lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ituri conflict

message: I know too little about this subject, but this BBC article's information should be included in the article... —Nightstallion (?) 08:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional source

message: Shouldn't this be at Ituri conflict? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 
Talk:Dissolved inorganic carbon

message: Shouldn't the first equation have H2CO3 in it too? I'm not confident enough to change it...
H2CO3 is included in the CT calculation via CO2*.  In practise, it is diffcult to separate CO2 from H2CO3, so they both included in the CO2* term.  In seawater their relationship is independant of pH and is as follows:
::CO2* = CO2 + H2CO3 
::H2CO3 = CO2/850
::CO2* = CO2(1 + 1/850)
Piyrwq 04:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Second Barons' War

message: surely as the Barons wars were largely a continuation of the same conflict as the Anarchy it deserves a mention in the background?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.245.115 (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Anarchy 

message: From "De Montfort" this and "De Montfort" that in the text, it appears that editors of this article think "De Montfort" was Simon's surname, and that you'd be looking it up under "D".--Wetman (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "De Montfort"

message: There seems to be a contradiction between this article and the one on Simon de Montfort.
This one says "he [de Montfort] married Henry’s sister Eleanor without consulting Henry: a feud developed between the two".  The other says "While this marriage took place with the king's approval, the act itself was performed secretly and without consulting the great barons, as a marriage of such importance warranted".  
So was Henry consulted or not?
Baska436 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  de Montfort marriage 

message: This journal article might be useful for those looking to expand this article in the future - or myself, if I get around to it first. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Peasants
Talk:Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652)

message: There was a civil war in England which occurred at the time which it seems to me was entirely separate from Cromwell's invasion of Scotland. The new title of the article is in my opinion extremely poor, and does not give any indication as to what the contents is about, which is the conclusion of the civil war itself. I missed the previous debate at the time but would have strongly disagreed with the change had I seen it. Just because we decide today something is not a civil war, doesnt mean we can change the name which is most referenced, as its known mostly by numerous sources as the Third Civil War. I came here today looking to read about something on  with the Third Civil war and initially did not realise this article covered the topic and thought the entire article had been deleted. Anyone without a basic knowledge of the period may not realise now there was a significant third part and pass over this article, as the title makes it seem like its just about another Anglo-Scottish border war. 
Can I suggest it would be better to have an independent article covering Charles IIs campaign in England as the Third English Civil war, whilst Cromwell' invasion of Scotland should have its own article titled as such. Anvib (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You may certainly suggest, but there was an extensive and well frequented discussion on just the points you raise - see "Article title" above. I suggest you read through it, especially the references to sources and the lack of source support for "Third English Civil War". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for the Third English Civil war
Talk:List of Roman civil wars and revolts

message: Excuse me...but I was under the impression Sulla's march on Rome was a success (initial in 88BC). AFTER he left Rome Marius returned and conducted his slaughter. But if you classify Sulla's second march on Rome as separate it strikes me that you should classify Marius' march as distinct from Sulla's first march. 
Also, I think the names of the Republican wars are unencyclopedic - such as 'Final War of the Roman Republic'.
I would agree with you, I've changed the 1st Sullan Civil War to a Sullan victory. However, it might be worth adding that Marius temporarily took Rome leading up to the 2nd Sullan war? - Norminator (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sulla

message: Why aren't any of the civil wars of the empire written about here? - PocklingtonDan 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is incomplete. Most of Wikipedia's articles are incompleete, save - possibly - some of the article which have been edited to "featured" caliber. Feel free to expand when you find a lack. - Vedexent (talk) - 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is this article on the republican civil wars only??? 

message: Shouldn't we add the Sertorian revolt in Spain as a civil war as well and also add the revolt of Lepidus and Brutus in 77 BC? -- fdewaele, 12 July 2008, 12:53 (CET).
The article stats that ceasar fought against 'conservative republicans). This is incorrect and one can say POV. Ceasar fought against reactionarys that were in the senate. other civil wars that were listed stated senate forces against .....
should it not be ceasar against senatorial forces? After all sulla and his optimates beat the populares in his second civil war but it doesn't say Sulla versus Liberal republicans  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.17.200 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lepidus and Sertorius

message: The so-called Post-Caesarian civil war (44 BC) merely links to Battle of Mutina. Although treating the military history of individual battles is a good way to focus on the details of strategy, the history of the civil war in this year shouldn't be carved up into bits; that is, there's no reason to have a "post-Caesarian civil war" article that is separate from the Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC). I would suggest having a unified article on the war as a subject of history (political and social history), with separate articles on notable battles. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  44 BC 

message: Should the Servile Wars be included?  I think they should be considered "civil wars" by an ordinary definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Servile Wars
Talk:John Corbett

message: is he doing the voice on the applebees commercials  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.120.111 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  john corbett voice 

message: Can he be a 'born again Christian' while 'living in sin' (as the phrase goes) with a woman? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born again Christian? 
Talk:Model category

message: I actually did it a different way, that puts the CMC page history here. Below is the old model category text, to edit in at need (translation from de:Modellkategorie. Charles Matthews 08:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Fixed. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This talk page appeared in two Wikipedia categories

message: The homotopy category section says that "left homotopy classes" of maps are defined above. Above, it's stated that left homotopy is defined with respect to cylinder objects. However, the article fails to actually state a definition. Hurkyl (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing definition of homotopy
Talk:Torstenson War

message: Very short. Nice sectioning, but definitely needs expansion in every section. Needs an infobox. The intro also needs a little work - perhaps something like "The Hannibal War, also known as..." Slight changes in wording can make things seem a lot neater and more professional. Nice list of references, though. Always nice when an article lists its references. LordAmeth 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment
Talk:War of the Reunions

message: The map shown here depicts the extent of the "Spanish Netherlands" between 1545 and 1585,   when Spain controlled almost all of Belgium and (modern) Netherlands except for the Liege bishop.
This map is misleading and wrong in relation to this war in 1683,   which is a long time after the northern Netherlands gained independence from Spain after a long long war,  by the time of this war of Louis XIV against spain,  "spanish netherlands"  was only in the southern part ( Belgium, approximately ).Eregli bob (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Map
Talk:Italian Wars of 1499–1504

message: I thought that Burgundy was a possession of Philip I of Spain, and that Milan was a possession of The Crown of Aragon rather than both being held by the King of France? Were they disputed titles? MC 17:09, 10th March 2007
:The historical Duchy of Burgundy (in central France) had actually been seized by the French crown in 1477; what Philip still had was the Burgundian Circle (which was often referred to as Burgundy as well).
:As far as I know, Milan was never an Aragonese possession; the Duchy eventually became a Spanish one, but that didn't take place until the reign of Charles.  Milan became permanently Spanish in 1535, with the death of the last Sforza duke. Kirill Lokshin 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 
Talk:Italian War of 1494–1495

message: The article describes the war as having ended in 1495. Was the article mistitled then? Should it not be the Italian War of 1494-1495?
75.41.58.113 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, it's the text that's incorrect, not the title; while the last major battle was fought in 1495, the fighting did continue sporadically into 1498.  Thanks for catching this! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case it would be a good idea to include something about the next three years of the war, no? There may not have been any battles but it would be good to write about what did happen. As it is the article only covers two years of a five year war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.188.244 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Title? 

message: You can retreat, losing all the loot a.d call it a victory  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory? 

message: This edit is source misrepresentation and original research and should not be allow on this encyclopedia! Typical POV pushing from someone that can not handle facts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and source misrepresentation 

message: This page shows clearly bias(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias)siince you dismiss of the sources YOU DO NOT LIKE.
I get you do this because you feel big here
contrary to your pathetic life, but you gotta accept True History  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So after edit warring your WP:OR into the articles, you issue personal attacks. How typical. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit
Talk:Lapland War

message: "[T]he Finns who, unlike the Germans, always carried tents with them and did not require any existing shelter."
I know this is a very minor thing, but wrong is wrong.  It should be noted that the standard German gear did, in fact, include a tent in the form of the zeltbahn tent half.  This item was a poncho/camouflage/tent item all in one.  I doubt, however, that it was sufficient for the cold weather of the region while the Finn tents probably were better suited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.190 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amended by deleting. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Tent Usage 
Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1897)

message: The 1919-22 events can be described as a Greco-Turkish War because the two factions were the Kingdom of Greece and the Turkish National Movement, but the factions in this war were the Kingdom of Greece and the Ottoman Empire, so shouldn't this be titled Greco-Ottoman War (1897)?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a common name issue: most wars the Ottomans were in are commonly called "X-Turkish War", like the Russo-Turkish Wars. The difference between "Greco-Turkish War" and "Greco-Ottoman War" is overwhelming if you check Google Books. Constantine   ✍  13:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:Lamian War

message: As of the date of this post the article contains the text ", whereby only the 9,000 richest citizens were left in exclusive possession of the city.[10] The 12,000 poorest men, or 60% of the entire citizenship, were permanently exiled". If the 12,000 poorest men were 60% of the population, then 1/6th of that (2,000 men) is 10% of the population, and ten times that (100%) would be20,000 men. Of 20,000 men, if 12,000 were exiled, that leaves 8,000 men. So if the 9,000 richest citizens remained, 1,000 of them were women, right? Only 8,000 MEN were left, and 8,000 MEN can't be the same as "the 9,000 richest citizens". Well, that's fine if the 9,000 richest citizens included 1,000 women, but my understanding of life in ancient Greece is that only in Sparta could women become wealthy.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Math question on status of women
Talk:Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660)

message: British-Spanish relations is the current UK Collaboration of the Fortnight. This will no doubt be of interest to some people who have this page on their watchlists. Secretlondon 13:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[British-Spanish relations]]

message: This is written as if we know that Cromwell just decided on his own to enter a major war for only one reason.  Even if that's true I can't imagine how it would be possible to know it unless Cromwell said something in public like, "I got us into the war entirely on my own initiative and only to rob the Spanish colonies."  Maybe someone better at writing than I am could rephrase it to acknowledge that different people in England could have different motives for the war and one person could have more than one motive at the same time.
Abu America (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes 

message: in England 162.216.161.34 (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened in  jamaica in 1656
Talk:Pruth River Campaign

message: Should we maybe use the normal Romanian name for this city? I don't know who refers to it as Jassy, but at least Romanians would not know what you mean by that name.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.99.211.179 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Iași is traditionally known as Jassy in many European languages, such as English, French, German, Swedish and even in my own language, Finnish. It's not extraordinary, for example in English Firenze is called Florence and Torino is called Turin. Or speaking of Romanian cities, for example București is known as Bucharest in English. Well known historical cities often have traditional names in different languages which can differ from the language spoken in these particular cities. --Ukas (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Jassy or Iași

message: My atlas says that Zaporhizie belonged to the Ottoman Empire in the years 1711-39, probably after this war. No mention on Wikipedia.
--Revery (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaporhizie 

message: The map shows the R. Dnieper flowing into the Liman at Mayaki - it should be the Dniester! Maelli (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map incorrect 

message: so please take it all what I made before back, thanks. Forward.ops (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Forward.ops : Your edit can be found in 'view history', it's not technically gone. When changing several aspects of an article, I would suggest splitting it into several edits and give explanations to each one of them (so that we understand your intentions). Without explanations, edits such as replacing Russo-Turkish wars with Muscovite-Ottoman War (1710–1713), 1710–1711 with 27 May — 12 July, 1711, and Ottoman victory with Defeat of the Muscovites, etc, will likely be reverted. Imonoz (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It was part of the Great Northern War and Muscovite-Ottoman War (1710–1713), you can’t just see that in the Ukrainian Wikipedia called “Прутський похід”, all of that I’ve take from that. Forward.ops (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  bro why does it got all removed while I’ve doing that for so long? what the point to doing this hard work on wikipedia while it gonna be just removed? I added official sources that has confirmed the information which I’ve done over there, so what’s the sense to remove that? the Zaporozhian Cossacks was on the both sides, official Ukrainian historians can confirm that, like the Ukrainian Hetman Pylyp Orlyk was there, you can even watch the Ukrainian wikipedia about that campaign.
Talk:Third Anglo-Mysore War

message: Sultanate of Mysore and the Kingdom of Mysore are two totally different dynasties.```  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.33.151 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I removed the picture to the right. 
Removal was made to reduce article clutter. Feel free to put it back in, or to swap it out with the other map in the article. Two images of this size showing relatively the same thing for a small article just made for a poor aesthetic. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 
Talk:Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634)

message: This article has a lot of great information but it is very confusing.  I cannot follow the sequence of events.  Can someone knowledgeable re-write this article in a more organized way?  Thank you. ---Vikiyazar 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Theres a lot of flowery and speculative language perhaps some of this is from a 1919 Britannica entry? It’s likely this article  has never been rewritten. I have at least cleaned up the first paragraph but much work is needed.
Odin1 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1919 article? 

message: Would probably be good if the writing of that name was consistent. The more common version seems to be Abazy.
213.61.225.194 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abazy/Abaza
Talk:Second Anglo-Mysore War

message: Sultanate of Mysore and the Kingdom of Mysore are two totally different dynasties.```  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.33.151 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ￼hi 2409:4063:4AB7:4B73:8443:5562:DA75:E4C7 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Like a lot of articles involving the Tippoo Sultan, this seems to have been the victim of edits from people with a disregard for article neutrality. I have added a pov and factual accuracy tag to the "Recovery of Chittur" section because obviously it is unreferenced and also it may contain several pov statements. I propose that the section be re-written or deleted unless inline citations can be provided. BarretBonden (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there do seem to be POV issues surrounding Tipu Sultan Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and factual accuracy 

message: Painting is uncredited; this should be remedied Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Talk:Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War

message: Is there a reason why this article has dates in its title?  Are there any other wars called "Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War"? Appleseed (Talk) 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Is there any special reason to state "..and with financial backing by UBS, the ..." in the abstract of the article? There is no definition of what UBS is, from what I conclude that this is the result of vandalism with a reference to the UBS bank? If not, some extra clarification is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.33.219 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to financial backing by UBS 

message: The map currently used in this article is in Polish, and so is of little use to most English-speakers.  Can somebody please substitute an English map?  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an English Map 

message: How could Hussites have played a role in this war when the war ended in 1411 and the Hussite movement didn't really take off until Hus's death in 1415?--205.172.21.143 (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Support: Hussites" 
Talk:Russo-Persian Wars

message: The redirect Russo-Azerbaijani Wars 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.  HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Russo-Azerbaijani Wars]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Laguna

message: *support, because there are lots of other things with this name, than the province. Avoid wrong links by having the phillipine province at Laguna province. Other provinces allreday use this format. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Result: page moved. Eugene van der Pijll 21:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Macedonian Wars

message: A quick check on a couple of items showed that the editor who added the material either is vandalizing the article, or was extremely careless in his/her referencing.  I'll continue to check the article and hopefully be able to correct some of this ... false referencing is one of the worst offenses someone can do on Wikipedia, as it undermines the project and hoodwinks our readers.  104.169.22.74 (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  failed verification
Talk:First Servile War

message: Is this actually a real word?!  I can't find it in a dictionary, and googling it only seems to bring up the same quote from Morton's work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comporanda

message: That he was a leader has no citation.  A. E. Astin's "Scipio Aemilianus" mentions this war a few times, but not Scipio's involvement therein.  Strange if he was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.229 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scipio?
Talk:Second Servile War

message: The Ancient Wars of Greece and Rome bar was above the article, as it was put in with the others.JanderVK (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this meant to be "Cilician" or "Sicilian"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.229 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cicilian"?