Talk:January Uprising

Untitled

The Russian sources say that 2,500 men were exiled to Siberia, not 9,423. So what is it, overestimation or underestimation? I'm gonna add the Russian number to the article, until the issue is resolved. KNewman 12:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations gone

Why did someone delete all but one of the illustrations? logologist 01:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Title

Wouldn't it be helpful to augment "January Uprising" to "January 1863 Uprising"? "January Uprising" means something to an educated Pole; nothing, and is extremely vague, to others. logologist 23:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's the issue of style. Which is better - January Uprising or Polish 1863 January Uprising? Where should we stop with descriptive names - especially if most of the hyperlinks are in the context paragraphs? See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). How many January Uprisings were there - do we need a disambig?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Polish 1863 Uprising"? On balance, still more information, but fewer words. logologist 06:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I definetly think we should keep the word 'January' - after all, this is *the* title. I don't think that moving this (or November Uprising) is a priority now, though. They don't seem to be that confusing, are they?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A bigger priority, to my mind, would be to get away from powiat and that monstrosity (neither Polish nor English), "voivodship" — preferably to "county" and "province." As you may have noticed, in principle I favor authentic Polish names. But not when it comes to needlessly saddling the English-using world with what to it are obscure parochial names, whose use really adds nothing to an understanding of the country or its history. In any case, thanks for initiating a long overdue stable-cleaning! logologist 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

old encyclopedia?

I can't find anything on Google, but large sections of this article read like 19th-century or early-20th-century prose. Is it taken from EB1911? If so, it should be credited. --Delirium 08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In 2004 the text was added with a summary imported a PD text. Based on this it seems it comes from P. Kropotkin: Memoirs of a Revolutionist. & Co., 1899, pp. 174-180. I'll add the appopriate note.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up! --Delirium 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Article has serious problems

I've never done this, but I'm a historian who believes Wikipedia is for the most part great, so:

The uprising was hardly "spontaneous;" the Polish National Committee in fact "planned" the uprising with a decision on January 16, and they had been conspiring for months prior to January to start a revolution. This is only the first of many issues.

The article cites Wandycz for some random fact; I suggest that someone who cares more than me should actually read it and fix this article top to bottom.

Thank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.232.108 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

B-class review

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} 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? It's pretty poor - I don't fully understand from it what the uprising actually consisted of. It talks about a provisional government and various battles without really explaining what happened. Did the Russians ever lose control of Warsaw, for instance? The most basic military, political, and diplomatic facts are utterly confusing. john k (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Defunct website regnum.by as source

The reference was added in 2013. First off, Novyk is not the author of the article. It is an article about Novyk's opinion.

Novyk wrote that the January Uprising is treated differently in contemporary Belarus in contrast with Poland and Lithuania. The post-Soviet Belarusian historical terminology was inherited from the Soviet historiography, noted Novyk, which is characterized by ideology.

The article describes a conference, in Minsk, that was timed to the 150th anniversary of the January Uprising, which was used to claim that both the meaning of the uprising is significantly distorted and facts are faked by unnamed political forces in Belarus, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Novyk frames that most 19th century Ruthenian peasants, in what is now Belarus, did not support the January Uprising.

The article is mostly Novyk's criticism against the language used by modern journalism to describe the January Uprising. He is critical of published 21st century descriptions that indicate 19th century Orthodox Ruthenian peasants had a role in the January Uprising. Novyk does not mention the Ruthenian gentry participation at all.

"Today, we are much closer to Moscow than Warsaw," Novyk points out. And, curiously, he made an appeal to authority of Alexander Lukashenko who framed the January Uprising as a foreign fifth column against Russian authority instead of an example of 19th century national consciousness.

In my opinion, the article is an example of the category of historical revisionist Russian propaganda that is documented by websites such as stopfake.org and not a good source to support that "The insurgence was not supported by the majority of the Orthodox Belarusian peasantry who considered the Catholics to be their historical oppressors". In 2015, the domain regnum.by redirects to regnum.ru. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)