Talk:Warsaw Uprising (1794)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ref

Can we have any English references for this 'massacre of unarmed Russian soldiers'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will translate it. This is referenced to a very much established academic book --Irpen 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it. While I don't doubt he facts you added are correct, I am somewhat concerned about the use of the word 'massacre' here. Polish wiki (in article about Kilinski, among other places) mentions that the uprising was a period of 'two days of heavy fighting'. There is an obvious discrepancy between Polish 'two days of heavy fighting' and Russian 'massacre', with the thruth, I suspect, lying somewhere in the middle (as is usually the case). A citation from an non-Polish and non-Russian academic source would be useful, but for now we have to work with what we have, obviously.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I replaced original Russian with my translation. Sorry, for my English. --Irpen 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1912 Russian book about Poland ? Well I am sorry but It can't be taken seriously. Please use objective sources. --Molobo 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I added tag since Russian users insist that this piece of propaganda should stay here as objective description. --Molobo 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please describe what is wrong with facts and neutrality point by point, not in a generalized rant if you want to keep the tag. Do you have a source that denies these events. What is unneutral? Please no long paragraphs of stuff. Just describe your disagreements with the text as 1) 2) 3). --Irpen 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but a source from Imperial Russia about Polish uprising against Imperial Russia can't obviously be seen as neutral. Imperial Russia is known for spreading anti-polish information that justified its control over Poland. Please present neutral and modern source. --Molobo 03:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want present a modern and reliable source I shall delete this information.We don't have Nazi texts about Jews in articles about Auschwitz for example --Molobo 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you base your tag solely on you refusal to accept the source, as acceptable, right? Would you mind if I check the sources you use in other articles and will choose on my own (like you just did), which are objective and which aren't, and will tag the articles accordingly? --Irpen 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that they are propaganda be my guest.But you have to have objective grounds for this. As Imperial Russia occupied Poland it is natural that sources from it can't be seen as neutral and o objective, especially since it was plagued by Polonophobia as it can be read here:[1] --Molobo 03:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC) So, you base your tag solely on you refusal to accept the source, as acceptable, right? I base my objections on the fact that it is an nationalist Russian propaganda rather then objective historical work You didn't translate for example the beginning:

The achievement Of novorossii and the return from Poland of old Russian regions gave to Russia that, for what since olden times strove Russian people and its sovereign leaders. Now Russia could rest from the tiresome wars. But last years of the glorious reign of Ekaterinas were confused by one additional bloody grow brown: in 1794 new uprising in Poland rose

Return of old Russian regions ? Glorious reign of Catherina ? Russia could rest from wars ? Please, this is an extreme POV. Russia continued to seek subjegation of Poland, and the talk about unification of Russian regions...This isn't a neutral source --Molobo 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Further "pearls": The nature of Ekaterinas did not make possible for it to be reconciled with this state of affairs. To repeat hundredth time barren reminders about the old agreements she did not want and decided to take this time drastic measures. This required not only the protection of Russian population in Poland, but also the straight benefit of the Russian Empire. Could not be allowed so that Poland would leave the subordination to Russia, Peter pervy steady from the time: then it would fall under under authority or influence of other adjacent powers, which through this would become more dangerous for Russia. Weakened by the loss of the extensive outskirts Poland proved to be now in the complete subordination in Russia. Russian ambassador to Warsaw had more authority and values, than king himself. Who wanted anything to attain, he turned himself to it or went with its request into Petersburg. But to Poland itself from this there was special misfortune not. Even enemies of Russia recognized that under its supervision Poland began to be set right from calamities and destructions of long-standing disturbance; in it some order in matters of control was established.

The acquisitions, made by Ekaterina in 1772 and 1793, especially road were for Russia the fact that these were the not foreign territories, conquered only by the force of the weapon: these were the age-old Russian regions, torn away in the different time by enemies, and now which were returned under ski Peter rossiyskikh sovereigns. When empress Ekaterina visited the Russian earth connected with Russia

You know Ipren, come to think of it, if you want us to accept such sources, then you shouldn't have anything against adding information about liberation of Russian people from bolshevism in 1941. --Molobo 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Suvorow who let to murder of 20.000 Poles : Suvorov, terrible and merciless during the battle, knew how to shchadit' enemies, who request favor. He gave fast and benevolent answer to ambassadors. Russian regiments with the dissolved banners and with the music entered solemnly the subdued city. In spite of the bitterness, such as fed soldiers to varshavyanam, which recently cut their unarmed brother- Russians, strict Suvorov discipline allowed no hostile action or violence. Russian troops guarded order and calmness in the city is better than skillfully this to make Polish government itself. Month later, when Suvorov left from Warsaw, city presented to it gold snuff-box with the inscription: "Warsaw to its redeemer" --Molobo 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

About Russian occupation of Poland after 1812: In a word, Russian sovereign appeared to Poles in the reign Polish extraordinary kindness and favor. --Molobo 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On Polish attempt to gain freedom from Russia: During emperor Aleksandr perv's lifetime, who was relating himself to Poles very benevolently, Poland began rapidly to be set right from bylogo destruction and poverty. The welfare of Poles rapidly increased: roads were conducted, factories and plants appeared, a quantity of educational institutions was multiplied, university was opened in Warsaw. In the government places, in the vessels and in the schools there was everywhere Polish language; all officials, highest and lowest, were Poles. Was preserved Polish army. It seemed Poles had to be contented, that they can quietly live and work under the sceptre of Russian emperors, under the conditions such favorable for them. But it was in actuality not thus. Polish Seym, which was being gathered in Warsaw every two years, only that made, that it imposed all new and incongruous requirements and rejected the proposed measures to the ordering of the matters in Poland. Already in recent years of the life of emperor Aleksandr entire Poland was covered with many secret societies, which dreamed not only about complete separation from Russia, but also about the connection to Poland of entire Lithuania, Belorussia and Malorossii. To Polish dreamers dreamed great Poland from the sea to the sea, i.e., from the sea of Baltic to the black, although such of Poland never and there existed. --Molobo 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Another historical assesment. This time Poles don't want to speak Russian or abandon their identity and rebel against Russia in 1861. Of course this means : The peaceful flow of life in our fatherland, so necessary for the successful conducting of the great reforms of emperor Aleksandr vtory, was disrupted by Poles. In thirty years, which passed from the time of uprising during emperor Nikolai Pavlovich's lifetime, Poles nothing on forgot and they learned nothing: they as before continued to dream about the restoration of Poland and entirely as did not see those concerns and arrangement, which the Russian authority manifested to them It's actually so biased its seems like a joke. --Molobo 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo raises some serious doubts about the POV represented by this source. Nonetheless as I wrote above I don't doubht that Polish forces would use the opportunity to strike at the enemy when they were the most defenceless - if they were not stupid, they would take the chance. A verification from an English source would be useful, especially if we are going to call it a 'massacre'. As I pointed out above, Polish sources speak nothing of a massacre, but speak of 'heavy fighting'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember Tokarski's monograph, the Polish plan assumed for the fight to start early in the morning so that the Russians could be caught on the streets and not in their barracks or some other buildings that could be easily fortified. However, he also mentions that the date was by no means fixed and the outbreak of the fights was postponed several times. And finally, that the fights started specifically because the Russians attacked the Arsenal at 5AM. So, I doubt that what the Russian author writes is true, or at least do not see how the hell the Poles knew that some of the Russians were going to assault the Arsenal, while the others were to be in some churches.
The question of churches seems interesting as well. As far as I remember there was no Orthodox church in Warsaw at the time. There was an Orthodox chapel in what is now the Sztaszic's palace and another chapel might've been built by the Russians in their military camp in the suburb of Wierzbno (some 15 kilometres south of the city as it was then; it's but my assumption that there might've been such chapel there). The earlier was a tiny shrine containing ashes of good ol' Vasili Shuyski and his family, so I doubt all the Russians could fit in there. I'd have to check it though as perhaps there might've been some bigger church as well back then (which I seriously doubt, but still). //Halibutt 07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
As for the Russian book itself, I browsed through it and it indeed seems to be of little credibility. What we have here is some crazed Great Russian imperial historian writing nonsense for his monarchs and glorifying them as much as he can. It is a source nonetheless and we're in trouble now. What do you think we should do with the revelations on massacres of poor, unarmed Russian occupying forces? I'd move it to talk until some more acceptable sources to back it up appear. Or perhaps there's another solution? //Halibutt 07:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Pan Halibutt, I browsed through sources provided by you and your "Great Polish patriot" pals Molobo and Piotrus and they indeed seem to be of little credibility. What we have in your sources are some crazed Great Polish chauvinist journalists writing nonsense for their jingoist public and pandering it as much as they can. These are sources nonetheless and we're in trouble now. What do you think we should do with the revelations on massacres of poor, unarmed Polish rebels? I'd move all the article to talk until some more acceptable sources to back it up appear. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Err... right. You don't want me to comment on that, do you. //Halibutt 12:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Molobo and Halibutt make some good points. This source is painfully POV. Appleseed (Talk) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder where you were when Molobo spread rants from Polish press in dozens of articles earlier this week. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid you are misunderstanding the terms POV/NPOV. These words are applicable to opinions. When spoken about facts, we must say "statements in this source are false". Even if a POV source is admissible, if we take facts from it, rather than interpretations. Now, if you are saying that the facts are false, you have to prove this accusation. `'mikka (t) 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The question is, what are facts, and what are opinons. If I say that 'people of nationality x committed a terrible massacre on World War II', I am stating a fact, but if I say this in response 'what people of nationality x did in WWII' I may actually be very POVed. Besides the cited source is evidently written to represent a particular POV, and some of it's fact are dubious: for example, what commander would allow soldiers to go unarmed in a hostile city in a country where an insurrection has recently started, after ordering arrests of suspected ringleaders and and when his some of his troops were attempting to disarm another military untit?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

first Orthodox Church in Warsaw

[2]: Thanks to years of the Russian partition (until World War I), Warsaw once had several Eastern Orthodox churches. - this seems to indicate there were no O. churches in pre-partition Warsaw. I know this is rather tentative, but I spend 20 minutes looking for information on 'what is the first/oldest Orthodox Church in Warsaw' and that's all I have. Maybe some Orthodox or Warsaw-specialists can clarify this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've checked my sources and it seems that even the Shuyski's chapel did not exist back then. Around 1700 it was taken over by the Dominican friars who expanded it and incorporated it into the newly-built Catholic church they founded at the same spot ([3]). So, it seems that either the Russian soldiers were Catholics or the story of church murder is that guy's invention. After all it's obvious, if the forces of the Tsars could never be the oppressing side - and could loose a battle only if betrayed or attacked by surprise by some treacherous barbarians... Isn't it obvious? From Zhukovich's book it is. //Halibutt 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered I was entirely right about the lack of any Orthodox church in Warsaw. The riddle is solved, gentlemen :); I found a decent monograph of Orthodox faith in Polish language here (PDF), published in 1999 by the Chełm-Lublin Orthodox diocese. It has a slight bias against the Union of Lublin (guess why :) ), but otherwise it seems a pretty decent overview of the faith, its history, traditions, beliefs and it's history in Poland. According to the authors (pages 331-332), there indeed was no Orthodox church in Warsaw at that time. The first Orthodox church in Warsaw, established during the Kościuszko's Uprising (1794), was a provisional field chapel of the forces of Gen. Suvorov. It was located at the corner of Miodowa and Długa, in the Piarist monks monastery, on the very same spot where the refectory of the Bishop's Palace was built several dozen years later. The chapel's removable iconostasis, composed of one part, was later used by the headquarters of the Russian army during the Napoleonic wars.
Needless to say, Suvorov did not enter Warsaw with his staff (in a rather spectacular way; forgive my sarcasm) until November of the same year. Another fact worth mentioning is that the monastery he confiscated for his headquarters (and the chapel) was located some 200 metres from the Arsenal, for which the heaviest fights were fought back in April. //Halibutt 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I only wonder should all of the above be added to the article. //Halibutt 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Most definietly - great job! I'd also recommend starting something about churches in Warsaw, as discussed at talk of the Nevesky Cathderal - seems that our quest for clarification of that source has given us useful info to create another notheworthy article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
But how to combine the fairy tale about Russian soldiers going to Orthodox churches unarmed with the fact that there was no Orthodox church they could go to? IMHO it's an either-or situation, but I'm pretty sure removing the absurd claims from the article would face yet again revert and slander campaign by our friends... Any ideas? //Halibutt 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith. Put the above finding into the article and see what happens. Btw, I think your finding proves that Zhukovich work can hardly be trusted to be 100% correct, but that is the case with virtually all old history books. Which reminds me that Kosciuszko Uprising needs help with general copyedit (and deZhukoviching, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources and Wiki policy

I'm afraid the source used by Irpen isn't reliable. Let's look at Wiki policy on using sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor. Further

  1. Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.
  2. Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
  3. Find out what other people say about your sources.
  4. Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

Evaluating secondary sources Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.

  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
  • Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
  • Claims which are not supported, or which are contradicted, by the prevailing view in the scientific community. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy of "official science" to silence them.
  • Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).

Above defintions fit into this dispute well. The sources comes from Imperial Russia and uses strongly POV language and opinions about Imperial Russia. It concerns a country that Russia occupied and people it persecuted. In view of above requirments the source can't be seen as reliable regarding Polish uprising against Imperial Russia. It's obvious based on quotes that the author is biased towards Russian POV.

Please find modern, objective sources by reputable historians. --Molobo 15:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some serious questions about this source have been raised. I am still waiting for an English source which would support some of those facts. However I don't think we need to remove the entire para - just NPOV it further, and get citations for the most disputed facts (first Orthodox church in Warsaw, usage of 'massacre' in non-Russian sources, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, may I suggest you first take a more critical approach to the Polish nationalist propaganda books and sites frequently used for dubious claims? It is the best to start the reform from one own's self than from criticising others. As for this one, we don't use the interpretations of the source. We only state facts, as sited by the book. The author of the book hasn't been discredited, like, say, Ernst Zündel or David Irving. Hence, it is usable. --Irpen 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please give examples of the propaganda Molobo is supposedly using. As for N. Zhukovich, he is first of all unknown, and the fact that we cannot find any English source citing him means that either you have just rediscovered something important or that he is in fact considered either too biased or irrelevant to be cited. When no serious academic source can be found to verify this version of the story but an obscure early 20th century sources from a party with a quite visible POV, than I think points from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources should be adressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On "unknowness" of Zhukovich:

could easily provide more.

As for Molobo's source, Piotrus, are you planing to revise History of PL 39-45? There are plenty there. Besides, as we discussed, lots of stuff don't belong there on the first place. If you changed your mind, please allow me to start adding material we discussed earlier to that and other articles. --Irpen 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of other article sources to this one, unless it's supposed to be some strange 'tic for tac' reference game. Thank you for the Russian bios - not a single English out there? Something to rectify one of these days, I think. The first Google Print ref you provide is to 'no-first-name-or-initial Zhukovich', and second one is to 'P.Zhukovich', not N.Zhukovich.[10] Update: I see there is some confusion as to what his initials are. Is there more than one notable Zhukovich, or can we assume all the Google Print references (I counted 8 total) are to his books? A review of this book, or a general review of Zhukovich contributions (in English) would be nice. So far I have to agree with Molobo that this seems like a very POVed source. While I don't advocate the deletion of the entire para, I don't think that this single source justifies the usage of the term massacre, and as explained above, the fact that soldiers were unarmed is quite strange and not confirmed by any Polish or English source we have found.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Well the book is full of Pro-Russian bias and it presents: Exceptional claims which require exceptional evidence Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended' Surprising or important facts which are not widely known. All of which, combined with the complete pro-Imperial Russian biased as evident by the quotes and the origin as well as the the timeframe makes me doubt it is reliable. As to your sentence about Polish nationalist propaganda books and sites frequently used for dubious claims? please point me at them and so that I may delete them. But for the sake of clarity adress that issue on my talk page ok ? --Molobo 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, it is not tit for tat. It is a call for consistensy. Are we to use encyclopedicity standards (which include the degree of relevance factor) or we go from all-inclusiveness, such as to discuss Brest parade, quote Molotov's phonecalls in every article, no matter how wide topic one, even in not yet written History of Europe. Similarly to Halibutt's "Treatment of Polish citizens..." section the article could use the "Collaboration of Polish resistance with Nazis" section, also well referenced. And, yes, by this logic, the Kiev "liberators'" parade, vandalous destruction of the city and detailed account of the vandalous destruction of this priceless cathedral should be added to the History of PL article as well.

To Zhukovich, the name of the historian in question is Platon. In the links I cited, there are several other books he wrote. Some of them are refed in google-books (titles match) and some of them are listed in LOC's catalog. --Irpen 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A u vas negrov ubyvayut... We're speaking about this particular article. Everything else is off topic. Anyway, as almost every single statement of Irpen's part of the article seems to be highly dubious and is disputed here I added the dispute tags to where they belong. Without them we might make the readers think that these are facts, which they are not. These are purely Zhukov's inventions and fairy tales meant to prove a point that the Russian rulers (and Russians in general) were innocent peace-loving people throughout the ages while all the rest of the world hated them, betrayed them on a daily basis and aimed their treacherous blades at not only the Holy Orthodox Faith, but also the rule of God-chosen Tsars.
As to other issues, I fail to see why do the people who fight against foreign forces in their own town (and their own country, as it was back then) are to be called rebels. The term is rather unfortunate, I'd change it to something else. //Halibutt 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I found new references (see section below), which should provide among other things examples of what terms are used in proper English sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

New references

I found some more interesting references on Google Print:

  • Igelstorm was apparently a poor tactician: it was because of his decisions that Russians regiments in Warsaw were scattered around the city, and this were indeed caught isolated ([11]
  • Igelstorm was also the ambassador to Poland [12] (no year given, however, but the flow of the text seems to indicate he had this position BEFORE the uprising)
  • [13] indicates that the garrison was taken by suprise and suffered 50% casualties (4000 killed, 2000 prisoner according to the the previous source [14])
  • [15] this reference notes that Russians 'fought with the courage of desperation' (doesn't sound like a massare of unarmed soldiers to me). It also gives few more details on the uprising, the strenght of the initial Russian garrison at 6,000 (after Igelstorm send out some troops to quell uprings elsewhere), and survivors at 900. It als calls the uprinsng the "most legitimate insurrection, in which insurgents rose only to expel foreigners and to restore constitution granted by the lawful king".
  • [16] "Igelstorm was preparing to exile 26 men" - presumably one of the triggers for the uprising
  • [17]: "coarse and brutal Igelstrom ruled with pride and insolence in Warsaw". Nice quotation, don't you think so? This reference also confirms it was the Maundy Tuesday.

There are still more books to check (see [18]). Can we find anything that references to 'the massacre of unarmed soldiers going to Church'? PS. Another thought: can we check what day of the week were 17th to 19th April 1794, and if the Maundy Thursday for Russian Orthodox Church was then (17th, I'd assume)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Last of the sources above mentions that the Russians had fortified themselves in Igelstrom's mansion, a chapel and three adjoining houses, barricading the doors. Together with the riddle of the first Orthodox church in Warsaw solved above it gives us a pretty decent overview of what gave the rise to that Russian storyteller's revelations about soldiers massacred in a chapel. The chapel was most probably the Capuchin's Church (Catholic) at Miodowa, located right on the other side of the street from Russian envoy's palace. It is evidenced as well by Norblin's sketches. On this one you see the fighting on Miodowa street, in front of both the church and the palace. The earlier is visible to the left, the latter - to the right. //Halibutt 23:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As to the feasts, I checked that the Orthodox pascha of 1794 was indeed April 20 (Sunday, as always). So 19 must've been a Saturday. //Halibutt 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As a side note: I find it quite typical that neither of us tried to add as one-sided remarks to this article as found in the sources you provided (most legitimate insurrection, in which insurgents rose only to expel foreigners and to restore constitution granted by the lawful king) while the other side... nyah, you know what I mean. Good going, gentlemen! //Halibutt 23:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Tnx for the info - and that's a beautiful deconstruction of the 'revelation' above :) We could use a few stubs on Capuchin's Church, Warsaw Arsenal and such, when you have time.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I found an English source that clearly states that in Russian eyes, it was a massacre. It also gives a nice reference for Alexander Bezborodko calling it "Warsaw Sicilian Vespers".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

fact tags

Non-frivolously placed "fact" tags should be replaced with refs rather than removed. And if the ref is in Polish or non-online, please take time to translate/cite the context, similar to how I did with the Russian ref. I am envious to Halibutt and Blacer who can make use of the Russian refs in addition to English and Polish ones. I can't make use of Polish refs. Thanks, --Irpen 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. I know how you feel, being unable to ready Russian. Actually I'd like for the 'online Arsenal citation' to be more specific, as the it links to the homepage - which has no info on the uprising whatsoever.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Preparations for the uprising

This article in Polish has much information on the events that led to the uprising (it was prepared since spring 1793).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And we have now an article on pl-wiki too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Molobo has sent me a link to this book (pages 200+), which details much of the fighting, including the fights in the Capuchin's monastery. It also explains that the Russian soldiers were all given arms the day before and clears many other things mentioned in that Russian fable. It also gives some more exact numbers for both sides. If time permits I'll try to expand this article to include as much from it as possible. //Halibutt 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
404. :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Strange, it works for me... Perhaps you should try the main page and browse for Dzieje Insurekcji Kościuszkowskiej by Kazimierz Bartoszewicz. BTW, the book is scanned in simple jpegs, and the author died in 1930, which means that we could possibly use the pictures published there. //Halibutt 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's problem with their javascript. The second solution works for me, generating a http://www.pbi.edu.pl/book_reader.php?p=17228&s=1 slightly different link]. I did a little reasearch on Kazimierz Bartoszewicz, so we know more about the validity of his work. His book was reprinted in 2002[19]. I'll make a stub on him for future reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

GA nom

Suggestions:

  1. Needs thorough copyediting. I'll make an attempt, but I think it should be done more than once by an anglophone editor.
  2. Red links: Krakowskie Przedmieście could possibly have an article, and presumably the personalities would too, but some are not good. Polish 10th Regiment on Foot and Polish 4th Regiment of Front Guard are not English. If the "Front Guard" is a unit of the Imperial Russian Army, which is how it reads to me, it will have a "standard" English name, but will these ever have articles written on them ? Temporary Highest Council and Highest National Council are also not good. Davies uses Supreme National Council for the second, and the first should presumably be Provisional something, although I didn't find anything useful. If all else fails, Provisional National Council might do, but a source would be good.
  3. Unlinked the dubious ones for now and made changes: Polish 10th Regiment on Foot -> Polish 10th Infantry Regiment; Polish 4th Regiment of Front Guard -> 4th Frontier Guard Regiment; Temporary Highest Council -> Provisional National Council (but should it be Supreme Provisional Council, that sounds odd in English, but that doesn't matter if it's more correct); Highest National Council -> Supreme National Council.
  4. There's no mention of Sierakowski, the only person other than Kiliński I had heard of in relation to the 1794 insurrection.
  5. Background missing: the Krakowiacy i górale performance being cancelled. Not a key point to be sure.
  6. Poor references: mainly too old or not in English. I appreciate that there will inevitably be a need to cite Polish language works, but where's Norman Davies ?
  7. Seems to me to overstate the "military" aspect of the uprising and downplay the insurrectionary and revolutionary side of things, but I base this on a very little reading and an afternoon looking at paintings of Polish insurrections in the National Museum. Doing this could help with Irpen's concerns and avoid the attempts at pathos which are there now.

Hope this helps. It's intended to be constructive criticism, and I hope that it reads that way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Sure
  2. Polish 10th Regiment of Foot (initially called Polish: Regiment 10 Szefostwa Działyńskich, then renamed to Polish: 10 Regiment Pieszy) and Polish 4th Regiment of Front Guard (Polish: 4 Pułk Straży Przedniej) were real names of those units. The British army of the time also used regiments of foot, while the regiments of front guard were modelled after the French infanterie de ligne units, which usually formed either the rear guard (arrière-garde) or the front guard (front garde, if memory serves me) of the armies. Hence the names. As to the council - I changed the name to Provisional Supreme Council, as the Polish name translates literally (word by word) to Council Highest Temporary, so it could as well be Provisional Supreme Council. Will give the places a try
  3. Polish 10th Infantry Regiment and Polish 10th Regiment of Foot were two completely different units. Same for the other unit: it was supposed to guard the front, not the frontier.
  4. As far as I know Sierakowski was in Wilno at that time. It wasn't until much later that he joined the uprising and fought alongside Kościuszko. However, he was not there during the uprising.
  5. Sure, a nice trivia to have. It is often said that Bogusławski wrote that piece of crap (sorry, don't like it) to incite the revolutionary atmosphere
  6. Come on, we can't put Davies in every single article on Polish history ;)

Thanks for the comments, definitely a good review //Halibutt 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the article, and really only had a couple of minor concerns:

  1. A language point: often represented by the person of Russian ambassador Nikolai Repnin sounds odd - maybe 'often in the form of..' is what you mean?
  2. Upon receiving news of Kościuszko's declarations in Kraków - declarations of what? This is a bit unclear
  3. I wonder if it might be good to split 'history' into two smaller sections? Maybe 'precursors' and 'uprising'? I think it would improve readability. Worldtraveller 09:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed its nomination for now. Please feel free to renominate when comments have been addressed (or rebutted!). Worldtraveller 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Not being a native speaker, I prefer to leave the first 2 points to somebody who is. I'll try to address the third point, especially as there is some material that can be translated from pl wiki and used to expand the 'prelude' section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Igelström retreat

One thing that the sources are somewhat not clear is the details of Igelström retreat: some state he escaped during a truce, other mention no truce but instead that he broke through the Polish forces losing most of his troops in the process. This should be clarified. Some other events, especially from the first day, can use time frames, and we could most certainly use a map.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of an animated map, showing the most important clashes in chronological order. A simple map would tell the uninformed reader nothing for several reasons.
  1. After Warsaw has been demolished in 1939 and then 1945 and after the war, the map no longer resembles that of late 18th century.
  2. People not knowing Warsaw well enough (including a large part of Varsovians themselves, I'm afraid) would not be able to recognize the places anyway
  3. Noting all places where skirmishes took place on one map would simply create a chaotic set of red and blue dots and arrows, pointing in all directions, with one crossing the other... This was not a typical urban struggle with some more or less established front line...
Anyway, I found a decent map from 1831 that could be used as a backup, but I'll have to learn some animation software first... //Halibutt 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Animated map would be great, but a low-tech solution may be a series of maps, perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought of it, but the series would have to include at least 14 maps - one per every hour... //Halibutt 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

40,000 civilians...?

Hello all. As promised, I'm currently expanding this article significantly. During my work I discovered several strange things that are currently in the article. One of them is the cited number of the civilians to join the militias and take part in the fights. The article claims there were 40,000 people there, which is strange considering Pistor estimated the entire Polish force to not more than 2400 men (civilians and regulars combined), while Polish authors usually estimate the number of civilians at "not more than 3000". Where is this number taken from? Perhaps from Kiliński, but he is hardly a reliable source (check Bartoszewicz's comments on Kiliński's reliability - they're hillarious). Besides, Warsaw at that time (1792) had less than 115,000 inhabitants altogether. It's rather unbelievable every third of them joined the uprising... //Halibutt 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are no refs, and you have better ones, then be bold and use your numbers :) Btw, check my comments above about confusing things.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation reference needed for this webpage title

At present, there are at least three Wikipedia articles with similar titles: 

1) This article: 'Warsaw Uprising (1794)'
2) another article on an uprising during WWII: 'Warsaw Ghetto Uprising'
3) another article on the final uprising of WWII: 'Warsaw Uprising'

The disambiguation page on item #3 above can be cloned and modified for items #1 and 3. It currently reads:

Warsaw Uprising (disambiguation) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Although the best known uprising in Warsaw, Poland, is the armed struggle of 1944, there were also a number of other struggles to take place there: 

Warsaw Uprising (1794), during Kościuszko's Uprising, also known as Insurretion of Warsaw.
Warsaw Uprising (1830), on November 29, an opening stage of the November Uprising.
Warsaw Uprising (1905), sometimes used by historians to denote the strikes and riots during the Revolution of 1905.
Warsaw Uprising (1943), better known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
Warsaw Uprising (1944), during the Operation Tempest of the Armia Krajowa.

If you can assist with this editorial change, it would be greatly appreciated -thanks. (Zoomeri)

Done (I guess). //Halibutt 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warsaw_Uprising_(1794)/Archive_1&oldid=1136389415"