Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Olszynka Grochowska

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

As to battle of Olszynka Grochowska - please try to find some better source than the unfortunate EB1911. Alternatively, you could start correcting all articles related to Poland to include the EB1911 revelations (Pułtusk is a town of Russian Poland, for instance; or the whole Small Russians, White Russians, Yellow Russians and so on thingies... Some modern, credible sources preferred. Halibutt 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through ru net and was not able to find any reference to the Polish victory. You have some Russian, so it won't be difficult for you to check any of these links:

It seems that this battle is more often referred to as the Battle of Grochow in English language sources. At least that's the name given in the Encyclopedia of Nineteenth Century Land Warfare: An Illustrated World View. The relevant page is viewable on Google Books under: [1]. That brief entry classifies the battle as "indecisive", so maybe that is how we should classify it also. On the other hand, given that the goal of the huge Russian army was to crush the uprising, the fact that if was unable to do so, thanks in large part to this battle, suggest it was a Polish victory after all. Balcer 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the source you provided could be added to the list of views on the battle I created, perhaps even along with the EB1911, if someone feels a need to add it. As to the name - I believe there is no need to start a move procedure as both names are perfectly correct. Halibutt 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some more online refs. Links go below:
Halibutt 13:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to Russian sources, I wonder if there are any modern academic sources to mention the battle. Sure, I can live just fine with the ones we have (one work by a Russian mid-19th century officer, one encyclopaedic note and two anonymous texts from some web portals), but it would be somehow interesting to know what do modern scholars in Russia say about it. Anyone? Halibutt 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

[edit]

The following is a remark by User:Irpen made in the edit summary. I paste it here just if anyone wondered why does he insist on keeping a dispute tag in the article when there is no dispute. Halibutt

not clear from the article, how the outcome follows from the text - by User:Irpen

And my reply is: all is explained in the article's aftermath section and the note I prepared. If there is a need to reword that or combine the two - fine with me, especially that the "after the battle" section gives only one out of two most popular interpretations. However, contrary to what Irpen suggests, neither the outcome is disputed in the sources nor here. Halibutt 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, your statement that Polish victory is not disputed in the sources cited in the aftermath section and above is simply not true:

  • "Сражение между главными силами русских и польских войск произошло 13 февраля 1831 г. при Грохове и закончилось разгромом польской армии." from Воронин В. Е. Польское восстание 1830-1831 гг. [2]
  • "24 января (5 февраля) 1831 года в Польшу вступила русская армия. К сожалению, командовавший ею генерал-фельдмаршал И.И.Дибич-Забалканский действовал недостаточно решительно. Так, одержав 13(25) февраля победу в сражении при селе Грохове, он имел возможность взять оставшуюся незащищенной Варшаву, однако вместо этого приказал отступить. 14(26) мая польские войска были наголову разбиты под Остроленкой. Переход русских в решительное наступление мог привести к полному истреблению польской армии. Однако Дибич вновь не воспользовался плодами победы." [3]
  • "13 февраля Дибич одержал победу при Грохове, но не воспользовался ею и дал неприятелю возможность беспрепятственно отступить на левый берег Вислы" [4]
  • Сражение при Грохове: "Обрадованный Дибич... объявил, что честь довершения победы принадлежит им, и сам стал во главе гренадер/"

As such, the outcome of the battle is most correctly be called "disputed". You seemply keep pushing your dubious claim with the fervor for which you could find a better use. It is instructive to see how history is repeating itself. --Irpen 05:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from personal remarks in the future. As to the quotations above - they indeed claim that the battle was won by the Russians. However, none of them disputes the outcome of the battle. The outcome is disputed by User:Irpen, not by the Russian 19th century veteran or the anonymous authors of the Russian nationalist sites mentioned above. Halibutt 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of this tautology, please rephrase it. Your claim is that the Poles won the battle. These sources claim that it was won by the Russians. How can they not dispute the outcome you insist on is beyond me. Below is the stuff from my talk, I would like others to see this discussion and it be continued here at the more public place. --Irpen 06:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In none of the Russian language sources posted by Ghirlandajo there is any dispute about the outcome of the battle. All of them state loudly and clearly that it was a Russian victory. Sure, without any details or sources, but that's what they do state indeed. It is you to dispute the outcome, not the sources. The only sources mentioning that the outcome is somehow disputable are Gierowski and Kieniewicz, who also point out that the disputable thing is whether it was a Pyrrhic victory or a simple victory. Get the idea now? As to the discussion on your behaviour, it is related purely to you and me and I'd like you to move it elsewhere. Let's focus on this battle here, without starting OT disputes here. Halibutt 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Irpen

[edit]
moved from user talk:Irpen.
The comments below are a private chat between Halibutt and User:Irpen, mostly related to the conduct by the latter. As unrelated to this discussion I suggest they should be copied elsewhere. Halibutt 12:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I kindly ask you not to vandalize articles if you don't have to. Removing sourced pieces of text and replacing them with your own POV just for the sake of it is considered vandalism - and it's not what you want, is it. If you believe something is controversial or does not fit your sense of common sense - take it to talk or find some sources. Deletion is not the way to go. Thank you in advance. Halibutt 11:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hali, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not before making similar offensive comments in the future. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing sourced pieces of information from articles and replacing them with one's own unsourced (and possibly unsourcable) POV is vandalism. Irpen's edits fall under neither of the "what vandalism is not" categories, as it's neither New User Test, Learning Wiki Markup, Bold Edit nor personal attack. However, as Wikipedia considers repeated NPOV violation, and Stubbornness not to be vandalism, then I'm hereby clarifying on that: Irpen's actions are regrettable and perfectly fit my own definition of vandalism. By wikipedia standards, his actions could be classified as "Sneaky vandalism" as his edits might be hard to spot by an uninformed user and hence perfectly fill the definition of POV-pushing as well.
Now then, I repeat my humble request: please stop deleting sourced information and replacing it with what your POV tells you. You might have some strong views on different matters and that's ok with me. However, trying to present them as if they were established knowledge and not just your own beliefs is harmful to this project. Either reword the note to add your sources or simply stop what you're doing. Halibutt 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, please use article's own talk pages for specific article related issues so that the positions are visible to other parties rather than come to my talk page with inflammatory rhetoric. Also, while there are no guarantees of course that you will be more civil at more public pages, I think there is a better chance. --Irpen 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your own words: watch your tongue. I wanted to settle the dispute by civil means at your talk page. If you refuse - fine with me. However, be sure that my patience is gone and I shall not let you hold any articles hostage of your own POV any more. I am willing to discuss with your sources, if you are willing to provide any, but not with your own POV, as was the case of the ill-fated discussion on Volodarka, in which you repeatedly reverted the article to your liking despite having no sources whatsoever. And I will continue to hold on to the academic sources in cases like battle of Olszynka Grochowska, where you recently claimed there's a dispute anywhere at the talk page. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the key here. Halibutt 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, I kindly ask you to start a dispute - or remove the tag. If you feel that the sections on Aftermath and the note on sources I prepared are not enough - feel free to reword them (as you see I'm still willing to assume your good faith despite your lack of constructive approach). However, claiming that there is a dispute at the talk page while there is none is simply unfair. Halibutt 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, I thought you learned some lessons from the indeed ill-fated Volodarka discussion. Apparently I was wrong. I am very sorry to find out that I was mistaken. And please no threats. Besides, I am not holding anything hostage. I simply want articles to be consistent. I am fine even if Poles won all battles in all their history as long as it is clear from the articles what was their win. I have no intention to let the Volodarka expulsion happen for the second time. Please deal with the article's content rather than with myself and at the article's talk rather than mine to be sure all the interested parties can read the discussion and contribute to it. --Irpen 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why not move to the article's talk what's already said. If you would like to moderate your language before that, please do so now. If you are fine with what's said here, fine and do nothing and I will move it as is. --Irpen 04:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did learn some lessons from that quarrel - yet I'm still willing to discuss things with you and hope that you can be more serious than you were back then. You know, the good ol' "I give you 100 sources, you give me what your POV tells you, call me a moron in a fancy way and revert the article to promote your views" thingie was rather instructive, but until your recent show I was hoping it was a matter of the past. I'm sorry to note I was wrong and that possibly starting the dispute resolution process might be the only way to force you to abide by the wiki policies (Verifiability, for instance) and stop using wikipedia to prove a point. It's sad, but I can see no other option, especially after seeing some of your recent "a u vas negrov ubyvayut" comments, in which you accused me of bad faith and other nasty things - yet provided no arguments to the discussion other than personal remarks ("Poles never lost a single battle" remark was a particularly good example; it's well established rhetorical method: first you tell the others that certain person says what he does not say - and then you fight with the view you invented yourself yet claim it's someone others' words).
As to Grochow - you repeat your good old tactics of disrupting wikipedia to prove your point. I'm not blackmailing you nor am I threatening you. I'm asking you to either stop or provide sources - just like in the case of Volodarka. It's a very similar situation - and you offer equally fierce resistance to providing sources. If you fail to provide sources yet continue to invent things and present them as truth (sorry, but providing no sources when asked to is more or less equal to admitting that you invented the info yourself; as is the case of your recent suggestion that the outcome of the battle is disputed), then the direct consequence of such actions is a dispute resolution process. It's a long and painful process, but at least it warrants that the truth is restored to the article. Of course, you are free to add your sources and play nice. However, I have yet to see you act that way... So far I've had enough of your personal remarks and pro personam arguments (sure, much more civilized than the remarks of your friend Ghirlandajo, but still). I'd be happy to see you spend similar effort on adding sources to the articles as you spend on, for instance, telling the world that Molobo is my friend or that I cannot stand a thought that the Poles might've lost some battle in the past.
It's your talk page and I placed my comments on your conduct here for a reason. However, you are free to do whatever you please. I will not use your talk page any more anyway, so feel free to move my comments anywhere you like. Be it Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment or User talk:Jimbo Wales. You might even want to add some funny remarks here and there, I'm sure other people will be delighted to hear that I'm a russophobe, ungrateful for the benevolent liberation of Poland by the heroic Red Army and that my pal Molobo makes me deaf to other people's arguments... Over and out. Halibutt 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to reread what you said above calmly. I think all points you are trying to make were already answered. You lack of links and diffs to support your accusations in my bad faith behavior is telling. As such, I will not comment on them for now. As for Volodarka, I refer anyone interested to Talk:Battle of Wołodarka. --Irpen 06:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you moved this discussion elsewhere. It's related to your behaviour and not to this battle. I'm not disputing your views on the battle, I'm disputing your way of promoting them. This is a completely different thing. Halibutt 12:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Olszynka Grochowska. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Olszynka_Grochowska&oldid=1214047158"