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

message: The text says: "This was the only major European battle in which both sides employed Indian war elephants." Though the diadochii had a Makedonian i.e. European background, it is somewhat problematic to call this battle a European one as it clearly took place in Asia.--Proofreader 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* This article would benefit from: in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]]
Talk:Battle of Crannon

message: The infobox has an image titled "Mosaic of a lion hunt."  The commons page has no further information beyond that.  The question I have is what this image has to do with the article. There is no reference to lions or hunting in the article.  If there are no objections, I propose replacing the image with one more appropriate or removing it entirely if no more appropriate image is available. Epolk (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image
Talk:Anti-Sovietism

message: A "Counter-revolutionary" can be a noun, a person. What is an Anti-Soviet? --Wetman 03:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an adjective. I will write about this subject in more detail. I needed this term for wikilinks. And don't tell me that the term does not deserve an article.  If you really hate the title, then there is a word anti-Sovietism, but its real usage covers only part of the notion "anti-Soviet". There is a Russian noun антисоветчик, or anti-Sovietist, of different flavor.  mikka (t) 04:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: I don't think it belongs here. If it stays, we need to make sure not to equate anti-Sovietism with antisemitism. Sure, the Nazis fought a bitter war with the Soviets, but I don't think they are a good example of consistent anti-Sovietism. As a matter of fact, many historians make parallels between National-Socialism and Soviet-style Socialism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Anti-Sovietism" is hardly applicable to the context of the poster. `'mikka 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Nazis were primarily anti-communists before they even came to power 94.189.193.233 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and more specifically the Nazis also were specifically against the Soviet Union as a political force as they believed that it was corrupting Europe through what they termed as "Judeo-Bolshevism", a form of conspiracy theory that Jews in the Soviet Union were using communism (specifically in the Soviet Union) to attack European society. Drgerke (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi antisemitic poster
Talk:Battle of Fleurus (1690)

message: Childs, Van Nimwegen, Van Alphen and others claim that both sides lost 7,000 men or that the losses were quite even and Van Alphen writes clearly that Waldeck was able to save most of his army. It there a satisfying explaination for the differences with the sources in the infobox? I myself can't understand how it is possible that historians can come to such different conclusions. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: @Jules Agathias @Robinvp11 
Can I have you guys opinion/reaction?
Jules wrote that Quite a few statements in the body which are nowhere to be seen in Van Nimwegen's book. 
Could you point those out? I can check it if needed. 
Jules also said that Bodart is a complete outlier in regard to the strength of the respective armies and found no other source to corroborate 50,000 men on the French side.
While that might be true, I think it is important to point out that Stapleton writes that the French had more that 42,000 men and that a lot of authors write expressly that the French outnumbered the allies by 10,000 or more. That also touches upon the edit of Robin. To write that Luxembourg had 35,000 men and Waldeck 38,000 doesn't represent the literature in a fair way. Childs, Stapleton, Van Nimwegen, Wijn, Bodart and more do not agree and sometimes mention the numerical superiority as something wich partly explains the victory.
Lastly the casualties. I think what Jules did in the article can be acceptable as there might be a lack of historical consensus on the course of the battle. The same should however be true for the casualties. A lot of historians mention just 7,000 killed and wounded for the allies. It does however seems obvious that this isn't complete because it lacks the numbers for the allied prisoners. It is therefore difficult to include them in the infobox. However, Stapleton does provide complete casualty numbers. He says over 11,000 for the Allies. Meanwhile, Bosscha gives numbers of 3,000 captured as opposed to De Quincy's number 8,000 captured. Could we do something with that?
I think the least we could do is make it clear that there is no consensus. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I've only just seen this. As with other articles, I think the Infobox should show the generally accepted figures, rather than all the different ranges. I don't personally have a strong view on what those "generally accepted figures" are, but we need to pick one for the Infobox. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits
Talk:Kittanning Expedition

message: Two years ago I tagged this statement:
:Native American warriors generally made no distinction between combatants and noncombatants: women and children were routinely[citation needed] killed and scalped and prisoners were sometimes ritually tortured to death.
The whole sentence has since been cited with an incomplete reference (lacking page numbers), to a large (800 page) work first published in 1929.  This statement (in particular the routine nature of these acts against non-combatants) needs to be more strongly cited to a more modern source. Magic♪piano 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Routine" killings
Talk:Battle of Fort Necessity

message: During this time period an outhouse was called a 'necessity'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradMajors (talk • contribs).</small> 
:Almost: the term for an outhouse was usually "necessary". —Kevin Myers 17:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fort Outhouse?

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.
*More than a typo, but support as common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Despite good Franco-Indian relations, British traders became successful in convincing the Indians to trade with them in preference to the Canadiens, and the planned large-scale advance was not well received by all. The reason for this was that they had to provide them with the goods that the Anglo-American traders had previously supplied, and at similar prices. This proved to be singularly difficult. With the exception of one or two Montreal merchant traders, the Canadians showed a great reluctance to venture into the Ohio country.
For a non-historian, this passage is difficult to parse.  — MaxEnt 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not well received by all 

message: "the only surrender of his military career."
This is a fairly meaningless factoid from a flimsy source, namely the Mount Vernon website ("Ten Facts About George Washington and the French and Indian War"), the text of which, curiously,  asserts no such claim.
Clearly if Washington had personally surrendered at a later point in his career, his significance as a historical character would have been radically altered and we would not be discussing him in this vein. 
Moreover, it is not entirely true since, in addition to his numerous battlefield defeats and retreats, the surrender of Fort Washington on New York Island in November 1776, a debacle for which Washington was responsible although he was not himself caught within the defences, arguably represented one of the worst defeats in the War of independence after the surrender of Charleston in 1780. 
I suggest the article would have more authority without this additional  piece of biographical 'puff'
JF42 (talk)
  JF42 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'only surrender'
Talk:Fort William Henry

message: These two sections are contradictory.
"The attack on the surrendered troops took place on what is today called Bloody Pond Road, named because the bodies were thrown into a nearby pond, which leads east from the Fort William Henry."
"Bloody Pond got its name from the Battle of Lake George in 1755, not from the massacre at William Henry."
So which is it - the massacre or the Battle of Lake George? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.32.141 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1755 sounded right to me, quick search revlealed seems my instincts were right.  I'll update the article. --Ahc 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepency needs to be resolved 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The 1992 film The Last of the Mohicans has the battle as part of its plot. Would it be acceptable to mention it in the section about the massacre? —98.110.43.168 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie? 

message: Which tribe/s was/were involved in the massacre?--80.141.247.142 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a long list at Siege of Fort William Henry. Magic♪piano 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indians 

message: The actual number of casualties after the massacer is unknown, but citing only one scourse makes it "appear" factual, when it is really only a vaugley educated guess. I submit that multiple soucrses should be cited, such as Edward Ramon's estimate that 450 British Soldiers and 200 civilians killed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.17.178 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source in question (as the article text states) contains a compilation of estimates, as well as its own reconstruction.  It is true that estimates of casualties vary widely; Steele even reconstructs the historiography of some of them. The article very clearly does not state his figures as factual -- they are Steele's informed (not "vaguely educated") opinion. Magic♪piano 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Causualites
Talk:63rd World Science Fiction Convention

message: Was Iain Banks at the 'Con?  He wasn't mentioned in any of the publicity as being expected to end, and indeed there were signs displayed saying "contrary to media reports, Rowling and Banks not expected to attend" (or words to that effect).  Alai 03:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Iain did attend, but had asked beforehand that we not advertise the fact as he wanted to enjoy the con as much as possible as a regular attendee. In fact on the day he did a couple of things - a signing session and he was persuaded to do a reading in the Young Adult Fun Activities programme. VJDocherty 14:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there an M. in the house?
Talk:Battle of Ratan

message: This battle wasn't a total Russian victory when the second day's battle is taken into consideration (and let me say that, contrary to statements in this article, the two battles are generally not taken as one decisive encounter; if it were it would be a decisive Russian victory because the Swedish army was the one that withdrew), but it definately wasn't a "marginal Swedish victory".  This unequivocal bias is so typical of this website.  My opinion is that if you take part in it, you immediately label yourself an idiot and completely uneducated.   
"http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/c_finnish.html" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.59.49 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I moved the article to the wrong name and now I can't move it back... I have requested a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests to Battle of Ratan (original name was "Battle of Ratan–Sävar") since I want to separate the article into two (since these are two different battles, not one). If any admin sees this please consider moving the article to Battle of Ratan, or, at least move it back to Battle of Ratan–Sävar (so I can request another name change from there). Imonoz (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made an oopsie (article move)
Talk:Battle of Lade

message: Herodotus, 6.11-6.16. Dionysius's speech thtough the desctruction of the Samians, seems like it would make a good film.  Are there any films covering this period?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.718281828plus (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  film 

message: What is the source for the numbers shown on "Casualties and losses"? Alagos (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 
Talk:Battle of Holowczyn

message: Stop it. Edit wars are stupid. Discuss which of your separate sources are better. /Grillo (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: I've reviewed this for WP:POLAND and I don't believe it is important enough to be included under that project. Milhist Polish task force is enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Note
Talk:Battle of Gadebusch

message: These casualties are just wrong, (Danes and Saxons: 3,250 killed and wounded, 2,600 captured Total: 5850 casualties) First of all, I've studied a lot of different sources from this battle, both german and swedish. What accured to me is: that a lot of the sources claims different numbers (which isn't that unlikely). 
(Ca 5850 casualties - minimum, at the same time most likely wrong since the wounded are not counted with some of the captured, the "3250" dead and wounded should only be "dead" and then wounded should be included with the captured "someone made a mistake")
(Ca 6,750 casualties - this is the middle spot, without any stupidely counting, however, now when it's actually "3,250 dead" the captured numbers raised to another 1,000 = 3,500(which is the middle number of captured 'by sources') instead of 2,500)
(then there's 7,500 casualties - this is the highest number. Which is most likely overestimated numbers of captured - 4,500)
I changed the casualty number to the middle spot - 6,750. Many Swedish sources rages from the sides with either underestimated or overestimated numbers. However, some german sources says it's actually "6,750 SPOT ON" - about 3,250 killed and another 3,500 captured. This is why I changed it, we shouldn't guess of what source is most reliable, instead, if there is one by the middle number that's the one to go for. 
Before, IF you want to change back, please reply why and let's have a disc about different sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imonoz (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties
Talk:Saint Hill Manor

message: I would just like to make a comment about a picture on this website - http://simon-cozens.org/photographer/Saint%20Hill/ and didn't know where else to put it...anyway, on Hubbard's desk (in the picture "in case he comes back") there appears to be an ashtray...Hubbard smoked? Weird...isn't it a known fact that tobacco smoke attracts body thetans (or something...? jk of course)  Anyway, wanted to put that on the record.  Paul 03:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he smoked. And noo, smoking is good for you, Hubbard says. It cures lung cancer and runs out radiation!  (Entheta 15:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you imagine if Scientology and the Normans merged? AWESOME! Proxy User (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hubbard smoked?

message: Anyone have any information on this? --Lincoln F. Stern 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, AMERICAN SAINT HILL ORGANIZATION. AndroidCat 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Hill Special Briefing Course 

message: So, apparently this Scientology outlet was the most popular one that others need to aspire to.  Why was it so popular?  How did it get so popular?  Is it as popular now?  What is the city's reaction to Scientologists now, or has it become like Clearwater?  These would make good additions to the article.--Gloriamarie 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats all poorly documented. FWIW there hasn't been much impact on East Grinstead. UK population densities mean that the level of control COS is able to exert is pretty much nill and in any case East Grinstead has by UK standards a rather large Mormon population.Geni (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Was It So Popular?
Talk:Operation Grand Slam

message: Shouldn't Operation Grand Slam redirect to Goldfinger automatically? As far as I know, everyone knows of Operation Grand Slam as being Goldfinger's plot in the movie of the same name.(Myscrnnm 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: I'm relatively new to editing, but did all I could to remove potentially biased phrasing. The one case I wasn't sure about is the beginning of the "Conclusion" section, which starts "Analysts on both sides of the border believe..." I was unable to find the source that this statement references, so as of now the claim remains unsubstantiated (except in the External Links, I assume). Because it is an important point, I didn't want to remove it completely, but can somebody help out with this? Thanks. Fred.Pendleton (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: the map used here does not depict the original CEASE FIRE LINE as on 1.1.1965.the loc came into existence in 1972 after shimla agreement.hence does not help in proper positioning and must be discarded Pastbirth (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  map used is incorrect 

message: Porno 95.153.181.238 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Chamb (1965)
Talk:Battle of Formigny

message: "Some chroniclers spoke about 500 Welsh, driven archers, asking to go, and massacred despite everything until the last by Norman peasants." Does this mean anything to anyone? Jed keenan 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the text from the article until further notice, as it is detrimental to the quality of the article. Feel free to decipher this and reinsert it later. The sentence is as follows:
"Some chroniclers spoke about 500 Welsh, driven  archers, asking to go, and massacred despite everything until the last by Norman peasants, reminding the massacre of French prisoners slaughtered at  Agincourt." --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General query
Talk:Battle of Castillon

message: He routed a similar sized force of French francs-archers (milicia) in the woods before the French encampment, giving his men a large boost of morale. It doesnt quite sound like English to me.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this sentence mean?  

message: Who claims that? Methinks cannons were the deciding factor already in many battles of the the Hussite Wars, some sieges in Russia, and the Ottoman sieges of Constantinople - especially the first in 1396. Rontombontom (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the questionable reference from the Lead, added sentence to the body of the article per WP:LEAD, ?Europeanized? the battle(though I seriously doubt anyone meant "in the world"), and added a reference. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Edited out "first" since Yale source does not explicitly state that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First European battle decided by cannons?
Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

message: Shouldn't the French Army and Navy be included in the strength statistics? Some estimates put the French relieving army at 50,000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.71 (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Army 

message: Folk skipping through this article might think it was the English seiging Calais. Another thing, maybe overset the the article's heading to someting like: 'The French Siege of Calais'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a map showing Calais and neigbouring hinterlands as part of England 

message: The article claims that the sculpture "The Burghers of Calais" was commissioned in 1880 but the specific article about the sculpture, citing the same source, says 1884. Lieven Smits (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot, thank you. I no longer have ready access to that source, but other sources, eg David Wilkins,Art past, art present give 1884 so I can only assume that I committed a bizarre typo. I will change the date to 1884 and re-cite it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of sculpture 

message: This edition of Froissart's chronicles calls into question the historicity of that account, at footnote 2 on the linked page, which in turns quotes another history. Is there historic consensus on that story? This article, while it uses the word "claims", may leave the impression that the story is true. Kablammo (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am guessing that "that account" refers to "An account by the contemporary chronicler Froissart claims ..."? If so, consensus doesn't matter: the phraseology is intended to make clear that it was simply an account, not a broadly agreed historical "fact", and the one which which was the basis of the composition. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Froissart
Talk:Interstate 678

message: I removed the part about the Van Wyck being called the JFK Expwy once inside JFK Airport.
As shown by this page, http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/jgrafram.htm, and by driving the roads, the Van Wyck is separate from the JFK Expwy. Yossiea 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JFK Expwy

message: I know many native New Yorker's who pronounce it "van wick"... can we get some reference to support the article's assertion? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I rode the E train on 2014-06-02, and the recorded announcement voice did pronounce it like "wick". Walidatwell (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

text: No, what we have is a reliable source that states all the different pronunciations, so leave it be. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

text: OK, then all 3 possibilities should be mentioned here. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Did you mean Dick Van Dyke? –Fredddie™ 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but whatever, it can already be sourced... Epic Genius (talk) ± 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Yeah, for some reason I thought when he was born it was "Van Dyck". Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.) 04:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Is it known the exact location inside the JFK facility of where 678 ends, like at the exit to/from a terminal? I look at google streetview and I can’t find a sign saying “I-678 Start” or “I-678 End” anywhere. Jason Ingtonn (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact end of 678 in JFK