text:
Talk:Bonobo

diet
I changed "This primate is frugivorous" to "The bonobo is an omnivorous frugivore". It is a more precise and less confusing description. The links to other wiki pages contain language that backs up this change. For instance on the wiki frugivore page "A frugivore is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type." and on the wiki omnivore page, "Various mammals are omnivorous in the wild, such as the Hominidae...." The rest of the section is both accurate and well referenced and also explains quite well why Bonobos are classified as omnivorous frugivores. 68.12.189.233 (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

diversity of faces
'The bonobo also has highly individuated facial features, as humans do, so that one individual may look significantly different from another, a characteristic adapted for visual facial recognition in social interaction." - this statement is very doubtful. Humans are adapted to differentiate between human faces. The bonobo face is similar in structure to the human face. This might be the cause of the apparent diversity in bonobo faces that is perceived by humans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.233.14 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All animals have a great degree of individuality in looks humans are just poorly able to see them unless given high levels of exposure, Bonobos happen to have more human like faces thus we notice them more rather than them truly having any more facial diversity than any other ape. Most zoo keepers who work with chimps know the faces of their normal chimps from one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.164.79 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Locomotion change reference
I changed the line where it said Bonobos use bipedal motion less than 1% of the time. That was based on a study from 1993 and since then multiple observations have shown Bonobos ranging from even lower than 1% to substantially more than that. I was going to use this specific link as the reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571309/ But I have no idea how to actually make a reference in the article, so if someone could put the reference in at the end of the sentence that'd be great. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, sorry it was reverted so quickly, editors are (generally rightly) wary of an unsourced statements. Jack (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete article
Where is all the details on gestation and the proper details on their sex anatomy to other chimps. It seems this article over focuses on the "popular" stuff. really think these articles need more information. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right! I'll have a look into it now. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation
Bonobos are one of two species of the genus Pan. They are essentially chimpanzees, though are smaller, less violent, and much more sexual than the common chimpanzee. In this Wikipedia article, much information is wanting as to the cooperation of bonobos in the wild. This article’s discussion of their social behavior focuses largely on their sexual practices and their engagement of homosexual activity. Cooperative traits such as kin selection and reciprocity are not mentioned in this article. Briefly, the article mentions that bonobos are altruistic, but the article fails to elaborate and say exactly how. This article can be improved by discussing the role of cooperation in child-rearing, avoiding predators, building shelters, and gathering food. Marklxb (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bonobo genome available
The bonobo genome has recently become available. See http://www.eva.mpg.de/bonobo-genome and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/wgs/?val=AJFE01

77.64.208.236 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 * See also this article in Nature. Gobōnobo  + c 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken image file
When I attempt to load this high-resolution image file, I only get the upper 30% of the image.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Pan_paniscus_%28female%29.jpg

My guess is the file is missing data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.61.170 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * It loads fine for me. Have you tried forcing a reload - you may have had a connection issue the first time you tried to load it and subsequent attempts may have been from your browsers cache. In Firefox you do this by holding shift while pressing refresh or with ctrl+F5; I don't know how to do it on other browsers.  Alphathon    ( talk ) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gracile is not a helpful descriptor
The word gracile has, in the past, been attached to the name of the bonobo as the gracile chimpanzee. Because of this, people seem to think it's approriate to say - as in this article - that the bonobo is considered more gracile than the common chimpanzee. Probably, it could be said that there is an implication that ... well it's like a kind of chimpanzee, but y'know ... more gracile. So people are led to believe that it is actually a chimpanzee but a gracile one. Then they might go on to think ... I wonder what gracile means - but probably not. They'll just think that it's a chimpanzee ... but a strange type.

So, we know that the word gracile has been used as part of its name in the past - but do we take anything from that description. If I was to say, "A gracile man walked past my house." What sort of image would that convey? "My sister used to be gracile, but as she got older she put on weight, like the rest of us." Doesn't it sound a bit like lanky, skinny or moving gracefully - it does to me.

Is the word used in any other context? Do we have gracile elephants, horses, geese or bananas? I haven't heard of them.

My thoughts are, that we drop this strange, unhelpful descriptor and - probably trying to avoid saying how similar of dissimilar it is to the common chimpanzee - find another way of describing the bonobo.Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 * The word is used most commonly in biology when talking about apes. Australopithecus is often referred to as gracile, as is the bonobo. It is generally used to distinguish from the robust form of an animal. Jack (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's true, but it doesn't make it understandable to the general Wikipedia audience. It could be explained in the text.Francis Hannaway (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oestrus
I'd like to pin down more information on what extent oestrus is concealed in Bonobos.

The article says: "During oestrus, females undergo a swelling of the perineal tissue lasting 10 to 20 days. Most matings occur during the maximum swelling." This reference says maximum swelling lasts 13.4 days, but that swelling cycles do not correlate exactly with the menstrual and ovulation cycles. Small, 1993 suggests "bonobos continually exhibit estrus swellings and behavior".

Is there good evidence, as the article says, that matings mostly occur during oestrus, and that oestrus/increased sexual behaviour unambiguously exists in Bonobos? Thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SIV comment in socio-sexual beahviour
At the end of the socio-sexual behaviour section there is a single line "It is unknown how the bonobo avoids simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and its effects." which seems to suggest that bonobos are somehow immune to SIVs. The nearest I can get to this conclusion in the linked article is that Bonobos have never been found to have SIV and some hypothesising that non-pathogenisis of SIV is due to a pre-evolutionary split SIV outbreak. The article isn't really about bonobos and they are only mentioned incidentally twice. Not sure what the etiquette/procedure is here. Seems to me like this sentence should just be removed but as I'm new I'll just leave this here Crothersj (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

wild observation
I think this sentence is biased, poorly researched, and needs to be deleted or completed: "The primatologist often cited for the peaceful nature of bonobos has never studied them in the wild." There are several primatologists making this assertion including Francis White who has observed them in the wild. This sentence is unhelpful misinformation. Vince Watkins (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Vince Watkins

I've flagged this sentence with a citation needed tag.207.189.106.4 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I removed that line a minute before the IP commented in this section about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research
On the 29th, Severum deleted criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; because he deleted the material without an explanation, marking the deletion as WP:Minor when it is not WP:Minor, I restored the material and stated that his marking was wrong.

As seen here, Severum deleted the criticism again, on the 30th (non-Wikipedia time), stating, "The deleted sentence refers to a journalistic piece, not a reputable source compared to others mentioned here." As seen with that diff-link, I reverted him, stating, "The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal." Maunus followed that up by adding an academic source regarding what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; he then added a response from Frans de Waal on the criticism. Severum removed the material, and added new material in its place, taking away the criticism angle and Frans de Waal's response to it. I reverted, stating, "Two editors clearly object to your changes. Discuss the matter on the article talk page, per WP:BRD. No WP:Edit warring." As that link shows, I also stated, "Do stop being so pro-Frans de Waal in your editing. The fact that he has been criticized, and has responded to the criticism, should be mentioned. Added back this piece you added." I mentioned the pro-Frans de Waal aspect because it is clear to me, from having examined Severum's occasional editing of Wikipedia, he is pro-Frans de Waal with his editing and appears to want to hide any criticism of Frans de Waal. Severum reverted again, stating, "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." I responded with a WP:Dummy edit stating, "Something tells me that you don't know how Wikipedia is generally supposed to work. Criticism often need not be based on science, and Wikipedia allows that. Furthermore, this criticism is based on the science. Taking the matter to talk." It's clear to me that Severum is inexperienced with Policies and guidelines, and is biasing content regarding Frans de Waal.

Comments? Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 * In general it is correct that articles should be based on scholarly not journalistic sources. But it is not a problem to report it if a journalistic source reports statements or opinions of scholars and scientists. They are reliable sources for the opinions of the people who are interviewed, and if the people who are interviewed are respected scholars as in this case then there is no reason we cant use it. It is indeed necessary for this article that also the scholarship that disagrees with de Waals popularizing stereotypes of the bonobos be included prominently in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree about the scholarly aspect (well, unless it's a topic that generally doesn't need that aspect, such as a film article), but, like you stated, the The New Yorker source is relaying the opinions of experts in this particular field. And, of course, there's the aforementioned academic source you included. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Drbogdan, as someone else who watches the Bonobo article/talk page, do you have an opinion on this matter before I start a WP:RfC on it? Severum is apparently not interested in this discussion and thinks that he can WP:Edit war, get his way, and that's all to it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 * FWIW - seems that User:Severum is trying to promote a higher level of science authority in the article (*entirely* ok w/ me) - but - in a way that could be better - atm I agree w/ the comments (well-presented imo) of User:Maunus above - differing views of such issues, grounded in worthy scholarship, are welcome of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included?
Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included in the Bonobo article? And, if so, what type of sources are appropriate for that? These are the two versions that are currently debated. As seen in the section immediately above this one (here is the link for those viewing this from the WP:RfC page: Talk:Bonobo), one editor argues that "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." Another editor argues that "The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal.", and that The New Yorker source was followed up with an academic source concerning what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild, and that this was followed up with Frans de Waals's response to that. The current version is not only missing that material, but is not supported by a source for part of the material that one of the aforementioned editors (the one pushing the "based on science" argument) left in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maunus re-added some of the material after I posted this WP:RfC; Maunus, the "Primatologists who have studied" aspect is currently a repeat in that section; so that needs fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires that controversies are covered, and, by their nature, many types of sources are allowed, many of them far from peer reviewed scientific sources. Controversies are often matters of opinion, so, when in doubt, attribute the opinions. Use all kinds of reliable sources.
 * This should only get short mention, so as not to disturb the balance of the article. Captivity vs. natural habitat would be a legitimate discussion in many articles about animals. Extensive coverage of the controversy might warrant a proper FORK article, although the Frans de Waal article might be the logical place for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 * This WP:RfC is slow, but you know that I appreciate you weighing in on it, Brangifer. As for Severum, he made another edit here, with an edit summary that does not seem to sufficiently explain the edit or show that it is better than the previous text, and is still yet to make his case on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection to that edit is more about the fact that good content was removed. The new content could just as well be added, but with the annotation that "there are other opinions, with M. Wilson, et al confirming ...."
 * You know this subject better than I, so I'll let you deal with it. That's just my suggestion. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is infact what I just did. The 2014 study was not well summarized by Severus, though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Maunus also criticized the edit because it removed material; that's why Maunus reverted. In addition to mentioning the content side-by-side, I obviously think Severum should discuss his thoughts regarding these issues here at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * This content that Maunus added minutes ago is also decent. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The 2014 study does not claim bonobos to be more peaceful than chimpanzees, they find Western Chimpanzees and Bonobos to be more peaceful than Eastern Chimpanzees, but find no statistically significant difference in violence rates between Western Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They therefore ascribe the difference in behavior to ecological factors. I.e. the study does not support the conclusion that bonobos are innately less aggressive than Chimpanzees.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * My thoughts on the matter generally align with what seems to be the emerging (if still quite small-scale) consensus here; I don't see any policy-relevant reason as to why content based on the piece from The New Yorker should be excluded. As has been noted, we are obliged to discuss the controversy if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources -- regardless of whether they come in the form of scientific press or not -- though needless to say clear attribution needs to be implemented such that our readers understand the nature of the criticism and the identity and credentials of those making them.  On the other hand, I also tend to agree with BullRangifer's assessment that those points should be probably be only neatly summarized here, with more extensive coverage of the criticism taking place elsewhere -- but primarily at Frans de Waal rather than a distinct fork to this article, I would think.   S n o w  talk 04:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Agree with inclusion of the controversy in this article in compact summary form, supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm going to echo the opinions here and say that it is reasonable to include information from reliable sources, without imposing additional restraints on what constitutes a RS, compared to the usual. On an added note, it might be worth looking at the other subsections of the Behavior section, as the peacefulness/aggression seems to be addressed in both General and Peacefulness right now. — daranz [ t ] 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Sorry to join the discussion so late. I agree with others above that the controversy should be included. If we place animals into captivity, we are placing them into artificial environments for which they may not have evolved appropriate (coping) behaviour.  This can manifest itself as abnormal behaviours such as stereotypies and self-harming.  So, I would actually doubt the applicability of de Waal's findings to wild bonobos.  This rasies the question of the value of such research.  Having said this, the controversy exists and as other have suggested, this should be discussed here at an appropriate length and with reliables sources.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Well the man has considerable bonafides and probably feels his interpretations control for that, and there's little doubt that the New York Yorker's position is one of speculation by non-experts. So we have to be thorough with attribution, making clear exactly what was expressed and by whom.  The fact that a RS has questioned the methods means we are obligated, in this instance anyway, to cover the conflicting perspectives -- but by the same token we have to be clear as to the identity of the source of each skeptical statement and what their credentials are.  And by clear, I mean treating the identity of the sources in the actual prose, in addition to the inline citations.  S n o w  talk 16:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible reference?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141215-great-ape-birth-is-world-first Bananasoldier (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect this page
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Behavior
I read the sentence that states "Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in tongue kissing, and oral sex." and chose to verify it with the source provided. I'm glad I did, because I didn't find that statement anywhere. The bonobos were in fact observed engaging in that behavior, but the article also clearly states that the one other primate they were studying, Cebus Capucinus, engaged in oral sex "extremely rarely," but that it had not been documented during focal observations of adults. Adult capuchins were not the only subgroup being studied, that is they were also collecting data from juvenile individuals.

I am reluctant to edit the page myself, because I am new to wiki contributions and have not read all the guidelines.

Thanks, wiki contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblehermit (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bonobo. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506233748/http://www.zoosociety.org/Conservation/Bonobo/BCBI/Survey.php to http://www.zoosociety.org/conservation/Bonobo/BCBI/Survey.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016
98.113.156.218 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Empty request - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017
NightBlue3 is a part of this Primm34 (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —   IVORK  Discuss 01:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
I want to add that the term Bonobo is used often by the streamer Rabia "Nightblue3" Yazbek Rekkles (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —   IVORK  Discuss 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bonobo. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127051545/http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf to http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421115143/http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol5/vol5_no2_best_minding_animals_PRINTABLE.htm to http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol5/vol5_no2_best_minding_animals_PRINTABLE.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218060615/http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/images/newsnov09.pdf to http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/images/newsnov09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

the part about bonobo's being the closest relative
the article cited only says "The bonobo is a sister species to the more widespread common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, and the two share equal footing as our nearest primate kin." not that they are closer so the wording in the article is word 19:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about the App version
When I open this in the Wikipedia app for Android it says : Bonobo One of two species in the Genus Pan, along with the Chimpanzee - previously thought to be a type of NightBlue3. What does that mean? I looked for NightBlue3 on Wikipedia and found nothing. Source? Sounds for me like some Conspiracy theorie.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bonobo. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232556/http://www.nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Bonobo%20Nutrition.pdf to http://www.nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Bonobo%20Nutrition.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161124221827/http://lolayabonobo.wildlifedirect.org/ to http://lolayabonobo.wildlifedirect.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928044248/http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode=A06E to http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode=A06E

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletion
The suggestion that the genus homo should include bonobos and chimpanzees has been deleted because, among other reasons, the source is a New Scientist article. The original source is a PNAS article by Wildman et al at. I agree with the deletion as there is no evidence that the suggestion was seriously considered by experts, but the source should be taken into account if it is found that other experts discuss the proposal. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think that kinda information actually belongs on bonobo or should we leave it at Pan (genus)? Should we also include such an apparently fringe proposal on Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, or any of the other hominin articles?  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless there is evidence that the suggestion is taken seriously, I doubt whether it deserves any mention. If we decide that it is taken seriously, then we can consider at that stage which article(s) it belongs in. I see that the pan article does mention Jared Diamond, but I am not sure whether his proposal was tongue in cheek.

 * BTW I have just done an FAC review on Alpine newt, and the article says that the sub-species separated 20 million years ago, before the ape and gibbon lines separated! Maybe evolution is slower in amphibians, or is it an example of punctuated equilibrium as suggested by Stephen Jay Gould, with long periods of statis punctuated by sudden bursts of evolution? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As the remover, I of course agree that the proposal is fringe, not taken seriously, and does not warrant a mention. As I was getting at in my edit summary, this was based on a couple of old sources, and as I stated, "In 2020 it is clear there is no proposal being taken seriously among biologists or anthropologists to change the taxonomic system in this way." I'm willing to be corrected, but it seems unlikely that any such proposal is ongoing. Crossroads -talk- 18:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference
Inogwabini BI, Leader-Williams N. Effects of epidemic diseases on the distribution of bonobos. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051112. Epub 2012 Dec 12. PMID: 23251431; PMCID: PMC3521019.

This reference may explain the wide behavior differences between chimpanzees and bonobos. Bonobos can expand into rich areas but these areas have trypanosomiasis which kills the bonobos. Thus bonobos have never been subjected to selection to defend territory. Keith Henson (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction - evolutionary relation to Homo
The third paragraph reads

"According to studies published in 2017 by researchers at The George Washington University, bonobos, along with common chimpanzees, split from the human line about 8 million years ago; moreover, bonobos split from the common chimpanzee line about 2 million years ago."

I feel "bonobos, along with common chimpanzees, split from the human line..." should read "the ancestors of the genus Pan split form the human line..." to remove confusion that the two species had already evolved at that time and make it clear that it was, like our common ancestor, a common ancestor that split from ours and not the chimpanzees themselves (a common misconception) Caledonicum (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Agree and done. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Description picture
Having a picture of Kanzi and Panbanisha from a time when they were extremely overweight as the image associated with the animal's Description seems almost misleading to me. I think that image would be better served lower on the page around the Similarity to Humans section, which mentions Kanzi by name. Literally any picture of a wild bonobo or just one that more generally fits the typical appearance would make much more sense there to me. I'm not a frequent editor, so I don't feel confident making the change myself as I'm sure I'd mess up the formatting. GreatLiver (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A few years ago that picture actually was paired with discussion on Bonobo intelligence, not Description. I guess someone must have moved it up, but I'd agree with you that it's not the best image for the Description section Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing of sentence about clitoris size including a mention of teenage human girls
This section here "Bonobo clitorises are larger and more externalized than in most mammals;[89] while the weight of a young adolescent female bonobo "is maybe half" that of a human teenager, she has a clitoris that is "three times bigger than the human equivalent, and visible enough to waggle unmistakably as she walks".[90]"

Is phrased in such a way that due to it describing the weight of a bonobos in relation to a "human teenager" when it compares the clitoris size with the "human equivalent" contextually could result in a misinterpretation that it is talking about a teenage humans clitoris, which is highly innapropriate. Can someone rephrase this please so that it's clear that it's comparing the bonobos clitoris with an adult humans clitoris? Perhaps by changing the weight comparison against an adult human female? The use of a teenage human in the weight comparison makes sense, and the comparison of clitoris size makes sense, but when combined in the same sentence it's an uncomfortable read, nobody wants to be visualising the genitalia of non-adult humans and the phrasing accidently induces that.

The mentions further down in the article about the sexual behaviour of bonobos involving infant bonobos, whilst important and relevent to the article, also make the misreadings of the earlier sentance even more uncomfortable.

Thankyou for your consideration, I appreciate the great work that wikipedians do and this article is a great read otherwise. Hope you have a great day :) Austroriella (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023
Conflicting information in the main section and the Taxonomy section regarding when it split off and the reasons why 87.75.185.229 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

B-Class to GA to FA
I'm planning on Featuring this article, will start working on it next week Tuesday, and probably nominate it in late June. Wolverine XI ( den • 🐾) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
Bonobos are omnivorous, they do hunt monkeys and eat them. Video evidence provided by tv show Queens that records a Bonobo troop hunting and eating colobus monkeys. 192.109.205.211 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Misspelling
In the Taxonomy section under “Hybrids,” there’s a misspelling in the last sentence of the second paragraph of “lead” as the past tense. The correct spelling is “led.” I cannot edit it as the page is locked. 2601:346:B00:B100:D92C:CF8:3D0E:86F4 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bonobo


text:
Sardis

Sardis or Sardes (Lydian: 𐤳𐤱𐤠𐤭𐤣, romanized: Šfard; Σάρδεις; ) was an ancient city best known as the capital of the Lydian Empire. After the fall of the Lydian Empire, it became the capital of the Persian satrapy of Lydia and later a major center of Hellenistic and Byzantine culture. Now an active archaeological site, it is located in modern day Turkey, in Manisa Province near the town of Sart.

History
Sardis was occupied for at least 3500 years. In that time, it fluctuated between a wealthy city of international importance and a collection of modest hamlets.

Early settlement

Sardis was settled before 1500 BC. However, the size and nature of early settlement is not known since only small extramural portions of these layers have been excavated. Evidence of occupation consists largely of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery which shows affinities with Mycenaean Greece and the Hittites. No early monumental architecture had been found as of 2011.

The site may have been occupied as early as the Neolithic, as evidenced by scattered finds of early ceramic fragments. However, these were found out of context, so no clear conclusions can be drawn. Early Bronze Age cemeteries were found 7 miles away along Lake Marmara, near elite graves of the later Lydian and Persian periods.

In the Late Bronze Age, the site would have been in the territory of the Seha River Land, whose capital is thought to have been located at nearby Kaymakçı. Hittite texts record that Seha was originally part of Arzawa, a macrokingdom which the Hittite king Mursili II defeated and partitioned. After that time, Seha became a vassal state of the Hittites and served as an important intermediary with the Mycenaean Greeks. The relationship between the people of Seha and the later Lydians is unclear, since there is evidence of both cultural continuity and disruption in the region. Neither the term "Sardis" nor its alleged earlier name of "Hyde" (in Ancient Greek, which may have reflected a Hittite name "Uda") appears in any extant Hittite text.

Lydian Period

In the seventh century BC, Sardis became the capital city of Lydia. From there, kings such as Croesus ruled an empire that reached as far as the Halys River in the east. The city itself covered 108 hectares including extramural areas and was protected by walls thirty meters thick. The acropolis was terraced with white ashlar masonry to tame the naturally irregular mountainside. Visitors could spot the site from a distance by the three enormous burial tumuli at Bin Tepe.

The city's layout and organization is only partly known at present. To the north/northwest, the city had a large extramural zone with residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Settlement extended to the Pactolus Stream, near which archaeologists have found the remains of work installations where alluvial metals were processed.

Multiroom houses around the site match Herodotus's description of fieldstone and mudbrick construction. Most houses had roofs of clay and straw while wealthy residents had roof tiles, similar to public buildings. Houses often have identifiable courtyards and food preparation areas but no complete house has been excavated so few generalizations can be drawn about Sardian houses' internal layout.

Religious remains include a modest altar which may have been dedicated to Cybele, given a pottery fragment found there with her name on it. A possible sanctuary to Artemis was found elsewhere in the site, whose remains include marble statues of lions. Vernacular worship is evidence in extramural areas by dinner servies buried as offerings.

Textual evidence regarding Lydian-era Sardis include Pliny's account of a mudbrick building that had allegedly been the palace of Croesus and was still there in his own time.

The material culture of Sardis is largely a distinctive twist on Anatolian and Aegean styles. The city's artisans seemed to specialize in glyptic art including seals and jewelry. Their pottery blended Aegean and Anatolian pottery styles, in addition to distinctive twists which included the lydion shape and decorative techniques known as streaky-glaze and marbled-glaze. Narrative scenes on Sardian pottery are rare. Imported Greek pottery attests to the Lydians' "Hellenophile attitude" commented on by contemporary Greek writers. While those Greek authors were in turn impressed by Lydians' music and textiles, these aspects of Lydian culture are not visible in the archaeological record.

Destruction by Cyrus the Great
Sardis was conquered by Cyrus the Great around 547 BC. Having defeated the Lydian king Croesus at the Battle of Pteria and Battle of Thymbra, the Persians followed the retreating army back to Sardis and sacked it after a brief siege. Details of this event are largely known from Herodotus's semi-mythicized account, but the destruction is highly visible in the archaeological record. In the words of excavator Nicholas Cahill:

"It is rare that an important and well-known historical event is so vividly preserved in the archaeological record, but the destruction of Cyrus left clear and dramatic remains throughout the city."

The city's fortifications burned in a massive fire that spread to parts of the adjoining residential areas. Wooden structures and objects inside buildings were reduced to charcoal. Mudbrick from the fortifications were toppled over on adjacent structures, preventing looting and salvage and thus preserving their remains.

Skeletons were found buried haphazardly among the debris, including those of Lydian soldiers who died violently. One soldier's forearm bones had been snapped, likely a parry fracture indicating a failed attempt to counter the head injuries that killed him. A partly healed rib fracture suggests he was still recovering from an earlier injury during the battle. In a destroyed house, archaeologists found the partial skeleton of an arthritic man in his forties. The skeleton was so badly burned that archaeologists cannot determine whether it was deliberately mutilated or if the missing bones were carried away by animals.

Arrowheads and other weaponry turn up in debris all around the city, suggesting a major battle in the streets. The varying styles suggest the mixed background of both armies involved. Household implements such as iron spits and small sickles were found mixed in with ordinary weapons of war, suggesting that civilians attempted to defend themselves during the sack.

Persian Period

After the destruction, Sardis was rebuilt and continued to be an important and prosperous city. Though it was never again the capital of an independent state, it did serve as the capital for the satrapy of Sparda and formed the end station of the Persian Royal Road which began in Persepolis. It acted as a gateway to the Greek world, and was visited by notable Greek leaders such as Lysander and Alcibiades, as well as the Persian kings Darius I and Xerxes.

Relatively little of Persian Sardis is visible in the archaeological record. The city may even have been rebuilt outside the limits of the Lydian-era walls, as evidenced by authors such as Herodotus who place the Persian era central district along the Pactolus stream. The material culture of the city was largely continuous with the Lydian era, to the point that it can be hard to precisely date artifacts based on style.

Notable developments of this period include adoption of the Aramaic script alongside the Lydian alphabet and the "Achaemenid bowl" pottery shape. Jewelry of the period shows Persian-Anatolian cultural hybridization. In particular, jewelers turned to semi-precious stones and colored frit due to a Persian prohibition on gold jewelry among the priestly class. Similarly, knobbed pins and fibulae disappear from the archaeological record, reflecting changes in the garments with which they would have been used.

Buildings from this era include a possible predecessor of the later temple to Artemis as well as a possible sanctuary of Zeus. Textual evidence suggests that the city was known for its paradisoi as well as orchards and hunting parks built by Tissaphernes and Cyrus the Younger Burials of this period include enormous tumuli with extensive grave goods.

In 499 BC, Sardis was attacked and burned by the Ionians as part of the Ionian Revolt against Persian rule. The subsequent destruction of mainland Greek cities was said to be retribution for this attack. When Themistocles later visited Sardis, he came across a votive statue he had personally dedicated at Athens, and requested its return.

Hellenistic and Byzantine Sardis

In 334 BC, Sardis was conquered by Alexander the Great. The city was surrendered without a fight, the local satrap having been killed during the Persian defeat at Granikos. After taking power, Alexander restored earlier Lydian customs and laws. For the next two centuries, the city passed between Hellenistic rulers including Antigonus Monophthalmos, Lysimachus, the Seleucids, and the Attalids. It was besieged by Seleucus I in 281 BC and by Antiochus III in 215-213 BC, but neither succeeded at breaching the acropolis, regarded as the strongest fortified place in the world. The city sometimes served as a royal residence, but was itself governed by an assembly.

In this era, the city took on a strong Greek character. The Greek language replaces the Lydian language in most inscriptions, and major buildings were constructed in Greek architectural styles to meet the needs of Greek cultural institutions. These new buildings included a prytaneion, gymnasion, theater, hippodrome, as well as the massive Temple of Artemis still visible to modern visitors. Jews were settled at Sardis by the Hellenistic king Antiochos III, where they built the Sardis Synagogue and formed a community which continued for much of late antiquity.

In 129 BC, Sardis passed to the Romans, under whom it continued its prosperity and political importance as part of the province of Asia. The city received three neocorate honors and was granted ten million sesterces as well as a temporary tax exemption to help it recover after a devastating earthquake in 17 AD.

Sardis had an early Christian community and is referred to in the New Testament as one of the seven churches of Asia. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus refers to the Sardians as not finishing what they started, being about image rather than substance.

Later, trade and the organization of commerce continued to be sources of great wealth. After Constantinople became the capital of the East, a new road system grew up connecting the provinces with the capital. Sardis then lay rather apart from the great lines of communication and lost some of its importance.

During the cataclysmic 7th-century Byzantine–Sasanian War, Sardis was in 615 one of the cities sacked in the invasion of Asia Minor by the Persian Shahin. Though the Byzantines eventually won the war, the damage to Sardis was never fully repaired.

Sardis retained its titular supremacy and continued to be the seat of the metropolitan bishop of the province of Lydia, formed in 295 AD. It was enumerated as third, after Ephesus and Smyrna, in the list of cities of the Thracesion thema given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the 10th century. However, over the next four centuries it was in the shadow of the provinces of Magnesia-upon-Sipylum and Philadelphia, which retained their importance in the region.

Later history
Sardis began to decline in the 600s AD. It remained part of the Byzantine Empire until 1078 AD, by the Seljuk Turks. It was reconquered in 1097 by the Byzantine general John Doukas and came under the rule of the Byzantine Empire of Nicaea when Constantinople was taken by the Venetians and crusaders in 1204. However, once the Byzantines retook Constantinople in 1261, Sardis and surrounding areas fell under the control of Ghazw emirs. The Cayster valleys and a fort on the citadel of Sardis were handed over to them by treaty in 1306. The city continued its decline until its capture and probable destruction by the Turco-Mongol warlord Timur in 1402.

By the 1700s, only two small hamlets existed at the site. In the 20th century, a new town was built.

Foundation stories

Herodotus recounts a legend that the city was founded by the sons of Heracles, the Heracleidae. According to Herodotus, the Heraclides ruled for five hundred and five years beginning with Agron, 1220 BC, and ending with Candaules, 716 BC. They were followed by the Mermnades, which began with Gyges, 716 BC, and ended with Croesus, 546 BC.

The name "Sardis" appears first in the work of the Archaic era poet Sappho. Strabo claims that the city's original name was "Hyde".

Geography
Sardis was situated in the middle of Hermus River Valley, about 4 km south of the river. Its citadel was built on Mount Tmolus, a steep and lofty spur, while a lower town extended to the area of the Pactolus stream.

Today, the site is located by the present day village of Sart, near Salihli in the Manisa province of Turkey, close to the Ankara - İzmir highway (approximately 72 km from İzmir). The site is open to visitors year-round, where notable remains include the bath-gymnasium complex, synagogue and Byzantine shops is open to visitors year-round.

Excavation history

By the 19th century, Sardis was in ruins, with mainly visible remains mostly from the Roman period. Early excavators included the British explorer George Dennis, who uncovered an enormous marble head of Faustina the Elder. Found in the precinct of the Temple of Artemis, it probably formed part of a pair of colossal statues devoted to the Imperial couple. The 1.76 metre high head is now kept at the British Museum.

The first large-scale archaeological expedition in Sardis was directed by a Princeton University team led by Howard Crosby Butler between years 1910–1914, unearthing a temple to Artemis, and more than a thousand Lydian tombs. The excavation campaign was halted by World War I, followed by the Turkish War of Independence, though it briefly resumed in 1922. Some surviving artifacts from the Butler excavation were added to the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

A new expedition known as the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis was founded in 1958 by G.M.A. Hanfmann, professor in the Department of Fine Arts at Harvard University, and by Henry Detweiler, dean of the Architecture School at Cornell University. Hanfmann excavated widely in the city and the region, excavating and restoring the major Roman bath-gymnasium complex, the synagogue, late Roman houses and shops, a Lydian industrial area for processing electrum into pure gold and silver, Lydian occupation areas, and tumulus tombs at Bintepe.

During the 1960s, the acknowledgment of the local significance of the Jewish community in Sardis received notable confirmation through the identification of a substantial assembly hall in the northwestern part of the city, now known as the Sardis Synagogue. This site, adorned with inscriptions, menorahs, and various artifacts, establishes its function as a synagogue from the 4th to the 6th century. Excavations in adjacent residential and commercial areas have also uncovered additional evidence of Jewish life.

From 1976 until 2007, excavation continued under Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., professor in the Department of Classics at the University of California, Berkeley. Since 2008, the excavation has been under the directorship of Nicholas Cahill, professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Some of the important finds from the site of Sardis are housed in the Archaeological Museum of Manisa, including Late Roman mosaics and sculpture, a helmet from the mid-6th century BC, and pottery from various periods.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sardis


text:
Polish literature

Polish literature is the literary tradition of Poland. Most Polish literature has been written in the Polish language, though other languages used in Poland over the centuries have also contributed to Polish literary traditions, including Latin, Yiddish, Lithuanian, Russian, German and Esperanto. According to Czesław Miłosz, for centuries Polish literature focused more on drama and poetic self-expression than on fiction (dominant in the English speaking world). The reasons were manifold but mostly rested on the historical circumstances of the nation. Polish writers typically have had a more profound range of choices to motivate them to write, including past cataclysms of extraordinary violence that swept Poland (as the crossroads of Europe), but also, Poland's collective incongruities demanding an adequate reaction from the writing communities of any given period.

The period of Polish Enlightenment began in the 1730s–40s and peaked in the second half of the 18th century. Leading Polish Enlightenment authors included Ignacy Krasicki (1735–1801) and Jan Potocki (1761–1815). Polish Romanticism, unlike Romanticism elsewhere in Europe, was largely a movement for independence against the foreign occupation. Early Polish Romantics were heavily influenced by other European Romantics. Notable writers included Adam Mickiewicz, Seweryn Goszczyński, Tomasz Zan and Maurycy Mochnacki.

In the second period, many Polish Romantics worked abroad. Influential poets included Adam Mickiewicz, Juliusz Słowacki and Zygmunt Krasiński.

In the aftermath of the failed January uprising, the new period of Polish Positivism began to advocate skepticism and the exercise of reason. The modernist period known as the Young Poland movement in visual arts, literature and music, came into being around 1890, and concluded with the Poland's return to independence (1918). Notable authors included Kazimierz Przerwa-Tetmajer, Stanisław Przybyszewski and Jan Kasprowicz. The neo-Romantic era was exemplified by the works of Stefan Żeromski, Władysław Reymont, Gabriela Zapolska, and Stanisław Wyspiański. In 1905 Henryk Sienkiewicz received a Nobel Prize in literature for his Quo Vadis inspiring a new sense of hope. Literature of the Second Polish Republic (1918–1939) encompasses a short, though exceptionally dynamic period in Polish literary consciousness. The socio-political reality has changed radically with Poland's return to independence. New avant-garde writers included Julian Tuwim, Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz, Witold Gombrowicz, Czesław Miłosz, Maria Dąbrowska and Zofia Nałkowska.

In the years of German and Soviet occupation of Poland, all artistic life was dramatically compromised. Cultural institutions were lost. Out of 1,500 clandestine publications in Poland, about 200 were devoted to literature. Much of Polish literature written during the Occupation of Poland appeared in print only after the conclusion of World War II, including books by Nałkowska, Rudnicki, Borowski and others. The situation began to worsen dramatically around 1949–1950 with the introduction of the Stalinist doctrine by minister Sokorski. Poland had three Nobel Prize winning authors in the later 20th century: Isaac Bashevis Singer (1978), Czesław Miłosz (1980) and Wisława Szymborska (1996). In the early 21st century, yet another writer was awarded the Prize: Olga Tokarczuk.

Middle Ages
Almost nothing remains of Polish literature prior to the country's Christianization in 966. Poland's pagan inhabitants certainly possessed an oral literature extending to Slavic songs, legends and beliefs, but early Christian writers did not deem it worthy of mention in the obligatory Latin, and so it has perished.

Within the Polish literary tradition, it is customary to include works that have dealt with Poland, even if not written by ethnic Poles. This is the case with Gallus Anonymus, the first historian to have described Poland in his work entitled Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum (Deeds of the Princes of the Poles), composed in sophisticated Latin. Gallus was a foreign monk who accompanied King Bolesław III Wrymouth in his return from Hungary to Poland. The important tradition of Polish historiography was continued by Wincenty Kadłubek, a thirteenth-century Bishop of Kraków, as well as Jan Długosz, a Polish priest and secretary to Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki.

The first recorded sentence in the Polish language reads: "Day ut ia pobrusa, a ti poziwai" ("Let me grind, and you take a rest") – a paraphrase of the Latin "Sine, ut ego etiam molam." The work in which this phrase appeared reflects the culture of early Poland. The sentence was written within the Latin language chronicle Liber fundationis from between 1269 and 1273, a history of the Cistercian monastery in Henryków, Silesia. It was recorded by an abbot known simply as Piotr (Peter), referring to an event almost a hundred years earlier. The sentence was supposedly uttered by a Bohemian settler, Bogwal ("Bogwalus Boemus"), a subject of Bolesław the Tall, expressing compassion for his own wife who "very often stood grinding by the quern-stone." Most notable early medieval Polish works in Latin and the Old Polish language include the oldest extant manuscript of fine prose in the Polish language entitled the Holy Cross Sermons, as well as the earliest Polish-language Bible of Queen Zofia and the Kronika Janka z Czarnkowa from the 14th century, not to mention the Psałterz puławski.

Most early texts in Polish vernacular were influenced heavily by the Latin sacred literature. They include Bogurodzica (Mother of God), a hymn in praise of the Virgin Mary written down in the 15th century, though popular at least a century earlier. Bogurodzica served as a national anthem. It was one of the first texts reproduced in Polish on a printing press; and so was the Master Polikarp's Conversation with Death (Rozmowa mistrza Polikarpa ze śmiercią).

In the early 1470s, one of the first printing houses in Poland was set up by Kasper Straube in Kraków (see: spread of the printing press). In 1475 Kasper Elyan of Głogów (Glogau) set up a printing shop in Wrocław (Breslau), Silesia. Twenty years later, the first Cyrillic printing house was founded at Kraków by Schweipolt Fiol for Eastern Orthodox Church hierarchs. The most notable texts produced in that period include Saint Florian's Breviary, printed partially in Polish in the late 14th century; Statua synodalia Wratislaviensia (1475): a printed collection of Polish and Latin prayers; as well as Jan Długosz's Chronicle from the 15th century and his Catalogus archiepiscoporum Gnesnensium.

Renaissance
With the advent of the Renaissance, the Polish language was finally accepted on an equal footing with Latin. Polish culture and art flourished under Jagiellonian rule, and many foreign poets and writers settled in Poland, bringing with them new literary trends. Such writers included Kallimach (Filippo Buonaccorsi) and Conrad Celtis. Many Polish writers studied abroad, and at the Kraków Academy, which became a melting pot for new ideas and currents. In 1488, the world's first literary society, the Sodalitas Litterarum Vistulana (Vistula Literary Society) was founded in Kraków. Notable members included Conrad Celtes, Albert Brudzewski, Filip Callimachus and Laurentius Corvinus.

A Polish writer who used Latin as his principal vehicle of expression was Klemens Janicki (Ianicius), who became one of the most notable Latin poets of his time and was laureled by the Pope. Other writers such as Mikołaj Rej, and Jan Kochanowski, laid the foundations for the Polish literary language and modern Polish grammar. The first book written entirely in the Polish language appeared in this period – It was a prayer-book by Biernat of Lublin (c. 1465 – after 1529) called Raj duszny (Hortulus Animae, Eden of the Soul), printed in Kraków in 1513 at one of Poland's first printing establishments, operated by Florian Ungler (originally from Bavaria). The most notable Polish writers and poets active in the 16th century include:

Baroque
The literature in the period of Polish Baroque (between 1620 and 1764) was significantly influenced by the great popularization of Jesuit high schools, which offered education based on Latin classics as part of a preparation for a political career. The studies of poetry required the practical knowledge of writing both Latin and Polish poems, which radically increased the number of poets and versifiers countrywide. On the soil of humanistic education some exceptional writers grew as well: Piotr Kochanowski (1566–1620) gave his translation of Torquato Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered; Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, a poet laureate, became known among European nations as Horatius christianus  (Christian Horace) for his Latin writings; Jan Andrzej Morsztyn (1621–1693), an epicurean courtier and diplomat, extolled in his sophisticated poems the valors of earthly delights; and Wacław Potocki (1621–1696), the most productive writer of the Polish Baroque, unified the typical opinions of Polish szlachta with some deeper reflections and existential experiences. Notable Polish writers and poets active in this period include:

Enlightenment
The period of Polish Enlightenment began in the 1730s–40s and peaked in the second half of the 18th century during the reign of Poland's last king, Stanisław August Poniatowski. It went into sharp decline with the Third and final Partition of Poland (1795), followed by political, cultural and economic destruction of the country, and leading to the Great Emigration of Polish elites. The Enlightenment ended around 1822, and was replaced by Polish Romanticism at home and abroad.

One of the leading Polish Enlightenment poets was Ignacy Krasicki (1735–1801), known locally as "the Prince of Poets" and Poland's La Fontaine, author of the first Polish novel called The Adventures of Mr. Nicholas Wisdom (Mikołaja Doświadczyńskiego przypadki); he was also a playwright, journalist, encyclopedist and translator from French and Greek. Another prominent writer of the period was Jan Potocki (1761–1815), a Polish nobleman, Egyptologist, linguist, and adventurer, whose travel memoirs made him legendary in his homeland. Outside Poland he is known chiefly for his novel, The Manuscript Found in Saragossa, which has drawn comparisons to such celebrated works as the Decameron and the Arabian Nights. Notable Polish writers and poets of the Enlightenment period include:

Romanticism
Due to partitions carried out by the neighboring empires – which ended the existence of the sovereign Polish state in 1795 – Polish Romanticism, unlike Romanticism elsewhere in Europe, was largely a movement for independence against the foreign occupation, and expressed the ideals and the traditional way of life of the Polish people. The period of Romanticism in Poland ended with the Tsarist suppression of the January 1863 Uprising, marked by public executions by the Russians and deportations to Siberia.

The literature of Polish Romanticism falls into two distinct periods, both defined by insurgencies: the first around 1820–1830, ending with the November uprising of 1830; and the second between 1830 and 1864, giving birth to Polish Positivism. In the first period, Polish Romantics were heavily influenced by other European Romantics – Their art featured emotionalism and imagination, folklore, country life, as well as the propagation of the ideals of independence. The most famous writers of the period were: Adam Mickiewicz, Seweryn Goszczyński, Tomasz Zan and Maurycy Mochnacki. In the second period (after the January uprising), many Polish Romantics worked abroad, often banished from the Polish soil by the occupying power. Their work became dominated by the ideals of freedom and the struggle for regaining their country's lost sovereignty. Elements of mysticism became more prominent. Also in that period, the idea of the poeta-wieszcz (nation's bard) developed. The wieszcz functioned as spiritual leader to the suppressed people. The most notable poet among the ''leading bards of Romanticism, so recognized in both periods, was Adam Mickiewicz. Other two national poets were: Juliusz Słowacki and Zygmunt Krasiński. Polish writers and poets of the Romantic period include:

Positivism
In the aftermath of the failed January 1863 Uprising against Russian occupation, the new period of Polish Positivism—which took its name from Auguste Comte's philosophy of Positivism—advocated skepticism and the exercise of reason. Questions addressed by Poland's Positivist writers revolved around "organic work," which included the establishment of equal rights for all members of society, including feminists; the assimilation of Poland's Jewish minority; and the defense of the Polish population in the German-ruled part of Poland against Kulturkampf Germanization and the displacement of the Polish population by German settlers. The writers worked to educate the public about constructive patriotism, which would enable Polish society to function as a fully integrated "social organism", regardless of adverse circumstances. Poland's Positivist period lasted until the turn of the 20th century and the advent of the Young Poland movement. Prominent writers and poets of Polish Positivism included:

Young Poland (1890–1918)
The modernist period known as the Young Poland movement in visual arts, literature and music, came into being around 1890, and concluded with the Poland's return to independence (1918). The period was based on two concepts. Its early stage was characterized by a strong aesthetic opposition to the ideals of its own predecessor (promoting organic work in the face of foreign occupation). Artists following this early philosophy of Young Poland believed in decadence, symbolism, conflict between human values and civilization, and the existence of art for art's sake. Prominent authors who followed this trend included Kazimierz Przerwa-Tetmajer, Stanisław Przybyszewski and Jan Kasprowicz. The later ideology emerged in conjunction with the socio-political upheavals across Europe such as the 1905 Revolution against Nicholas II of Russia, the Norwegian independence, the Moroccan Crisis and others. It was a continuation of romanticism, often called neo-romanticism. The artists and writers following this idea covered a large variety of topics: from the sense of personal mission of a Pole exemplified by Stefan Żeromski's prose, through condemnation of social inequality in works by Władysław Reymont and Gabriela Zapolska, to criticism of Polish society and Polish revolutionary history by Stanisław Wyspiański. In 1905 Henryk Sienkiewicz received a Nobel Prize in literature for his patriotic Trilogy inspiring a new sense of hope. Writers of this period include:

Interbellum (1918–39)
Literature of the Second Polish Republic (1918–1939) encompasses a short, though exceptionally dynamic period in Polish literary consciousness. The socio-political reality has changed radically with Poland's return to independence. In large part, derivative of these changes was the collective and unobstructed development of programs for artists and writers. New avant-garde trends had emerged. The period, spanning just twenty years, was full of notable individualities who saw themselves as exponents of changing European civilization, including Tuwim, Witkacy, Gombrowicz, Miłosz, Dąbrowska and Nałkowska (PAL). They all contributed to a new model of the twentieth-century Polish culture echoing its own language of everyday life.

The two decades of Interbellum were marked by rapid development in the field of poetry, undivided and undiminished for the first time in over a century. From 1918 to 1939, the gradual and successive introduction of new ideas resulted in the formation of separate and distinct trends. The first decade of Polish interwar poetry was clear, constructive, and optimistic; as opposed to the second decade marked by dark visions of the impending war, internal conflicts within the Polish society, and growing pessimism. The whole period was amazingly rich nevertheless. In 1933 the Polish Academy of Literature (PAL) was founded by a decree of the Council of Ministers of the Republic (Rada Ministrów RP); as the highest opinion-forming authority in the country; it awarded Gold and the Silver Laurels (Złoty, and Srebrny Wawrzyn), the two highest national honors for contributions to literature until invasion of Poland in 1939. One of the most prominent poets of the interwar period was Bolesław Leśmian (member of PAL), whose creative personality developed before 1918, and in large part influenced both Interbellum decades (until his death in 1937). The literary life of his contemporaries revolved mostly around the issues of independence. All Polish poets treated the concept of freedom with extreme seriousness, and many patriotic works had emerged at that time, not to mention a particular variant of a poetic cult of Piłsudski.

World War II
In the years of German and Soviet occupation of Poland, all artistic life was dramatically compromised. Cultural institutions were lost. The environment was chaotic, and the writers scattered: some found themselves in concentration and labor camps (or Nazi-era ghettos), others were deported out of the country; some emigrated (Tuwim, Wierzyński), many more joined the ranks of the Polish underground resistance movement (Baczyński, Borowski, Gajcy). All literary outlets were forced to cease operation. Writers who remained at home began organizing literary life in conspiracy, including lectures, evenings of poetry, and secret meetings in the homes of writers and art facilitators. Polish cities where such meetings were held most frequently were: Warsaw, Kraków and Lwów. Writers participated in setting-up of the underground presses (out of 1,500 clandestine publications in Poland, about 200 were devoted to literature). Many fought in the Polish army in exile or resisted the Holocaust in a civil capacity. The generation of the Kolumbs, born around 1920, were active during the Warsaw uprising. Best-known representatives of the war years are:

1945–56
All texts published under Soviet rules were strictly censored. Much of Polish literature written during the Occupation of Poland appeared in print only after the conclusion of World War II, including books by Nałkowska, Rudnicki, Borowski and others. The Soviet takeover of the country did not discourage Émigrés and exiles from returning, especially before the advent of Stalinism. Indeed, many writers attempted to recreate the Polish literary scene, often with a touch of nostalgia for the prewar reality, including Jerzy Andrzejewski, author of Ashes and Diamonds, describing (according to Communist design) Anti-communist resistance in Poland. His novel was adapted into film a decade later by Wajda. The new emerging prose writers such as Stanisław Dygat and Stefan Kisielewski approached the catastrophe of war from their own perspective. Kazimierz Wyka coined a term "borderline novel" for documentary fiction.

The situation began to worsen dramatically around 1949–1950 with the introduction of the Stalinist doctrine by minister Sokorski, on behalf of the increasingly violent Communist regime, which engaged in gross violations of human rights. In the years 1944–1956, around 300,000 Polish citizens were arrested, of whom many thousands were sentenced to long-term imprisonment. There were 6,000 death sentences pronounced against political prisoners, the majority of them carried out "in the majesty of the law". Fearing for their proper jobs, many writers associated with the Borejsza's publishing empire embraced the Sovietization of Polish culture. In 1953 the ZLP Union, run by Kruczkowski with a slew of prominent signatories, declared full support to persecution of religious leaders by the Ministry of Public Security. Death sentences were not enforced, although Father Fudali died in unexplained circumstances,  as had 37 other priest and 54 friars already before 1953. Likewise, writer Kazimierz Moczarski from Armia Krajowa (the Home Army), tortured in jail by Romkowski's subordinates for several years and sentenced to death, was pardoned and released only at the end of this period.

Nobel laureates

 * Henryk Sienkiewicz (1905)
 * Władysław Reymont (1924)
 * Isaac Bashevis Singer (1978, Yiddish)
 * Czesław Miłosz (1980)
 * Wisława Szymborska (1996)
 * Olga Tokarczuk (2018, awarded 2019)

title: Polish literature