lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Turnhout (1597)

message: Casualty rates are highly questionable. I have different rennaisance engraving of the battle, both show same picture: 4 imperial infantry regiments are in good battle formation. Their shooters are engaged in firefight with reiters, who look like performing caracole. All cavalry is either attacking infantry frontally or pursuing Spanish cavalry, running to its left. No signs of rout by pikemen though. Notably my source (direct scan from rennaisance atlas of battles and, I would say, a bit more informative than attached here) also shows attack by Dutch infantry on imperial right, which was possible cause of starting rout by imperial troops. However, Spanish infantry is not shown as encircled and has woods behind.
Interesting both engravings show count Varax lying dead at some distance in front of his infantry, which could indicate, that he was killed in a cavalry melee in the beggining of the battle.
I think there are two basic issues with the article:
1. It was not pure cavalry engagement as it might seem from your description. Number of casualties you demonstrate also exceeds total number of cavalry troop available to Spanish commander.
2. I highly doubt total no of Dutch casualties based on above ((a) cavalry-infantry protracted firefight. Infanftry initially shown in good order, (b) extremely high rate of Spanish casualties, considering close woods and absence of encirclement. Even if we take all armoured pikemen as slow movers, who were killed or captured in pursuit). All in all, they exceed that suffered by Spaniards in battle of Niewport in 1600. Considering that figures you are stating are based on one-sided sources (victors), it should be specifically stated so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.29.18.165 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging some statements
Talk:Battle of Trevilian Station

message: Rosser's brigade was not Hampton's former command. Hampton's former Brigade consisted of the 1st and 2nd South Carolina, Cobb's Georgia Legion, Phillips Georgia Legion and the Jeff Davis Legion. What source says that Rosser's brigade was Hampton's former command?
--Kitt1987 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct and the citations do not support the statement. Thank you for pointing out the error. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing forces: Confederate 

message: The idea that Wikipedia can announce a winner and a loser to an isolated battle is misguided. This maneuver was merely a part of a larger strategy by Grant which succeeded in quickly defeating the Confederacy. Fielding99 (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Winners and losers”
Talk:Battle of Trebbia (1799)

message: Note to 46.39.230.93: Please do not replace the Austrian and Russian strengths (cited in the text) in the infobox with uncited numbers. If you have a source for your numbers, please include it and then insert the cited information in the text and infobox. Thank you. Djmaschek (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Toulouse (1814)

message: Can I resume the debate 8 years on?
It seems very odd to try to work out whose victory it was on the basis of Commanders' intents unless there is contemporary evidence of those intents. Wellington was notoriously secretive about his intentions. And I doubt whether Soult told his commanders that he intended to dispute territory with Wellington and then fall back, whatever he may subsequently have claimed. 
Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2003) says "Soult withdrew the next day [11 April]...leaving most of his guns and 1,600 wounded".  Another source says that the Allies took 1,600 prisoners including Generals d'Harispe, Bourot, and St Hilaire.
The normal contemporary way of judging a victory when there was a dispute was whether guns had been taken. I find it hard to believe that Wellington could have taken the main redoubts without capturing a gun. If Soult left behind significant amounts of guns when he withdrew, this would have been a huge reduction in his battle-fighting capacity. The French Army also had severe problems with desertion. Joining up with Suchet (down to 12,000 men) does not seem to me to offset the losses.
I suggest that a kind result for Soult would be "indecisive (tactically) and an allied victory (strategically)". Toulouse looks pretty strategic to me on the map! 
Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result (II) 

message: Oops! I just made some changes that are highly relevant to the ongoing dispute. Only I did not think to look here, because there was no marker in the article to alert me to the ongoing discussion! I moved a disputed section to "Commentary" and added the POV. The disputed section was added on 20 November 2009, (a) has no source, (b) appears to me to be a pro-French opinion, (c) was added by an IP address but no name, (d) implies that there was an armistice before the city was evacuated, (e) and, worst of all, is contradicted by both David Chandler and Michael Glover. Also on 20 November, one and a half paragraphs that I added earlier were removed. I have replaced the missing material and added footnotes to it so that there is no ambiguity. You will also note that the battle is now called an "Anglo-Allied victory" and a Smith citation is attached. (OK, Smith's work is sometimes sloppy, but it is a printed reference after all.) 
For those who disagree with this assessment, the best response would be to add (for example) "Drawn battle" and cite it with a source. This argument should not be about my opinion or yours about who won the battle. This should be about what historians say. My apologies to Carre, Albrecht, Slatersteven and any others who may be offended by my barging in here. Again, I made the changes to the article in blissful ignorance of the ongoing discussion. Djmaschek (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Add POV, restore deleted material
Talk:Battle of Toulouse (721)

message: Losses seem exaggerated. 375,000 is an imaginary number. The number of soldiers who crossed with Tariq ibn Ziyad into Andalusia did not exceed 3000, and the number may rise to 20,000 when the whole of Iberia is conquered. Jubaco (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This coming from the user that just added         1,000,000 gays killed. Sounds like you are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  losses
Talk:Tall bike

message: I know I've seen an image of the 1800s tall bike used for lighting lamps, but I cannot find it. Its age should make it public domain, so if someone can upload an link a copy, that would help the article a lot. Phidauex 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Request 

message: The "tall" aspect of tall bike is not quantified in any way.  Height figures would be good. -Rolypolyman 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No specifics
Talk:Battle of West Point

message: The mention that LaGrange and his men were at some point while charging the bridge out of the effective range of the Confederate cannon in the fort is incorrect. The bridge, per Google Earth, was only 800 yards from the position of the Confederate 32 pounder and the effective range of a 32 pounder is two or three times that distance. That the 32 pounder was shelling Union troops at the bridge is well documented. The two 12 pounders (or possibly two 10 pounder Parrotts) in the fort were also well within range of the bridge but for all practical purposes they probably could not bear upon a target to the southeast of the fort like the 32 pounder could and did. We'll need to correct that statement regardless of what some historian said 100 plus years later.Rjr1960 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective range of Confederate cannon in Fort Tyler 

message: headlogs seems to be a typo but it is not obvious what it should be - can anyone figure out what it should be? (from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click)
There were no headlogs or head logs at Fort Tyler and there was some complaint about this after the battle, especially by any of the men how had served in the Army of Tennessee north of Atlanta or later when adding a log to peak through and fire through was common. In entrenchments they would add a smaller log perpendicular to the head log and slanting into the ditch in order for the log to roll harmlessly over and behind the shooter if the head log was dislodged and pushed back by artillery fire. Some complained that minie balls would create wood splinter projectiles and blind the shooter, thus some used them and some did not. Lack of head logs explains the high percentage of mortal and non-mortal wounds among the Confederate defenders being head shots. A quick Internet search shows this is usually spelled head logs but sometimes headlogs. Rjr1960 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  headlogs - a typo?
Talk:Battle of Vouillé

message: Someone with access to Richard Gerberding, The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum (1987) and sufficient time, should edit into this article a report on Gerberding's assessment, based on Liber Historiae Francorum's recension of Gregory of Tours, that Campus Vogladensis is to be identified, not with Vouillé but with Voulon, south of Poitiers. There has been a Battle of Vouille Symposium at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign last week, as I post this, marking the 1500th anniversary. This article needs work. --Wetman 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vouillé/Voulon
Talk:Battle of Vertières

message: I wonder what is the idea of calling the Haitian Army led by Dessalines "The Haitian Rebels"? Is not the entire idea of being a Haitian also being a rebel of French colonialism? In that case it should be called simply, The Haitian Army. That is, of course, if you believe that by this time this army had developed a Haitian identity, even when they did not call themselves Haitians yet. Otherwise, you should still not call it "The Haitian Rebels" because you would be contradicting yourselves about that identity. So, at any rate, this title is incorrect. Please let me know your thoughts. If there is no response in two weeks I will take that as a sign of agreement. Thanks. Historian (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise an interesting and problematic point. While 'Haitian' would be empirically anachronistic, there is some sense in using the term rather than Saint-Dominguois, Bossales, Congos, or even Creoles. I see two related points: first is simply to stick with a convention that gets at the 'spirit' of the sense of collective (un)conscious. Scholars (Woodson; Trouillot) have convincingly argued that a cultural definition of liberté/égalité brought the disparate parties of the revolution in S.-D. together against French colonialism long enough for concerted political action and for the structuring of new social institutions. This suggests to me the 'seeds' of a Haitian national identity--even if one accepts the 'lapse into peasantry' that James Leyburn says occurred in the 1840s. Second, the fact that Dessalines and early administrators arrived at the name 'Haiti' suggests that the supposedly Arawak word 'Haiti' was not unknown to them. Perhaps it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that this word was already in use in some limited circles. For these reasons, I say stick with 'Haitian.' Lcyarrington (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Haitian Rebels?

message: The article as it is reads more like a fantasy war novel than a wikipedia page. 163.29.35.147 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it does. (lol) Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a cleanup tag. Thanks for pointng that out. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal Tone?
Talk:Battle of Verneuil

message: How come the battle box says it was fought in Gascony, but the article says Normandy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.13 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Box also says Normandy, now. Andyvphil (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflicting data 

message: April or August!!  Quality check please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstimson (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only "April" now in article is arrival of the Scots. Andyvphil (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting dates

message: The article claims that the Scots army, though mauled, was not yet ready to march out of history. What precisely does this mean? Were the Scots a factor in the French resurgence under Joan of Arc, for instance, as is claimed by some sources?
The 'Army of Scotland' -rather than the 'Scot's Army'-was a specific formation in the French royal service at the time of Verneuil.  The survivors-supplemented by fresh recruits-continued to take part in French miltary operations up to, and including, the defence of Orleans, under the command of John Stewart of Darnley.  On 12 February 1429 Darnley and his men intercepted an English supply column at a place called Rouvray St. Dennis, some 20 miles to the north of Orleans.  In the ensuing 'Battle of the Herrings' many of the Scots were killed, including Darnley.  From this point the Army of Scotland ceased to function as a seperate element in the French royal service, though individual Scots continued to serve in much smaller units from this point forward.  They were incorporated into the Scots Guards in the 1440s.  Rcpaterson 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dead link. Andyvphil (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots army 

message: Erm? As the above suggests. Who is Barker that is cited but not referred to? Also, note 7, Un autre Azincourt, who said that, where and when? Brendandh (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Erm refs?
Talk:Battle of Vimeiro

message: Read the article but the last sentence is unclear as to who the individual referred to is (and it is reasonably interesting - a further link could be useful). I believe it is Wellington, but that is not explicit in the text of the article. 
Yours
Edward Wilson
Edward B. Wilson, P. Eng., M.Sc., P.E. (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence unclear
Talk:Battle of Ulm

message: So was it October 16-19 or October 15-20? Articles shouldn't disagree with themselves. john k (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: The infobox and the article have different numbers for the size of both the French and Austrian forces. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army sizes
Talk:Icon/Anonymous behaviour

message: This subpage was originally intended to document as clearly as possible the various wikipedia policy violations that have been and are being committed by our anonymous user (of various ip addresses). I've since decided that discussing these in detail, laying the groundwork for more actions, isn't the most profitable use of my time. Instead, I'll try ignore inappropriate behaviour and focus on the article, and see where that leads. We have apparently reached agreement on at least a few sentences, so perhaps there's more hope for working constructively than I thought at first. Wesley 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Trust (law) non-USA

message: This is the note which I placed on the page which is now Trust (Law) USA, upon moving it:
I think my decision to move this page deserves some justification.
This article may be - indeed appears to be - good in terms of content: but if it is, it is good only with regard to the USA's legal systems. Much of the content is wrong in the context of trust law more directly based on the "English model", as it applies in England and Wales, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Bermuda, Canada, (some of) the Caribbean, (some of) the Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand - as well as several civil law nations with statutory trusts laws.
This difficulty asserts itself from the very first sentence, where trusts are conceived as a branch of contract law.
I felt that any attempt to reconcile the two legal systems in one article was doomed to failure, and would only lead to understandable disputes with the existing authors. My solution is to move the existing Trusts (property) to Trust (Law) USA and to create the new page Trust (Law) non-USA (a title which might itself promote some debate) to deal with trusts in the English-model jurisdictions.
I will make the obvious amendments on Trust (disambiguation), and in the first sentence of this article.' AndyJones 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Can we keep any discussion of the possible merge at the other talk page please, to keep things tidy?  Thanks.  Nuge talk 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion
Talk:Battle of Yanling

message: - There is a link here to Zifan (子犯) but the years don't match. Do you mean Zifan (子反 e. 575 BCE)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.237.50 (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

message: ? Dcattell (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with Zhou Dynasty?
Talk:Battle of Wœrth (1793)

message: The Battle took place in 1793. While there is no unanimity amoung historians about when the French Revolutionary Wars ended and the Napoleonic Wars began, the year 1793 clearly belongs to the beginning period of the Revolutionary Wars. Additionally, at the time of the battle, Napoleon -- then a young artillery officer -- was besieging the city of Toulon, far away from Woerth. Hence, the battle of Woerth has nothing to do with Napoleon.
Therefore, I suggest to remove the Napoleonic-battle-stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevalier de la charrette (talk • contribs) 
:Done. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleonic Wars Stub 

message: :Battle of Wœrth (1793) →  – Incorrect speling. It is acceptable to spell the German ö as two letters (oe) but using the latin ligature is incorrect. Therefore, since it is also the common name, WP policy tells we should prefer the correct and original spelling. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for consistency with the other Battle of Wörth (Franco-Prussian War, 1870). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 January 2018
Talk:Battle of Wittstock

message: Wouldn't "gauntlet" be a more accurate translation of "Stålhandske"? While it does literally mean "steel glove", isn't "gauntlet" the proper term in English to refer to a military glove of steel?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.169.58 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The strength number differs between the english and the swedish/german wikipedia articles.
Revener (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The amount of military personnel
Talk:Battle of Winceby

message: Interesting article.  I'd like to bump it up to a C or even a B, but without more refs and inline citations it doesn't yet qualify.  I enjoyed reading it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 
Talk:Battle of Wigan Lane

message: In the "Battle" section, the article refers to someone named "Digby", apparently leading the Earl of Derby's troops. This person is never properly identified. Is this just a typo for "Derby?" The name of the Earl of Derby at that time was James Stanley--no "Digby" there. Who is this person?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake I have fixed it. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Digby? 

message: User:WatcherZero - Thank you for your edit and clarification, but I am still confused. Is the pargraph telling the readers that the Earl of Derby took 170 men to battle from the Isle of Man and that the survirors of the battle were hunted down and killed after they returned home? Who hunted them down? Why were they hunted down. Were they cowards who deserted? Thanks, VFF0347 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He conscripted 170 men to war from the Isle of Man and those that didnt fall in the battle itself were hunted to their death in the English countryside, essentially almost none of them returned home which for an island which would have had only a few thousand inhabitants in those days (I dont know the figure but I imagine it was low thousands) would have been a statistically significant proportion of the population being lost in the battle. WatcherZero (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:WatcherZero - Kind Sir, Thank you for your helpful comments. I have tweaked the language of the paragraph a little in an attempt to clariy the issue for readers like me. I hope you approve.VFF0347 (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the first statement in the Aftermath
Talk:Battle of Mingolsheim

message: The coordinates need the following fixes:
* The coordinates for the "Battle of Mingolsheim" article in Wikipedia are: 49° 13′ 0.64″ N, 8° 39′ 29.84″ E
* The coordinates for the "Battle of Mingolsheim" Wikipedia link in Google Earth are: 49° 13' 13.34" N, 86° 35' 21.19" E
* Note the discrepancy in latitude: 8 deg. 39 min E /vs/ 86 deg. 35 min E
* Haven't figured out how to make this fix myself yet, so making note...
--Symmerhill (a.k.a. Summerhill) (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinates in the article seem correct. The other coordinates point to somewhere in Kazakhstan. Kyle McInnes[citation needed] 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Talk:LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae

message: Firm's web site for reference. - WCFrancis 21:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No subject

message: Reverted changes by User:LegalSeagull which replaced main body of text with a press release company profile.  See [this example http://www.sifma.net/conferences/risklinked07/RiskLinkedsponsor.htm] of press release. -- Whpq 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio / Press Release