This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Warsaw (1920) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Battle of Warsaw (1920) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 13, 2004, August 25, 2004, August 13, 2005, August 25, 2005, August 25, 2006, August 25, 2007, August 25, 2008, August 25, 2009, August 25, 2010, August 25, 2011, August 25, 2014, August 25, 2015, and August 25, 2016. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm working on expanding this article at
User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920). I'd appreciate any help from you.
Halibutt 04:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is an August 25 selected anniversary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 13:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding "Siberian Brigade," I plead sheer ignorance, combined with suspicion that someone had injected an error. What was this Brigade? If it's legitimate, by all means please reintroduce these items. I'll make wording suggestions, if I have any serious ones. "Bolshevist," or "Bolshevik"? "-ist" suggests an ideology; "-ik," a person or group. What did the Russian government at the time call their country, "Bolshevik Russia"? The "Bolsheviks" were a party, not a country designation. Any other distortions I might have introduced? Overall, it's an interesting article. Logologist 00:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the moving article on the Siberian Brigade.
Did Poland conduct substantial wars with other Russians in this period, besides the Bolsheviks? If not, where's the confusion in calling this conflict the "Polish-Russian War"?
Regarding the reinstated matter about the Siberian Brigade and the 18th Infantry Division, some questions:
"To reinforce" means exactly the same as "to strengthen," but in a military context sounds more convincing to my ear. "Reinforce" comes from French roots, "strengthen"--from Germanic. Where English has this verbal redundancy, the different words--while basically meaning the same, and to some extent interchangeable--tend to be applied to somewhat different contexts.
I've seen "commander-in-chief" abbreviated "c-in-c," never "c-i-c."
I gather "c-in-c reserves" would be strategic reserves held at the discretion of the c-in-c?
Prose may be perfectly "grammatical," yet--when cavalierly styled--still unsatisfactory as prose.
More about "Polish-________ War," at the site indicated by you. Logologist 10:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not profess to be incredibly proficient where mathematics are concerned; however, nonetheless I have a query about the information presented in this article. It says here in the "battle in brief" box at the beginning of the page that the Russian order of battle comprised some 114,000 officers and men. Elsewhere here and on the page itself it reports, at the conclusion of the engagement, 20,000 fatalities; 65,000 captured-in-action; and 35,000 interned. This totals some 116,000 casualties: 2,000 more than were present at the battle. This would be an impressive feat, even for the Red Army, to lose more soldiers than had been committed. Was there some sort of SNAFU, or are these figures accurate? If the former, perhaps a judicious re-examination of the source; if the latter, perhaps an explanation of the discrepancy. Wally 03:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the Reds were never happy with their losses and all their numbers are based on estimates rather than official data. That's why the number of interned in Prussia and POWs taken by Poland is much more certain than the number of KIA, WIA or MIA. Most of my books give the following estimates:
Finally, the estimates for Red losses count all of the Warsaw operation, from the fights on the approaches to Warsaw, through the counter-offensive up to the battles of Białystok and Osowiec, while the estimate of Bolshevik strength might be only for the units that were close to Warsaw, without the units held in reserve that took part in the latter battles. Halibu tt 09:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Once again, a good article, even better now. However, some specific issues remain, in order:
Anyway, thanks for writing this article. I learned about something important. Fix the 3 points above and I will enthusiastically support for featured article status. Nice work. alteripse 02:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Italic text
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.Trotsky is listed in the infobox but not mentioned in the article, what did he do? -- AW 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In the section "The Battle plan", we are told that the Polish Central Front consisted of 10 and 1/2 divisions, & the Polish 5th Army 5 and 1/2 divisions. I may be misunderstanding the terminology, but a division is not a measure of manpower but an administrative unit; a division either exists or doesn't exist. Were these "half divisions" under strength divisions (which happens) -- or one or more of the administrative unit next size smaller -- regiments & brigades? -- llywrch 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
hi people ,, i have a medal of that war that was from my grandfather if you want i can give you a photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.138.159 ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
English Wikipedia:
Republic of Poland
113,000–123,000
Bolshevik Russia
104,000–114,000 <Look here
Polish Wikipedia:
Republic of Poland
113,000–123,000
Bolshevik Russia
114,000-140,000 <Look here
Russian Wikipedia:
Republic of Poland
113,000–123,000
Bolshevik Russia
114,000-140,000 <Look here
Same source in all 3 articles, why English version is different?... -- DumnyPolak ( talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken English version also had 114,000-140,000 but apparantely somebody changed it. Loosmark ( talk) 10:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Confirming B-class review from MILHIST for WP:POLAND, this article seems to satisfy the B-class quality criteria. As a former FA article, interested editors are encouraged to see if this article meets a GA class. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's sad to see a former FA decline, but I have to rescind its B-class status due to insufficient citations. 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 17:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
... lost in the 1795 partitions of Poland....
Bleve there was one partition in 1795, the others having occurred in 1772 and 1793. Sca ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Mikhail Tukhachevsky planned to encircle and surround Warsaw by crossing the Vistula River, near Włocławek, to the north and south of the city....
Not grammatically clear which place "the city" refers to; apparently it's Włocławek, which is NW of Warsaw. Changed to "that city, northwest of Warsaw." Sca ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The two battle maps show Warsaw as a dark blob on the Vistula but don't label it as WARSAW, which is odd, particularly when all the smaller towns shown have name-labels. Sca ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The Russian commander-in-chief lost contact...."
The number of casualties in the main text is different from the number of casualties in the infobox. I'm no expert so don't know which to choose. ABMvandeBult ( talk) 09:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Warsaw (1920). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Warsaw (1920). 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Warsaw (1920). 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Why its not even listed despite the impact they made? 213.179.233.80 ( talk) 09:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Warsaw (1920) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Battle of Warsaw (1920) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 13, 2004, August 25, 2004, August 13, 2005, August 25, 2005, August 25, 2006, August 25, 2007, August 25, 2008, August 25, 2009, August 25, 2010, August 25, 2011, August 25, 2014, August 25, 2015, and August 25, 2016. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm working on expanding this article at
User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920). I'd appreciate any help from you.
Halibutt 04:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is an August 25 selected anniversary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 13:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding "Siberian Brigade," I plead sheer ignorance, combined with suspicion that someone had injected an error. What was this Brigade? If it's legitimate, by all means please reintroduce these items. I'll make wording suggestions, if I have any serious ones. "Bolshevist," or "Bolshevik"? "-ist" suggests an ideology; "-ik," a person or group. What did the Russian government at the time call their country, "Bolshevik Russia"? The "Bolsheviks" were a party, not a country designation. Any other distortions I might have introduced? Overall, it's an interesting article. Logologist 00:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the moving article on the Siberian Brigade.
Did Poland conduct substantial wars with other Russians in this period, besides the Bolsheviks? If not, where's the confusion in calling this conflict the "Polish-Russian War"?
Regarding the reinstated matter about the Siberian Brigade and the 18th Infantry Division, some questions:
"To reinforce" means exactly the same as "to strengthen," but in a military context sounds more convincing to my ear. "Reinforce" comes from French roots, "strengthen"--from Germanic. Where English has this verbal redundancy, the different words--while basically meaning the same, and to some extent interchangeable--tend to be applied to somewhat different contexts.
I've seen "commander-in-chief" abbreviated "c-in-c," never "c-i-c."
I gather "c-in-c reserves" would be strategic reserves held at the discretion of the c-in-c?
Prose may be perfectly "grammatical," yet--when cavalierly styled--still unsatisfactory as prose.
More about "Polish-________ War," at the site indicated by you. Logologist 10:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not profess to be incredibly proficient where mathematics are concerned; however, nonetheless I have a query about the information presented in this article. It says here in the "battle in brief" box at the beginning of the page that the Russian order of battle comprised some 114,000 officers and men. Elsewhere here and on the page itself it reports, at the conclusion of the engagement, 20,000 fatalities; 65,000 captured-in-action; and 35,000 interned. This totals some 116,000 casualties: 2,000 more than were present at the battle. This would be an impressive feat, even for the Red Army, to lose more soldiers than had been committed. Was there some sort of SNAFU, or are these figures accurate? If the former, perhaps a judicious re-examination of the source; if the latter, perhaps an explanation of the discrepancy. Wally 03:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the Reds were never happy with their losses and all their numbers are based on estimates rather than official data. That's why the number of interned in Prussia and POWs taken by Poland is much more certain than the number of KIA, WIA or MIA. Most of my books give the following estimates:
Finally, the estimates for Red losses count all of the Warsaw operation, from the fights on the approaches to Warsaw, through the counter-offensive up to the battles of Białystok and Osowiec, while the estimate of Bolshevik strength might be only for the units that were close to Warsaw, without the units held in reserve that took part in the latter battles. Halibu tt 09:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Once again, a good article, even better now. However, some specific issues remain, in order:
Anyway, thanks for writing this article. I learned about something important. Fix the 3 points above and I will enthusiastically support for featured article status. Nice work. alteripse 02:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Italic text
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.Trotsky is listed in the infobox but not mentioned in the article, what did he do? -- AW 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In the section "The Battle plan", we are told that the Polish Central Front consisted of 10 and 1/2 divisions, & the Polish 5th Army 5 and 1/2 divisions. I may be misunderstanding the terminology, but a division is not a measure of manpower but an administrative unit; a division either exists or doesn't exist. Were these "half divisions" under strength divisions (which happens) -- or one or more of the administrative unit next size smaller -- regiments & brigades? -- llywrch 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
hi people ,, i have a medal of that war that was from my grandfather if you want i can give you a photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.138.159 ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
English Wikipedia:
Republic of Poland
113,000–123,000
Bolshevik Russia
104,000–114,000 <Look here
Polish Wikipedia:
Republic of Poland
113,000–123,000
Bolshevik Russia
114,000-140,000 <Look here
Russian Wikipedia:
Republic of Poland
113,000–123,000
Bolshevik Russia
114,000-140,000 <Look here
Same source in all 3 articles, why English version is different?... -- DumnyPolak ( talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken English version also had 114,000-140,000 but apparantely somebody changed it. Loosmark ( talk) 10:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Confirming B-class review from MILHIST for WP:POLAND, this article seems to satisfy the B-class quality criteria. As a former FA article, interested editors are encouraged to see if this article meets a GA class. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's sad to see a former FA decline, but I have to rescind its B-class status due to insufficient citations. 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 17:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
... lost in the 1795 partitions of Poland....
Bleve there was one partition in 1795, the others having occurred in 1772 and 1793. Sca ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Mikhail Tukhachevsky planned to encircle and surround Warsaw by crossing the Vistula River, near Włocławek, to the north and south of the city....
Not grammatically clear which place "the city" refers to; apparently it's Włocławek, which is NW of Warsaw. Changed to "that city, northwest of Warsaw." Sca ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The two battle maps show Warsaw as a dark blob on the Vistula but don't label it as WARSAW, which is odd, particularly when all the smaller towns shown have name-labels. Sca ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The Russian commander-in-chief lost contact...."
The number of casualties in the main text is different from the number of casualties in the infobox. I'm no expert so don't know which to choose. ABMvandeBult ( talk) 09:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Warsaw (1920). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Warsaw (1920). 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Warsaw (1920). 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Why its not even listed despite the impact they made? 213.179.233.80 ( talk) 09:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)