lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Pell's Point

message: Does Unknown in the info box mean History has not recorded who the commander was, or does it mean No wikipedia editor has done enough research to find out who it was?  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown British commander? 

message: The infobox says this happened in Manhattan.  Surely it should be either the Bronx or Westchester (since this was part of Westchester at the time)?   I'm not changing it myself, because I'm not familiar with the history; maybe there is some historical reason why Manhattan does make sense?  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manhattan? 

message: What's the note inside curly braces in the inforbox?  Is that some bit of infobox markup gone wrong, or is it really supposed to be formatted like that?  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox note? 

message: A fair amount of detail was missing from this section.  I did a complete rewrite, from the ground up.  For those following this article, this edit was done **after** the recent Peer Review and GA nomination.  Alphageekpa (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Background section
Talk:Antonio Cánovas del Castillo

message: Canovas was arguably the most important politician of Spain in the late nineteenth century.  I have therefore rewritten and expanded this entry which was really just a stub/translation from the Spanish entry (which is itself astonishingly cursory and largely a copyvio).  Much more attention should be paid to the post 1885 policies of Canovas, particularly since they led quite directly to the Spanish American War, Cuban independence, etc etc....  Dottore So 19:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The paragraph about Canovas' torturing people was written by a proponent of Anarchism.  I doubt it is trustworthy, and it is very damaging to the reputation of a great man.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyrela1 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you sure you want to say this? 
Talk:Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk

message: *Support. Although she is  referred to by contemporary sources as Margaret Marshal, including her claim to perform the office by deputy at the coronation of Richard II of England, this is not a surname but the office of Marshal. Septentrionalis 15:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've provisionally deleted the statement that she had two sons who died young, Edmund and John, and a daughter Anne who was Abbess of Barking, as there appear to be no reliable sources which support the statement. NinaGreen (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged children Edmund, John and Anne 

message: Should it not be "Countess", as in the article? Tostarpadius (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchess?
Talk:Battle of Rain

message: I've normally seen this battle called the Battle of the Lech.  What source uses "Battle of Rain"? john k 17:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: B class. However, there is one problem that needs to be addressed. The introduction says that Wallenstein occupied Furth to threaten Gustavus' supply line. Then it implies that the Battle of Alte Veste was fought near Furst, when it was actually fought near Nuremberg. Please fix the introduction (Furth or Nuremberg?) and explain the situation in more detail in the Aftermath section. If Furth was important then its significance needs to be mentioned under Aftermath. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  B class review
Talk:Battle of Pułtusk (1806)

message: Apologies to the previous author for the complete re-write.  I wanted to get the article up before the 200th anniversary.  Andrewshobley 09:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as originator. Usage in English publications indicated in the discussion section below. Olessi (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Battle of Prosperous

message: I'd like to invite the anonymous IP editor in Ireland, who has been systematically changing statistics in this article on an almost daily basis for several weeks now; without providing a supporting reference or edit summary, to engage in a dialogue here on the article's talk page rather than simply continuing to re-add the unreferenced stats,which many editors would see as a disruptive editing practice. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous IP editor in Dublin
Talk:Battle of Preston (1648)

message: I don't know much about the history of the Battle of Preston, but I do know one (hopefully) interesting fact...
Scottish Royalist prisoners from this battle were housed at St John the Baptist's Church in Coventry.  There they were shunned by the locals, thus giving rise to the phrase "Sent to Coventry".  I do have a source for this info - the church's own website: http://www.stjohn-the-baptist.co.uk/history.htm.  Would it be possible for this fact to be entered onto this articl in an appropriate place? StephenBuxton 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sent to Coventry

message: This article unfortunately needs to be rewritten as it includes duplicated text and text closely paraphrased from A Land Afflicted. I do not have access to the book to see where it is at its most extensive, but see:
*  (p. 149); ;  (p. 158);  (p. 159);  (p. 159); ; ;  (p. 160); ;  (There is very likely more; I stopped the search midway through, having confirmed an issue with this article.)
While material was evidently added in good faith, it appears it is unusable. See the cleanup project for more. 
I am blanking in the article in the hopes that a regular contributor can suitably rewrite this. It will be revisited after a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: Cromwell's page says that Cromwell commanded 9,000 troops, but this page says 14,000. Given that he was facing 18,000 troops that's a significant difference. Is there really no closer consensus?
Eshafto (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of 14,000 is not supported in the sources, it was closer to 9,000. I have now fixed the problem. But this is a complicated thing to report accurately because Cromwell thanks to Hamilton's incompetence was able to  engage different parts of Hamilton's army in succession and destroy each different part separately (or "in detail" as the military histories describe such actions). -- PBS (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of troops 

message: "
All the restless energy of Langdale's horse was unable to dislodge Lambert from the passes or to find out what was behind that impenetrable cavalry screen. The crisis was now at hand. 
"
Seriously?  Reads like a propoganda document for Victorian public school boys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.40 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple prose 

message: There is something wrong with the first sentence "On 14 August 1648 Cromwell and Lambert were at Skipton, on 5 August at Preston, and on 15 August so they marched down the valley of the Ribble towards Preston ...".  It seems something is missing - several things??  Is it meant to be something like "On 14 August 1648 Cromwell and Lambert were at Skipton, on 5 August the Royalists had arrived at Preston. Cromwell learned this on 15 August and marched down the valley of the Ribble towards Preston .. "  I'm only guessing, but clearly there is something wrong as it stands.Baska436 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle section first paragraph
Talk:Battle of Prilep

message: The article quotes one and one source alone. As for it's quality and partiality, one needs look no further than the opening paragraph of the book: Hall-Balkan Wars 1912-1913. Prelude to the First World War, where we are served with this little gem:
"The complex and obscure Balkan Wars of 1912–13 represent the beginning of an era in European history dominated by nationalism and conflict." the author informs us. Consequentially, the accusation is made, that Balkan states somehow bear responsibility for First, Second, Spanish Civil, Italo-Greek etc. wars. Yet the very next sentence negates the very statement:
"These wars were the first concerted effort by the Balkan peoples to emulate the Italian and German examples and establish large nationalist states"
So what is it Mr. Hall? Why not mark the beginning of the history dominated by nationalism (and beyond Europe, the bloody colonialisms of Belgium et al.) with Franco-Prussian war, Austro-Prussian War, Italian wars of Unification? These were all wars characterized by the rise of the modern concept of the Nation-State, and author himself says that the Balkan peoples were EMULATING the Italian and German examples. In essence he contradicts himself, yet this reasoning colors the entire volume.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko Parabucki (talk • contribs) 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with source
Talk:Battle of Prague (1648)

message: Lacks NPOV. At this stage of the war the Swedes were no longer liberators but aggressors because Prague was no longer a Protestant city (the new generation of her inhabitants were Roman Catholics and they fiercely defended their city). So who were the Swedes liberating? 
As far as I have read it seems that the Swedes were more concern about looting than "liberating".
Isidoros47 (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV
Talk:Battle of Portland

message: Well, I'll adress some changes I did to what existed, and it's rather simpe; the biggest change was changing who technically started the battle.  Blake did not "attack" the Dutch fleet, he simply attempted to cut if off - it was Tromp who gave the general order for attack on 28 Febuary, 1653.  Apart from that everything should be intact, although I did delete the sentence stating that Tromp died of a groin infection, which I found irrelevent since Tromp did not die directly due to the battle.  Tromp died at the Battle of Scheveningen as a result of being hit by a musketball. Finally, there are conflicting sources that claim the battle was begun the 18th, not the 28th, and that was found at http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/first-anglo-dutch-war-battles.htm.  However, the site has much of its information wrong regardless, so I decided to take it with a grain of salt, instead going with several literary sources.  Please feel free to offer your input on incorrect information!  Catalan 01:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the difference of ten days is of course caused by the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calender.--MWAK 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have made much use of Boxer. This is however an extremely poor source.--MWAK 13:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What funny letters are these in this "Map of Portland"??? 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Portland
Talk:Battle of Ruff's Station

message: What are the difference between Battle of Ruff's Station and Battle of Ruff's Mill?  I only found in reference with information on the Battle of Ruff's Mill at the section of Concord Covered Bridge Historic District: Battle of Ruff’s Mill Rjluna2 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Ruff's Station vs. Battle of Ruff's Mill
Talk:Battle of Roliça

message: The article states that the 29th made up half the casualties,but their own wiki page states of the casualties they suffered "Colonel Lake was killed, eight other officers were wounded and 144 men were killed or wounded." and cites Everard. Is there a conflicting source for the statement here? -86.166.190.112 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath
Talk:Second Battle of Rivas

message: There were issues at the end of the page, especially with Walker's retreat. This was on the 3rd Battle of Rivas. --FrancescBlandino (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Battle of Río Salado

message: I have expanded the intro and the section on the results of the battle to make the article more informative. I don't have any references on the actual battle itself though.--AssegaiAli 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

message: So why exactly is Matthew White or the supposed sources he supposedly uses a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew White website 

message: 'After his defeat at the Battle of Teba in 1330 Muhammed IV'  
A small point perhaps but Muhammed IV of Granada was not defeated at the siege of Teba. He was not present. In 1330 he was taking refuge in  his palace at Granada, fearful of assassination in the wake of his father's murder.  Meanwhile the  Marinid general Uthman, arguably de facto ruler, was in command of the Muslim forces attempting to raise the siege of Teba.
It might be simpler to say, "After the Christian victory at Teba" or "After Alfonso XI of Castile's victory at Teba, Muhammed IV..." etc. A link to 'Battle of Teba'  will suffice. The rout of Uthman's forces on the Guadalteba was not the end of the campaign, the storming and surrender of the castle completed the victory. There were other castles taken in the following days, but that needn't distract us in an introductory sentence.
JF42 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  After his defeat at the Battle of Teba in 1330,  Muhammed IV 

message: This is a clear bias. A Marinid state was not a big empire but just a small country. How can they muster 60,000 soldiers in one battle?? I will remove it. Ancient sources cannot be used to determine the number of soldiers of one side. Romeo778 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that information appears to be referenced. If you have an issue with the figure(s), I suggest finding a reliable source that states differently. Oh, and I am restoring the referenced information. Please refrain from edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  strengh box
Talk:Battle of Rio Hill

message: Having grown up in Charlottesville, I often visited the Rio Hill shopping center where there is a brief description of the event along with some artifacts uncovered during construction. At the display, it clearly calls the conflict a skirmish, not a battle.  I believe that this article needs to be altered to reflect that. I wanted to give a heads up before I made any changes, however.<I>~ The Rebel At ~</I> 21:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Battle?
Talk:Battle of Resaca

message: I was directed to this page by Suggest bot. The Union casualties in the article say 3,500, yet the one in the table says 2,747. Which one is correct?
Buggie111 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Currently, this article consists mainly of uncited material. Surprisingly, the casualty figures are also uncited, so it's impossible to know where they came from. I propose to greatly expand and update this article. I plan to incorporate the cited material and the nice pictures into the new text, but any uncited text may not be saved. Djmaschek (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material

message: (a) The Commanders section could be expanded (if they deserve a photo, they probably deserve inclusion eg Hood etc)
(b) I found the detail on the armies hard to follow - too many numbers, not really clear how they relate to each other.
(c) It would be helpful to understand where Reynolds' division actually was ie how far away is Dug Gap? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions following assessment
Talk:Battle of Refugio

message: BoldThe Battle of Refugio was fought from March 12–15, 1836, near Refugio, Texas. Mexican General José Urrea and 1,500 Centralista soldiers fought against Amon B. King and his 28 American volunteers and Lieutenant Colonel William Ward and his approximately 120 Americans. The battle, a part of the Goliad Campaign of the Texas Revolution, resulted in a Mexican victory and splintered Texan resistance. and they were gay like hell on earth Heidel 4 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Refugio
Talk:14 regions of Augustan Rome

message: I don't know the English names for Oppius and Cispius hills: I used the Latin names. Alessio Damato 19:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppian and Cispian, probably.  Shouldn't this page title simply be "14 regions of Augustan Rome" with the "the" omitted?--CaesarGJ 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you think it may sound better, just change it :-) Alessio Damato 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Why did Caesar Augustus and his advisors choose to disect the City of Roma into 14 regions? "As above, so below" is the primary concept behind the practice of sacred geometry which was practiced by the ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Hebrews, Sumerians, Persians, etc. The phases of the Moon's 29.5 day cycle was very important to the ancients! It was clear to everyone around the world that it was easy to halve the lunar month into 14-day periods, and halve those into weeks.
This 'number from nature' as reflected in Pagan Roma's 14 regions is probably also the basis of why "in 1731, Pope Clement XII extended to all churches the right to have the stations of the Cross, provided that a Franciscan father erected them, with the consent of the local bishop. At that same time the number was fixed at 14". - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was a correspondence between terrestrial and celestial templa in Roman augury, I don't want to reject your contribution out of hand, but as it stands, this is WP:OR and not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia unless you have a secondary source that meets standards for RS.  Cynwolfe (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 14? "As above, so below" - the sacred geometry of two 14 day periods in lunar month  

message: The name needs disambiguation from the modern regions of Rome. This normally takes place in parentheses. I propose "Regions of Rome (Augustan)" and "Regions of Rome (modern)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate the name
Talk:Accident (fallacy)

message: I thought it was the Romans who killed Jesus, according to the traditional story?  All the Jews did was ask them to.  So "Jews killed Jesus" isn't so much an example of ignoring exceptions as of oversimplifying facts.
It seems like a less controversial example could be used.
I agree. I can't think of a better example, but could someone else please think of one and change this?
Why is it *called* the fallacy of "accident"?  That point isn't clear.
Someone replaced the generalization example -Jews vs Jesus- with the -Nazi Germans- one. So, I guess now it's the Germans' turn to edit this article, ain't it so ?
I think we have witnessed the pervasiveness of Godwin's Law...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.167.15.161 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

message: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accident_%28fallacy%29&diff=119039033&oldid=113693212
(This may be arguable since scalpels might be considered more like razor blades than knives).
Editing this out, there is no argument as scalpels have handles and razor blades do not. Razor blades encased in a handle structure are commonly called "box knives".
From answers.com definition of "knife": "A cutting instrument consisting of a sharp blade attached to a handle."
I've also decided to revert the other parenthetical as it blatantly states what the example is trying to demonstrate.  WTH?!?!  Waste of time and space. 69.243.168.118 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert: Razor blades vs. scalpels 

message: I think the given example should be changed because as it stands, it seems to be closer to an Equivocation fallacy; the term "cutting people with knives" is used for a different meaning in premise 1 than in premise 2. 
P.S. the article also says absolutely nothing about where the name "fallacy of accident" came from. It seems like it would be important to explain how the fallacy got its name, considering that it has nothing whatsoever to do with accidents.
NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgeon argument is a poor example IMO
Talk:Kato Kaelin

message: The article says he was nicknamed for the Green Hornet character. I thought he was  nicknamed after the Simpson family dog, Kato, who was named for the Green Hornet character. Uucp 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be a little unusual to acquire a nickname so late in life?  I think his direct association with the Bruce Lee character is more believable, since he was born in 1959, and the show The Green Hornet aired from 1966-67, when he was 7-8 years old, a time during which many children emulate things they see on TV or on some other medium that offers the lure of fantasy and adventure.  He probably liked to pretend he was Kato from the show, and thus received his nickname.  I know this doesn't really fall under NPOV, but doesn't it make more sense than him being named after O. J.'s dog??? Eganio 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Wouldn't it be a little unusual to acquire a nickname so late in life? :Wouldn't it be a little unusual to acquire a nickname so late in life?"
When he acquired the nickname is irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.136.55 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nom 

message: The quotation marks around Career on the main page were definitely POV.  I happen to agree with that POV but I have taken them out.Cross Reference (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career 
Talk:Battle of Sepeia

message: This article says that Herodotus wrote that Cleomenes attacked them while they were eating their evening meal. According to the source they cited, it was during breakfast. CrypticIndividual1000 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakfast, not evening meal 