lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Haw's Shop

message: This page includes the following comment:  " These Confederates carried Enfield rifles, which had firing ranges superior to the carbines carried by the Federal cavalry".  The Enfield rifles link indicates that the rifle was introduced in 1895, meaning that it was not possible that it was used by the Confederates, so this comment is clearly in error.  GGG65 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was going to the incorrect article. I have fixed it. Thank you for catching this. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Enfields
Talk:Battle of Hefei

message: Salioscriblita: My article is in reference to the first battle of He Fei. The article that is being marked for possible merger is a mix of both the first and second battles. The first battle of He Fei was NOT the final confrontation between Wu and Wei, nor was Zhuge Liang alive during the second battle of He Fei. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Salioscriblita (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 October 2005.
Salioscriblita: Also, Wuzhang Plains took place a good deal of time after the first He Fei, and a good deal of time before the second He Fei. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Salioscriblita (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 October 2005.
:You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.. Please see your welcome message at User talk:Salioscriblita. -Walter Siegmund 15:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There was one book under sources, so I rewrote it in a better format. Still needs more info on the book though to put it in proper format. Any one think they can help? Thmars10 23:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: We have 5 completely separate battles spanning 50 years, all from distinct campaigns. A split, with each battle disambiguated by year, should be obvious. _dk (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this stage of article development I feel that a split is not warranted. The complete article is not very long and the five battles are quite closely linked. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with EkmanLi. How about Battle of Xiaoyao Ford for the second battle? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日)  contact me (聯絡) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Split
Talk:Jay Tavare

message: Tavare was born on June 18, 1968 in Arizona, United States
98.71.74.148 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015 

message: He was born on June 18, 1968 on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona, United States. https://nativeidentitycrisis.wordpress.com/tag/jay-tavare/ 
98.71.74.148 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. Furthermore, this particular blog uses the German Wikipedia page on Tavare as their source for Tavare's birthdate, and the only source on de.wiki is to IMDb, which is not a reliable source either, nor does it even mention his birthdate.  Cannolis (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015 

message: Jay Tavare was born in Iran, not the United States. 
2602:304:AF8B:C869:2568:8CB3:4076:5DC2 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 22, 2005

message: Please remove the dead link to a deleted image. I've tried and cannot find a replacement. Carcharoth 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link removal request
Talk:Sulfonyl group

message: Despite current stub status this article meets the minimum wiki quality criteria. V8rik 16:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * It meets the minimum stub requirements, and includes 3-10 short sentences. What's the problem with having the stub template on there, it might encourage somebody to add more information, and that's never a bad thing. There is no point in discussing this. — Wackymacs 17:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Second Battle of Independence

message: The two sources I used in reworking this article seemed sometimes to be saying different things.  The Centennial History source included a letter from an eyewitness to the battle (who literally watched it from her own front porch!) which I tried to incorporate into the narrative.  I will try to do some additional research in weeks to come, but anyone who is more knowledgable about this than I am is more than welcome to edit, expand or otherwise make changes to this article! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on sources 

message: This article very badly conflates this action and the Battle of Little Blue River (the October 21 action).  These two actions are treated as separate battles by an overwhelming consensus of secondary sources, so I will be removing the conflation.  Our nice, GA-assessed article about the Battle of Little Blue River is the proper home for extended analysis of the October 21 action. Hog Farm  Talk 04:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant conflation
Talk:First Battle of Independence

message: I have a definitve historical/governmental source that clearly designates the two battles of Independence as being of Minor (class D and C) importance: NPS What are the Nation's Principle Civil War Battlefields?.  See page 1 for the four classes, plus table 7 for the specific listings for Independence under IV.2, Battlefields-Lost Integrity.  It is clearly misleading, in my opinion at least, not to categorize this battle as "minor."  "Minor" most definitely does NOT mean the same as "skirmish" to many Civil War historians. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree (not that it matters this much later than the edits), the intensity of the engagement and K&W casualty rate especially among the officer corps elevate this to the level of a minor battle among small forces.  A skirmish would not result in a high ratio of K&W vs. those engaged unless the total force level was much smaller.  Contrast this with the skirmish at Blackwater Creek where the actual K&W rate was low, but nearly the entire regimental sized force of CSA recruits was routed and captured.  Red Harvest (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of Battle 

message: Hi! Maybe there were MURDERS committed in the jail... but this article for some reason does not tell us about it despite having chosen it as a section header! Either the text needs to be corrected/restored to a version that includes a description of the alleged murders or the header needs to be changed to "liberation of Independence Jail" or something like that. Anybody here knowing what happened that the superscript and content do not match in such a weird way?  --176.199.184.48 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The subsection header reads: "Murders committed by George Todd," and the section following explains this.  Todd summarily executed two men, one of whom he freed from the jail, and the other he had captured in battle.  I think that seems clear enough, but what do other readers think?  I did go in and correct the description on the photo; was that what caused the confusion? - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What murders?
Talk:Battle of Ilipa

message: * Ensured that this article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* This article would benefit from: in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: * I found the opening paragraph to be a huge understatement of Scipio's tactical achievement in this battle. His tactics were in fact highly innovative (unlike his victory at Zama, which was more along the lines of giving Hannibal a dose of his own medicine due to securing a stronger cavalry) and at least as deserving of praise as Hannibal's performance at Cannae. I'll get around to digging up some secondaries and even some of my own diagrams (based on the accounts of Polybius and some secondary sources). I can't believe this article is little better than a stub. FiReSTaRT (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understating the tactical genius 

message: File:Ilipa1.svg directly contradicts the text, about the position of Romans and their allies.91.10.37.164 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction
Talk:Battle of Hopton Heath

message: I thought there was a memorial unveiled pre 2010 (I recall it being televised on Midlands Today) to this battle which was erected either in or in close proximity to the confines of MOD Stafford (Beacon Barracks), whose fencing was visible in the shots. Does it relate to that battle or a different skirmish?Cloptonson (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Battlefield memorial?
Talk:Battle of Hohenfriedberg

message: the text says 2000, the infobox says 4800.  Which is correct?  both? -Gomm 04:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian casualties? 

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]]
Talk:Battle of Höchstädt

message: The article states that this battle was on 20 September 1703, and other dates are quoted relative to this.  However, both my sources (Eggenberger, 1985, and Perrett, 1992) state that the battle took place on the 30th September.  I'm sure this is due to different calendars - the 20th in the Julian and the 30th in the Gregorian.  If this is the case, we should say so.  I vote that we use the current (Gregorian) calendar throughout, with a footnote on the Julian calendar that would appear in contemporary sources.  But that decision is way above my pay grade!  --Wally Tharg (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, on second thoughts I'll just do it.  (I've borrowed the reference from the Blenheim article.)  I'd be grateful if someone could check the other dates in the text. --Wally Tharg (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the date correct?
Talk:Battle of Höchstädt (1800)

message: There are two uncited paragraphs in Background. There are no supporting materials. This is easily fixable; you could add a picture of Moreau for example. Djmaschek (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Assessment

message: Is there a reason for the 1704 battle to make up to one third of the lead ?
The end result of the battle was the opposite of what had occurred on those same fields almost 100 years earlier, when the armies of the Grand Alliance had faced the armies of France during the War of the Spanish Succession. At the Second Battle of Höchstädt in 1704, called the Battle of Blenheim by the English, the overwhelming Allied victory ensured the safety of Vienna from the Franco-Bavarian army, thus preventing the collapse of the Grand Alliance. France's loss during that engagement opened the pathway into France for the allied English and Austrian forces.
Yug (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight
Talk:Battle of Hochkirch

message: The first paragraph states "Over 30% of Frederick's army was defeated..." Since he had 30,000 troops and just a bit over 9,000 were killed, wounded or captured, shouldn't that read "Over 30% of Frederick's army was killed, wounded or captured... or better yet... "Frederick's army suffered over 30% casualties." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeated?
Talk:Battle of Himera (480 BC)

message: "This assumption is now in question, mass graves show some 200,000+ dead buried 10-15 per grave on the site". I think it is too early to jump on conclusions. Archaeologists don't know the exact number of the graves and the identity of the adult skeletons is still in question (excavation will end in 2010). Let alone the fact that 200.000 killed soldiers might lead to over a million of combatants. That seems quite unlikely if one takes into account the logistical problems of the ancient armies.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an article about the identity of soldiers in the Greek military at the site (Many apparently were barbarians): https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2022-10-03/ty-article/who-crushed-the-carthaginians-in-sicily-2-500-years-ago-not-exactly-the-greeks/00000183-9ea4-deb9-a5c7-feb467380000 .  This is a secondary source, so I think we can include this at least as a suggestion. Kdammers (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: On the discovery of the mass graves

message: Too much dependency on Herodotus in this section. His information may be debatable.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelo refuses Greece aid
Talk:Battle of Kirina

message: Ancient Kingdom of West Africa 41.191.104.91 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:Battle of Kilrush

message: Any objections to changing the citation system to reflist in the hope of encouraging more refs with the more common format? RashersTierney (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Show us any other battles in Ireland in the 1640s involving 11,000 men that are described as skirmishes, never mind as "small" skirmishes.78.17.23.211 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am the editor who rewrote the article and used the words "small skirmish." It was my impression that the battle really didn't last too long. The Confederates blocked the path of the Royalists but broke fairly quickly when the Royalist cavalry attacked. So I wanted to characterize it as a skirmish rather than a formal battle where the two sides faced each other across a field attacking with artillery and fighting it out for a prolonged priod. I may hav downplayed it too much. Change it if you like. Thanks for asking. VFF0347 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small skirmish?
Talk:Battle of Julianstown

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: This article states that the Irish forces were led by Rory O'More but O'Siorchu states that the Irish leader at Juliansown was Philip O'Reilly; can someone please clarify this. Inchiquin (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aidan Clarke (2000); the Old English 1625-42, says p. 177 that the rebel leaders were Col. Hugh Byrne, Roger Moore (Rory o'More) and Philip O'Reilly. He gives the royal army as 600 foot and 50 cavalry; rebels about 3,000. I'll change the details in the box now.78.16.101.32 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip O'Reilly
Talk:Vassiliy Jirov

message: Vassiliy is the real MAN.  He proved to be a great athlet, patriot of his country, good son of his parents and finally he became good father.  I am proud of him and wish him all the best.  He proved that hard work makes people achieve any goals.
Udachi Brat i sdorovya,
Danny Nurtazin from NYC.
===Corrected the account of the Mesi / Moorer fights===
I rewrote the account bof the Mesi fight, pointing out that Jirov threw a flagrant intentional illegal blow to the back of Mesi's head. And that although Mesa fought the last two rounds injured, he still held on to win. I also removed the word "upset" from the account of his loss mto Moorer, becuse it was clearly not an upset
I believe these facts lend balance to the article, which otherwise reads like a fan page Cosand (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rewrote the account bof the Mesi fight, pointing out that Jirov threw a flagrant intentional illegal blow to the back of Mesi's head. And that although Mesa fought the last two rounds injured, he still held on to win. I also removed the word "upset" from the account of his loss mto Moorer, becuse it was clearly not an upset
I believe these facts lend balance to the article, which otherwise reads like a fan page Cosand (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrected the account of the Mesi / Moorer fights
Talk:Battle of Athos

message: The victory ensured Russia's supremacy in the Archipelago for the rest of the war.
Uhhh, WHAT Archipelago?
Maury 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

message: What on Earth is so significant about a list of the ships involved that it warrants an individual article?  Falcon 15:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check :Category:Orders of battle before attempting to uglify this particular page. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging
Talk:Battle of Le Cateau

message: Jeez that's a lot of stubs on the article! Is there any way to limit them? -- Spawn Man 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. All you need do is read Terraine, Ascoli and Lomas, then get editing. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete article

message: The question of inconsistent casualty criteria began between the wars and has an extensive bibliography much of which is found World War I casualties here. Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties section
Talk:Battle of Latakia

message: The source I used states that only 2 missiles were fired. The source is written by Saad El Shzly, and his book is highly reliable. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: when we have two reliable sources, with 2 different numbers, we provide a range. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of missiles fired 

message: According to the 2nd battle of Latakia wiki page it was Isreali missiles that hit the merchant ships. Not Syrian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.129.186 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who hit the merchant ships?
Talk:Battle of Lansdowne

message: I notice that the title of this article is 'Battle of Lansdowne [my emphasis]. The text above the first picture is spelt in the same way. However, as one reads down the page, it is noticeable that the 'e' is missing. I know that it can be spelt 'Lansdowne' or 'Lansdown' - it says so in the lede; but surely there should be consistent spelling throughout, especially as the differences are pointed out.
What do other editors think?
RASAM (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling
Talk:Battle of Landskrona

message: *The first reference is a broken link. Alex Deibel (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Ken Nordine

message: i think ken nordine also does some voice work on some of the early recordings of sigue sigue sputnik.
Ken Nordine did the narration in the "Can you feel it" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRuS8n0e-hk
He also did other narration work on videos developed with Robert Abel and Associates, such as in Cube Quest (uncredited).
Lord Nightmare (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Rumor has it that his surname was originally Norden, and that he changed it because Nordine sounded more commercial. True or merely rumor?76.199.9.141 (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname? 
Talk:Interstate 465

message: Originally there were only two lanes in each direction, but at some point during the initial construction the decision was made to increase this to three lanes in future construction and to add a third lane to the already-built sections. The bridges had all been constructed with three lanes to allow for this to be done more easily. I don't have any references for this so I won't add it to the article, but perhaps someone can find one and add this. Indyguy (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion from two lanes to three
Talk:Battle of Malakoff

message: Does anyone else feel that this article reads like a particularly exciting and popular history book, rather than an encyclopedia article, if I can make this distinction? Phrases like "under the fire of a thousand cannons" etc seem fairly rhetorical and less encyclopediac 122.57.65.138 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, old boy, but that's perfectly good English, although perhaps a little old fashioned.Scartboy (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doubly sorry, sir, but that is not old-fashioned English but contemporary awfully translated something else. Iiiiaaaa (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of article

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:William Simpson - Attack on the Malakoff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-09-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:William Simpson - Attack on the Malakoff.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The article has a 'need editing' heading. What an understatement. Just for example:
"Since the fortress enabled the control of the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, blew up the retreating Russian troops the equipment. By the victory of the Allies had Russia on military fortifications on the Black Sea without. The long-awaited Russian desire to dominate the inland sea and the free access through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and from there get to the oceans was not true." 
But I'm busy elsewhere. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence structure 

message: It looks to me as though a different language version (German?) of this article has been run through a very mediocre online translator and uploaded. It has obviously not been edited in any way by somebody who speaks good English.
I'm sure it would be an intersting article - if it were readable!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.58.51 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation? 

message: It is too easy to kill almost all prominent Russian commanders defending Sebastopol in one-day battle. However, Nakhimov, Kornilov and Istomin were actually dead in September 1855, and actually they were killed at different times. Please correct information in the table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goser17 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commanders and Leaders" section