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

message: There is a historical marker for this battlefield off of AL Hwy 144 in Ohatchee, Alabama. If I recall correctly, the marker also mentions something about Andrew Jackson's adopted Native American son. Ddgun (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical marker

message: * I'm no scholar of the Creek War, but it seems that Lt. Col. Robert Dyer's conquest of Litafatchi on October 29 must have been fought prior to his November 3 engagement. --Dystopos (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "First battle"
Talk:Battle of Horseshoe Bend

message: * Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* The article would benefit from:  in-text citations.  --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: I was just curious to know why 1814 exists in the title of this engagement? Was there another Battle of Horseshoe Bend? A reply would be appreciated, thank you.--Az81964444 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was. See: Battle of Horseshoe Bend. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 22:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 1814

message: Sam Houston fought in this battle, but was he an officer?  Bms4880 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Houston? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Battle of Horseshoe Bend.  SilkTork (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1814) →  – The Creek War battle seems to be the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  A hatnote can be used to point to Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1832); the existing dab page would be rendered unnecessary with WP:TWODABS. Hog Farm  Talk 06:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 October 2021
Talk:Battle of Burnt Corn

message: This article needs better sourcing. Where did those direct quotes in the "Background" section come from? 
John Ehle's Trail of Tears, cited under "References," is a work of historical fiction that includes footnotes. The sources it cites are often WP:RS, but the book itself is not. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source problems
Talk:Battle of Maipú

message: a source of info for the project: http://www.crucedelosandes.com.ar/batalla_maipu.asp (spanish). SpiceMan (会話) 00:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I left only San MArtin and osorio, both commanders in chief of their respectives armies. If someone wants to add second-in-command- please do it, but be sure to clarify that they were just second-in-command because San Martin was never a co-commander. We must be factual. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.117.35 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders

message: Hi everybody, I'll try to improve this article a little.
Guradi  00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on it 

message: It's not clear to me what purpose the page Battle of Maipu order of battle is? Looks like pretty much everything (except the banner images) is duplicated at Battle of Maipu already? I'd propose we merge those small images into this article and turn Battle of Maipu order of battle into a redirect (or delete it). Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal w/ [[Battle of Maipu order of battle]]
Talk:Battle of Schuinshoogte

message: Please have a look at the illustration of the battle [1] 
I'm not sure, if there is the right to use. I found it, when i georeferenced this illustration as part of the british library georeferencing project [2].
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11230103564
[2] http://www.bl.uk/maps/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goeggimuss (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  See pictrue of battle
Talk:Siege of Ladysmith

message: As more battles and other events of the Second Boer War have been added in recent weeks, I think this article ought to be split into: The Battle of Ladysmith (October 5th, 1899), and the Storming attempt on March 5th, 1900. I won't start anything for a couple of weeks. HLGallon (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split of article

message: Which was the population at the time? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 10:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: About the city
Talk:Battle of Majuba Hill

message: Beefart says: There is a sentence ("During then...) in the third paragraph that is unintelligible. I am unable to correct it because I have no idea what the writer meant. Any clues, guys?
:Perhaps they're trying to say 'during this time' or 'meanwhile'? --Loopy e 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is odd. The fundamental problem is that the British did "retaliate with a decisive victory" eighteen years later, with the Second Boer War. Tens of thousands of Boer civilians were interned in concentration camps, thousands died of disease and malnutrition, Boer farms were burned and dug up, and ultimately the Boers were destroyed as a cohesive unit. I have the impression that even in Britain the First Boer War was a series of small battles that happened far away, sandwiched between the Second Anglo-Afghan War and the Mahdist War, both of which Britain won decisively. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since the American Revolution, Great Britain had never signed a treaty on unfavorable terms with anyone. NOT TRUE.
In December 1814, the British government signed the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 on terms very favorable to the Americans.
Furthermore, there was the understandable delay of weeks in sending the news over the Atlantic via sailing ship. In January 1815, the Americans under General Andrew Jackson decisively crushed the British at the Battle of New Orleans !
::Yes I agree there's definitely some inaccuracies in this article that we should address. Idk exactly how (ie:'very') favorable the Treaty of Ghent would necessarily be considered from an objective standard, the historical consensus as well as my view is that the terms were quite favorable to the US, where disagreement emerges i think is if it would be fair to call it clearly unfavorable to the British. The US essentially succeeded in it's 2nd war for independence and as emphasized further below, the US was able to establish itself as a military force to be respected, there were many other benefits to the US that don't require expansion on here but even though Britain's indigenous allies certainly lost out due to the US, once again, I am not sure if the UK "suffered unfavorable terms" since more or less they had to accept they had to respect the US and give back land taken during the war, there wasn't really anything material though that Britain lost even though we gained.
::: As to your second point, there is no room for informed disagreement here, Britain lost the final engagements of the War of 1812-in fact, despite some marginal successes in between, Britain was decisively defeated in every major closing engagement (Fort McHenry, Plattsburgh, the Great Lakes). In addition, contrary to popular belief, the War of 1812 did not actually end until February 1815 and so the Battle of New Orleans was fought before the conclusion of the war by any definition. OgamD218 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Treaty of Ghent
Talk:Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

message: Looks like a battle to me... why is this not at Battle of Bronkhorstpruit? Bastie 00:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The tone of the article is anti-Boer through the use of weasel words. There are only two notes covering the first paragraph; one of which is anti-Boer. The rest is lacking sources. This sentence is offensive: This instruction came not from the lawful government, but from the self-proclaimed triumvirate who had declared the independence of the South African Republic when in fact the Transvaal was still under British administration. Try to insert that sentence in the article about the American Revolutionary War, and try to see how long it will remain. ... the self-proclaimed Congress in Philadelphia when in fact the colonies was still under British administration. 
Also this: Ash remarks of the misuse of the white flag that it was something that would characterise the Boer approach to the conduct of war during the Second Anglo-Boer War, summing it up as a “the enemy must abide by the rules but we don’t have to” attitude. Without source! And again: He also states that loyalists in the Transvaal called it the Massacre of Bronkhorst Spruit. Of course they did! What do you think the loyalists of Massachusetts called the battles of Lexington and Concord. 
Creuzbourg (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality
Talk:Battle of Inab

message: I am reverting the editor's change who put back Jihad being relatively new, because it is not true. Jihad is in the Koran and had been well-known to Muslims for more than 400 years.--AssegaiAli 12:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but as far as I understand, the concept of jihad as "let's go conquer the infidels" was dormant in the 11th century (at least in the Middle East, where they had already conquered everyone, and were in the process of being conquered themselves by Islamicized Turks). The crusades caused that aspect of jihad to be re-examined (by Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami for example). Adam Bishop 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: In the source I gave, it is stated that Shirkuh was also present in that war. why did you remove it? Artabanusx (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "removed individual from infobox, not mentioned in the article". Why are you not using English sources? Instead you are using a source that is unverifiable? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  shirkuh 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:BattleOfInab.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 29, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-29. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Battle of Dorylaeum (1097)

message: "Following their successful siege of Nicaea in 1097, the crusaders split into two columns to aid foraging. The vanguard under Bohemond was attacked at Bozüyük. Sultan Kilij Arslan led 7,000-8,000 Seljuk mounted archers in an ambush, throwing the crusaders into confusion." Matthew Bennett, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare, Helicon Publishing Ltd, 1998. p. 103 Lysandros 15:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The size of the Seljuk army

message: The crusaders won this battle with the arrival of the second crusader army, but only Bohemund's force is mentioned in the battlebox. Why..? Lysandros 19:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battlebox / Crusader strength

message: How did knights get horses shot out from under them when they're on foot? AThousandYoung (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismounted

message: I'm not a historian so I won't discuss about the facts and numbers in this article. But, the way the battle is explained seems a little sided to me. As in "cutting down noncombatants". It's nothing outrageous but I can see it is littered through the text and the Crusader side is favored.I don't want to make changes without knowing the subject in detail so I would encourage someone with history knowledge to review the article.    --bnr0ck  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.135.225 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: Would be useful to specify which sources support each event / claim described in the article. IHateClocks (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed
Talk:Siege of Damascus (1148)

message: Do you think the Council warrants a separate article? I was thinking about that a few years ago when I originally expanded the Second Crusade article and created this one. There didn't seem to be much that couldn't be said in the main article, so I didn't make a separate one. But I've compiled a list of participants on my sandbox, so maybe that is a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I was thinking that myself. I encourage you to be bold about it. -- Secisek (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Council of Acre. That's the best I can do with books on my shelf at this time of the morning :) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Acre 

message: I'm happy to pass this for GA, its a well written short piece on what seems to be a fairly short engagement. I have a couple of comments but neither should hold up this GA nomination.
#Firstly, the lead talks about a generation of recriminations but the aftermath section does not really emphasise this. Think about expanding it to include some more information about specific conflicts this bad feeling created.
#The link Mujahideen in the lead is not helpful. The article it links to does not relate to this historical mujahaideen at all as far as I can see and thus is a bit misleading. Is there a better term which could be used here to replace Mujahideen?
Otherwise its great. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: The current narrative has this paragraph;  
"The crusaders decided to attack Damascus from the west, where orchards would provide them with a constant food supply. Having arrived outside the walls of the city, they immediately put it to siege, using wood from the orchards. On 27 July, the crusaders decided to move to the plain on the eastern side of the city, which was less heavily fortified but had much less food and water. Nur ad-Din Zangi arrived with Muslim reinforcements and cut off the crusader's route to their previous position. The local crusader lords refused to carry on with the siege, and the three kings had no choice but to abandon the city. The entire crusader army had retreated back to Jerusalem by 28 July."
Certainly the words above cannot be correct!  It actually states that the crusader army moved from the east side of Damascus on 27 July, and returned to Jerusalem on 28 July! (retreated back to Jerusalem by 28 July!)  Does this mean that the entire Crusader army was able to break camp and quick march back to Jerusalem in one full day or less?  I certainly doubt it!  How about you?69.92.23.64 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes  —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "Jerusalem" means the Kingdom itself, as the northern parts of it were pretty close to Damascus. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If so it should be clarified. --The Ivory Cowboy (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates and acts in the current narrative!
Talk:Battle of Cresson

message: Cresson is watercress in French, which makes sense for a spring, and in Arabic 'ain is spring. What is Gozeh? I looked it up in Rajki's dictionary: first, it doesn't even have the initial letter G in all of the Arabic dictionary, which I find unexpected: are there no Arabic words starting with a g? Second, there is no word even remotely resembling gozeh, in whatever transliteration, I could find there. Anyone who speaks Arabic? Arminden (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the springs
Talk:Sieges of Taunton

message: Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page.  The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors.  All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.
:Best Regards,
::  Bfpage |leave a message  21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations
Talk:Battle of Cropredy Bridge

message: I intend to expand and correct this article. To begin with, the assertion in the first line, that Cropredy Bridge was "... the last battle won on British soil by a King of England", seems incorrect to me. Lostwithiel in the following month, although not a single day's pitched battle, was undoubtedly a personal victory for King Charles. HLGallon 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last victory by English King ? 
Talk:Siege of Haarlem

message: Only 1700 are shown in the stats. However, the Spanish version indicates 12000 citing two books. This is a huge disagreement, and maybe the English version is more conservative ("thousands wounded"), but no clear citations are used. F.martinez.pastor (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead toll of the Spanish army besieging Haarlem
Talk:Battle of Wörth

message: The place is called "Wörth" in German. English speakers who can't manage umlauts transliterate this as "Woerth". "Wœrth" strikes me as weird, there must be very few people who would write it like this. I suggest changing the name to "Wörth", once I am confident I know how to do this without breaking an inbound link. Maproom (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading this and I agree.  Every source I see has it as Wörth.  Maybe I'll bring this up soon --Banime (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wœrth, Woerth, Wörth

message: The German III army – should this be the Prussian III Army? Sca (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Designation

message: Is there a reason Mac-Mahon is hyphenated? See Patrice de MacMahon, Duke of Magenta. Sca (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Mac-Mahon'

message: at 16:05 on 5 June 2020 I made  request on the talk page of user:Wkloot requesting (as a WP:CHALLENGE) that (s)he provide long citations to support the short citations (s)he add with a series of edits on 19 February 2019‎. As [user:Wkloot]] to date has not provided these long citations I am going to revert the edits. Under WP:BURDEN the inline citations should not be reinserted unless they are supported with sources in the References section with the information requested in WP:CITE -- PBS (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short inline citations need to be supported by long citations in the References section
Talk:Siege of Metz (1870)

message: The article notes that the French attempted to break out twice but were repulsed both times by the Prussians; then it claims that had the French not surrendered due to starvation they had a "high chance of winning the battle", citing two sources. I haven't looked at the sources but both of the authors of said sources have French surnames...are we certain that they didn't have a biased approach to history of this era?
What I'm trying to say is, if the French were so capable of defeating the Prussians surrounding them, then why didn't they do so? Why did they attempt to break out twice and were rebuffed, if their troops were so superior? 163.29.35.147 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: One-sided research?

message: Wasn't there a famous siege of Metz by Charles V in 1552?  Shouldn't this have its own article?  Should this perhaps be moved to Siege of Metz (1870)? john k 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another siege of Metz 
Talk:Battle of Mars-la-Tour

message: "Prussian victory" ?? What a joke !  The Frenchs were beholding the ground after the battle.  It was maybe a prussian strategic success but not a victory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.243.194 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why are people writing these articles without being able to read?  --91.10.52.136 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  13,761 v. 16,000
Talk:Battle of Gravelotte

message: Can anyone explain the difference between a strategic and a tactical victory? Is one superior over the other?
Thanks.
::The French tactical victory has to be considered as such, as they were able to inflict much more severe losses on the Prussians by being better prepared from the very beginning, while the Prussians were attempting what must have been a near-impossible task of attacking the well-entrenched French who had far superior infantry weapons . Had the French only pressed the advantage during the night and the next morning, they would have almost certainly achieved a total victory against the depleated Prussians. However, for some reason they chose to withdraw to Metz, thus leaving themselves open to later  Prussian advances, advances which had to be considered in an overall strategy context, thus making it ultimately a strategic victory for the Prussians. Dieter Simon 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prussian strategic victory, French tactical victory.

message: there are several grammatical errors and contradictions - the summary of the battle quotes ~20k and 28k casualties for the Prussians and French, but later these numbers are jumbled and referred to as killed in battle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4700:2DE3:5D9E:43C7:2526:E548 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs serious revision
Talk:Battle of Raphia

message: is the Rome: Total war reference truly neccessary? does every historical event that is related to the game need to be connected to it on this site? It doesn't seem like a serious compendium of human knowledge should focus on that sort of thing. Maybe I'm completely wrong; what do you guys think?
I absolutely agree. A game has nothing to do with this or any other similar topic. It is OK to link an historical entry to a game and another to link a game to a historical entry...
Rometotalrealism Platinium is even more accurate than rometotalwar it is a mod to rometotalwar.
Why was Ptolemy in the center and didnt lead his victorius cavalry on the rigth like the Seleucid King did after the example of Alexander the great.
Dicipline won the day i wonder also how did to phalanx nations figth wachother with those massive sarissas what would motivate men in the first rank that would die for sure facing 5 rows of spearpoints. 
Is this date by the proleptic Julian calendar or the proleptic Gregorian calendar? PatGallacher (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The entry as I found stated that Antiochos III had 103 elephants. According to Polybios 5.79.13 he had only 102. If anyone thinks this is a mistake (or has a different ms reading), I'm listening. Ory Amtiay - History @ Haifa University (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia itself says that "In general, the Asian elephant is smaller than the African elephant", so the comment on size doesn't make sense Crock81 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Seleucid elephants? 

message: The writing is rough in places, and the punctuation inadequate.211.225.34.162 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up needed