Talk:Siege of Warsaw (1794)

The name and some other points

 * Are there any sources to support the current name of the article? My search resulted with 0 GBS hits. The emphasize is on the "first". There is a long list of Warsaw battles, many of them happened before this battle.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I missed your comment here; for the record the naming discussion has taken place at Template:Did you know nominations/First Battle of Warsaw (1794). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I don't have enough knowledge about the events but based on the lede of the article I concluded that Russia and Prussia attacked the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, i.e. its capital defended by the Polish forces of Commonwealth. But after reading the rest of the article I have to admit I am confused. Were forces of Tadeusz Kościuszko actually forces of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or irregular rebel forces? Maybe it would be a good idea to clarify this in the lede?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right that R and P attacked Poland, also even that is a simplification (they did so two years prior during the Polish-Russian War of 1792, and then they occupied parts of the country. Kosciuszko convinced parts of military and some volunteers to start a new war trying to recover lost territories and independence, while he was not opposed by the Polish Army (most if not all joined him), it's a tough call whether his forces can be called the official Polish army. Probably, but it's a bit murky, as the official command chain was not fully respected, and such. I am not sure how to clarify this in the lead, Kosciuszko Uprising is linked and should be a sufficient backgrounder. It's a bit like... for non-American, even the lead of the Battle of Gettysburg can be confusing: "wait, I don't get it, it seems like the Americans were fighting one another, why isn't this explained more?" (Because the place for this is in the American Civil War article, not in individual battle...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Warsaw is described in the hook as Polish capital although the article says it was not capital of Poland but of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Maybe it would be good to avoid which capital Warsaw was?
 * PLC = Poland. More or less, at least :) I am not sure what are you suggesting? (It's a bit like USA is America...). We tend to use those adjectives even through they leave some room for confusion (ditto for the Prussian example you note below). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Uninitiated reader, like myself, could get an impression that this battle was ethnic struggle between people of different ethnicity. Belligerents are referred to as "Polish forces", Russians and Prussians. Tadeusz Kościuszko, commander of "Polish forces", was Lithuanian-Ruthenian, commander of "Russians" was Johann Hermann von Fersen while the article about Kościuszko Uprising says that many Polish people were mobilized into armies of Prussia and Russia. Prussians probably refer to forces of Prussia since Prussians did not exist in 1794. If I am right it might be a good idea to clarify this issue within one sentence in the lede.
 * I am not opposed to that, but I am not sure how to do it gracefully, since this is mostly clear for me. If you'd like to try to clarify some issues, I'd be happy to review your changes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence of this article defines the topic of this article as an assault. The text of the article explains that there were more than one assaults during the siege. Therefore it might be a good idea to replace word assault with more appropriate term like siege?
 * Seems reasonable, done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The article mentions uprising in the first sentence but it remains unclear in context of this article. Uprising is refusal of obedience or order. If it took place in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. According to Second Partition of Poland article Polish parliament (Sejm) ratified partition of Poland. Was this uprising actually disobedience to the government and parliament which ratified partition of the Commonwealth? If it was, that should be also clarified. What was the reaction of the king of Commonwealth and its forces? Did they fight against rebels or support Kościuszko during this battle? The background section does not provide enough context for an uninitiated reader who can get impression that rebels were disobedient to Russia and Prussia.
 * Uprising is a correct term, in so far as it is used by many sources, and our article on the subject. You raise interesting points, but I think they are better to be discussed at T:KU and perhaps in the body of that article, not in each separate battle (again, to go back to the ACW example, the discussion of issues such as "why there were two 'American' presidents for a while" is probably not needed in an article about the ACW battle, even if that article mentions two presidents. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To conclude. An uninitiated reader of the hook and article can get an impression that this was ethnic conflict against Russians and Prussians who attacked Polish capital. I think that above mentioned clarifications should be added. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed reply. I again have to apologize if I am wrong because my knowledge about this events is too weak.
 * Who attacked whom. "R and P attacked Poland"? This probably depends on the perception. If I am not wrong with this, one can easily conclude that rebels refused obedience to legal institutions of the PLC and captured its capital while forces of R and P protected them but failed to suppress the rebellion. If that was the course of the events it might be inappropriate (not neutral) to refer to this activities of the rebels as "successful defense of Polish capital" when in fact "forces of R and P failed to suppress the uprising during this battle/siege".
 * An interesting neutrality issue, but as far as I know, the current wording is neutral and correct. Unless you know any other modern sources that would dispute this, the modern historiography I am familiar with is quite clear on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Polish capital". In 1794 Poland did not exist and Warsaw was not "Polish capital" but "capital of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". I.e. it would be the same as if somebody refer to Constantinople in 1400 as Turkish capital or Belgrade in 1600 as Serbian capital. The event was in period before nation-states and modern concept of nations. Therefore I think it is maybe wrong to use wrong, colloquial and misleading term "Polish capital", especially in the hook which goes to wikipedia's main page.
 * Ethnic struggle? Clarification added to the lede would contribute to the article's quality. Still I think it would be more neutral to avoid referring to forces (or victories) in this events as "Polish" since ethnicity was irrelevant for this events in which Poles were on all sides. Am I right?
 * Not quite. Poles were not all on sides, Poles were on one side. This was not a civil war, and the fact that some Poles were drafted into the P and R armies is irrelevant. One side in the KU was Polish, the other wasn't. This is quite clear, again, unless you can present any sources to the contrary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Forces of PLC? - I did not object the use of the term uprising. I just noticed that forces of PLC were not mentioned and was curious if they participated in this events or they allowed rebels to capture Warsaw and R and P forces to struggle against rebels instead of them. This is not an issue, maybe just an improvement opportunity of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still believe that terminology used in this article is wrong. The actual Polish (PLC) forces are not mentioned in the article, the rebel forces led by Tadeusz Kościuszko (of Lithuanian-Ruthenian ethnicity) are referred to as Polish forces although they were disobedient to the Polish (PLC) government and parliament and although uprising took part not only in Poland but in Lithuania also with Vilnius and other Lithuanian towns being captured by the rebels. At the same time the forces of Russia (commanded by Ivan Ivanovitch Hermann von Fersen, a Saxon-born infantry general) and Prussia, which both included many Poles, are referred to as Russians and Prussians.
 * Although there are sources which are using such colloquial terms I think that the existing terminology can easily mislead uninitiated reader to believe this battle was in its core an ethnic conflict. Therefore I think it should be changed or appropriate clarification should be provided. I understand that the main contributor to this article (User:Piotrus) do not share my opinion. Taking in consideration that Piotrus wrote many articles on this topic I might be wrong with this so I will not insist on my position. Instead I will ask for somebody uninvolved to provide second opinion or another review. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename
I propose that this article be renamed in line with the entire series of articles.


 * Battle of Warsaw (1656)
 * Battle of Warsaw (1705)
 * Battle of Warsaw (1794) ✅
 * Battle of Warsaw (1831)
 * Battle of Warsaw (1915)
 * Battle of Warsaw (1920)
 * Battle of Warsaw (1939)
 * Battle of Warsaw (1944)


 * Poeticbent talk 05:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Move and disambig I propose it be moved in a manner similar to what Poeticbent is suggesting, but that it be called "Siege of Warsaw (1794)", since, in the English language, that is a better descriptor. You can disambiguate it in the same manner as they did with the Battle of Charleston, which, as you'll note, includes a siege along with other battles. Note also that on the Battle of Warsaw disambiguation page, it includes one siege already,the Siege of Warsaw (1656).  Disambiguating with the year in the title is sufficient and descriptive enough under wikipedia policy.  Cdtew  (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But there were two sieges of Warsaw; second one currently is located at Battle of Praga. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * i disagree. The second battle, the Battle of Praga, doesn't appear to have been a "siege" in the definition of that word. It was a battle,or a most, a capture.  Cdtew  (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is how the year of 1794 should be dealt with. Disambig from Battle of Warsaw (1794): The basic idea is that all battles, sieges and uprisings for the Polish capital before WWII should have a year in the title (without exception) simply because of how many of them were fought, in the course of Warsaw history. It's too confusing right now, too easy to mistake one for another. Poeticbent talk 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Warsaw Uprising (1794) moved to Warsaw Insurrection (1794)
 * First Battle of Warsaw (1794) moved to Siege of Warsaw (1794)
 * Second Battle of Warsaw (1794) moved to Battle of Praga, Warsaw (1794) → please note: Praga is a district of Warsaw


 * I guess the move of this article to the siege would be fine, provided a disambig is retained in the article (see also). But I am certainly not convinced that a move of the uprising to insurrection is correct. Regarding the move to Battle of Praga, Warsaw (1794), I am not sure it fits the conventions, but both of those could be dealt by a RM on the respective pages. Will you propose a RM here for the Siege title? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this article to Siege of Warsaw (1794) since two users above have suggested the move and I agree it seems the most appropriate title. Though I don't have access to all the sources, the battle is referred to as the "Siege of Warsaw" in this article's only English language source, while as far as I can determine the Battle of Praga was not a siege as the attacking force attacked almost immediately. Gatoclass (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)