and one man wounded
*The battle was near Wilmington,North Carolina
*The dramatic victory of the Patriots ended British rule in the colonies forever
*The Patriot victory led North Carolina to be the first colony to vote for independance
*The battle ended Royal Governer Josiah Martin's hopes of regaining control of the colony for the British crown
*Stunned,outgunned, and leaderless the Loyalists surrendered, retreating in confusion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.95 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle of Moore's Creek  

message: Thanks for the recent additions to the article.  Is it possible to get citations on those?
Thanks.  Ratagonia (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Please 

message: An IP user changed the word "rifles" to "muskets" and Ratagonia changed it back. I did a little research and it appears as if muskets were used rather than rifles. http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/760227.htm uses the term "muskets", so I edited the article to match myrevolutionarywar.com. Rifles were available in 1776, but muskets were much more common, so it makes sense that patriots had muskets. Also, keep in mind that the patriots were not a highly skilled and well-equipped army. These were men who brought their own weapons with them to the fight. It is unlikely that they had rifles, which were much more difficult to manufacture at the time due to the precise rifling in the barrel.Martylunsford (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even modern sources are confusing in how many of what types weapons were used or captured here.  Muskets (typically hunting weapons, although the Continentals might have had military weapons) were indeed more common. Magic♪piano 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muskets or Rifles? 
Talk:Siege of Pyongyang (1593)

message: I have a source that clearly states the Great Genearl did not arrive at PyongYang, I'll post it a bit later but it was part of Song YingChang's letters and that does seem to be more reliable than anyone else when it comes to Ming's stuff (since he was the chief organizer)
-- 
It is in Song's letter to Li RuSong on 1/27
"但聞彼時大將軍神器尚未運至軍前" 
"I have heard that the great general cannon did not arrive at the frontlines (during the siege of Pyongyang)"
(RollingWave (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great general cannon? 

message: In my latest edit, mostly focused on putting in the source and reference, so far I have put in the reference from the offical Ming history in the biography of Li Ru Song, since it is most easily found online (it's in Wikisource) , I will put in the parts from the annals of Seonjo a little later on . the two story agree quiet a bit so I don't think we should have much problem here.
(RollingWave (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I saw someone just delete the Japanese casualties in many articles(Probably 5 or 6 articles). It seems someone wants to hide the Japanese casualties. I think should not just delete the important data based on reason non-reference because the Korean casualties are also non-reference. Why just delete the Japanese casualties to unknown? If delete the casualties, should fairly delete both two sides. Both sides are non-reference data. But I hope not delete the casualties of either side. I think can just add a citation needed and wait others add reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: For Japanese  casualties
Talk:Battle of Kathio

message: *Does anyone know the location of the battle?  I'm assuming it was at least near to Kathio Township, Minnesota and/or Kathio State Park, but that's just a guess.  What is the source for this article, by the way?--Hraefen 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Surrender of Montreal (1760)

message: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
:I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands

message: This page was previously blanked and redirected to a disambiguation page. From the diff, it seems that the reasoning for this was that it was felt that title did not reflect the information in the stub.  I've reverted that to a previous version. I feel that if someone feels the title is a problem, then they should nominate the article for renaming, rather then blanking the article and redirecting the page (which seems dangerously close to vandalism to me...)  Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted from redirect page
Talk:Battle of Soor

message: Where/what is Soor?  There is no mention in the article of why the battle is so named! Languagehat (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soor 

message: I would still rate this Start class for the same reasons as currently listed (B1=n, B2=n). Also B4=n. If B1 and B4 were fixed and there were no other changes, I would assess it as C-class (B2=n). The britishbattles.com source has some excellent material of which the article gives a shortened account. Another reviewer might decide it is B class but I think it is too brief.
*(B1) Everything is cited, but there is a syntax problem with the citations because they are not numbered under Notes. The first citation [1] about National Flags is not needed and not relevant to the article. Under References, the article lists several good sources (ex: Duffy) but the article only cites Chandler. A citation reads, "All statistics taken from Chandler", but only the Prussian strength is cited [2] while all other infobox statistics have a different citation [3]. 
*(B2) As Languagehat asked on 19 March 2012, where is Soor? The introduction should say who won the battle and briefly sum up what happened. There is no Results section (you could move the casualties there) which should say what happened next and explain the results, if any. The infobox says the Austrians had 40,200 men but this is not in the text. 
*(B4) Syntax: Periods should be followed by one space. Typos: "Prussian scoots" > scouts; "it's own troops" > its; "suffred 7,444" > suffered. Awkward sentence: "Austrian artillery proceeded to fire on the Prussian encampment, while the rest of the army marched into battle." (The source says the Prussians marched but the sentence makes it seem like it was the Austrians. I believe the source says the Austrian guns fired on the camp AND the Prussian soldiers as they marched into battle.) Djmaschek (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Review comment
Talk:Battle of Damghan (1729)

message: I removed falsification and a possible copy-right violation by the IP of banned User:NisarKand, once again trying to evade his block. Tajik (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: This article is shockingly bad. The "Afsharid dynasty" was NOT established in 1729 after the Battle of Damghan. At that point Nader was still loyal to Tahmasp and it was the latter who was crowned shah in Isfahan after the battle. Nader did not remove Tahmasp until 1732 and he did not end the Safavid dynasty and have himself crowned shah until 1736. I will be removing the current nonsense as soon as I can. The ethnic composition of the Safavid army doesn't appear to be supported by the sources either. --Folantin (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The names of the armies Axworthy gives (as he explains in a long note on p.91) are "Persian" and "Afghan" (as does Savvinos in the PDF). --Folantin (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Afghans ended the Safavid dynasty after the 1722 Battle of Gulnabad. Axworthy is refering to nationalities of those forces, those from Persia were Persians and those from Afghanistan were Afghans. Others tell us the actual ethnicities of the fighters involved. Persia and Afghanistan both are multi-ethnic societies.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Tahmasp II and Abbas III were Safavid shahs 1729-1736. Nader restored the Safavid dynasty in 1729 (though its shahs soon became his puppets). In 1729 Nader's title was "Tahmasp Qoli" (slave of Tahmasp). I repeat, Nader did not become shah until 1736. "Axworthy is refering to nationalities of those forces, those from Persia were Persians and those from Afghanistan were Afghans". No, he isn't. See his note. "Others tell us the actual ethnicities of the fighters involved". They do? Then it would be nice to have some references (preferably more recent than 1858). --Folantin (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You think ending a dynasty means complete annihilation? On October 23, 1722, Soltan Hosein, ruler of the Safavid dynasty abdicated and acknowledged Mahmud Hotaki as the new shah of Persia (Axworthy pp.39-55), that's the day when Safavid dynasty (Safavid kingdom) was ended. The events of that era are very well documented and I don't see a point you arguing and discussing this here with me? You don't even need outside reference just click on Wikilinks. "No, he isn't"? and how do you know this? Provide evidence or stop arguing with me.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So what dynasty was Shah Tahmasp II then? Afsharid? Perhaps you also think the Bourbon dynasty ended with the deposition of Louis XVI in 1792. --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute rubbish 

message: This "source"(http://www.sammustafa.com "The Battle of Mehmandost") is someone's internet site which as a game is representing this battle. Hardly a 3rd party published source and needs to be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source?
Talk:Operation Carpetbagger

message: I am a son-in-law of the late Col. Clifford J. Heflin, Commanding Officer of the (eventually designated 801st/492nd Group known as the Carpetbaggers)from(roughly)10 December 1943 until 22 October 1944. I just came across the Talk: Operation Carpetbagger webpage and would like to offer several clarifications and corrections of what has been posted.  First, although officer Boone was among the founders of the Carpetbaggers and the unit could trace its formation to anti-submarine squadrons, Heflin did not form the Carpetbaggers in California and did not precisely form it directly from the 22nd anti-sub squadron. Instead, Heflin's records show that he ended his command of the 22nd squadron on 4 November 1943, then briefly assumed CO of the 482nd Bomb Squadron/Special Project until 5 February 1944, and on 6 February 1944 was appointed CO of the 328th Service Group which would become the Headquarters unit of the Carpetbaggers. Thus, Heflin was CO of an evolving set of units until 22 October, 1944, when the Carpetbaggers' role in Overlord and liberating France was complete and Heflin was quickly tapped for an even more significant command. Also, Heflin was born on 29 April 1915, so he was only 28 years old when he took command of what would become the Carpetbaggers and only 29 years old when he was appointed to his next command. 
In addition, although the march of time may have overtaken them, there are two websites that, as of early February 2012, still offer a wealth of information about the Carpetbaggers and I believe they should not have been removed: http://harringtonmuseum.org.uk/CarpetbaggerMuseumHomePage.htm and http://www.801492.org/MainMenu.htm. Also, there is a very informative and free streaming video about the Carpetbaggers available here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/231587/the-military-network-the-carpetbagger-project-secret-heroes.
Karovd000 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

message: I deleted the text next under as not encyclopedic. I wonder where it came from. 
Paul, in Saudi 03:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I talked to a guy a while back who had been involved with this program and wanted to add material about it; I pointed him to this page. It's original material, but certainly usable. Shimgray | talk | 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete LONG post

message: I removed both of the following external links from the article: 
*The Carpetbagger Photographic Archives
*Carpetbaggers: Flying secret missions behind the lines
because both are dead (404 page not found from the site host).  Onesweettart (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of dead external links
Talk:Battle of Quebec (1690)

message: I've written most of the information, I'll expand it whenever I can. AmericanColumbia 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: *Support I'd pass it now but the nomination process was not complete it is now.  I'll leave it a day to allow some more input.  In any case it was no longer a Stub and has been promoted to B-class.Peter Rehse 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a few minor corrections, but there were no major problems with the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass
Talk:Eliyahu Bet-Zuri

message: Can somebody produce some authority for 2 questionable statements in this article:-
Who was the "Canaanite Movement", an org. I have not heard of before, and not a very likely name for a Zionist org. (although I could be wrong)?
Did his speech really win him widespread support in Egypt? PatGallacher 00:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With no other choice, the young men pinned their hopes on Egyptian public opinion, and their courage did, indeed, evoke genuine awe among some intelletuals and political leaders, and the waves of support from outside did penetrate unnoticed into the courtroom. Here and there, people began whispering that the case is being handed over to the prime minister, and even to the king, and that some people were pressuring that clemency be granted to the assassins. The Egyptian press devoted many columns to the trial and to popular responses to it. Support for the young men was especially high among Egyptian students, who called on their peers to learn chapters in valor [sic] from the Hebrew underground and to adopt the virtue of self-sacrifice characteristic of its fighters. 
Any flaws in this quick translation are my own. I believe that there is more information in English in the book The Deed, which I also cited, but I do not have access to it right now. Hope this helps. Danny 11:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: I disagree that he was a criminal, that's POV. According to policy here, he was either a rebel or a militant. Amoruso 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: "He condemned his judges, not as a Zionist, but as a member of an oppressed people fighting against colonial occupation."
In what way is Zionism not synonymous with "an oppressed people fighting against colonial occupation"?
In any case, there is evidence that he did condemn his judges as a Zionist:
"When the testimony was completed, Beit-Zuri rose to his feet and made a political statement. He said:
    Millions sank in the sea of blood and tears, but the British skipper did not lift them to the ship. And if a few of the survivors held on to the bow of the ship, he, the British skipper, pushed them back into the sea. And we in our home-land had no choice but to surrender or fight. We decided to fight. " http://www.etzel.org.il/english/people/betzuri.htm
To me, this sounds like a Zionist statement.Whyzeee 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal proceedings
Talk:Operation Stoneage

message: Why short tons?Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cargo 

message: Changed the class from Start to C according to the B Class tickboxes. Once the lead is re-written it will be ready for a B class review. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion
Talk:Battle of Paulus Hook

message: I'm a passer-by, not an expert. I agree entirely with everything posted above, which I note is now 16 years old. I removed the following text appended to the summary, immediately before the Contents box: "The same night, Colonel Van Boskirk left Paulus Hook with a force of one hundred and thirty men to make a raid upon the neighborhood. Fortunately the two parties did not meet." There is no other mention of Colonel Van Boskirk, no hint as to where he took his force from or which army he belonged to - one can guess, of course, but it's scarcely encyclopedia material Least of all that dreadful "Fortunately". As an article the whole thing leaves much to be desired, but that specific sentence is intolerable. JohnHarris (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of one sentence regarding Colonel Van Boskirk
Talk:Battle of Göllheim

message: I'm not sure whether this is a translation of the German language article or just simply repeats the same error. The German word 'Treffen' in a military context does not mean engagements. The actual meaning is the organisation of an army on the field of battle. There are two possibilities for it's use in the medieval context. Either it is three 'Treffen' (the English term is actually battle, but that can lead to even more confusion, a battle being a subdivision of an army in a battle) behind one another, that is a vanguard, main-body and rearward. Or three battles side by side, left flank, centre and right flank. In some cases a fourth or even further battle may be formed, for instance a reserve. So in the context of the article mention of victory in the third battle does not mean three successive engagements but actually a victory fought by this echelon or flank. Nothing more, nothing less. --Caranorn (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  engagements
Talk:Hundred (county division)

message: The following text is inappropriate for an article on a specific hundred, though is suitable for this article. Posted here in preparation for merging if the material is not already present in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Text moved from [[Andersfield Hundred]]

message: has been proposed to be merged into , see talk:100 (number) for the discussion -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Hundred (word)}}"

message: shire and county are used interchangeably in the article - what is the difference, if any? Are they simply different terms used by the Anglo-Saxons and Normans for the same thing? The article should explain that then. LamontCranston (talk)
It's explained in the Wikipedia article for ["Shire"]. In the UK, the two terms are effectively synonymous, but there's a bit of history behind the two words.Thomas Peardew (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The term county has developed over time to refer to different types of land divisions whereas the term shire has remained as a synonym for the original traditional county land division. This is just an observation by me which I think is relevant to the question. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  shire vs county 

message: I don't have any good sources to hand so can't add it to the article itself - but Hundred has been in use in parts of New Zealand - most notably the southern part of the historic Southland Province - as the name of land registration districts. Many original sections in southern Southland are still registered in hundreds - from the south coast as far north as the Hundred Line (which gets its name from this distinction). These hundreds and their boundaries are shown on survey maps up to the mid 1980s. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds in New Zealand 

message: See User talk:Dudley Miles#re Hundred (county division) #Etymology. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology
Talk:Battle of Doljești and Orbic

message: ...he moved to the court of Vlad III Dracul and, in 1457, managed to receive 6,000 horsemen as military assistance, putting them to use in a victorious battle against Petru Aron at Doljești, near Roman. Following another lost battle at Orbic, Aron fled to Poland, while Stephen was crowned Prince...
După uciderea tatălui său Bogdan, Ștefan vine cu oaste, ajutat de Vlad Țepeș, domnul Țării Românești și după înfrângerea lui Petru Aron în "tina de la Doljești", la 12 aprilie și la Orbic pe 14 aprilie 1457 - merge la Suceava și pe locul ce se chema câmpia Direptății, lângă cetatea de scaun, întreabă pe toți de față, dacă le este cu voie să le fie domn. Întreaga adunare în frunte cu mitropolitul Teoctist, boieri, târgoveți, ostași și "toată țara" proclamară pe Ștefan ca domn legiuit al Moldovei în scaunul părinților și strămoșilor acestuia....
Terraflorin (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is not Battle of Direptate
Talk:Battle of Fort Bowyer

message: I would propose that we integrate this article into the article on Fort Bowyer, for two reasons.  First, there were two battles of Fort Bowyer in the war of 1812. The article on Fort Bowyer has the first , and a reference to the present article. This article has the second, and a reference to the first.  Putting the present article into the article on the Fort would make clearer the connection between the two battles. Second, one comprehensive article beats two partial articles. A redirect could send people looking for the either battle to the comprehensive article.Acad Ronin (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fort Bowyer