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

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archive.org/stream/dli.csl.3303/3303_djvu.txt. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Taris

message: Six billion seems very,very low for city wide plant. Corusant has trillions of people.
:But Courascant is much more dense than Taris. Taris is a relatively small (geographically) planet compared to Courascant, and the people are more widely dispersed. Courascant is filled with many slums, while Taris' undercity is made up of generally few people. -Xol 20:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, technically Earth has 6,446,131,400 inhabitants, but presumably Taris doesn't have exactly 6,000,000,000 people living on it. It is about the same as Earth. --Codenamecuckoo 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population
Talk:Battle of Forbie

message: " ...generally considered to be Al-zahir Biabars who became Sultan of Egypt in 1260! ". how generally considered ? : never any historian said al zahir baibars led this battle. many people used to have same name . Actually you need to put a citation that they were same person not vv :) Samsam22 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: At the moment the infobox 'result' states: "Ayyubid victory" On looking further down, I see the word 'Ayyubid' is on both sides. Its only when one reads the article that the result becomes more clear. This rather defeats the object of having an infobox.
The 'result' should be a lot more obvious, otherwise...
RASAM (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Who won ?

message: According to the disambiguation page, this is a Christian entity. This article does not seem to use it in this sense. Could someone who knows this topic better than I do please clarify? Thanks  Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans Jordanian? 

message: Any opposition to moving this to just "Forbie"? The "La" part comes from René Grousset, who wrote "La bataille se livra dans la plaine sablonneuse qui s'étend entre Ascalon et Gaza près du village d'Herbiyâ, la Forbie des chroniqueurs." As Ilya Berkovich has explained, English historians misreading Grousset then named the battle "La Forbie." It should therefore be called the Battle of Forbie, as Berkovich calls it, and the name that other recent historians have adopted. See Berkovich, “The Battle of Forbie and the second Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in Journal of Military History 75 (January 2011), p. 17. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I've found   numerous mentions of "battle of Forbie". --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Go ahead. It's good to have an explanation. It's also weird that the French would be misunderstood, since the English construction would be the same ("Herbiya, the Forbie of the chroniclers"). Srnec (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Battle of Forbie?
Talk:List of battles involving Sweden

message: Sweden didn't exist only from 1521 and 1814, it's been around from the 500s to the present day. The limited dates here have no explanation and make no sense. J390 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, i know that this post is very old but i want to show my support regardless. I also think that we should include naval battles on the list aswell to get a list that is as complete as possible. Dencoolast33 (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The limited timeframe has no explanation
Talk:Battle of St. Louis

message: Louisiana Garrison Regiment. Regular Spaniard Army.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regimiento Fijo de Luisiana 

message: Wapasha and the Sioux never sided with Great Britain because they frequently sold weapons to the Ojibwa, Sauk, and Meskwaki (their enemies) and simultaneously encouraged them to raid Sioux villages. The French were far kindlier to the Sioux because of a long history of trade and commerce so it would make sense that the Sioux would favor siding with the French. When Ixkatapay, a Dakota brave, was discovered to be the murderer of an English trader, the British threatened Wapasha and his people if they granted him amnesty. When Wapasha went to a British fort in Quebec, he was treated quite poorly by British soldiers. According to eyewitness accounts, when he was imprisoned as a surrogate for Ixkatapay, Wapasha's feathers were torn from his head and stomped on by a Redcoat guard. The only reason he was even released in the first place was because the English officers admired his willingness to sacrifice himself for his people. During the Revolution, the English sent the Dakotas enemies to drive them out but failed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.135 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to address what the sources cited in the article say.  Your assertions carry no weight until you back them with sources. Magic♪piano 02:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and neither is chacha.com. Even if they were, the content of these sources doesn't support your claims. Magic♪piano 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sioux did not participate
Talk:Battle of Boyacá

message: Hi i'm colombian, i would like to add this image that helps comprehension of this article
--Sebafo8 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  battle diagram 

message: por favor traduscamen lo que dice en ingles del puente de boyacá para español  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.232.148.167 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ayuda 

message: Unification of the discussion in one place. (see here) --Muwatallis II (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over the aggregation of the British Legion in the infobox
Talk:Einar Hjörleifsson Kvaran

message: The Icelandic name macro assumes that the last name is patronymic - Kvaran is an adopted family name, and Hjörleifsson is the patronymic in this case - he would still be referred to as Einar, though, but the words 'The last name is a patronymic, not a family name' are incorrect in this case.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.102.50 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Patronymic
Talk:Battle of Texel

message: According to the battle infobox, the Dutch fleet had 201 ships, of which 24 were burned, and the Allied Anglo-French fleet had 107 ships, of which 54 were burned and 11 were captured.  This is not accurate in any way, and contradicts information in the article, which places fleet strengths at about 105 Dutch and about 122 British and French, with neither fleet losing a ship.  Moreover, somebody replaced Admiral de Ruyter with Willem Van de Velde, the artist, again in the infobox.  The infobox also does not state that the British were involved in any way, and claims that the French commander is unknown.  This appears to have been vandalized by somebody with at least some knowledge of the subject.  I am changing it to make it accurate.Keegsshipguy (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:St. James' Day Battle

message: Please cite sources!. Also, I'm really not sure what I think about "Results" - should this be reworded to "Consequences" or "Effects"? LordAmeth 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: Whatever pertinence that St. James and St. James Day has to St. Jame's Day Battle is not mentioned in the article at all. Although, St. James is culturally and historically very important to the Iberian Peninsula, there is absolutely no reference of that importance in the article on the battle. This day probably deserves an article of its own since St. James was alleged to have died in the Iberian Peninsula and his alleged bones at the alleged site of his burial are the subject of historical cult worship. First Millennium and Second Millennium adherents are documented as celebrating at the historical site and practicing relic worship with exhumation of bones of the suspected St. James... It deserves its own article but it should not be pointing to a battle in England. The St. James Day redirect is inappropriately directed here. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. James Day Redirect
Talk:Battle of Solebay

message: I have just added the Leeds Central Library pictorial record. The BBC source (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64425275) states the pictorial record also features the Battle of Texel (1694), which I have linked to. Can an expert on this conflict take a look at this. I think the information in the BBC article could be wrong. Dutch losses amounted to 100 killed during the 1694 battle. It makes more sense for the Battle of Texel of 1673 to be the one depicted in the pictorial record. The text in the BBC article reads, A gruelling encounter, the battle saw both sides suffer badly in hours of fighting which cost the lives of about 3,000 sailors, which is the same figure given in the Wiki article for the 1673 battle. Either the number of casualties in the BBC article is wrong or the date of the battle is wrong. Thanks. 92.24.59.40 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC article is wrong. The Battle of Texel in 1694 was not part of the Third Anglo-Dutch War DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, It didn't look right to me. The source (from the BBC site) is Leeds Central Library! 92.24.59.40 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture
Talk:Battle of Scheveningen

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:De slag bij Terheide - The Battle of Schevening - August 10 1653 (Willem van de Velde I, 1657).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 10, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-08-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 19:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:De slag bij Terheide - The Battle of Schevening - August 10 1653 (Willem van de Velde I, 1657).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: It says 12 in the test, 10 in the summary box. which is true? 80.83.157.139 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch Losses 

message: The text states: "Oddly, both sides claimed a victory . . ."  This does not seem all that odd.  Frequently both sides in a battle can claim victory, having achieved their primary objects.  In addition, there is a morale boost in claiming victory even if it's not clear that you did.  It's happening even today.  I might add that the only objection here is the "oddly".  In fact, the result seems quite natural.
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem so odd 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Battle of Scheveningen (Slag bij Ter Heijde)(Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 10, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-08-10. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made 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! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Battle of Scheveningen (Slag bij Ter Heijde)(Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten).jpg]] scheduled for POTD
Talk:Battle of Lowestoft

message: It's shame articles like this are lauded over by the Dutch (wars that are seemingly far more important to them) and all but forgotten by the English. Makes the historiographical selection rather one sided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.112.2 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Following text removed from article and dumped here
let's only add ship lists that are complete ;)
Ships involved:
===England===
Constant Katherine 40 (Francis Sanders)
East India Merchant 44 (John Wilgress)
Portsmouth 38 (Robert Mohun)
others
===Netherlands===
Drie Helden Davids 50 (Pieter Bonsart)
Zeelandia 38 (Balthazar van de Voorde)
Delft 34 (Jan Banckert, killed)
? Schakerlo 30 (Jan Krijnssen)
Vereenigde Provincien 48
Ter Goes 30-34 (Adriaan van Cruiningen)
Feel free too add to this :)
CatsClaw 22:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Drie Helden Davids 50 (Pieter Bonsart)
Zeelandia 38 (Balthazar van de Voorde)
Delft 34 (Jan Banckert, killed)
? Schakerlo 30 (Jan Krijnssen)
Vereenigde Provincien 48
Ter Goes 30-34 (Adriaan van Cruiningen)
Feel free too add to this :)
CatsClaw 22:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands

message: I am not an expert, but in everything I have read, this battle is supposed to have taken place on June 3, 1665, not June 13, 1665. Please advise. 82.227.118.211 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on 13 June according to the present Gregorian calender (New Style), 3 June according to the Julian calender the English then still used.--MWAK 12:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of battle 

message: In this article, "James himself commanded the van, the squadron of the red flag" while in Order of battle at the Battle of Lowestoft "the Red (or Centre) Squadron was under the Duke of York" (i.e. James).
What was it? Was red the center or the van squadron. Creuzbourg (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Battle 

message: Prior to November 2019, the basis for much of this article dated back to 2005 or 2006 and had only one reference to a Dutch-language source and no in-line citations. It seems to have been written by the Dutch contributor that was simultaneously writing a more comprehensive version in Dutch wikipedia which is devoid of any sources or in-line citations. 
There is one credible English language source, a chapter in a book by Frank Fox that is devoted to the Four Days' Battle, which gives an account that is significantly different on many respects to that which was put forward before November 2019. In the absence of any stated English sources and no in-line citations from the one Dutch source, that account cannot be preferred to that of Frank Fox. Sscoulsdon (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Battle of Dover (1652)

message: I’ve moved this: quite apart from it being unreferenced since it was written (in 2003!) none of the books I’ve seen call it the "Battle of Goodwin Sands"; the common name is "Battle of Dover". A Google search for "Battle of Goodwin Sands" only shows pages copy this article, or post-date it and its use of the term, so it is at best original research and at at worst suggests citogenesis. Anyway I've moved it, and added some sources for what happened. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move
Talk:Battle of Brávellir

message: I changed the latter to the former. Seems more uniform.
The Frederick 11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, as much as I've heard, Sweden wasn't involved. Said: Rursus 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Victory vs Danish Defeat 

message: This is all crazy. I mean, when you look at the more factual (?) written accounts of Homer and the writings of the Romans and Egyptions you do get a grain of truth. "Odin came down and took him to Valhalla." Isn't that a bit POVy? I dunno. Northern Barbarians, they need to learn to write stuff down.
:The preceding line, describing Harald as being 157 years old seems a little unlikely also, but again is stated as fact. I wouldn't be so quick to state that Homer's, the Romans' and the Egyptions' writings of this and most other events aren't saddled with POV either though. Canderra 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh... What?! 

message: In the notes, I don't think we need Swedish text and English translation side by side, I think translation is enough. Opinionatetis Vostri! Said: Rursus 13:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The notes 

message: Birger Nerman was part of the nationalist reaction to modern historical research, that was brought to Sweden by the Weibull brothers. Nerman was never a mainstream historian i Sweden during his lifetime. To quote him now as a reference for facts of history is rather fringy. To try to suppress the fact that Nerman was nationalistic reeks of censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birger Nerman 

message: I restored just restored what Mrund had written in this edit. Berig is still clinging to old wives' tales about former Swedish battles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is explicitly against the expression of editors' opinions in the articles per WP:OR. If you reinsert an unreferenced personal opinion, you have to stand for it as your own.--Berig (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Berig's edit summary
Talk:Battle of Fýrisvellir

message: Why isn't this article named in English Battle of the Fyris Fields? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No source uses "Battle of the Fyris Fields".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I totally love it when historically contested events find new support. There are so many extreme and categorical positions taken by hypercritical historians that I can't help wondering what is their goal, really, beyond showing that humanistics is mostly about feelings and emotions.--Berig (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the discovery of the location of Jomsborg idenpendently by two (or three ?) different researchers was announced allready in the autumn of 2018. The complete text for Gesta Wulinensis ecclesiae pontificum was discovered in autumn 2019, and the discovery was made public in january 2020. Gesta Wulinensis confirmed the location of Jomsborg, that the researchers had figured out on basis on various techniques. Apart from the video, where Rosborn tells about the battle of Fýrisvellir and other things, there are also a more detailed discussion on the matter on Facebook. It's all very exiting, and it's rather unusual to find such a detailed new account on Nordic history from the 10th century, and not mentioning all the other historical medieval documents, that was saved in this archive. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: These discoveries must be the greatest in Norse studies since L'Anse aux Meadows in 1960. It is indeed very exiting, and I look forward to Rosborn's book.--Berig (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantastic
Talk:Battle of Dettingen

message: Undid unexplained deletion of referenced statement.Tttom1 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: revert

message: I am fairly sure that the German pronunciation of Dettingen is with a hard "g".  In English, when referring to the Battle of Dettingen is it traditional to follow the German pronunciation (hard "g") or use a soft "g", i.e. a "j" sound?
:Neither,   an "ng" sound.Lathamibird (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I hope this proves interesting.  The image was sent to me by a guy who copied it off microfilm from the church doc, and I trust it is what he says. I enhanced it a bit.  The caption could use work, if anyone can decipher the old German writing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New old plan of battle map
Talk:Battle of Chotusitz

message: As of September 19, 2015, the article includes 14 inline citations in the "References" section, but only references 10 through 14 are to be found in the text itself. 
Did someone delete inline citations 1 through 9? and did the same person delete the text related to citations 1 though 9?  Menckenire (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Inline Citations?
Talk:Protestantism in Laos

message: What are the sources calling Laos as a country with a high persecution of Christians? 152.163.100.135
:There are quite numerous sources for it. Look through Amnesty International for example. Although Vietnam seems to be worse on this.--T. Anthony 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Hlobane

message: This article was written from one point of view. I edited it a little to address a little this situation. It remains significantly deficient.Gallador (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: What's a "laager?"  --Awiseman 17:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See laager =) --Loopy e 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll add the link.  How about a nek? The link goes to an Italian singer --Awiseman 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laager 

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: * "Lieutenant D’Arcy of the Frontier Light Horse was recommended for the Victoria Cross but denied on the grounds of him being a colonial. This was later rectified."
Henry Cecil Dudgeon D'arcy was awarded a VC, but for a different action some months later. Same guy? "[L]ater rectified" sounds like he was belatedly decorated for Hlobane.
* "... and five companies of the 80th Regiment." 
I presume this is the 80th Regiment of Foot (Staffordshire Volunteers), but I can't confirm it.
—WWoods (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry D'Arcy? 
Talk:Battle of Kambula

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: Added missing citations, expanded and revised several sections, auto edded, Br English, checked for dupe wikilinks, completed citations, fud dup etc. Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick review and ce, I was rushing to get it done and missed the typos etc despite a second reading. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty more to do to improve the article but at least it's out of the doldrums. Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision