lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Supreme War Council (Japan)

message: This page incorrectly lumps two separate and distinct entities together.  The first is the Supreme War Council, which was under Imperial General Headquarters and was responsible for the military conduct of the war.  This Council was created during the Meiji Restoration, and is referenced in the opening paragraph of this article. 
The second and very separate entity referenced in this article is the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (commonly translated in English as simply Supreme War Council).  This council was created by Premier Kuniaki Koiso in 1944 in an attempt to gain a more direct say in the execution of the war.  This is the council that became an inner cabinet of sorts, and where Japanese policy makers held important debates regarding the nature and timing of surrender.  
I suggest that we delete the first paragraph since it is unsourced, and write a description of only the latter Supreme War Council.  I also suggest that we rename this article "The Supreme Council for the Direction of the War". 
The issue of confusing these two entities is featured prominently in Robert JC Butow's "The Surrender of Japan", Stanford University Press: 1954.
bosoxrock88 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your comment about the distinction between the Saikō sensō shidō kaigi and the Gunjji sangi'in of the Meiji era. However, as most english sources use the same name for the two entities, I think that the main topic of this article should remain the later one and that we should add a section about the new Council, the political move made Koiso and specify that Anami, Toyoda and others were members of the Saikō kaigi. --Flying Tiger 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Gunji-Sangikan-Kaigi(軍事参議官会議) and Saiko-Sensou-Sidou-Kaigi(最高戦争指導会議)＝Supreme War Council are completely different entities. Former was based on Meiji constitution which was valid until 1945. Both existed in 1944 and 1945, but have different members. All of Gunji-Sangikan-Kaigi members are current or ex high ranking military officers, no civilian. So we should delete description of Gunji-Sangikan-Kaigi in this page.-Kmk75s (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually Inaccurate

message: This article appears to summarize several other articles, especially those of key figures, so it seems valid without extensive references on its own. The Liaison Conference is referred to specifically in Chapter 23 of David Bergamini's tome Japan's Imperial Conspiracy (William Morrow 1971) where it is described as part of a New Order or New Structure. Martindo (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Removal
Talk:Svinfylking

message: There is a slight coherence problem. Svinfylking is identified as a Viking tactic, and then the Roman counter tactic is discussed... But the Vikings and the Romans were not contemporary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.169.28 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that this was a 'Germanic' tactic, insofar as we can claim such a thing. It is mentioned, with a Latin name, in Tacitus' Germania, and the Old Norse term is assumed to be a native name for the same formation in later times. I shall look into editing the article accordingly. Arkitype (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Sylver Vertical Launching System

message: I'd hazard a guess and say it's something along the lines of "SYtême de Lancement VERticale". Can someone confirm? Dr. Lobotomy 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "SYstème de Lancement VERticale", "vertical launch system" in english, right. --Suoo (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "SYstème de Lancement VERtical", without the "e"... =) --Friday83260 (On discute ?) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What does SYLVER stand for exactly?
Talk:Type 72Z

message: Type 72Z is a modernized version of T55 series tanks which is up-graded by Defence Industries Ortganization of Iran. High combat performance of this tank can be defined by its very high and accurate fire power, very good maneuverability (mobility) and proper armour protection. 
Mounting a new armament system consisting of 105mm barrel gun model M68 with a long operational life, effective range, precision, high firing power and simple replacement without removal of the turret. Electronic Fire Control System (EFCS-3), as one of the most advanced fire control systems makes Type 72Z enjoy a high combat firing power in different condition of tank and targets at day and night.
 
Automatic/manual stabilizing and firing the gun.Capability of firing from mobile tank at moving or stable target.Using V46-6 engine with 780 h.p, Type 72Z performs ideal acceleration and speed. Easy driving and maneuverability can be increased with semi-automatic and automatic gear shifting modes. 
Installation of all power compartment; engine, gear box, brake, steering, transfer case, cooling system and hydraulic system in an assembly called “power pack" ensures lower repair time, quick mounting and dismantling of power pack. By employing reactive armour protection on this tank, protection against antitank weapons is increased. 
http://www.diomil.ir/en/veig.aspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magician 60 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Tactical communications

message: I noticed on the Military to-do list Battlefield communications as a subject needing an article. I found this stub, and began fleshing it out. I need to get decent citations to back up my prose, though. I have more resources at home, but I'll see what I have around the school I'm at. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:TADIL-J

message: I guess TADIL (used to) stand for Tactical Digital Information Link? I understand these terms are now officially historical, but still remain in the vernacular. As such, most refernces should be changed to TDL and Tactical Data Link respectively. 62.254.68.36 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical Digital Information Link (TADIL)
Talk:Tatmadaw

message: There is no mention whatsoever of the current military coup and the now-established fact that the Tatmadaw have now turned against the people themselves, as evidenced by the more than 100 people shot dead in the streets yesterday March 27. Someone who knows what they're doing needs to get this covered thoroughly on the Burmese military/Tatmadaw Wikipedia page. 2600:1702:21C0:58E0:C1BA:E8F6:34E9:3285 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no political context in this article because Nubia86 has been vigilantly suppressing it. Weird choice, in my opinion. Ungulates (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Nubia86 continues to automatically revert all changes to the intro. Could they discuss it here? I guess not! Ungulates (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I note that User:Nubia86 continues to censor the article. Sad stuff. Ungulates (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military coup 

message: This author at Global Voices makes a passionate plea  to stop using 'Tatmadaw' for the military, as he says it glorifies them with the honorable (literal translation) 'Royal Armed Forces'. I'm not familiar enough to propose a name change re-write for the article, but welcome comments. Onanoff (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added "Sit-Tat" as an alternate name to the lead. HappyWith (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Follow-up with more detail: While "Sit-Tat" has risen in popularity a lot in the past few years, I don't think it's the WP:COMMONNAME just yet - "Tatmadaw" is still used more. Maybe the article could be moved to Military of Myanmar per WP:NPOVTITLE if "Tatmadaw" is considered to be a non-neutral name glorifying the military? I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say if this satisfies that policy or not, but it could do with more research. HappyWith (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 'Tatmadaw' the wrong name?
Talk:Auspicious Incident

message: This article does not need to be merged with Janissary. It is in terrible shape at the moment but could be expanded and linked to the main article. In addition to Jason Goodwin's book Lords of the Horizons already cited, Godfrey Goodwin's The Janissaries (1994) has a chapter called "The Auspicious Event" (pp. 214-228). Aramgar (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Didn't Constantinople's name change to Istanbul as soon as it was Ottoman held, and wouldn't that be the appropriate name for it? It seems relevant since the two articles --illumi (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you read the article on Constantinople you will see the progression by which the name was altered over the centuries. -- JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantinople

message: This article is in poor shape.  In particular, the third paragraph seems to take an unnecessarily anti-Janissary tone rather than an explanatory tone; it also does not have any citations.
Can anyone verify the information in the third paragraph?  If not, it should be deleted or at least rephrased.
Also, is the topic of the third paragraph as it currently stands relevant to this article as a whole?  I don't see that it is intensely relevant to The Auspicious Incident.
Third Paragraph:
"By the early 17th century, the Janissary corps had ceased to function as an elite military unit. Many Janissaries were not soldiers and simply extorted money from the Turkish state and dictated its government, adding to the steady decline of the Ottoman Empire [citation needed]. Any sultan who attempted to modernize the Ottoman military structure and replace the Janissaries was either immediately killed or deposed.[citation needed]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.127.230 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph provides background context. Please remember that not all leaders will be expert scholars; thus, a sketch of the circumstances & situation leading up to the event will help the non-expert reader. Personally, I found that paragraph hugely enlightening! linas (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Try 'hugely inaccurate'. No credible sources are given for this obviously biased claim. There is just a link to something written on a website. This article reads like an opinion piece from the third paragraph onwards.--Zubedar (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This is still a horribly biased and blatantly anti-Janissary piece in 2019.  Reference to the work of Edhem Eldem would be helpful. Cerberus (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Writing 

message: I found this topic interesting, and the phrase "sacred standard of the Prophet" in the Mutiny section caught my eye, but there's no description of what this artifact is/was and how it relates to Ottoman/Turkish culture. Any editors more knowledgable able to expand on this or link to an article that explains this? 73.94.104.155 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sacred standard of the Prophet"
Talk:Panzer Greift An

message: I removed the following line: "(The previous claim is incorrect. Rommel was never implicated in the assassination attempt, but rather was discovered attempting to make separate peace treaties with the Western Allies. He felt that it was best for Germany to not have the Russians complete their movement into Germany and thought that the Western Allies would be a benefit to help with this goal. Rommel thought the attempt was a foolish idea in that the German Military would fall apart with no central command and thus allow for a quicker Russian advance. (The Rommel Papers))"
Regardless of accuracy it's not cited properly and the seeming self-contradiction gives a very unprofessional feel to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.83.20 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 20 Plot
Talk:Thanksgiving (band)

message: This article lacks any assertion of notability. The only external sources are record labels which have released material buy this guy and interviews/reviews on what appear to be blogs. Given the information in the article currently there is no reason to believe that most of it isn't original research. Please read the notability guidelines for music and consider adding published, third-party sources to the article. Happy wiking Zytsef (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: i don't really use wikipedia as a user but if you want to have a citation for that, you can definitely find it on the Phil Elverum and Suns website or whatever his label is called under Thanksgiving. phil did definitely say that!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.53.10 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first "citation needed" 

message: it should be noted somewhere in the article (with appropriate sourcing, of course) that his recordings have recieved consistently negative reviews. Yilloslime TC 05:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  critical reception
Talk:Top attack

message: Well I guess I am as close to an expert as you are going to get for now.  But it is going to take a while for me to get back with more information.  I have tendency to go in spurts.  When I am going like gang busters I stay at it for hours and get it done.  Then I slow down and just fiddle with articles re-editing them and adding information and corrections. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an expert
Talk:Torch Commando

message: As the Torch Commandos early leaders all joined Umkhonto we Sizwe, shouldn't Torch Commando be considered a terrorist organization?101.98.188.150 (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only if the organisations leadership itself instigated terrorism, which unlike Umkhonto we Sizwe, it didn't. --197.228.40.197 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Progressive, anti-fascist is however a codeword for pro-communist. While most members were most likely just useful idiots. --154.69.31.204 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist organisation?
Talk:Tour of duty

message: I think a section on the actual length of a tour of duty in Vietnam would be helpful.  Most people think a tour of duty in 'Nam was a year but this varied.  Air Force pilots would fly 100 missions, the last ten missions being "milk runs" before they rotated out.  Then, after some training stateside they might go back for another 100 missions.  Many servicemen were sent to Vietnam on Tempotary Duty (TDY) for a few months which extended into half a year or so.  The actual number of American troops in Vietnam was deceptive because just listing PCS (Permanent Change of Station) troops did not include TDY's.  I recall at one time the number of troops in Vietnam was given as 500,000 BUT they did not list the 250,000 TDY troops, which actually brought it up to 750,000 troops.  Also, I've heard officers only had to serve 6 months in Vietnam while enlisted men had to serve a full 12 months.  And so forth.  Anybody got any published, verifiable sources that we could use in the Wiki article?  The military has all kinds of ways of "cooking the books" to juggle the numbers.  For instance, I've heard that company commanders would be raked over the coals for getting too many casualities in Vietnam so they'd go to the aid tent where the wounded were being treated and kick out the guys with light, superficial wounds so they wouldn't be counted, thus depriving them of their Purple Hearts.--But they'd thus artificially bring the casuality count down.  71.154.158.137 (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour of Duty in Vietnam
Talk:Trainband

message: My prejudice is that they were originally support troops used to manage and defend the supply train of an army. However, by the time John Walker published his dictionary in 1791, he saw the meaning as "TRAINBANDS, The militia, the part of a community trained to martial exercise." (RJPe (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I propose merging Trained bands into Trainband. I think these are two pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope (i.e. duplicate articles) The merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Trainband.Lieutcoluseng (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:The 6ths

message: Added citations for main body Eggsngrits (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Turning movement

message: Could we merge this article into the one on Encirclement?  Seems like it should be a subsection there along with Pincer Movement rather than a stub on its own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillroy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about as similar to an encirclement as it is to a frontal assault. Lastdingo (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

text: So basically this is flanking? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge This Article with Encirclement
Talk:The Abyssinians

message: Does anyone know where to find current tour dates? The listed official website has not had any updated content since 2007.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheparm1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Tour Dates 

message: The penultimate paragraph seems at best incomplete - it says that "Collins left again in 1999 and released material as Bernard Collins & the Abyssinians, releasing an album the same year" and leaves it there. But the article is illustrated with a photo taken at a concert in 2010, with Donald Manning at left and Collins at centre; I don't know who the third member is but I'm fairly certain it isn't Lynford Manning. I saw this same line-up live around 2003 and in 2006. So a line-up including two thirds of the original group toured at least three times up to at least 2010. Without a reference (which I can't find) I can't add anything. Anyone got anything - who that third member is/was, how long that line-up existed? Freewheeling frankie (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later history
Talk:The Aislers Set

message: Shouldn't Alicia and Dan be at least mentioned? And Gary Olson as an occasional member. The line-up at the 2006 North Six show was completely different apart from Gary, and included Kevin Barker And is there any current line-up at all?  Amy has been playing out under her own name recently. Wwwhatsup 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Members
Talk:USAF Weapons School

message: Hello to all. I am confused since the article contains contradictory information. It says : 
*Constituted as USAF Fighter Weapons School, and activated, on 30 December 1965
*Organized on 1 January 1966
*Discontinued, and inactivated, on 1 September 1966 
But in the History section, the text does not mention any interruption during the Vietnam period.
Can anyone clarify this? Thanks in advance & regards, --Domenjod (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing - and contradictory - info
Talk:Vandenberg Space Launch Complex 3

message: The article seems to be missing pre-1999 history. What happened with SLC-3 prior to 1999 when Atlas came to SLC-3E, and sometime a bit later when Falcon 1 briefly used SLC-3W? N2e (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History is lacking 

message: A map showing the relative positions of the various launch complexes at Vandenberg would be a useful addition to the article. N2e (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A map would be useful 

message: Since SpaceX no longer uses SLC-3 West and will be using a newly renovated SLC-4 for its Falcon 9 launches starting in 2012, should SLC-3 West be considered inactive? user:mnw2000 00:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Space Launch Complex 3-West still active? 
Talk:Vedette (sentry)

message: The military vedette and show-business vedette should clearly be distinguished with different entries... Any disagreement? --patton1138 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement. I've moved the show-business vedette content to Vedette (entertainer). — Paul A (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why on ''earth'' are these two topics included in the same entry??
Talk:Volunteer Officers' Decoration

message: It's unclear (and confusing) as to why page "Volunteer Officer's Decoration" redirects to the shorter-titled page "Volunteer Decoration". Debrett's clearly states that the order has a full three-word title (see 'VD' at ref: http://www.debretts.com/people/honours/crown-honours-.aspx). The Wiki article likewise states the three-word description (ie. "Volunteer Officer's Decoration" in its text more often than the two-word alternative. The redirection should be reversed. Pete Hobbs (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy.  I saw that Debrett's had it as "Volunteer Officer's Decoration", but had remembered seeing both ways.  Upon further investigation I found the London Gazette order of wear listing has it as "Volunteer Officers' Decoration", it is the same at the direct.gov.uk website , and in the Royal Warrant establishing the decoration .  In my mind those sources seemed authoritative.  Cheers.  EricSerge (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed. On reading the above reply I initially thought surely Debrett's typing would be more accurate than London Gazette hacks and typesetters, but on studying both Gazette ref pages (1892 and 1925) I see there's a precise consistency throughout - ie. Officers', and the plural apostrophe is also used in describing a separate Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officers' Decoration (also postnomial V.D.) on the same 1925 Gazette page. So the title and basic description are now exactly right and clear for all - which must be useful for others e.g. anyone researching relatives with a V.D. decoration. I think there's now a need for a new stub page about the Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officers' Decoration (VD), or maybe as an extra section to this article, as I begin to suspect it might be the proper title of the 1894 extension to officers in India and the Colonies - South African military decorations#Colonial forces 1894-1913 refers to it being granted in 1900–13 for example, and I've just seen a VD medal image inscribed Colonial Auxiliary Forces and with a VR insignia in the centre. Ah - http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/britishguide/territorial_decoration/volunteer_officers_decoration.htm has full details. I'll use that to clarify the article further. Many thanks for above input re the apostrophe. Pete Hobbs (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs titling Volunteer Officer's Decoration
Talk:Liberation war

message: This article was the byproduct over the initial media coverage of the 2011 Libyan civil war, which was referred to by a number of commentators as a war of liberation, and briefly re-introduced the term to the Western mainstream. However, an article on the concept of a "Liberation war" essentially duplicates the article Wars of national liberation; I'm proposing a move and merger with that article accordingly. --Katangais (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with wars of national liberation