# Talk:Polish–Russian War of 1792

Please change the un-English and ambiguous title, "War in the defence of constitution," to the correct and unequivocal, "War in Defense of the Constitution."  Logologist 07:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And why didn't you move the article yourself? :) Halibutt 05:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Catherine II did not see the polish renegades who revolted against their king as ``Poland. Around the time of the events, the perception was that kingdom was granted upon the king by God and anyone opposing this was also opposing God, which was unthinkable and ridiculous. Catherine II and Frederik of Prussia were defending the Monarchy, with wide support from European states (with the exception of France for obvious reasons). The russian forces, experienced with the just-completed wars versus Turkey and Sweden, and lead by the legendary generalisimus Alexander Suvorov, ``freed Poland from the ``vile constitution, being outnumbered more than 2 to 1.--61.68.195.126 12:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the source of this? While it is important to add a note about monarchist POV, it is undeniable that Frederik used this is a pretext for partitions of Poland. Of course all partitioners used many similar explanation to explain why they had many perfectly good reasons for the invasion and annexation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The claim this article makes, that the lands of Kievan Rus' were reunited under one ruler at this period in history, is incorrect.  Galicia, an important territory in the history of Rus', was given to Austria.  The lands of Rus' were not reunited until the Soviets did so in the early 1940s.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.164.7 (talk • contribs) 

Where did you get those 20,000 confederates? As far as I know targowiczanie had no army to speak of, they entirely depended on the russian troops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.18.170.26 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I think it would be a good idea to rename this article to: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth–Russian War of 1792 Samogitia (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope; this is not a common name, and the dash in Polish-Lithuanian makes this construction confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree this article needs to be renamed, M.K. (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope. It should stay like it is.--Sobiepan (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polish–Russian War of 1792/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There are several duplicate links in the articles which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Józef Poniatowski (2x), Mikhail Kakhovsky, Mikhail Krechetnikov, Tadeusz Kościuszko, Michał Lubomirski, Grand Duchy of Lithuania (2x), Polish–Prussian alliance (piped from "its alliance with Poland"), Duke Louis of Württemberg, Białystok, Stanisław August Poniatowski, Lublin, First Partition of Poland (piped from "partitions began in 1772") and Golden Liberty (piped from "Golden Freedoms").
Fixed.
There is a link to Yuri Dolgorukov disambiguation page. Please pipe and redirect the link to exact target.
Fixed.
Checklinks reports no broken external links (no action required).
What is the image PolishRuswar1792.PNG (in the infobox) based on (i.e. what source can be used to verify its contents)?
Like most maps on Wikipedia, it is based on who knows what :( As far as I know, no policy requires sources for maps (FYI, I tried to change this several times, nobody was interested). All I can say is that it looks good based on my knowledge, and the author is a Polish Wikipedian known for many reliable contributions to this topic.
Policy WP:OI states that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." - therefore image information should include sourcing. In this case the map may be sourced to any map depicting contemporary borders of the commonwealth and (for example) a narrative describing movement of Russian and Polish forces in broad lines corresponding to the arrows on the map.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've asked the author for a source. P.
Doesn't one of the sources you used for this article describe the same movements?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
@User:Tomobe03: Map author provided a source, now added to the map. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Excellent!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There's something messed up with the US-PD licence tag of the Polish soldiers of 3rd Lithuanian Infantry Regiment in 1792.PNG, could you please sort it out? Image sourcing is fine.
Fixed.
Remaining image (Wojciech Kossak po bitwie pod Zieleńcami.jpg) licencing and sourcing is fine (no action required).
Several book references are given without ISBN or OCLC numbers. Please add either one of those using isbn= or oclc= parameters - WorldCat search such as this one may be used to locate info.
Fixed.
Please provide language= parameter for non-English references as well as trans_title= parameter containing English translation of the Polish (or other language) titles.
Fixed.
Retrieval date (accessdate= parameter) is not really helpful for book references - it is not possible for contents of a given book to change over time. That piece of info simply adds to clutter in the refs and nothing more. I'd recommend removing those, but that's no dealbreaker at GAR.
It appears to me that Wolański Adam is presented in surname-first name format unlike other refs in the article. If this is really so, please revise this instance.
Fixed.
In "Russia and Austria were engaged in hostilities with the Ottoman Empire..." why not link Russia to Russian Empire?
Fixed.
In the same sentence - It is not quite correct to speak of Austria - it should be Habsburg Monarchy instead. Austrian Empire came into existence a decade later. The same applies to the "Imperial Austrian Army" and "Austrian border"
Linked to Archduchy of Austria and Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Empire, is it better?
Why not link Prussia in "Prussia was also strongly opposed..."?
Linked to Kingdom of Prussia
The article employs a mix of titles of "Empress Catherine" and "Tsarina Catherine". Please select one and apply consistently throughout (wikilinked appropriately). I'd prefer "Empress", but this is up to you.
Fixed, through I went with Tsarina, since Tsar is more correct than Emperor here.
In "Decline of the Commonwealth", the article claims 300,000-strong Russian army, and "nearly 98,000" in the "Opposing forces" section. Which is it? If the two numbers apply to various parts of the army (eg. overall size vs troops attacking Poland and Lithuania) please clarify this.
Well, yes, the 98k were the troops committed by the RE to this conflict, with the remaining 200k engaged elsewhere. I am not sure how best to clarify this, I thought it would be obvious. If it isn't, I'd appreciate suggestions on how to deal with that.
Had a crack at it, please revise if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In Kakhovsky's forces were divided into four corps: 1st, 17,000 strong, under the command of general Mikhail Golenishchev-Kutuzov, 2nd, under general Ivan Dunin, strong, 3rd, under general Otto Wilhelm Derfelden, strong and 4th, under general Andrei Levanidov, strong. there seem to be three missing figures - troop sizes for the 2nd/3rd/4th corps, where only word "strong" stands apparently meant to follow a figure each. Or is this a result of a copy-waste?
[curses], I don't have access to Derdej till December, so I won't be able to check if he didn't give the numbers and I just copy-wasted, or I forgot to add them till then. For now, I'll just remove the unnecessary "strong"s.
Come to think of it, there is an awful lot of repetition of "X-strong" formula. Could you copyedit some of those to vary the expression a bit and avoid the repetition, at least in some instances?
Fixed.
In The Russian army was also divided into four cor:... is that meant to be "corps"?
Yes. Fixed.
Term "General" should be capitalised per WP:MILTERMS.
Fixed.
According to WP:DATESNO, ...on the night from 18 to 19 May 1792... would be better off as ...on the night of 18/19 May 1792...
Fixed.
According to WP:SURNAME, a person's full name should be given at the first instance and only the surname (or equivalent) repeated later. King Stanisław August Poniatowski is mentioned in "War ends" section by full name - please bring this in line with WP:SURNAME.
Fixed.
Capitalisation of the word "king" is quite inconsistent throughout the article. Please fix this.
Fixed.
Please link "Vistula".
Fixed.
I see no point in having the lengthy note in place where it stands right now. If the contents of the note are relevant to the article and the War ends section (and I think it is) move it to the War ends section itself. If it is irrelevant, remove it altogether. The "See also" in the note itself should be removed - link the same article and section from the words "subject to much debate among historians" instead.
Done.
In the "Opposing forces" section, there is a super-short paragraph right at the beginning of the section dealing with Russian forces, and then another general remark on the Russian dispositions in the penultimate (and also very short) paragraph of the section. Would you consider merging the two paragraphs as the first paragraph of the section?
Done.
While nothing limits size of paragraphs, the first paragraph in the "Southern theater" section contains only a few words. Please merge this paragraph ("First Russian forces crossed the border in Ukraine on the night from 18 to 19 May 1792.") and the following one.
Done.
In "On 17 June Poniatowski finally received await reinforcements, about 2,000 troops led by Michał Lubomirski." is that meant to be awaited or something else?
Fixed. (awaited)
Is there any information on casualties and other possible consequences other than political ones (destruction, famine etc. or lack thereof)?
Good question, but I haven't seen this described in the sources so far.
In "...Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist as a state." it is not clear in what form did the Commonwealth continue to exist? The current wording implies that it survived as something other than a state, but does not say what it was. Please clarify.
Good point, removed "as a state".
The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Right now, the lead seems to miss quite a bit of information. For instance, it offers no clue that the Russian forces advanced through Ukraine (in addition to Poland and Lithuania), awards of Virtuti Militari seem notable enough to warrant an appearance there and role of Prussia may be noted briefly as well. The top military leaders (besides the Empress and the King) might also receive a mention.
Done, though I didn't mention Prussia or the Russian commanders in the lead. If you have a suggestion on how to expand it further, please go ahead! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting article! I enjoyed reading it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

All clear now. Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)