Talk:Kościuszko Uprising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


On November 16 near Radoszyce Wawrzecki accepted the Russian offer of capitulation. So who surrendered to whom? This is confusing --Liss 14:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I am entering this incorrectly, I am asking if anyone could insert one of the tables that breaks down the opposing sides, including leading armies and generals involved in the fighting. Not knowledgeable enough myself to enter one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Blanking of the sourced info[edit]

Removing sourced, relevant info is a vandalism. If you have better sources about the beginning of the uprising or the plight of the bridge - please provide them, otherwise, please find something more useful to do abakharev 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is adding propaganda as objective info considered vandalism. For instance if I add that Russia was to be liberated in 1941 from bolshevism on German book published in 1942 is it vandalism ? --Molobo 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Warsaw Uprising (1794). The entry definetly has to be NPOVed, and the question is whether a detailed description of the events belongs here, nonetheless just blanking it is not a good way of reaching consensus.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I am second. Please, NPOV the new fragment, if possible, can you find the Polish account of the same events. abakharev 06:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am happy to discuss the issue what belongs where GLOBALLY. See my crying wolfe at History of PL and several other articles while Molobo and Halibutt where "adding new material" to those. This can't be had both ways. Policies cannot be written for all such cases. A real desire to have good articles rather than as much reflective of someone's views as possible is needed and if this cannot be contained, no policy would ever help.

I am calling for common sense and I am sick of these edit wars. Common sense and good faith assumption of all sides is necessary to avoid things like:

  • throwing the article off balance by adding to it, while factually accurate, but too narrow and to detailed info for the article's scope (parade, Molotov long quotes, long sections on citizen's treatment, etc.)
  • loosing the common sense with tags
  • sloppy deepreverting, that fail to merge good edits
  • use or abuse of image copyright issues for reasons entirely unrelated to copyright conserns but for POV issue
  • adding images whose content duplicate the content of the existing ones, images that are excessive or otherwise not needed.
  • Titling articles with Massacres and Martyrdoms
  • etc, etc, etc.

The atmosphere is poisoned now and one by one the reasonable articles are getting worse by swelling into nonsensial disconnected pieces, each POV tainted and each with its own edit war going over it. If you can convince your editor one and your editor two, I am sure things steps will be taken by the other end as well. Please no fingerpointing on "who started first". Each side has a firm opinion about that. This hysteria needs to stop. See also the comment I posted earlier about going length for no reason and what can be done[1]--Irpen 07:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have problem with anything the direct your criticism it in proper places. It seems however you have a problem with articles that describe Soviet atrocities and Nazi-Soviet cooperation. I am deeply sorry if it disturbs your worldview. If I understand correctly you started to add Imperial Russian propaganda in order to stop us adding research on Soviet atrocities ? This seems highly bizarre and I hope I am mistaken. Of course research into Soviet massacres of Poles, atrocities and cooperation with Nazis is made by respectable modern historians and institutions, as such it is on different level of credibility then propaganda of Imperial Russia. --Molobo 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I am only talking about using proper articles and not doing things sloppily. If haldfof the History of Poland coverage consists of the atrocities, this seems to me like a problem. Amount of material on each narrow topic in broad articles should be within common sense. If you don't get it, please expect a detailed coverage of Polish rule of Ukrainian territory in History of Pl articles with quotes and proper sections, like "Treatment of the Orthodox Church in PLC" (Similarly to treatment of Polish citizens). --Irpen 09:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If hal fof the History of Poland coverage consists of the atrocities, this seems to me like a problem Well I think it seems so to every Pole also. I wish it could be different, but sadly the period is dominated by such things. As to "The atmosphere is poisoned now" I am sorry If you think that describing the atrocities of Soviet regime poisoned the atmosphere, but regardless of people's reactions, revealing (the often unknown) truth is not only required(objectivity) but also serves to create a better fundament for future discussions(we can't build on false fundaments after all). --Molobo 10:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

500 unarmed solgiers[edit]

IMHO repeating twice the story of 500 unarmed soldiers is a kind of overdo. Please shorten the fragment and tell it only once. abakharev 05:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides I find it hard to believe that soldiers would be unarmed - in the hostile city, when the insurrection has already broken out. I'd really like to see another source confirming this story.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The original ref is in Russian and I thought a trans;ation is helpful. If you think it isn't, I don't mind. The soldiers do not carry arms in Church. This I find beleivable. --Irpen 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Warsaw Uprising (1794) the very fact that there was an Orthodox church in Warsaw back then is disputable. Not to mention the intentions of the Poles, the alleged massacre, the death toll and so on. //Halibutt 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
So they left it in front of the Church, or in the barracks? I still don't find it belivable, considering the circumstances. It's a shame so few facts about that period are available in English or online.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the RuRom reference[edit]

."On Thursday of the Holy Week in 1794 in Warsaw the conspirators attacked several Russian detachments, that were placed far apart from each other. This started a massacre of an unheard of scale. In one church 500 soldiers that came unarmed for Eucharist, were killed. The crowded besotted by the bloodshed ransacked the arsenal and Russians were shot endlessly from all windows and roofs, those in the streets or those running out from their houses. No one could walk along the streets. The crowded snatched anyone in the Russian uniform and beat them to death. The Kings troops took part in this repugnant massacre. The king himself had no courage to lead the uprising or to take steps to stop it. In the end, the remnants of the Russian troops had to leave Warsaw."


Any comments on creating a Category:Kościuszko Uprising?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Isn't "Vilnius" a serious anachronism in this period? Shouldn't it be Wilno, just as the map has?
On the other hand, the map is über-Polish with its Gdańsk, Poznań, and Toruń, which should be Danzig, Posen, Thorn.
Varlaam (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not an anachronism; rather, a modern day rewriting of history. Anachronism implies it was used before the Uprising, where in fact it hasn't been used till a century or so later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Map Needs Translation[edit]

The current map accompanying the article is in Polish, which is inappropriate for English-language Wikipedia. Can somebody please translate it into English or replace it with one in English? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kościuszko Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)