Talk:Tadeusz Kościuszko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tadeusz Kościuszko is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 17, 2014.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Belarus (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lithuania (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Military / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Poland (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

Date of birth[edit]

PSB uses 4 Feb, does not mention any controversy over the date, nor any alternatives. Regarding "Szyndler, Bartłomiej (1991). Tadeusz Kościuszko, 1746–1817. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Bellona. p. 103.—Kościuszko's exact birthdate is unknown, but February 12 is generally used." - can anybody verify that Szyndler actually states that Feb 12 is more popular than Feb 4? I want to make sure this is not somebody's OR. At this point with PSB entry vs newer Bellona entry I'd say we have "conflicting sources", not any consensus for one. We would need more sources, OR if anybody can figure out if PSB issued an errata for the Kosciuszko entry, perhaps? I could check it in December... or we could ask somebody like User:Picus viridis to do so sooner (he has a number of PSB tomes). PS. Please don't do edits like this. I know it was good faithed, but it actually falsified a reference sentence (introduced a claim not backed up by used reference). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I falsified a referenced sentence regarding the date of birth. I am also concerned that there are conflicting sources between the PSB and Bellona entries for Kosciuszko. I think we should ask one of the users to help check the PSB entry on Kosciuszko to see if the PSB has issued an errata about the date of birth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I found that PSB has an errata for that entry in Tome 40 ("Polski Słownik Biograficzny - Uzupełnienia i sprostowania w t. 40 do art. Kościuszko Tadeusz"). I'll ask around if anyone can access it before I can do so in mid-December. PS. Please note that the date of 4 Feb is used in pl wikipedia and PWN Encyklopedia. WIEM and Interia encyclopedias do not give his DOB, the 4th is used for example in this printed source Bogdan Grzeloński (1976). Poles in the United States of America, 1776-1865. Interpress. p. 42. Retrieved 19 November 2012. . However his newest biography, available in English (and I think in Polish too) (Alex Storozynski (3 August 2010). The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution. Macmillan. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-312-62594-8. Retrieved 19 November 2012. ) states February 12, his footnote (#8) cites Szyndler (1991:103), and states: "Kościuszko exact birth date is not known, but the twelfth is generally used. Szyndler examines theories of Kosciuszko's birth date." Given this, I think we should state in all places "sources vary", and add a footnote describing this issue (I'll do so shortly). If somebody could look into Szyndler for more details it would be nice (again, I may be able to do so in mid-December). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for translation and verification for (Belo?)Russian references[edit]

There are some references that are completely in Belo?Russian, and/or unformatted (http://kamunikat.fontel.net/www/knizki/historia/bienziaruk/kasciuszki/00.htm). Can somebody translate them into English and verify their claims? If not, I'll be removing them shortly during my review of references (I intent to remove all unreliable refs, then reference this article with reliable inline cites, starting with PSB, and remove all unreferenced claims as part bringing this article to B/GA class). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'm at work now, will do it this evening! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
All right, great. If you could also add to each reference a quote parameter, with the quote in the original and English? I can do the same for all Polish ones if any controversial text arises (that I can verify). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi :-) So lets start! I didn't have time to read yet how to do it, I will probably do it later today or tomorrow (stupid assignments from work), but here are the quotes:
[1] "Старадаўні беларускі шляхецкі род Касцюшкаў..." which means "The old Belarusian szlachta Kosciuszko..." so here they clearly refer to him as Belarusian. In fact, in the other two references:
Касцюшкі // Беларусь: энцыкл. даведнік / Рэдкал. Б. І. Сачанка (гал. рэд.) і інш. — Мінск: БелЭн, 1995. P. 379 and Хто такі Тадэвуш Касцюшка? // Іван Саверчанка, Зьміцер Санько. 150 пытанняў і адказаў з гісторыі Беларусі. — Менск: 1999; 150 пытанняў і адказаў з гісторыі Беларусі. — Вільня: Наша Будучыня, 2002. ISBN 9986-9229-6-1 they also said his family came from a Belarusian origin, the only problem is I don't have copied of them and due to the fact I live in England I have no way to put my hands on them and get the quotes, but I did see with my eyes that it has it ages ago.
Another quote from the article: "Сам Найвышэйшы Начальнік (як называлі яго падчас збройнага чыну) заўсёды ўсведамляў сябе л і ц ь в і н а м – грамадзянінам Вялікага княства Літоўскага – гістарычнай Літвы-Беларусі." says "The officer himself referred to himself as a Litvin, which was a name for a resident of the Great Duchy of Lithuania - The historical Lithuania-Belarus".
Another source is [2] which says "Гiсторыкi прыпушчаюць, што спачатку мацi Фёкла, якая паходзiла з беларускага праваслаўна-унiяцкага роду Ратамскiх, магла хрысцiць сына ў праваслаўе цi ўнiяцтва (так з'явiлася iмя Андрэй), а ўжо потым бацька Людвiг, берасцейскi мечнiк, якi выбiраўся ад шляхты ваяводства ў Лiтоўскi Трыбунал, перажагнаў малога ў каталiцтва." what means "Some historians says, that his mother, who came from thw Belarussian Orthodox clan of Ratmskih, could have baptise her soon as Orthodox, and that afterwards the father Ludwig, which came from a szlachta from the Lithuanian rule, baptized him as a Catholic".
So we know his mother came from a Belarusian famile and we know from his fathers side they were originaly from a Belarusian family. I know you deleted the word Belarusian, but I actualy thing we should return it due to the fact though in the past it was not used, Belarusian basically means Ruthenian from the land of Belarus (you know the story behind the name, how the Russians made an effort to get rid of Litvin).
[3] Here we have a quote: "Имя Тадеуша Костюшко (1746 – 1817) хорошо известно за пределами Центральной Европы. Белорус по происхождению, который боролся за независимость Речи Посполитой, воевал за США, не принял личного приглашения Наполеона Бонапарта, сотрудничества с которым искал Александр I на Венском конгрессе – короткая биография незаурядной личности, сына нашего славянского региона." The name of Tadeusz Koscuiszko (1746-1817) is well known outside of Central Europe. A Belarusian by ancestry, who fought for the independence of the Commonwealth, for the USA, who didn't accept a personal invitation from Napoleon..." and another qote says "Интересным для нас является самоидентификация Тадеуша. Добиваясь чина генерала в армии Речи Посполитой, он охарактеризовал себя как «природный литвин». На тот момент, термин «литвин» являлся одним из этнонимов белорусов." which means "an interesting for us fact is the self-identification of Tadeusz. When progressing to become a general in the army of the Commonwealth, he charactarized himself as a "authentic Lirvin". At that time, the term "Litvin" was one of the ethnonyms of Belarusians".
[4] Here it says: "Нарадзіўся Касцюшка ў 1746 годзе ў сям'і беларускага шляхціча" which means "Kosciuszko was born in 1746 in a Belarusian szlachta".
That's the thing, in the family tree of Kosciuszko we don't see any Lithuanians at all, and I use Lithuanians as the Baltic ethnicity, not people of the Great Duchy, that's why when they say Lithuanian-Ruthenian family in the Lithuanian source I think they mean Ruthenian from the Duchy of Lithuania. From the other hand, his mother was from a Ruthenian family, and his father came from a family which was Ruthenian but was Polonised. Another thing is, Belarusians=Ruthenians from the Great Duchy of Lithuania, that's why I think it's important to use the term Belarusian in the article. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The subject is difficult like hell, and I don't have time to delve into it thoroughly here and now but let me just emphasise that "Belarusians=Ruthenians from the Great Duchy of Lithuania" is quite an oversimplification. First please check what area was considered White Ruthenia at the time. A Belarusian source won't normally make a distinction between "White Ruthenia" and modern "Belarus". Second please notice that at times the Grand Duchy encompassed Ruthenian lands which using no definition could be considered "Belarusian" (especially before the Lublin Union).Zbihniew 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbihniew (talkcontribs)
Thanks for that, if you could edit the refs in the article and introduce latin/English transliterations/translations, it would be great. Now, I think that the sentence "Modern Belarusian sources, however, interpret his Ruthenian or Lithuanian heritage as Belarusian" should be good enough, plus we also have the discussion of the term Litvin in this context. The thing is, it is primarily Belarussian sources which use the term Balarussian. As you say, at that time, it was really Ruthenians, and those living in the territories Kosciuszko is from eventually developed the national identity we know today as Belarussian. I tend to dislike using the terms like Belarus or Ukraine when talking about those times, it is about as incorrect as (as you note) using the term Lithuanian for all inhabitants of the GDL. Or, for that matter, even the word Polish is is not without its pitfalls, that's why I prefer linking Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) rather than Polish people in this context. Now, regarding the term Lithuanian, I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I'd like to hear from somebody who can access Lithuanian scholarship on this issue. Anyway, I think that this section discussing his ethnicity/nationality is fine, but feel free to change it, and we will go from there. I'd strongly suggest living this sentence in "His family was ethnically Lithuanian-Ruthenian", but if you think it is potentially controversial, we can attribute it to its source (Lithuanian academic journal). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi :-) I agree, I think it looks perfect now! It’s true that using the term Lithuanian-Ruthenian might be controversial, but I don’t think there is any term that will not be controversial, and this one is the least controversial so I’m pro keeping it. We don’t claim he had Lithuanian origins because we don’t have references for that , but that’s why the word Lithuanian redirects it to Lithuania and not to Lithuanians. Regarding the term Ruthenian, it’s true that the Ruthenians in Belarus evolved into Belarusians, but at the time they had a different name and though those are the same people, it’s really good that we explained the situation, that way I think we are fair to the Belarusians who say that he was Belarusians, and to those who have problems with that claim. I really like how it looks now! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

Hello. I am thinking about revising the lead section. The lead section needs to summarize the article. As it stands, I believe it looks like it needs to be consolidated into four paragraphs and we should expand on his early life in the lead, as well as his legacy following his death. I am going to work on the lead in my sandbox. Thoughts or other ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks better, certainly. I'll give it a more detailed read tomorrow or so; I'd suggest trying to reduce the number of references there. I'd leave refs only for controversial claims. (On a sidenote, it's a nice surprise to be working on article that is actually being improved by other editors, thanks!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Piotr. I am always willing to help out when needed. Also, on a sidenote, I am also thinking about taking this article up to FA status so we can feature it as a TFA on either a couple of important milestones: 2014 (the 220th anniversary of the Kościuscko Uprising) or February 2016 (the 270th anniversary of Kosciuszko's birth). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'd love to help. I am tentatively thinking of getting it to GA January-ish. FA would require somebody with a good book, I can try to get a Polish source soon (maybe Szyndler 1991?), if somebody would put getting Storozynski's book on their list in the English version we should be good to go, sources wise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

lede[edit]

Honestly, it's too long, gives too much detail and repeats almost verbatim much of the information in the article body. A lede should summarize the article. I'm gonna cut it down.VolunteerMarek 03:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me and I have absolutely no objections, as I believe that the lead section may be a bit too long as well. However, per WP:MOSLEAD, we should try and keep the lead to at least 3-4 paragraphs. I will probably help out as well if possible with grammatical spellings, spacing errors and a lot of other things on the article as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done with PSB[edit]

Please note I am done with the expansion of this article from the Polish Biographical Dictionary article. We still need more for this to pass B/GA class reviews. Is there anybody who has access to a book? I also think more can be added from reliable online sources, including some already present in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. By the way, I have the online version of the Alex Storozynski book, and that provides useful information. I will see what I can do about citing pages in the book. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done with Storozynski, need language copy editing before GA[edit]

I am done expanding this article with Storozynski. At this point the article could use a language copyediting by a native speaker of English before we can submit it for a Good Article. Any volunteers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the really late reply, but I would be honoured to copyedit as a member of the guild of copyeditors. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality check[edit]

This article (including talk page) has been significantly altered in recent months by sockmaster User:Danton's Jacobin operating several abusive sock-puppet accounts including just confirmed User:Guitar hero on the roof blocked on 18 January 2013 by AGK with an expiry time of indefinite, and indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to race and ethnicity as well. Please check the content for accuracy with special consideration given to heritage, purported by any of the relevant accounts. Poeticbent talk 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are real problems with an editor's interpretation of Nash and Hodges' book, which explores why Jefferson refused to carry out Kosciusko's bequest to free his slaves. The position of Nash/Hodges was distorted as written here and original research/opinion is added in the previous account (i.e., Jefferson was "right" in his assessment, and the political problems led the nation to war...) - rather, Nash and Hodges note what Jefferson said, and how he created even more problems, and criticized him for not carrying out the bequest and exerting his prestige to make it happen. They also note the distortions in what was publicized in 1820 about the terms of the bequest. Similarly, other commentary about this should not be hidden in references, but addressed as cited sources in the article.Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Going to nominate this for a GA, unless there are any objections?[edit]

Since there have been no major edits to the article last week, I'd like to nominate it for a GA. Any comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Distortion of issue about Kosciusko's bequest[edit]

There seems to have been a misinterpretation of Nash/Hodges' book that explores Jefferson's refusal to carry out K's bequest to use his money in the US to buy freedom for slaves and educate them. In addition, an editor interjected private opinion (Jefferson was right), and hid other sources commentary on this issues by burying them in footnotes. Historians have recently looked at this issue and criticized Jefferson for failing to use the money and the power of his prestige to at least free some of his own slaves, which could have relieved his own financial distress. People can use other sources that support Jefferson's refusal to carry out the bequest, but they should not be distorting Nash and Hodges' position; they did not conclude that Jefferson was right in his actions, as was previously suggested here - in the Lead and in the lengthier discussion. Jefferson created more complexity. The discussion on this issue deserves place in the article - for instance, Nash and Hodges noted distortions in 1820 in how the terms of the bequest were presented publicly. This needs to be accurate.Parkwells (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson was indeed right. Kościuszko's relative did challenge the will and Virginia law did in fact forbid that such a bequest be honored. This is not a "private opinion". If Jefferson could have honored the will, at that late date in his life, without all the legal and social complications he would have done so. Please don't try to paint him as a 'bad person' for avoiding such legal and prolonged calamity that late in his life. Also, and once again, please don't refer to historians as one unified group in lockstep with your particular view. We've been through this less than honest approach before. After all this time it seems you are still stuck on that number. Before I revert/modify most of your edits I will give you a chance to refer to Hodges 254-256, pages you seemed to have ignored, for commentary. You should have discussed the changes before making so many. The article, before your edits passed a GA review without commentary about selected, cherry picked authors, and had the approval and scrutiny of the editors involved. And btw, Jefferson had many slaves that Kościuszko hoped Jefferson would free. This is not the place to air commentary about Hemings and her children, per undue weight and POV considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of your edits were however appropriate. Have added some content from an existing source, regarding litigation, embezzlement, etc, w/ citation. Btw, please keep 'Cite book' and 'Cite web' info in the bibliography. One of the reasons this article was granted GA status is becuase the text was cleaned up and the bibliography was structured and consistent with its source formatting, ala 'Cite book' and 'ref tag' links to sources in bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My point was that the source, Nash/Hodges, which was already cited in the article, needed to be accurately represented. They discussed Jefferson's reservations, but had a different opinion as to whether he could or should have undertaken the execution of the will. It is only anyone's opinion that Jefferson "would have done so if he could". Not a question of whether he was "right" or not. They clearly thought he could have used his power/prestige to have made some changes. I'm not painting Jefferson as anything. If this source is to be used, the historians should be accurately represented. Nash/Hodges referred to Hemings and her children; they did not suggest they were the only slaves he could have freed. Gordon-Reed noted that Jefferson had valid reasons for not acting as executor, which is why she is used as a source for a differing point of view.Parkwells (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Parkwells, on second thought some of your edits were fine, however I think Nash and Hodges were given a bit too much 'air time'. I have to admit I was surprised to see Reed, of all people, showing understanding for Jefferson's decision, so on that note, I will return some of Nash (Russell) and Hodges' comments because it is balanced with other comments. Let's keep Hemings out of the picture however because Kościuszko's wishes were aimed at the plight of slaves in general. He did not mention or have particular concern for Hemings on an individual basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


I wonder if the topic is notable enough for its own article - Kościuszko's last will? This would allow us to move all the potentially controversial details there, and just leave a general summary here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the main reasons Kościuszko is notable is because he was a good friend of Thomas Jefferson and was made executor of his Will, so on that note we should give the Will a bit more than summary coverage/weight as overall topics in the article go, IMO. However, much of so called "modern" day academia have attempted to attack Jefferson on a superficial premise because he turned down Kościuszko's request and ignore the fact that Jefferson knew all to well about the legal hornet's nest he was being asked to oversee, and at age 77 it is more than understandable he declined such an undertaking. As I mentioned in the text (that was approved for GA), 'Jefferson was right', as he would have been faced with Kościuszko's relatives, con-men and others who indeed came out of the woodwork and challenged the will. And as it turns out, one of the administrators embezzled most of the funds in the process of all the litigation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Refs may need more work[edit]

Ref [24] is now invalid, and links to a page with no reference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Saved by Internet Archive: [5] Thanks for catching it, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in "Later life"[edit]

The sentence "he left Vienna and moved to Solothurn, Switzerland, where his friend Franciszek Zeltner was mayor" is definitely wrong. Zeltner's first name is not Franciszek but Franz Xaver (he was Swiss, not Polish). He wasn't the mayor of Solothurn either, "only" the brother of the former Swiss ambassador. Here is a short biography by the Kościuszko Museum in Solothurn (in German), and here the same in Polish. --Voyager (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For now I've removed any mentions of him, he doesn't seem that relevant to this article. That said, he is notable in general, and it would be good if somebody would stub an article for him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography work[edit]

While doing bibliography work and adding locations for publishers to the sources, per advice, there is one publication written in Polish whose location is obscure to this English speaking editor. Would Piotrus or anyone who can read Polish check out this book and if possible add the location ( |location=xxx ) to its 'cite book' entry in the bibliography? It's probably in Poland but I didn't see anything to that effect. The city name would be nice also if that's possible. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers 00:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Mongo, why did you remove links for 'artillery' and 'garrison'? They were not linked anywhere else in the article. I have restored these links. -- Gwillhickers 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing important info[edit]

  • The article doesn't say anything about the events that prompted and led up to Kościuszko's last Will, that he left the United States in secrecy in 1798 and that Jefferson procured him a passport to France under a false name and arranged for his departure. Yes check.svg Done
  • Article doesn't mention that Kościuszko turned down an invitation from George Washington to come to Mt. Vernon
  • Missing famous Jefferson quote to Gates about Kościuszko: "He is the purest son of liberty among you all that I have ever known, the kind of liberty which extends to all, not only to the rich."

This information is covered in Kosciuszko A Biography, by Monica Mary Gardner. I am not familiar with Gardner. If her biography of Kościuszko (found in external links) is considered a reliable source I'll add this information. This article is still a good candidate for FA but that doesn't mean it can't get better. -- Gwillhickers 11:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

While many of the recent edits made by another editor were improvements, more care needs to be given when important and definitive items and historical context are deleted. e.g. Mention of Benedict Arnold being a traitor was removed. While condensing the text can be helpful we don't want to truncate the prose too much because when this starts to happen the text starts to read like a police report. One of the FA requirements is a well written article that affords a fair amount of details, context and in depth coverage. Also, unless it is a minor tweak, spelling, etc, editors are encouraged to make edit summaries on a per edit basis, explaining why they are making changes in the literature. -- Gwillhickers 17:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Links in lede[edit]

There seems to be quite a few links in the lede which I think would be better if they occurred in the body of the text, esp common knowledge links, such as Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, and the United States. If there is a consensus to reduce this number a bit I think it would be less distracting as the lede goes. It would seem that topics should only be linked here if they are key topics to the article's subject, and only when they are not common knowledge topics. The lede is not the place to invite the reader to tens of other subjects. Interest or curiosity for a topic/link usually occurs when that topic is used in context in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

FA review[edit]

Opinions are welcomed at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1 -- Gwillhickers 04:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus of Warsaw[edit]

Got a note that the FA review might mean that the lack of cites on my edit discussing Thaddeus of Warsaw could cause it to get bumped from the article. Personally, I feel that info sourced on a linked page should be fine but (a) ymmv and (b) that article isn't currently sourced (I took its info from the Jane Porter page, whose sources it presumably shares). I'll go ahead and try to give that page some sources; if they're necessary here, kindly copy them over and restore any blanked info. — LlywelynII 07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please add a source for [6]. It's a nice edit, but a GA+ article requires refs for new content, or they will be removed so that the article's class is not lowered due to insufficient cites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes[edit]

Please see FA review page concerning undiscussed changes. -- Gwillhickers 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dual baptism, bibliography[edit]

(Continuing a conversation at User_talk:Novickas#Cite_book_page_numbers between User:Gwillhickers, User:Piotrus, and myself).

About the dual baptism. I think it likely that Mr Krol had insider information about this from his contacts in Belarus. It's probably written somewhere else, but it would be hard to find. IMO it's not worth getting wrapped around the axle about, so it's OK with me to leave it out.

Yes, but we should at least say he was baptized a Catholic and given his names. -- Gwillhickers 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

About including number-of-pages-in-book in bibliography entries. G, can you find similar usage in other FAs or a supporting WP:MOS entry? I recently read the Disraeli article while looking for recent biographical FAs, didn't see it there. Because I'm used to the Chicago Manual of Style, which doesn't do that, I found it startling. Maybe User:Wehwalt (Hi!), who has shepherded several dozen articles to featured status, will weigh in? Novickas (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of having to list the number of pages in a book in the bibliographical entry. Is this something asked for at the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No, you don't have to list number of pages, it's something I've done in several bibliographies. Gives you an idea of how extensive the coverage is. Also, when 'pages=123' is used in a 'cite book' template it's usually done so when the template is inserted into the text as a citation (as I demonstrated in bold above), which I find sort of annoying, esp when there are many of them scattered throughout the text. Makes it very difficult to visually navigate and edit the mark up. In any case, it's no big issue with me per any given article. Just wanted to let Novickas know what the number stood for when he removed it thinking it was an actual page number citation, which are not found in bibliographies but under 'References'. -- Gwillhickers 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Could I persuade you to put p. or pages before number of pages in the bibliography, rather than after it? That is, as ".1,234 pages." or ".1,234 p." rather than "p. 1,234"? Our regional library catalog notes a book's number of pages as p. 1,234, as does the Library of Congress (there, it's helpfully in the Description field). Novickas (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no objections with denoting "123 pages" but we are dealing with a template that automatically places data in the given fields in a certain order with a specific format. If we are not going to use the 'pages=' field to indicate page totals then we will have to type it out in one of the other fields, most suitably in the 'publication=' field, so it would read: 'Smith & Jones Publishers, 123 pages'. I added a note at the top of the Bibliography that says the 'p.' in the bibliography denotes the total number of pages. If this is not suitable then we can make the change as you suggest. Reminder, both the Kosciuszko and Pulaski articles made GA using the present convention. Let's get some more feed back before we make any changes. -- Gwillhickers 20:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say not to. While boldness is appropriate at times, doing something different from probably almost all articles on Wikipedia does not seem to me to be the way to attract support for advancement of this article. FAC is very much about doing things conventionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done -- Gwillhickers 00:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Smile.png Thanks - Novickas (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we stable yet?[edit]

Apparently, at long last, we have fixed and tweaked this article more than any other on the planet, it seems. If there's any last items to fix or adjust, let's do it before we put this article on the FA chopping block again, which I hope will be soon. -- Gwillhickers 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. But I was depressed about it after reading the Disraeli article and remain so.

Three actionable things. One, we aren't given a reason as to why he went to France in 1798, just a dramatic introduction: "In March 1798 Kościuszko received a bundle of letters from Europe. The news in one of them came as a shock to him, causing him, in his crippled condition, to spring from his couch and limp unassisted to the middle of the room and exclaim..." Why the shock? We aren't told.

Two, there are two practically identical sentences about the will, right next to each other, one in the Later life section and one in the immediately following will section. Maybe the will doesn't need its own section? Moving the current wills content into the later life section, with a wikilink to the wills article rather than a "main article: see...", would do to my mind.

Three. This one is a little thornier. User:Piotrus has expressed the opinion that K.'s baptism in the Orthodox church is a fringe theory. But I've found a website (in Polish) that discusses this.[7]; Google translation here [8]. It seems reliable to me - the author is Doroteusz Fionik, an ethnographer who has an article in the Polish wiki [9] and a presence in Google books.[10]. This phrase gives me some pause -"Białoruski biograf Kościuszki Józef Jucho również wskazuje na Siechnowicze, uważając że początkowo był on ochrzczony w obrządku wschodnim." Specifically, the word uważając. It could mean either that "[Jozef Jucho] considers that he was first baptized in the Orthodox church ..." or “ considering that he was first baptized in the Orthodox church..." Is Fionik speaking for himself here or for Jucho?

I see his Orthodox baptism as a minority opinion, worthy of inclusion, and we can attribute it as such, to George A. Krol and to researcher Anatol Bienziaruk, but not sure whether to include Fionik. Novickas (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to learn more about those letters, too. PSB does not mention any letters (or anything else) in March; it does however mention that K. was leaving to Europe on an invitation by Talleyrand, who wanted K.'s moral and public support against the Prussians. By the time K. arrived in Europe, T.'s plans were already obsolete. While we could speculate that those letters were related to T.'s invitation, I'd like to have it confirmed before we clarify this in text.
Regarding the baptism. I agree [11] is relatively reliable, but the translation os "considers", i.e. it attributes this theory to a particular scholar. I am ok with adding this to the article, properly attributed, perhaps as a note - "Belarussian scholar Józef Jucho also proposed, that K. was baptised in an Eastern Orthodox rite." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosciuszko's sudden departure for France, the Will[edit]

As I've asserted before, Kosciuszko's will is one of the key features in the biography as it reflects intimately on Kosciuszko the man and deserves more than a passing mention in his biography here. If there is a wide textual overlap in this and the main article -- good. The two articles deserve to be connected with more than just a passing reference and a link, imo.
The bundle of letters, one of which caused Kosciuszko to hastily depart for France, "at once", contained the news that Polish soldiers were fighting under Napoleon in France and that his two nephews... had been sent in the name of Kościuszko by their mother to Bonaparte with the prayer that they might serve in his ranks. By the end of June, 1798, Kościuszko was in France, in Bayonne. , Gardner, p.183 I'll work on a summary and work this into the paragraph in the 'Later life' section that mentions the "bundle of letters". As I also said before, I'll let you two sort of the details of Kosciuszko's baptism. -- Gwillhickers 08:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Gwillhickers 09:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences about estate funds used for Kosciusko school in Newark[edit]

We have contradictory sentences in the Disposition of American estate section and in the lead with regard to whether any of his US assets were used to free and/or educate slaves. Each of the oppositional assertions are supported by their refs. Of the two statements in the disposition section, one, currently supported in this article by refs using Monica Mary Gardner and Nash & Hodges, is that a school for African Americans was established and that it was funded by the estate. Per Nash & Hodges: “Unlike Kosciusko, who intended to make a major stroke against slavery with his bequest, Lear had to settle for a small school far away from the areas…” (p. 242) (Lear was the executor at that time). No mention of using the funds to buy freedom. The other statement, supported by Storozynski, is that none of the money was used for its intended purposes. (See Storozynski, (p. 282, [12]).

The current statement in the lead – “the funds were never used for that purpose” – follows Storozynski but not Nash & Hodges and Gardner.

Any thoughts on how to resolve this? Novickas (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

When I come across opposing statements I usually add a footnote for clarification. Since the school referred to does in fact exist we could instead have the lede read most of the funds were never used for that purpose. -- Gwillhickers 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Clarification : Neither source actually says Kosciuszko's funds were used to set up the school, only that Kosciuszko's "legacy went to found the coloured school at Newark...which bore Kościuszko's name." Gardner, p.183 i.e.It says found, not fund. -- Gwillhickers 21:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this proposal ("most of the funds were never used for that purpose") strikes me as giving too much weight to the idea that some portion of the funds did go towards at least the education of slaves. We have one modern work by historians that asserts that it did –Nash & Hodges –along with one rather old one by biographer Monica Mary Gardner (1920). And two more modern ones that say it didn’t, at all – Alex Storozynski and John Chester Miller, whom Conor Cruise O'Brien quotes as saying “He [Jefferson] refused to execute this project and as a result the bequest was diverted to other purposes which had nothing to do with furthering the education of blacks.” [13].
The primary meaning of legacy in the online OED is "an amount of money or property left to someone in a will." [14]. The secondary entry is "something left or handed down by a predecessor:the legacy of centuries of neglect." Since Gardner doesn't explicate her usage of the word, I think it's better left out.
I propose, for the lead, just saying 'Jefferson declined to execute the bequest, which was beset by numerous legal complications and may never have been used for its intended purposes.” Then in the will section: “Historians offer varying accounts of whether the funds were ever used to free or educate African-American slaves. With a note, to avoid clutter: Note x: According to Gary B. Nash and Graham Russell Hodge, a portion of the funds were used to create the Kosciusko School near Newark, New Jersey.(ref) John Chester Miller (ref) and Alex Storozynski (ref) asserted that no part of the bequest was ever used for its intended purpose.") Novickas (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but currently the text reads "None of the money that Kościuszko had earmarked for the manumission and education of African Americans in the United States was ever used for that purpose.[103] Though the American will was never carried out, its legacy went to found an educational institute for African Americans in the United States." For me, this seems to be contradictory: It says no money was used for education of african americans and in the next sentence it says the money (or parts of it) was used to found a school for arican americans, which for me sounds like eduction for african americans. If there are sources for both, I think there should be a decision for one which is more plausible or it should be stated as an open question - like this it just is confusing.--86.176.115.55 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement in section[edit]

I restored 'also' to 'opposed slavery', as numerous sources cite Jefferson opposing slavery all his life, in his letters, writings, political involvements, etc, while owning slaves. Some historians of course question his sincerity, but that is speculation -- much of it politically and socially motivated. -- Gwillhickers 02:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it - this article is about Kosciusko, not Jefferson. Jefferson's stance on slavery is unlikely to be settled soon. If we include 'also', then to be fair, we would need to include a bunch of other dissenting historians' opinions about Jefferson and slavery, which would seriously clutter this article. If you have reliable sources to the effect, as you say above, that those historians who question Jefferson's opposition to slavery are/were speculative and politically/socially motivated, those should go in the Jefferson or the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article - not here. Why not stick to the indisputable 'he asked his friend Cooke to act as executor, but he also refused'? But...this is kind of a Featured Article-level disagreement and there are no signs that it's going to be re-nommed soon. If that happens we could revisit this disagreement then. Novickas (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No one said that we should include historian's opinions of Jefferson here. We go by facts. The fact is Jefferson said and did much to oppose slavery. This is not an opinion because the proof is in his writings and political actions, so any reference, direct or indirect, needs to reflect this. No, this is not an article about Jefferson, nor is it one of anyone else, yet their names are mentioned about the page. Including 'also' reflects the facts, and doesn't turn the page into something 'about' Jefferson. No one made an issue with 'also' during the previous nomination, and there is no factual reason why one should be raised in the future. Any issue created along this line can easily be addressed. Kosciuszko entrusted Jefferson with his bequest because he knew Jefferson opposed slavery. -- Gwillhickers 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is clearly the sort of thing we could argue about forever...and in the meantime the article wouldn't be improved. I'm willing to let it go. Let's move on. I see there is more material about why he left the US in 1799. Will add soon. Novickas (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Btw, TK departed for Europe in '1798'. -- Gwillhickers 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

reSubmit for FA[edit]

It's been a good number of months since we last tried to get FA status for this article. Unless there are no other issues to deal with we should resubmit and go for it again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. I have to admit I've lost heart; I am expecting somebody (or several somebodies) will find some English prose items to nitpick again, and they'll fail this article again. I am having serious doubts whether any prose written by a non-English speaker, or outside of "friends and collegues" who use favorite phrases and parts of MoS of some of the reviewers can pass these days :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
If a common phrase is involved and it employs 'less than perfect English' I think we can let it ride. Was there a particular phrase that gave us issues before -- I don't remember any. Seems most of the issues were along historical lines, and from what I can see, they've been resolved. Come on, Piotrus! Chin up! Would Kościuszko give up? He'd say, 'get back on your horse!.Face-smile.svg -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. We originally had a lot of support, then a few minor issues came up, but because the discussions dragged out so long, the nomination went ka-put! In any case, the article has improved since then so there shouldn't be any difficulty, none that we can't handle anyways. If no one sees any issues that need to be addressed I'll resubmit the article for FA. I'll wait another day or so for others to chime just in case there may be any lingering issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

English pronunciation?[edit]

Have s.o. at West Point pronouncing it /kʊˈʃʊʃkoʊ/,[15] but can't tell if that's the normal English pronunciation there, or if he's trying to approximate the Polish for his Polish guests. Does anyone know? Do people give the man the common Usonian and Australian pronunciation of /ˌkɒziˈɒskoʊ/, or is that just for things named after him? — kwami (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a not-very-good attempt to pronounce the Polish, but I'll include it since it's West Point. It would be helpful if we had someone here from West Point to verify. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anachronism[edit]

The first sentence of the article is anachronistic: "... became a national hero in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and the United States." Belarus did not become a nation until long after his death. Better would be "... became a national hero in Poland-Lithuania and the United States." Maproom (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really. "became" means that it has already happened but there is no implication that it happened during his life time. This is also a bit of unnecessary splitting of hairs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek, Maproom: Agree with Volunteer Marek. No need to be deliberating about opinionated issues where content is involved unless there is a clear case of NPOV or other such policy violations, or otherwise outright false statements, involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

IPA-pl[edit]

I would consider adding the Polish pronounciation of his name to the lead. It goes like this:"taˈdɛuʂ kɔɕˈt͡ɕuʂkɔ". If editors involved in this article agree and reviewed this it should be moved the the article. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Traitor v. "switched sides"[edit]

@Hawkeye7, Piotrus, MONGO, AustralianRupert, Ian Rose, Kwamikagami, Euniana: -- Hawkeye, an official country doesn't need to be involved for one to become a traitor. One can betray his cause/people, switch sides or become a traitor, even when there is no 'country' that has been officially established. The people involved regarded the land for which they fought for as their country.
In Wiktionary there are several various definitions that refer to other things besides "country", which is a legal technicality really. They all have this one underlying principle: "Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust". There are a number of biographies about B.A. (and other sources) that use the term traitor in their titles. Since Benedict Arnold is famous for being "synonymous with traitor" and the term was used when the article passed FA it should be restored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In the context as it is discussed in this article I would agree that that the term traitor is more accurate in describing Arnold as he is mentioned only in passing here. In the Arnold bio the term switching sides is done liberally which better suits that article.--MONGO 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well. The "official" (i.e. legal) definition of a traitor is one who "gives aid and comfort to the enemy". You don't have to be a citizen of any particular country to commit treason. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Treason Act 1351 made giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the King treason. But Arnold was pardoned and given a brigadier general's commission. I'm sure that you can find sources that call him a traitor but they do not have to adhere to our NPOV policy. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries. Calling someone a traitor is not neutral; it is pejorative. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Pardoned? By whom? Certainly not the American side -- he was given a British Brigadier General commission, and after the war lived the rest of his life in England. You would be hard put to find a source that does not call him a traitor. His own WP article says, in the lede, "...his name quickly became a byword in the United States for treason or betrayal." Are you saying that's pejorative? Of course not -- it's a fact. Facts are always neutral. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, pardoned or not, it doesn't change the fact that Arnold committed treason and since then has been widely known as a traitor. If we were to say he was a "rotten traitor" there I believe we would have a NPOV issue. If someone steals something they are considered a thief. This term could easily be considered a pejorative also, however it is still a neutral term -- much better than saying the man removed items that didn't belong to him, which makes it sound as if the man had never committed a wrong against anyone. One could argue that the stolen items were used to help someone and therefore the term thief is not neutral, which of course is not true. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he was pardoned by the British. I presume that loyalists enjoyed a blanket pardon in the United States but I'm not an expert on the modern period. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. He was pardoned by the British for fighting on the American side -- because he switched sides. The fact that he was pardoned by the enemy, due to giving aid and comfort to that enemy, did not in any way absolve him of the treason charge on the American side. Once again, you would be hard put to find a scholarly source that does not refer to him as a traitor to the Americans. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that Arnold had to of been a traitor for the British to pardon him in the first place. i.e.They didn't pardon him because he wasn't a traitor. i.e. A thief who is pardoned is still a thief. (add:) The term traitor, like thief, is not a flattering term but is still a neutral one in of itself. The context in which such terms are used is also an important consideration, and the usage of traitor in this article wasn't such that it was presented in less than a neutral manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, "Benedict Arnold" is a synonym for "traitor". He would also be considered to have been one to the nascent United States — which had declared their independence before Arnold betrayed them — by any objective commentator. Nihil novi (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

On retrospect, the phrase "turned traitor", does sound a bit biased. Instead we should say "...attempted to surrender to the British when he became a traitor." Saying "turned traitor" sounds a little personal, whereas "became a traitor" does not, imo. In any case, we need to retain traitor, as the term by itself is neutral, is indeed synonymous with Arnold and reflects what most if not all sources have referred to him as. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"Switched sides" is better, because it is not only neutral, it is more readily understood. British readers will see Arnold and Washington as traitors because they rebelled against their king and country. It's like the way we avoid using "the enemy" to describe one side, because that implies a certain perspective. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: -- What person with more than a 3rd grade education is not going to understand the term 'treason'? In any case we can say that Arnold became a traitor against the American cause, as again, Arnold is synonymous with traitor and virtually all sources refer to him as such. -- There's a not so fine line between 'rebellion' and 'treason'. Washington, Jefferson, et al, voiced their complaints for years against an unyielding British crown which finally culminated in wide spread rebellion and revolt. This is not the same as treason, where you pretend to be loyal to a cause, and then turn traitor. I could be mistaken, but I would think not even British historians have ever referred to Washington as a traitor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you could be mistaken Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
A politically charged newspaper article isn't what I would think establishes Washington as a traitor nearly in the same order that Arnold was. Was this all that came up in the google search? I was referring to sources. By this way of thinking I suppose we could call anyone who 'revolted' a traitor -- so perhaps we shouldn't use words like 'revolt'. Instead we should say 'they objected'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I was searching for the incident a decade ago where Washington was branded a traitor in parliament. This set off a public debate at the time as to whether his treason was justifiable or not in the UK, while in the US there was a push to rehabilitate Arnold, which is still underway apparently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That was a hypothetical situation, posed to law students as a training exercise. I know of no credible real-world historian, either American or British, who ever actually accused Washington of treason -- and we're getting quite far afield here. Arnold was, and continues to be accused of treason against the American side, because what he did was (and is) the very definition of treason. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What he did was no different to what Washington did, which is the definition of treason. Washington is generally regarded as such by historians of the period. (eg. [16]) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes we are getting a little far afield. All that was said was Arnold "turned traitor". I suppose we could say the same of Washington if we were referring to a given incident/time, as we were with Arnold. However, Washington's "treason" was preceded by years of debate, acute indifference and finally rebellion, unlike Arnold who preported to be an American and fought on the American side. Washington never raised arms against the Americans and then "switched sides" and joined them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, MONGO, DoctorJoeE, Nihil novi, Piotrus: -- Is the qualified phrase became a traitor against the Americans less than neutral? If there are no further objections I'll add this to the narrative, as again, traitor is synonymous with Arnold and almost all sources have always used this term. Most importantly, the reference (#40) for this statement (Storozynski, 2011, pp. 128–30) refers to Arnold as an "infamous traitor", and the term traitor was in place when this article passed its FA review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally think "became a traitor against the Americans" is redundant and awkward, not to mention self-evident. But if it'll settle this tempest in a teapot, I won't object too strenuously. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I added "against the Americans" for the sake of appeasing any reservations about neutrality. I would prefer also to just say "became a traitor". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Since there seem to be no further objections I have just added 'became a traitor' to the narrative, per discussions and sources. If this is still an issue please discuss before making any contested reverts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding the second (alternative) nationality of TK to the preamble of article[edit]

There is an alternative opinion that TK was a Belarusian. Actually Belarusian nation hasn't been formed yet in the beginning of the 19-th century. But he claimed himself to be Litwin. Belarusian historyography has an opinion that Litwins has just been renamed into Belarusians because of the policy of Russian Empire on occupied lands. Now there are many sources which could prove either Polish or Belarusian nationality of TK. There is an information about it in the text of article but there is no such statement in it's preamble. In Eastern-Slavic Wikipedias we usually put all the possible nationalities into preamble to add more neutrality to it. So I offer to add this information to the preamble. --Belarus2578 (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right 100%. The fact is, he even referred to him as a Litvin once, and at the time that was the only way for someone to identify as a Belarusian. What you said is true, Russians were the once who started calling the Litvins Belarusians for political reasons. I would use Polish-Lithuanian as a compromise as well, as the Belarusians were included in that general term. 94.2.161.214 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see prior discussions on this above. And cite your sources, not opinions. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Pan Piotr, I could give You 8 sources, but they are not in English. By the way, one of them is in Polish: "Kościuszko, biografia z dokumentów wysnuta" by Tadeusz Korzan (1894. Krakow, Warszawa). It states some facts about the origin of his family, which was not from the modern Poland lands. But, in my opinion, the best source is the mail from Kasciuszka to the Russian Emperor Alexander I, where Tadeusz wrote: «I was born litvin...» The mail is quoted in many literatural sources. Is it enough to write: «... was a Polish-Ruthenian military engineer and a military leader who became a national hero in Poland, Belarus, and the United States?» Or do You need more sources? --Belarus2578 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)