text:
Kościuszko Uprising

The Kościuszko Uprising, also known as the Polish Uprising of 1794, Second Polish War,  Polish Campaign of 1794,  and the Polish Revolution of 1794,  was an uprising against the Russian and Prussian influence on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, led by Tadeusz Kościuszko in Poland-Lithuania and the Prussian partition in 1794. It was a failed attempt to liberate the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth from external influence after the Second Partition of Poland (1793) and the creation of the Targowica Confederation.

Decline of the Commonwealth
By the early 18th century, the magnates of Poland and Lithuania controlled the state – or rather, they managed to ensure that no reforms would be carried out that might weaken their privileged status (the "Golden Freedoms"). Through the abuse of the liberum veto rule which enabled any deputy to paralyze the Sejm (Commonwealth's parliament) proceedings, deputies bribed by magnates or foreign powers or those simply content to believe they were living in an unprecedented "Golden Age", paralysed the Commonwealth's government for over a century.

The idea of reforming the Commonwealth gained traction starting from the mid-17th century. It was, however, viewed with suspicion not only by its magnates but also by neighboring countries, which were content with the deterioration of the Commonwealth and abhorred the thought of a resurgent and democratic power on their borders. With the Commonwealth Army reduced to around 16,000, it was easy for its neighbors to intervene directly (The Imperial Russian Army numbered 300,000; The Prussian Army and Imperial Austrian Army, 200,000 each).

Attempts at reform
A major opportunity for reform presented itself during the "Great Sejm" of 1788–92. Poland's neighbors were preoccupied with wars and unable to intervene forcibly in Polish affairs. Russia and Austria were engaged in hostilities with the Ottoman Empire (the Russo-Turkish War, 1787–1792 and the Austro-Turkish War, 1787–1791); the Russians also found themselves simultaneously fighting in the Russo-Swedish War, 1788–1790. A new alliance between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Prussia seemed to provide security against Russian intervention, and on 3 May 1791 the new constitution was read and adopted to overwhelming popular support.

With the wars between Turkey and Russia and Sweden and Russia having ended, Empress Catherine was furious over the adoption of the new constitution, which she believed threatened Russian influence in Poland. Russia had viewed Poland as a de facto protectorate. "The worst possible news has arrived from Warsaw: the Polish king has become almost sovereign" was the reaction of one of Russia's chief foreign policy authors, Alexander Bezborodko, when he learned of the new constitution. Prussia was also strongly opposed to the new constitution, and Polish diplomats received a note that the new constitution changed the Polish state so much that Prussia did not consider its obligations binding. Just like Russia, Prussia was concerned that the newly strengthened Polish state could become a threat and the Prussian foreign minister, Friedrich Wilhelm von Schulenburg-Kehnert, clearly and with rare candor told the Poles that Prussia did not support the constitution and refused to help the Commonwealth in any form, even as a mediator, as it was not in Prussia's state interest to see the Commonwealth strengthened as it could threaten Prussia in the future. The Prussian statesman Ewald von Hertzberg expressed the fears of European conservatives: "The Poles have given the coup de grâce to the Prussian monarchy by voting a constitution", elaborating that a strong Commonwealth would likely demand the return of the lands Prussia acquired in the First Partition.

Second Partition of Poland
The Constitution was not adopted without dissent in the Commonwealth itself, either. Magnates who had opposed the constitution draft from the start, namely Franciszek Ksawery Branicki, Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki, Seweryn Rzewuski, and Szymon and Józef Kossakowski, asked Tsaritsa Catherine to intervene and restore their privileges such as the Russian-guaranteed Cardinal Laws abolished under the new statute. To that end these magnates formed the Targowica Confederation. The Confederation's proclamation, prepared in St. Petersburg in January 1792, criticized the constitution for contributing to, in their own words, "contagion of democratic ideas" following "the fatal examples set in Paris". It asserted that "The parliament ... has broken all fundamental laws, swept away all liberties of the gentry and on the third of May 1791 turned into a revolution and a conspiracy." The Confederates declared an intention to overcome this revolution. We "can do nothing but turn trustingly to Tsarina Catherine, a distinguished and fair empress, our neighboring friend and ally", who "respects the nation's need for well-being and always offers it a helping hand", they wrote. The Confederates aligned with Catherine and asked her for military intervention. On 18 May 1792 the Russian ambassador to Poland, Yakov Bulgakov, delivered a declaration of war to Polish Foreign Minister Joachim Chreptowicz. Russian armies entered Poland and Lithuania on the same day, starting the Polish–Russian War of 1792. The war ended without any decisive battles, with a capitulation signed by Polish King Stanisław August Poniatowski, who hoped that a diplomatic compromise could be worked out.

King Poniatowski's hopes that the capitulation would allow an acceptable diplomatic solution to be worked out were soon dashed. With new deputies bribed or intimidated by the Russian troops, a new session of parliament, known as the Grodno Sejm, took place, in fall 1793. On 23 November 1793, it concluded its deliberations under duress, annulling the constitution and acceding to the Second Partition. Russia took 250000 km2, while Prussia took 58000 km2 of the Commonwealth's territory. This event reduced Poland's population to only one-third of what it was before the partitions began in 1772. The rump state was garrisoned by Russian troops and its independence was strongly curtailed. Such an outcome was a giant blow for the members of the Targowica Confederation, who saw their actions as a defense of the centuries-old privileges of the magnates, but now were regarded by the majority of the Polish population as traitors.

Growing unrest
The Polish military was widely dissatisfied with the capitulation, most commanders considering it premature; Tadeusz Kościuszko, Prince Józef Poniatowski and many others would criticize the king's decision and many, including Kościuszko, resigned their commission shortly afterward. After the Commonwealth defeat in that war and the rescinding of the Constitution, the Army was reduced to about 36,000. In 1794 Russians demanded a further downsizing of the army to 15,000. The dissent in the Polish Army was one of the sparks that would lead to the coming conflict.

The King's capitulation was a hard blow for Kościuszko, who had not lost a single battle in the campaign. By mid September he was resigned to leave the country, and he departed Warsaw in early October. Kościuszko settled in Leipzig, where many other notable Polish commanders and politicians formed an émigrée community. Soon he and some others began preparing an uprising against Russian rule in Poland. The politicians, grouped around Ignacy Potocki and Hugo Kołłątaj, sought contacts with similar opposition groups formed in Poland and by spring 1793 had been joined by other politicians and revolutionaries, including Ignacy Działyński. While Kołłątaj and others had begun planning for the uprising before meeting Kościuszko, his support was a major boon for them, as he was, at that time, among the most popular individuals in the entire Poland.

In August 1793 Kościuszko returned to Leipzig where he was met with demands to start planning for the uprising; however, he was worried that an uprising would have little chance against the three partitioners. In September he would clandestinely cross the Polish border to conduct personal observations, and to meet some sympathetic high-ranking officers in the remaining Polish Army, including general Józef Wodzicki. The preparations in Poland were slow and he decided to postpone the outbreak, and left for Italy, planning to return in February. However, the situation in Poland was changing rapidly. The Russian and Prussian governments forced Poland to again disband the majority of her armed forces and the reduced units were to be drafted into the Russian army. Also, in March the tsarist agents discovered the group of revolutionaries in Warsaw and started arresting notable Polish politicians and military commanders. Kościuszko was forced to execute his plan earlier than expected, and on 15 March 1794 he set off for Kraków.

On 12 March 1794, General Antoni Madaliński, the commander of 1st Greater Polish National Cavalry Brigade (1,500 men) decided to disobey the order to demobilise, advancing his troops from Ostrołęka to Kraków. This sparked an outbreak of riots against Russian forces throughout the country. The Russian garrison of Kraków was ordered to leave the city and confront Madalinski, which left Kraków completely undefended, but also foiled Kosciuszko's plan to seize their weapons.

Uprising
On 24 March 1794, Tadeusz Kościuszko, a veteran of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War, announced the general uprising in a speech in the Kraków town square and assumed the powers of the Commander in Chief of all of the Polish forces. He also vowed "not to use these powers to oppress any person, but to defend the integrity of the borders of Poland, regain the independence of the nation, and to strengthen universal liberties."

In order to strengthen the Polish forces, Kościuszko issued an act of mobilisation, requiring that every 5 houses in Lesser Poland delegate at least one able male soldier equipped with carbine, pike, or an axe. Kościuszko's Commission for Order in Kraków recruited all males between 18 and 28 years of age and passed an income tax. The difficulties with providing enough armament for the mobilised troops made Kościuszko form large units composed of peasants armed with scythes, called the "scythemen".

To destroy the still weak opposition, Russian Empress Catherine the Great ordered the corps of Major General Fiodor Denisov to attack Kraków. On 4 April both armies met near the village of Racławice. In what became known as the Battle of Racławice Kościuszko's forces defeated the technically superior opponent. After the bloody battle the Russian forces withdrew from the battlefield. Kościuszko's forces were too weak to start a successful pursuit and wipe the Russian forces out of Lesser Poland. Although the strategic importance of the victory was close to none, the news of the victory spread fast and soon other parts of Poland joined the ranks of the revolutionaries. By early April the Polish forces concentrated in the lands of Lublin and Volhynia, ready to be sent to Russia, joined the ranks of Kościuszko's forces.

On 17 April in Warsaw, the Russian attempt to arrest those suspected of supporting the insurrection and to disarm the weak Polish garrison of Warsaw under Gen. Stanisław Mokronowski by seizing the arsenal at Miodowa Street resulted in an uprising against the Russian garrison of Warsaw, led by Jan Kiliński, in the face of indecisiveness of the King of Poland, Stanisław II Augustus. The insurgents were aided by the incompetence of Russian ambassador and commander, Iosif Igelström, and the chosen day being the Thursday of Holy Week when many soldiers of the Russian garrison went to the churches for the Eucharist not carrying their arms. Finally, from the onset of the insurrection, the Polish forces were aided by the civilian population and had surprise on their side as they attacked many separate groups of soldiers at the same time and the resistance to Russian forces quickly spread over the city. After two days of heavy fighting the Russians, who suffered between 2,000 and 4,000 casualties out of an initial 5,000 strong garrison, were forced to leave the city. A similar uprising was started by Jakub Jasiński in Vilnius on 23 April and soon other cities and towns followed.

On 7 May 1794, Kościuszko issued an act that became known as the "Proclamation of Połaniec", in which he partially abolished serfdom in Poland, granted civil liberty to all peasants and provided them with state help against abuses by the nobility. Although the new law never fully came into being and was boycotted by much of the nobility, it also attracted many peasants to the ranks of the revolutionaries. It was the first time in Polish history that the peasants were officially regarded as part of the nation, the word being previously equivalent to nobility.

Despite the promise of reforms and quick recruitment of new forces, the strategic situation of the Polish forces, which consisted of 6,000 peasants, cavalry, and 9,000 soldiers, was still critical. On 10 May the forces of Prussia (17,500 soldiers under General Francis Favrat), crossed the Polish borders and joined the 9,000 Russian soldiers operating in northern Poland. On 6 June Kościuszko was defeated in the Battle of Szczekociny by a joint Russo-Prussian force and on 8 June General Józef Zajączek was defeated in the Battle of Chełm. Polish forces withdrew towards Warsaw and started to fortify the city under directions from Kosciuszko and his 16,000 soldiers, 18,000 peasants and 15,000 burghers. On 15 June the Prussian army captured Kraków unopposed. Warsaw was besieged by 41,000 Russians under General Ivan Fersen and 25,000 Prussians under King Frederick William II of Prussia on 13 July. On 20 August, an uprising in Greater Poland started and the Prussians were forced to withdraw their forces from Warsaw. The siege was lifted by 6 September when the Prussians and Russians had both withdrawn their troops.

Although the opposition in Lithuania was crushed by Russian forces (Vilnius was besieged and capitulated on 12 August), the uprising in Greater Poland achieved some success. A Polish corps under Jan Henryk Dąbrowski captured Bydgoszcz (2 October) and entered Pomerania almost unopposed. Thanks to the mobility of his forces, General Dąbrowski evaded being encircled by a much less mobile Prussian army and disrupted the Prussian lines, forcing the Prussians to withdraw most of their forces from central Poland. However, the Poles did not stay long in Prussian territories, and soon retreated to Central Poland.

Meanwhile, the Russians equipped a new corps commanded by General Aleksandr Suvorov and ordered it to join up with the corps under Ivan Fersen near Warsaw. After the Battle of Krupczyce (17 September) and the Battle of Terespol (19 September), the new army started its march towards Warsaw. Trying to prevent both Russian armies from joining up, Kościuszko mobilised two regiments from Warsaw and with General Sierakowski's 5,000 soldiers, engaged Fersen's force of 14,000 on 10 October in the Battle of Maciejowice. Kościuszko was wounded in the battle and was captured by the Russians, who sent him to Saint Petersburg.

The new commander of the uprising, Tomasz Wawrzecki, could not control the spreading internal struggles for power and ultimately became only the commander of weakened military forces, while the political power was held by General Józef Zajączek, who in turn had to struggle with both the leftist liberal Polish Jacobins and the rightist and monarchical nobility.

Suvorov's troops grew angry due to resistance and also due to tales of atrocities committed against Russian troops in the spring, leading to Suvorov's army to commit to an assault. On 4 November, the joint Russian forces started the Battle of Praga, after the name of the right-bank suburb of Warsaw where it took place. After four hours of brutal hand-to-hand fighting, the 22,000-strong Russian forces broke through the Polish defences and Suvorov allowed his Cossacks to loot and burn Warsaw. By one Russian estimate, approximately 20,000 were murdered in the Praga massacre; the number includes both military personnel and civilians. Zajaczek fled wounded, abandoning the Polish army.

On 16 November, near Radoszyce, Wawrzecki surrendered. This marked the end of the uprising. The power of Poland was broken and the following year the third partition of Poland took place, after which Austria, Russia and Prussia annexed the remainder of the country.

Aftermath
After the failure of the Kościuszko Uprising, Poland ceased to exist for 123 years, and all of its institutions were gradually banned by the partitioning powers. However, the uprising also marked the start of modern political thought in Poland and Central Europe. Kościuszko's Proclamation of Połaniec and the radical leftist Jacobins started the Polish leftist movement. Many prominent Polish politicians who were active during the uprising became the backbone of Polish politics, both at home and abroad, in the 19th century. Also, Prussia had much of its forces tied up in Poland and could not field enough forces to suppress the French Revolution, which added to its success and briefly restored a Polish state.

In the lands of partitioned Poland, the failure of the uprising meant economic catastrophe, as centuries-old economic markets became divided and separated from each other, resulting in the collapse of trade. Several banks fell and some of the few manufacturing centres established in the Commonwealth were closed. Reforms made by the reformers and Kosciuszko, aimed at easing serfdom, were revoked. All the partitioning powers heavily taxed their newly acquired lands, filling their treasuries at the expense of the local population.

The schooling system was also degraded as the schools in those territories were given low priority. The Commission of National Education, the world's first Ministry of Education, was abolished, because the absolutist governments of the partitioning powers saw no gain in investing in education in the territories inhabited by restless Polish minorities. The creation of educational institutions in the partitions became very difficult. For example, an attempt to create a university in Warsaw was opposed by the Prussian authorities. Further, in the German and Russian partitions, all remaining centers of learning were subject to Germanisation and Russification; only in territories acquired by Austria was there relatively little governmental intervention in the curriculum. According to S. I. Nikołajew, from the cultural point of view the partitions may have given a step forward towards the development of national Polish literature and arts, since the inhabitants of partitioned lands could acquire the cultural developments of German and Russian Enlightenment.

The conditions for the former Polish elite were particularly harsh in Russian partition. Thousands of Polish szlachta families who supported Kościuszo's uprising were stripped of their possessions and estates, which were awarded to Russian generals and favourites of the St. Petersburg court. It is estimated that 650,000 former Polish serfs were transferred to Russian officials in this manner. Some among the nobility, especially in Lithuanian and Ruthenian regions of the former Commonwealth, were expelled to southern Russia, where they were subject to Russification. Other nobles were denied their nobility status by Russian authorities, which meant loss of legal privileges and social status, significantly limiting any possibility of a career in administration or the military - the traditional career paths of Polish nobles. It also meant that they could not own any land, another blow to their former noble status. But for Orthodox Christian peasants of Western Ukraine and Belarus, the partition may have brought the decline of religious oppression by their formal lords, followers of Roman Catholicism.

However, Orthodox Christians were only a small minority in Eastern Belarus at that time; the prevailing majority of the country's population was Eastern rite Catholics. Peasants were flogged just for mentioning the name of Kościuszko and his idea of abolishing serfdom. Platon Zubov, who was awarded estates in Lithuania, was especially infamous, as he personally tortured to death many peasants who complained about worsening conditions. Besides this, the Russian authorities conducted heavy recruiting for the Russian army among the population, which meant a practically lifelong service. Since the conditions of serfdom in former Poland due to the exploitation by nobility and arendators were already severe, discussion exists on how partitions influenced the life of common people.

title: Kościuszko Uprising


text:
Philadelphia Museum of Art

The Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMoA) is an art museum originally chartered in 1876 for the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. The main museum building was completed in 1928 on Fairmount, a hill located at the northwest end of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway at Eakins Oval. The museum administers collections containing over 240,000 objects including major holdings of European, American and Asian origin. The various classes of artwork include sculpture, paintings, prints, drawings, photographs, armor, and decorative arts.

The Philadelphia Museum of Art administers several annexes including the Rodin Museum, also located on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, and the Ruth and Raymond G. Perelman Building, which is located across the street just north of the main building. The Perelman Building, which opened in 2007, houses more than 150,000 prints, drawings and photographs, 30,000 costume and textile pieces, and over 1,000 modern and contemporary design objects including furniture, ceramics, and glasswork.

The museum also administers the historic colonial-era houses of Mount Pleasant and Cedar Grove, both located in Fairmount Park. The main museum building and its annexes are owned by the City of Philadelphia and administered by a registered nonprofit corporation.

Several special exhibitions are held in the museum every year, including touring exhibitions arranged with other museums in the United States and abroad. The museum had 437,348 visitors in 2021.

Early years (1877–1900)
Philadelphia celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence with the Centennial Exposition in 1876. Memorial Hall, which contained the art gallery, was intended to outlast the Exposition and house a permanent museum. Following the example of London's South Kensington Museum, the new museum was to focus on applied art and science, and provide a school to train craftsmen in drawing, painting, modeling, and designing.

The Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art opened on May 10, 1877. The school became independent of the museum in 1964 and is now part of the University of the Arts. The museum's collection began with objects from the Exposition and gifts from the public impressed with the Exposition's ideals of good design and craftsmanship. European and Japanese fine and decorative art objects and books for the museum's library were among the first donations. The location outside of Center City, Philadelphia, however, was fairly distant from many of the city's inhabitants. Admission was charged until 1881, then was dropped until 1962.

Starting in 1882, Clara Jessup Moore donated a remarkable collection of antique furniture, enamels, carved ivory, jewelry, metalwork, glass, ceramics, books, textiles and paintings. The Countess de Brazza's lace collection was acquired in 1894 forming the nucleus of the lace collection. In 1892 Anna H. Wilstach bequeathed a large painting collection, including many American paintings, and an endowment of half a million dollars for additional purchases. Works by James Abbott McNeill Whistler and George Inness were purchased within a few years and Henry Ossawa Tanner's The Annunciation was bought in 1899.

Construction of the main building (1895–1933)
The City Council of Philadelphia funded a competition in 1895 to design a new museum building, but it was not until 1907 that plans were first made to construct it on Fairmount, a rocky hill topped by the city's main reservoir. The Fairmount Parkway (renamed Benjamin Franklin Parkway), a grand boulevard that cut diagonally across the grid of city streets, was designed to terminate at the foot of the hill. But there were conflicting views about whether to erect a single museum building, or a number of buildings to house individual collections.

Horace Trumbauer and Zantzinger, Borie and Medary, both architectural firms, collaborated for more than a decade to resolve these issues. The final design is mostly credited to two architects in Trumbauer's firm: Howell Lewis Shay for the building's plan and massing, and Julian Abele for the detail work and perspective drawings. In 1902, Abele had become the first African-American student to be graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Architecture, which is presently known as Penn's School of Design. Abele adapted classical Greek temple columns for the design of the museum entrances, and was responsible for the colors of both the building stone and the figures added to one of the pediments.

Construction of the main building began in 1919, when Mayor Thomas B. Smith laid the cornerstone in a Masonic ceremony. Because of shortages caused by World War I and other delays, the new building was not completed until 1928. The building was constructed with dolomite quarried in Minnesota. The wings were intentionally built first, to help assure the continued funding for the completion of the design. Once the building's exterior was completed, twenty second-floor galleries containing English and American art opened to the public on March 26, 1928, though a large amount of interior work was incomplete.

The building's eight pediments were intended to be adorned with sculpture groups. The only pediment that has been completed, Western Civilization (1933) by C. Paul Jennewein, colored by Leon V. Solon, features polychrome sculptures of painted terra-cotta figures depicting Greek deities and mythological figures. The sculpture group was awarded the Medal of Honor of the Architectural League of New York.

The building is also adorned by a collection of bronze griffins, which were later adopted as the symbol of the museum in the 1970s.

Membership program and growth (1928–1976)
In the early 1900s, the museum started an education program for the general public, as well as a membership program. Fiske Kimball was the museum director during the rapid growth of the mid- to late-1920s, which included one million visitors in 1928—the new building's first year. The museum enlarged its print collection in 1928 with about 5,000 Old Master prints and drawings from the gift of Charles M. Lea, including French, German, Italian, and Netherlandish engravings. Major exhibitions of the 1930s included works by Eakins, Manet, Renoir, Cézanne, van Gogh, and Degas.

In the 1940s, the museum's major gifts and acquisitions included the collections of John D. McIlhenny (Oriental carpets), George Grey Barnard (sculpture), and Alfred Stieglitz (photography).

Early modern art dominated the growth of the collections in the 1950s, with acquisitions of the Louise and Walter Arensberg and the A.E. Gallatin collections. The gift of Philadelphian Grace Kelly's wedding dress is perhaps the best known gift of the 1950s.

Extensive renovation of the building lasted from the 1960s through 1976. Major acquisitions included the Carroll S. Tyson, Jr. and Samuel S. White III and Vera White collections, 71 objects from designer Elsa Schiaparelli, and Marcel Duchamp's Étant donnés. In 1976 there were celebrations and special exhibitions for the centennial of the museum and the bicentennial of the nation. During the last three decades major acquisitions have included After the Bath by Edgar Degas and Fifty Days at Iliam by Cy Twombly.

Building expansion (2004–present)
Due to high attendance and overflowing collections, the museum announced in October 2006 that Frank Gehry would design a building expansion. The 80000 ft2 gallery will be built entirely underground behind the east entrance stairs and will not alter any of the museum's existing Greek revival facade. The construction was initially projected to last a decade and cost $500 million. It will increase the museum's available display space by sixty percent and house mostly contemporary sculpture, Asian art, and special exhibitions.

Uncertainty was cast on the plans by the 2008 death of Anne d'Harnoncourt, but new director Timothy Rub, who had initiated a $350 million expansion at the Cleveland Museum of Art, will be carrying out the plans as scheduled. In 2010, Gehry attended the groundbreaking for the second phase of the expansion, due to be completed in 2012. In that phase, a new art handling facility was created on the south side of the building, enabling the museum to reclaim a street level entrance, closed since the mid-1970s, which leads to a 640 ft-long vaulted walkway that extends across the museum and is original to the 1928 building. The north entrance will be reopened to the public as a part of the "core project", which is scheduled for completion in 2020. The core project also focuses on the interior of the current building and will add 90000 sqft of public space, including 11500 sqft of new gallery space for American art and contemporary art. In addition, a new space called the forum will be created, along with dining and retail spaces. Said Gehry: "When it's done, people coming to this museum will have an experience that's as big as Bilbao. It won't be apparent from the outside, but it will knock their socks off inside."

In March 2017, the museum announced a $525 million campaign. The core project is budgeted at $196 million and will be funded through the campaign. The museum also announced that more than 62 percent of the campaign goal has been met, as of March 30, 2017.

In March 2020, the museum was officially temporarily closed due to COVID-19 pandemic. All public events and programs were canceled until August 31, 2020. The museum reopened by late September 2020.

The most controversial part of the Gehry design remains a proposed window and amphitheater to be cut into the east entrance stairs. Others have criticized the design as too tame. The Gehry expansion is projected to be completed by 2028.

Collections
The Philadelphia Museum of Art houses more than 240,000 objects, highlighting the creative achievements of the Western world and those of Asia, in more than 200 galleries spanning 2,000 years. The museum's collections of Egyptian and Roman art, and Pre-Columbian works, were relocated to the Penn Museum after an exchange agreement was made whereby the museum houses the university's collection of Chinese porcelain.

Highlights of the Asian collections include paintings and sculpture from China, Japan, and India; furniture and decorative arts, including major collections of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean ceramics; a large and distinguished group of Persian and Turkish carpets; and rare and authentic architectural assemblages such as a Chinese palace hall, a Japanese teahouse, and a 16th-century Indian temple hall.

The European collections, dating from the medieval era to the present, encompass Italian and Flemish early-Renaissance masterworks; strong representations of later European paintings, including French Impressionism and Post-Impressionism; sculpture, with a special concentration in the works of Auguste Rodin; decorative arts; tapestries; furniture; the second-largest collection of arms and armor in the United States; and period rooms and architectural settings ranging from the facade of a medieval church in Burgundy to a superbly decorated English drawing room by Robert Adam.

The museum's American collections, surveying more than three centuries of painting, sculpture, and decorative arts, are among the finest in the United States, with outstanding strengths in 18th- and 19th-century Philadelphia furniture and silver, Pennsylvania German art, rural Pennsylvania furniture and ceramics, and the paintings of Thomas Eakins. The museum houses the most important Eakins collection in the world.

Modern artwork includes works by Pablo Picasso, Jean Metzinger, Antonio Rotta, Albert Gleizes, Marcel Duchamp, Salvador Dalí and Constantin Brâncuși, as well as American modernists. The expanding collection of contemporary art includes major works by Agnes Martin, Cy Twombly, Jasper Johns, and Sol LeWitt, among many others.

The museum houses encyclopedic holdings of costume and textiles, as well as prints, drawings, and photographs that are displayed in rotation for reasons of preservation.

The Carl Otto Kretzschmar von Kienbusch Collection
The museum also houses the armor collection of Carl Otto Kretzschmar von Kienbusch. The Von Kienbusch collection was bequeathed by the celebrated collector to the museum in 1976, the Bicentennial Anniversary of the American Revolution. The Von Kienbusch holdings are comprehensive and include European and Southwest Asian arms and armor spanning several centuries.

On May 30, 2000, the museum and the State Art Collections in Dresden, Germany (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden), announced an agreement for the return of five pieces of armor stolen from Dresden during World War II. In 1953, Von Kienbusch had unsuspectingly purchased the armor, which was part of his 1976 bequest. Von Kienbusch published catalogs of his collection, which eventually led Dresden authorities to bring the matter up with the museum.

Special exhibitions
The Philadelphia Museum of Art organizes several special exhibitions each year. Special exhibitions have featured Salvador Dalí in 2005, Paul Cézanne in 2009, Auguste Renoir in 2010, Vincent van Gogh in 2012, Pablo Picasso in 2014, John James Audubon and Andy Warhol (et al.) in 2016, Winslow Homer and John Singer Sargent in 2017, and the Duchamp siblings—Marcel, Gaston, Raymond and Suzanne—in 2019. A Jasper Johns exhibition is planned for 2021.

In 2009, the museum organized Bruce Nauman: Topological Gardens, the official United States entry at the 53rd International Art Exhibition, more commonly known as the Venice Biennale, for which the artist Bruce Nauman was awarded the Golden Lion.

Directors
The directors of the Philadelphia Museum of Art since its inception are:
 * Sasha Suda, 2022–Present
 * Timothy Rub, 2009–2022
 * Anne d'Harnoncourt, 1982–2008
 * Jean Sutherland Boggs, 1978–1982
 * Evan Hopkins Turner, 1964–1977
 * Arnold H. Jolles, 1977–1979 (acting)
 * Henri Gabriel Marceau, 1955–1964
 * Fiske Kimball, 1925–1955
 * Sr. Samuel W. Woodhouse, 1923–1925 (acting)
 * Langdon Warner, 1917–1923
 * Edwin Atlee Barber, 1907–1916
 * William Platt Pepper, 1899–1907
 * Dalton Dorr, 1892–1899
 * William W. Justice, 1879–1880
 * William Platt Pepper, 1877–1879

Board of trustees
Below is the list of chairs of the board of trustees of the museum since 1991.
 * Leslie A. Miller 2016–present
 * Constance H. Williams 2010–2016
 * Gerry Lenfest 2001–2009
 * Raymond Perlman 1991–2001

Looted art controversies
In December 2021, the heirs of Piet Mondrian filed a lawsuit against the museum for Composition with Blue, which the artist had consigned to Küppers-Lissitzky when it was seized by the Nazis. The same year, the museum announced that it would return an ancient 'Pageant Shield' looted by Nazis to the Czech Republic.

In popular culture
Besides being known for its architecture and collections, the Philadelphia Museum of Art has in recent decades become known due to the role it played in the Rocky filmsRocky (1976) and seven of its eight sequels, II, III, V, Rocky Balboa, Creed, Creed II, and Creed III. Visitors to the museum are often seen mimicking Rocky Balboa's (portrayed by Sylvester Stallone) famous run up the east entrance stairs, informally nicknamed the Rocky Steps. Screen Junkies named the museum's stairs the second most famous movie location behind only Grand Central Station in New York.

An 8.5 ft tall bronze statue of the Rocky Balboa character was commissioned in 1980 and placed at the top of the stairs in 1982 for the filming of Rocky III. After filming was complete, Stallone donated the statue to the city of Philadelphia. The Philadelphia Art Commission eventually decided to relocate the statue to the now-defunct Spectrum sports arena due to controversy over its prominent placement at the top of the museum's front stairs and questions about its artistic merit. The statue was placed briefly on top of the stairs again for the 1990 film Rocky V and then returned to the Spectrum. In 2006, the statue was relocated to a new display area on the north side of the base of the stairs.

The museum provides the backdrop for concerts and parades because of its location at the end of the Ben Franklin Parkway. The museum's east entrance area played host to the American venue of the international Live 8 concert held on July 2, 2005, with musical artists including Dave Matthews Band, Linkin Park and Maroon 5. The Philadelphia Freedom Concert, orchestrated and headlined by Elton John, was held two days later on the same outdoor stage from the Live 8 concert while a preceding ball was held inside the museum.

On September 26, 2015, the Festival of Families event, attended by Pope Francis, was held along the Ben Franklin Parkway with musical performances by various acts within Eakins Oval in front of the museum, as well as in Logan Square.

On April 27, 2017, the 2017 NFL Draft was held at the museum through April 29 of that year.

On February 8, 2018, the victory parade for the Philadelphia Eagles' win in Super Bowl LII finished upon the museum steps, where players and team personnel gave speeches from a lectern to the large crowd gathered along Ben Franklin Parkway.

It was featured on the finale of The Amazing Race 36.

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

title: Philadelphia Museum of Art


text:
A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square

"A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square" is a British romantic popular song written in 1939 and published in 1940, with lyrics by Eric Maschwitz and music by Manning Sherwin.

Setting
Berkeley Square is a large leafy square in Mayfair, a part of London. The Ritz Hotel referred to is just outside Mayfair, adjacent to Green Park. That certain night, the night we met,

There was magic abroad in the air,

There were angels dining at the Ritz

And a nightingale sang in Berkeley Square.

The nightingale, a migrant songbird, is celebrated in literature and music for the beauty of its song. It favours rural habitats, and is unlikely to be heard in Central London.

Composition
The song was written in the then-small French fishing village of Le Lavandou—now a favourite resort for British holidaymakers and second-home owners—shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. It is typically sung in the key of D-flat major by male vocalists such as Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra.

"When the Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square" is the title of a short story by Michael Arlen, published in 1923 as part of his collection These Charming People. According to Maschwitz, the title of the song was "stolen" from that of the story. The song had its first performance in the summer of 1939 in a local bar, where the melody was played on piano by Manning Sherwin with the help of the resident saxophonist. Maschwitz sang the words while holding a glass of wine, but nobody seemed impressed. In the spring of 2002, an attempt was made to find the bar where this song was first performed: it was hoped that a blue plaque could be set up. With the help of the local tourist office, elderly residents were questioned, but it proved impossible to identify the venue.

The verse and the additional lyrics to a second chorus were in the song as written, but are rarely sung in recordings (those of Bobby Darin, Mel Torme, Blossom Dearie, Twiggy, Vera Lynn and Rod Stewart being notable exceptions). Twiggy's version was featured in an episode ("Fran's Gotta Have It") of The Nanny.

The song was published in 1940, when it was first performed in the London revue New Faces by Judy Campbell (later the mother of Jane Birkin). In the same year it was also performed by both Ray Noble and then by Vera Lynn. The tune is a recurring theme in the Fritz Lang film Man Hunt (1941). It was notably sung by Elsie Carlisle, an English female singer active both before and during the British dance band era.

Recordings and performances
Early chart hits of the song in the US were by Glenn Miller, Ray Noble, Guy Lombardo and Sammy Kaye. The Glenn Miller recording (Bluebird 10931) with a Ray Eberle vocal was made in New York City on 11 October 1940. The fluttering clarinet that opens the track and no doubt is meant to suggest the sound of the nightingale began, it seems, with the Miller recording. The opening, using either a clarinet or flute, has been picked up by others including the Frank Sinatra recording. The record was first charted on 21 December 1940, peaking at No. 2.

The song has since become a standard, being recorded by Bing Crosby (recorded 20 December 1940), Frank Sinatra in London in June 1962, and Rod Stewart on the 2004 album Stardust: the Great American Songbook 3. It also appears on Vera Lynn's album 16 Most Requested Songs. Anita O'Day performed it on her 1956 album Anita, re-released in 1962 (V/V6-8483) as This is Anita; the song became part of the jazz singer's repertoire. Nat King Cole sang it on the 1961 album The Touch of Your Lips, Carmen McRae, Perry Como on his 1977 The Best of British album, Stephane Grappelli, Bobby Darin on the 1962 album Oh! Look at Me Now, British comedian Richard Digance in 1979 on both single and LP, Harry Connick Jr. on the 1990 album We Are in Love, The Brian Setzer Orchestra on their eponymous 1994 album, and Sonny Rollins on the 2000 album This Is What I Do. The folk singer and accordionist John Kirkpatrick (musician) included the song on his album Three in a Row released in 1983. A version by The Manhattan Transfer won a Grammy Award for Best Vocal Arrangement for Two or More Voices in 1982 for its arranger, Gene Puerling. A version was featured in an early Tom Hanks movie titled Everytime We Say Goodbye released in 1986. The British group the New Vaudeville Band wrote a highly distinctive version in 1966. The veteran British musician Ian Hunter, former vocalist for Mott the Hoople, regularly performs it in his concerts; and it has appeared on two at least of his live recordings. A performance of the song by British actor Robert Lindsay was used as the theme to the British situation comedy series Nightingales. Faryl Smith released a cover of the song on her debut album Faryl in 2009. The song was also sung in the episode "Captain Jack Harkness" on Torchwood. Lyrics from the song were also paraphrased in the 1990 novel Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett (the story features an angel and a demon having lunch together at the Ritz, for example), and Tori Amos recorded the song for the 2019 television adaptation. The song is referenced again in season two when Crowley tells Aziraphale there are "no nightingales" during their fight and separation at the end of the season. The lyrics are spoken and sung by the actor John Le Mesurier on the album What Is Going to Become of Us All?

On 10 July 2005 there was a national celebration of the 60th anniversary of the ending of World War II when the song was sung live to millions by Petula Clark in central London to an audience of veterans and politicians as part of the programme V45 Britain At War: A Nation Remembers.

On 9 May 2015 Katherine Jenkins sang the song at VE Day 70: A Party to Remember at Horse Guards Parade in London. In 2015, British comedian and TV host Alexander Armstrong performed it on his first album, A Year of Songs. On a 2015 bonus episode of the podcast My Brother, My Brother and Me ("The McElroy Family Fun Hour Brought to You by Totino's"), co-host Justin McElroy sang a parody entitled "A Pizza Roll Sang in Berkeley Square."

Also in 2019, the song was performed in an episode of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel by Darius de Haas.

The song features on Michael Bublé's 2022 album Higher.

title: A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square


text:
The Franklin's Tale

"The Franklin's Tale" (The Frankeleyns Tale) is one of The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. It focuses on issues of providence, truth, generosity and gentillesse in human relationships.

Synopsis
A medieval franklin was free, non-serf yet did not have noble status, and this pilgrim's words when interrupting the Squire are often seen as displaying his sense of an inferior social status.

The story opens and closes by recounting how two lovers, Arveragus and Dorigen, decide that their marriage should be one of equal partnership, although they agree that, in public, Arveragus should appear to have overall authority to preserve his high status. Arveragus then travels to Britain to seek honour and fame. He leaves Dorigen alone in France near the coastal town of Pedmark (today Penmarc'h) in Armorik (or Brittany as it is now known). She misses her husband terribly while he is gone, and is particularly concerned that his ship will be wrecked on the black rocks of Brittany as he returns home.

While Arveragus is absent, Dorigen is courted against her will by another suitor, a squire named Aurelius. Finally, to get rid of him and in a lighthearted mood, she makes a rash promise and tells Aurelius that he might have her love providing he can dispose of all the rocks on the coast of Brittany. Aurelius finally manages to secure the services of a magician-scholar of the arcane arts, who, taking pity on the young man, for the princely sum of a thousand pounds agrees "thurgh his magik" to make all the rocks "aweye" "for a wyke or tweye" (possibly by association with an exceptionally high tide).

When the "rokkes" vanish, Aurelius confronts Dorigen and demands that she fulfil her bargain. By this time Arveragus has returned safely. Dorigen lists numerous examples of legendary women who committed suicide to maintain their honour. Dorigen explains her moral predicament to her husband who calmly says that in good conscience she must go and keep her promise to Aurelius.

When Aurelius hears from a distraught Dorigen that Arveragus has told her to fulfil her promise, he releases Dorigen from her oath. The magician-scholar is so moved by Aurelius' story that he cancels the enormous debt that Aurelius owes him. The tale concludes with a demande d'amour, asking 'which was the mooste fre?' (1622) - who acted most nobly, or generously?

Background to the tale
While the Franklin claims in his prologue that his story is in the form of a Breton lai, it is actually based on two closely related tales by the Italian poet and author Boccaccio. These appear in Book 4 of Il Filocolo, 1336, and as the 5th tale on the 10th day of the Decameron. In both stories, a young knight is in love with a lady married to another knight. He persuades her to promise to satisfy his desire if he can create a flowering Maytime garden in winter, which he achieves with the help of a magician, but releases her from her rash promise when he learns that her husband has nobly approved her keeping it. In Chaucer's telling, the setting and style are radically altered. The relationship between the knight and his wife is explored, continuing the theme of marriage which runs through many of the pilgrims' tales. Although the Tale has a Breton setting, it differs from traditional 'Breton lais'. Whereas these mostly involved the fairy supernatural, here magic is presented as a learned business performed by clerks with university training. This is fitting for a writer like Chaucer who wrote a book (for his son Lewis) on the use of the astrolabe, was reported by Holinshed to be "a man so exquisitely learned in al sciences, that hys matche was not lightly founde anye where in those dayes" and was even considered one of the "secret masters" of alchemy.

While the idea of the magical disappearance of rocks has a variety of potential sources, there is no direct source for the rest of the story. The rocks possibly come from the legends of Merlin performing a similar feat, or might stem from an actual event that happened around the time of Chaucer's birth. In a recent paper, Olson et al. analyzed the Franklin's Tale in terms of medieval astronomy. He noted that on 19 December 1340 the sun and moon were each at their closest possible distance to earth while simultaneously the sun, moon and earth were in a linear alignment; a rare configuration which causes massive high tides. This configuration could be predicted using the astronomical tables and the types of calculations cited in the tale. The theme of the story, though, is less obscure—that of the "rash promise", in which an oath is made that the person does not envisage having to fulfil. The earliest examples of the "rash promise" motif are found in the Sanskrit stories of the Vetala as well as Bojardo's Orlando Innamorto and Don Juan Manuel's Tales of Count Lucanor. There are also rash promises in the Breton lays 'Sir Orfeo' and 'Sir Launfal', which Chaucer may have known.

Commentary
Gerald Morgan argues that the Franklin's Tale is organised around moral and philosophical ideas about the reality of Providence and hence of man's moral freedom, as well as the need for generosity in all human contracts. Morgan considers that Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and Boethius' De Consolatione Philosophiae were important influences on Chaucer in writing the Franklin's Tale. Hodgson likewise emphasises how in phraseology reminiscent of Boethius's De Consolatione Philosophiae, Dorigen ponders why a wise and benevolent God could create in "thise grisly feendly rokkes blake" means to destroy and to produce no good "but evere anoyen". D. W. Robertson considers that Arveragus comes across as "not much of a husband"; he exerts himself with many a labour and many a "great emprise" not for the sake of becoming virtuous, but to impress his lady and when he learns of her rash promise he advises her to go ahead and commit adultery, but only to keep quiet about it "up peyne of deeth." This sour view of Arveragus is disputed by Bowden, who refers to Arveragus' honest belief that "trouthe is the hyest thyng that man may kepe" so that he too may be called "a verray parfit gentil knyght". Gardner considers that the Franklin's Tale comes close to Chaucer's own philosophical position that all classes must be ruled by "patience".

On the theme in the Canterbury Tales about freedom and sovereignty in marriage, the Franklin's Tale arguably explores three successive acts of conscience or gentilesse springing from rich human generosity: by Dorigen's husband, her suitor and the magician who cancels the debt owed to him. Howard, however, considers it unlikely that the Franklin's Tale represents Chaucer's view on marriage, the Franklin being "not the sort of character to whom Chaucer would assign a tale meant to settle an issue". Helen Cooper writes that the absolutes considered in the tale are moral qualities (patience, fredom or generosity, gentillesse, trouthe): "Averagus comforts his wife, and then bursts into tears. He and the other men make their choices for good without privileged knowledge and out of free will: a free will that reflects the liberty given to Dorigen within her marriage. A happy ending requires not that God should unmake the rocks, but that a series of individuals should opt to yield up and give, rather than take." Darragh Greene argues that the Franklin's most distinctive characteristic, liberality, is essential to solving the ethical problem explored in his story; it is not law-based morality but the virtue ethics of living in accordance with the value system of gentillesse which secures such happiness as is possible in an imperfect world. Whittock considers that this tale represents, beyond the Franklin's own consciousness of it, a "fearful symmetry" in the universe; where acting from conscience on qualities of truth, generosity and gentillesse must shift from being a secular ethical attitude to one that represents man's grateful (but always imperfect) response to the bounty of a transcendent consciousness. A. C. Spearing writes that one of the important messages of the Franklin's Tale is that our vision of the right way to live, or how to do the right thing in problematic circumstances "does not come to us directly from God or conscience, but is mediated by internalised images of ourselves as judged by other human beings. The very terms we use to assess conduct (right, decent, mean, rotten, and so on) belong to languages we did not invent for ourselves, and their meanings are given by the communities to which we belong."

title: The Franklin's Tale


text:
Talk:Le Monde diplomatique

Untitled
I will complete the table of external links, it exists in seventeen languages in one form or another. Also, although it is probably somewhat true, to preserve NPOV I suggest changing that it is decidedly left-wing to that it is generally considered left-wing. OK? Just drop me a note if you disagree... Vintermann

--- 2003-12-16 (eldiplo.com/) I like this action, who make evidence that this "Wikipedia" can have false data, whitout anybody protest. ---

Sorry, fixed. -- Viajero 13:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question

 * Ad.1. The Polish version has about 70% of articles translated from French and ca 30% original Polish articles.--SylwiaS | talk 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
Could someone supply a source for the newspaper of record comment? It seems like there may be some confusion here between Le Monde and Le Monde Diplomatique. The latter seems to be more of an opinion newspaper rather than one containing articles which "establish a definitive record of current events, for use by future scholars". I'm commenting out the "newspaper of record bit, pending the citation. I apologize in advance if I have stepped on any toes here. elizmr 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think "newspaper of record" belongs, while I wouldn't agree that le Monde Diplomatique is an "opinion newspaper" (what's that, anyway?) it isn't a newspaper of record either but an analytical review focussing on a relatively small number of topics in depth in each issue. Palmiro | Talk 17:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Norway and 9/11
Those references does not really warrant "worldwide interest"?

 * I've removed the blogger links.--Jersey Devil 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)wtf mate

Exemplaries

 * "it was diffused at 5.000 exemplaries"

What does this mean? I don't think "exemplaries" is a word in English. The Wednesday Island 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 * "Exemplaires" is the French word meaning copies (of the newspaper produced). I believe "exemplaries" is a typo.
 * In any event, someone has fixed that problem by 2019. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

completely unattributed introduction
as far as I can see the introduction is as opinionated as the journal itself. Let me suggest instead:

Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper which emphasizes building up its readers and authors self-esteem by having a french name and pretending to publish scholarly articles that are in compliance with the readers radical left wing viewpoint. Most people see it as a snotty pseudo-academic commy propaganda journal. It is generally devoid of any neutral points of view.

Now some people may object to that description, albeit, its not that different from the present one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.127.236 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hernando Calvo Ospina
Hernando Calvo Ospina redirects here but he's not mentioned in the article. According to this story, reprinted here, he was on an assignment for Le Monde diplomatique when, simply because he was a passenger on an Air France plane, the plane was denied admission to U.S. airspace, and had to make a long detour to complete a Paris-to-Mexico-City flight. If that's his only connection with the publication, I don't know if it's worth including in this article, but perhaps he's taken other assignments and is worth mentioning so as to justify the redirect. JamesMLane t c 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I found this information from an anonymous source that doesn't meet WP:RS but provides some leads: "He is the author of Salsa, Havana Heat, Bronx Beat (Latin America Bureau, 1995) and co-author of The Cuban Exile Movement: Dissidents or Mercenaries? (Ocean Press, 2000). Bacardi: The Hidden War (2002) was first published in Spanish and has been translated into French, Dutch, German and Italian. It will soon be released in English (Pluto Press)." That makes me think that his connection with Le Monde diplomatique is minor and the redirect shouldn't go here. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I definitelly agree.  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Le Monde diplomatique. 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/20070107091414/http://diplo.uol.com.br/2006-12%2Ca1465 to http://diplo.uol.com.br/2006-12%2Ca1465

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) 20:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Le Monde diplomatique. 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/20130605085832/http://monde-diplomatique.by/index.php to http://monde-diplomatique.by/index.php
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090704232359/http://www.ilmanifesto.it/MondeDiplo/ to http://www.ilmanifesto.it/MondeDiplo/
 * Added tag to http://www.lemondediplomatique.com.mx/
 * Added tag to http://www.monde-diplomatique.ro/

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) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

BRD discussion - IPSA "paper"
I don't think the source referenced in this revert is reliable. It is a short abstract of a paper that seems to be unavailable in full. The abstract was written by what was then a PhD student who, even now, seems to have very few  publications with very little reception, and was published in 2006 at a fairly obscure conference. The paper seems to have not been cited by any other scholar. As such, it's at best an isolated opinion, and not strong enough for the unqualified claim that Le Monde diplomatique is "anti-capitalist". If that is indeed a widely-held opinion, it should be easily possible to find good sources for the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rational. --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Publication volume
As of 2019-04-05, the lede ended with "Worldwide there were 71 editions in 26 other languages (including 38 in print for a total of about 2.2 million copies and 33 electronic editions). "

However, I could not find anything in the link cited to support that claim. I started trying to fix this problem, including creating a Wikidata item:. Then I decided that this would not be enough and further decided I could not afford to spend more time on this. "https://mondediplo.com/about" seems to give current figures, but I don't like it, because it's liable to change any time. And (as I said) I don't feel I can afford the time required to fix this. Hopefully, someone else will. Le Monde diplomatique is one of my favorite news sources. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Neoliberal ideology of the left
What???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Le Monde diplomatique


text:
Talk:Warsaw Uprising/Archive 2

 * Old material has been moved to Talk:Warsaw Uprising/Archive1 the archive since it discussed an old update project. Mozzerati 19:19, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Controversy section?
A controversy section should be added, as some Poles consider the uprising a nonsense and useless act that led to destruction of the city. According to magazines such as Polityka, the Polish government in the UK knew very well that the uprising will fail - because the Russians would not help. In addition, some sources report that the Russians lacked heavy artillery (Im not sure if it is true). Anyway, a controversy section should definitely be included, as at least some people consider the uprising an act of treason that led to the destruction of the city and heavy losses of the educated people. Agameofchess (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources
I've been looking for sources online. I think that these could be valuable particularly for maps etc. some things

 * http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/4%20Article.htm

Copyright © London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association (Copying permitted with reference to source and authors)

Is that an acceptable license for Wikipedia? Reference has to be given anyway to track sources.

 * http://www.princeton.edu/~poland/uprising/

I've emailed the author to see about copyright status / permission. Some of the maps look good, though I'm not sure where they are from.

 * The author replied, we can use the materials, but they come from a Polish book from the 1970s. I'm not sure what that means for the coypright status.  Certainly, copies taken prior to the 1980s are probably out of copyright in the e.g. the US (since Poland wasn't signatory to copyright treaties at the time.)Mozzerati 07:19, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

"The Polish Underground State: A Guide to the Underground, 1939-1945" Stefan Korbonski, pages 187-193 according to internet sources there is a fair amount of analysis of Stalin's position on Warsaw.

 * The maps seem to be scanned from Jerzy Kirchmayer's book and as such are subject to copyright laws (Poland, contrary to the USSR, did sign the conventions and the book had several reprints lately). However, the maps on polishresistance-ak.org come from their own publication and could be used as fair use, with source cited.
 * As per Korboński's book, it's really great. Unfortunately I don't have it at home. Anyone? Halibutt 07:32, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Copy editing
Because of a suggestion in WP:FAC, I've been doing some small copy editing. More and better work could be done, but I've removed some over-wikification and cleaned up some verb tenses.

Some question always arise in ythis sort of edit. For instance, did the Allies really send missions to all the other resistance movements? The problem is whether to remove the "all" or change it to "all the other". Also, "At the same time the government asked ...several times" is unclear, since asking several times usually takes a while. A little clarification of the timing would be in order from someone who knows the data. Oh, and is it accurate that these other missions had already been dispatched at that time?

The Soviet propaganda "underlined" that the Home Army was, so to speak, sitting on its hands while the Red Army fought. Implicitly that sentence agrees that the Soviet claim was true. If that's not conceded, "claimed" would be better, but I can't assess the facts of the case. Dandrake 03:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * hi; thanks for your help. Please be aware of the page split (discussed just before).  it's appreciated if you can do most of the copy editing in the split pages (doing both is even better :-) since the main page should soon have many of it's longer sections replaced with summaries.  Best of all would be helping to move material around and, having checked that it's stored somewhere, summarising it in the main page.Mozzerati 06:45, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

 * I dont feel competent to work with the content or even the structure of the article, but I'm editing again, and will get to the split pages afterward. Question: In "Reasons for failure" it says "This is consistent with Soviet later treatment of many Home Army soldiers, who were usually imprisoned, tortured and executed." I'm fairly sure we want "frequently" rather than "usually"; the latter would mean that most or nearly all the soldiers were treated that way, while the text says that "many" were. But I don't know the facts. Dandrake 00:10, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Usually would would apply to "imprisoned". E.g. "on one single night in February 1949, up to 5000 people were arrested" (Norman Davies, English Paperback, P568). It would also apply to "tortured" where some form of torture was standard in any NKVD prison/prison camp/concentration camp/gulag as part of "interrogation".  The death rate in Gulags around this time was 80%, so I really wonder if, of those who were available to them, the NKVD didn't kill more than 50% of the AK soldiers they could access; (remember, many of the survivors survived because they were liberated in the west of Germany and were never available for the Soviet forces to kill).  Still I can't find any more exact reference to clear that up.  We should try to find some statistics.  You should remember that, actually the concentration camps were NOT closed at the end of the war.  They were used for Nazi and AK prisoners (sometimes more or less together).

and also the fate of civilans

Suggestions for forther work
I think that some new articles could be useful:
 * Civilians in the Warsaw Uprising covering in much more detail what happened to civilians, how massacres made them support the uprising, what they did to supported the uprising, what happened to them afterwards. The statement that 700,000 went to concentration camps is probably wrong since Norman Davies states that many were released into the countryside.  How many, exactly, were killed in concentration camps and how many used for slave labour is an important question showing the level to which the Germans kept their promises.
 * Political Manoeuvring around the Warsaw Uprising covering exactly how the American and British politicians reacted to requests for help and how Soviet politicians managed to block this.

Also important is to add material about the way newspapers, especially in Britain, represented the uprising and how that was linked to Soviet propaganda.

Mozzerati 19:19, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) (actually taken from an old comment)

Soviets stopping??
This was added recently:

 * It is also worth mentioning that due to the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviets stopped their offensive in Poland to let the Germans suppress the uprising. Some historians speculate that if they hadn't done so, they would have occupied all Germany rather than the eastern part only.

First important point, this should be attributed. Please name at least one of "some historians", preferably a well respected one.

I think there's a valid point there in that the Soviets, with Polish support, were in a very reasonable situation to end the War earlier since they were extremely well equipped and armed, so moving forward, in an easy fasiion, would have been likely to let them take more territory before the Germans had had a chance to regroup and destroy large portions of the local German forces. However, there are two other sides to this; it is likely that Stalin had already accepted an agreed division of Germany with the other Allies and as such, he didn't want to expend effort on taking parts of the country that he might have to give back (at this time, the Soviet war effort had a very high level of American funding and supplies, meaning that the Soviets/Stalin had to take into account issues America felt strongly about, one of which was not Poland). The other part of the second side is that the Warsaw uprising gave Stalin the protection from a counter attack that he needed in order to be able to concentrate on the Balkans where "facts on the ground" were likely to matter more than in Germany. Note the American's lack of support in attacks on the East of Germany because "this would be in the German sphere of influence" (quote from memory, so inaccurate).

I propose a more full section be added to the legacy article which discusses speculation on the effect of the Warsaw uprising on the war. It's impossible to be historical in this case and we can only document the points of view of different experts. Mozzerati 06:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

 * Okay, lets make one thing clear: Soviets did not stop, they were stopped by Germans. Red Army had overextended its logistic base (they had been advancing constantly since beginning of Bagration) and when they approached Warsaw, they were thrown back by German counterattack which included 4 Panzer divisions. Soviet vanguard took 90% casualties, and they were forced to withdraw almost 100km. It was only later when they were able to advance to east bank of the river. The article does not contain these events, and gives incomplete picture of Soviet actions and situation at the time. It gives an impression that Soviets could have broke through German defences had they wanted, but this is unsupportable, and that it was done in January 1945 (with fresh, reinforced forces and extensive preparations) has no relevance in that discussion. It is unquestionable that there were political motivations - Stalin wanted to consolidate his position in rest of the Eastern Europe before finishing off the Germans, and of course he probably felt little sympathy towards Polish Home Army anyway. However, although the Soviets could have certainly done more to help the Home Army, it is questionable whether they could have taken the city. --Mikoyan21 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here we have Mikoyan with his usual Soviet apologetics (and no reference to his figures). As for a historian needed, I would quote professor Wojciech Roszkowski :
 * The Warsaw Rising broke out on August 1, 1944. The Soviet troops halted their offensive and watched the slow defeat of the rising. What's more, Stalin did not allow British aircraft, coming to Warsaw with supplies, to land on airfields behind the front, less than a hundred kilometers away from the capital. Aircraft coming as far as Italy had to return home without landing. The Western allies practically accepted the Soviet monopoly on the Eastern front, and their support was negligible.

source: 'The Days of Freedom. On the 60th Anniversary of the Warsaw Rising.' (A booklet published and delivered by the 'Warsaw Rising Museum') Constanz 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Note, that the uprising lasted THREE MONTHS. I think it is sensible that indeed Soviets were stopped in first month; but they then waited for THREE MONTHS, while not allowing western allies to use their airports to carry the materials for the insurgents. Szopen 10:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Quick correction. As the Uprising started on August 1st and ended on October 2nd, it lasted 2 months (63 days), not 3. Balcer 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's good that some interest in this article is reawakening after a long slumber.  Actually, I have extended the discussion of the Soviet role in the subsection Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising.  I welcome any comments.

 * As for the Battle of Radzymin (1944) (we already have an article on it!), it was not a great setback. A Soviet Tank Army racing far ahead of the main body was surprised by a German counterattack and got severely mauled.  However, a single Tank Army was only a small fraction of the total fighting power of the Red Army at the time.  This local defeat certainly did not impede the Red Army from advancing within a dozen kilometers of the Warsaw city center by August 1st, 1944. Balcer 05:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental point is this: regardless of Stalin's intentions, were the Germans able to put up resistance to the Soviet advance? Obviously they were. Would the Germans want to prevent a Soviet advance on Berlin? Clearly. If so, where would they try to stop this advance? The Vistula. Once the Red Army crossed the Vistula, Germany's defence had entered a desperate phase. If they couldn't stop the Red Army taking Warsaw, they couldn't stop it taking Berlin. We know now the German armies were destined for defeat, but at the time this wasn't a given, and the German high command certainly wasn't going to go down without a fight. Subsequently there has been a long-term campaign (starting with Churchill if not earlier) to make out that the Red Army's halt at the Vistula was purely reflective of Stalin's plan to take over Poland and that the German military had nothing to do with it. This clearly has no rational basis.--Jack Upland 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you are asking a wrong question. Nobody is denying that Germans were trying to hold on to Warsaw and stop Soviets from crossing the river. The question is: Could the Soviets have attacked earlier and done more to aid the Uprising?. And the answer is pretty clear: they could have done more but didn't. For Soviets there was much to gain by doing nothing: a few weeks respite allowed them to strenghten their forces on the front (logistics, etc.) and ensured that the Soviet main contender for control over Poland (i.e. the Poles of Armia Krajowa) would bleed to death and that Operation Tempest biggest gamble would be a spectacular failure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. However, I think that distinction should be made between "doing more" and "successfully doing more" ie. could Soviets really have gained a major breakthrough had they co-operated with Home Army? In the view of the events and forces involved, I don't think that is all that likely. It is true that one Tank Army did not represent major part of total strength of Red Army, but the real question is, how much the setback affected to balance within that threatre of operation, and it that light, its' signifance is considerably greater. One should also ask, if crossing Vistula and capturing Warsaw would have been so easy for Soviets, why they didn't do it once Home Army capitulated? Instead, Warsaw was taken only next year with completely new offensive.--Mikoyan21 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see your point about "succesfully doing more," but the fact is that succesful or no, they could most certainly have DONE MORE! Sure, the tank battle in Radzymin did hurt the Russians, but it is akin to General McClellan retreating from the outnumbered and outgunned defenders of Richmond at Seven Day's because he lost some men. Even if Radzymin delayed a supposed Soviet plan to invade Warsaw, it would likely included "rear guarding operations" against the AK for "lost or destoryed supplies" that either did not exist or would "mysteriously turn up" right back in the Red Army supply piles. He wanted Poland and he was MORE than willing to kill anybody who would stand in his way. Why not, he killed anyone who opposed hime anywhere else. Yes, I do believe that the Soviets were exhausted and I can understand a week or so rest time, but these guys did NOT fight in Bagraton, the advance the had participated in was quite a bit shorter than Bagraton. And the Soviets claimed that there were four armoured divisions, one of which was SS and the other the dreaded Herman Goering Division, when in reality the massive Soviet force was facing the 73rd infantry Division, which was GROSSLY understrength, and without ANY help whatsoever. This situation is akin to having around 100 armed men facing off with a Mariachi Band. An UNDERSTRENGTH Mariachi Band. And that is not as big an exageration as you may think. Now as for the Western Allied Airlifts, war is tragic and inevitably, mistakes shall be made, and one or two of the Allied planes shot at could be attributed to that, BUT GIVEN THAT THE RUSSIANS ACTUALLY DOWNED MORE ALLIED PLANES THAN THE GERMANS, SOME OF WHICH WERE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT leaves one a leetle (intentional misspelling) bit more uncertain as to the cause. Even if one goes to all lengths to excuse some of the Soviet activities that could have an excuse, no matter how flimsy, one still must concede that the Soviets did several things hurtful to the rebels that cannot be so easily explained away. ELV

Somehow, the 5th German panzer division, the 3d SS Totenkopf was forgotten, so now we have only 4 panzer divisions facing the Russians. I blame Stalin only for irresponsible attack with insufficient force and no reserves, which resulted in destruction of the tank corps. He really-I mean, really- had to sit there and wait. Begletz 04:54, 2 February 2007

If resistance forces wanted/expected help (as is implied when it is said that they are started because Soviet troops were near) then they would've consulted with Stalin or somebody else in Soviet command. This is a rather obvious thing to do, Churchill and Roosevelt did it before D-Day. I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that Soviet troops were not overstretched and could continue to fight. This situation is not much different then early 1945 when Soviet troops were in a striking distance to a Berlin but had to run around for a long time to secure their flanks and to stop possible counter-attacks. And trust me in 1945 they wanted to take Berlin and finish the war. The actual size of German forces in Warsaw is actually irrelevant. Nobody knows with 100% certainty location of enemy troops during a battle. Soviet commands had to do what they had to do to win the war. Sometimes it means you have to be cautious. Do you really think that rushing in the battle is the right thing to do, just after you lost a tank army in an ambush? If so, you are not alone, Soviet command thought the same in 1941, but after huge loses they learned better… But seriously with your logic you can assume that with all that forces Soviets could just walk to Berlin in a few weeks (I mean if they could take Warsaw without reinforcement, why stop there, let’s just keep on going, right?) I am not sure which examples of Soviet troops shutting down English planes you are talking about, but I am sure there were some. Friendly fire is part of the war (and still is, look at Iraq/Afghanistan wars for examples) and unless you have some evidence to contrary I would assume that this is what you talking about. The only thing that you can say is that they did not want to consult with Stalin, but that’s a complete stupidity on the part of resistance. Have they talked to Stalin and waited a little, Poland would probably go through the same history as it did anyway, but today’s free Poland would had children of these people who needlessly lost their lives during the resistance. Looking at the picture of Mały Powstaniec (Little partisan) I can’t believe that children that young had to die for somebody’s ego. Poor guy.

P.S ELV I think you are constantly mixing Russian and Soviets, Stalin (or Beria who was NKVD chief) was not Russian leader; he was Soviet leader and so on, they were not born in Russia nor were they Russian by nationality. In top level positions there were relative few Russians. [VicTalk]

Not attacking is one thing - refusing the allied planes to land in Soviet territory or shooting to allied planes which carried help for insurgents is quite an another thing. Szopen 08:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixup caption
How do we fix the formatting of the following caption: "During the Uprising much of Długa street was reduced to ruins. The Bank Polski redoubt can be seen to be one of the few buildings in the street still standing in the 1944 photograph shown here on the left. The image on the right shows the bank still bearing the scars of the Uprising in 2004"? The spacing is all wrong and the font-face appears to be courier... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * hmm looks reasonable to me on both Konqueror and Mozilla; It comes out with a proportional (though quite small) font, the same one as the body text.  The main bad thing is the lack of a proper margin. Mozzerati 17:11, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

 * Improved, though a perfect solution would use the appriopriate CSS classes, rather than putting the CSS in the article. Richard Taylor 01:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Additional Resources
Good original source material for this article should also include General Bor-Komorowski's own account--"The Secret Army" The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951. Another good first hand account of Polish Resistance in WWII is "The Story of a Secret State" by Jan Karski, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1944.

After the war General Bor-Komorowski was a very angry and hurt man--he felt betrayed by the Western Allies. In his own words...

"But it was entirely incomprehensible to us why the Allies were giving up to slavery and partition their most faithful and oldest ally of the war.

Their decision erased and tore to bits all the principles of the Atlantic Charter and allowed brute force and violence to be inflicted on Poland--the 'inspiration of nations'--and to prevail over right and justice. Poland was to give up 46 percent of its pre-war territories, while a clique of usurpers and Kremlin agents, 'supplemented' by 'members of other parties' in a manner devoid of any practical effect or meaning were to be imposed on the nation as a government by the three signatories of the Yalta Pact. Moreover, these decisions were made with complete disregard for the existence of the body of legal Polish authorities, as well as of the wishes of the nation itself.

It was clear to us that Yalta was-tantamount to blotting out our country's independence. This blow, so heavy and unexpected, shook us to the core."

Get his book. It is a great read and brings to life the story related in the main article.

Quotes
It appears my quote section has been lost in all the recent changes. Where do you think it should be moved then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * before the Uprising:

 * More then 1,000 members of German Ordnungspolizei and Sicherheitspolizei had died in the course of their normal police duties, this does not include the losses during the participation of any special operations. Alongside those losses, the number of 500 casualties among the various officials of all administration sectors deserves a separate mention - from the speech of Hans Frank on 18 November 1943

 * first section of main article

 * If not for Warsaw in the General Government, we wouldn't have 4/5 of our current problems on that territory. Warsaw was and will be the center or chaos and a place from which opposition spreads throughout the rest of the country - Hans Frank in 14 December 1943, Cracow

 * first section of main article

 * during the uprising

 * Contrary to our expectations, the enemy has halted all of their offensive actions alongside the entire front of the 9th Army. - from the operations journal of German 9th Army on 16 August 1944, entry shows the German amazement with Russian response to the Warsaw Uprising

 * added into lack of support article.

 * The 9th Army has crushed the final resistance in the southern Vistula circle. The insurgents fought to the very last bullet. - from the German report on 23 September (T 4924/44)

 * this is the only one which seems to be still missing; It should go in the middle of the battle, but in the right section; not sure which Mozzerati 21:19, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

 * after the uprising

 * one the most deadly fights since the beginning of the war, as difficult as the fight for Stalingrad - Heinrich Himmler to other German generals on 21 IX 1944

 * this is in the caputulation section

I distributed them through the article(s) (preserving them all, I hope). I think that they have the most effect backing up the statements which they are related to and that having a separate quotes section tends to expand the article too much. If there should be such a section, it should probably be in the article about the media and should discuss also places where these quotes have been used. Mozzerati 20:25, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

 * I dont mind them being distributed in the text, but I think all but the first 2 have been since edited out. Do you think we should put them back in the text? The 'during the uprising' first quote belong in 'Lack of outside support' section, second is for the middle of the 'Batt'e and 'after the uprising' can be put either at the very start or somewhere after 'The capitulation'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I've tried to check them. There's only one I wasn't able to put in place (see above) Mozzerati 21:20, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Categories
Category:Warsaw Uprising is itself a sub-category of Category:Polish history (click on Category:Warsaw Uprising to see this), so it is redundant to have Category:Polish history on this page (it also self-understood that Category:Warsaw Uprising should be expected to be a sub-category of Category:Polish history). This should explain why Category:Polish history is not needed on this page. IZAK 09:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, sounds reasonable to me now. What about Category:World War II campaigns and theatres - you removed this before once. Why - and did you change your mind now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More pics
I uploaded some pics from the Polish wiki, I think they might be useful here. You can check them in the Szare Szeregi article. Halibutt 12:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Kaczyński and war time losses of Warsaw
I reworded the comment about Kaczyński sticking to Deutsche Welle. However, I don't really think that its place is here. The losses are fact related to Warsaw Uprising. Kaczyński's presidency is not. So it should be rather placed in the article about Kaczyński. Also, I don't understand German, so I removed the other sources, but if they mention the war losses as well, I have no objections to put them back. If they mention only German opinion about Kaczyński, like the BBC one, then again, it should be put in the article about Kaczyński, not here. I wrote there that the critique made by Mocek was wider than that, because in all Polish sources I found the war losses are not mentioned, while some other elements of Kaczyński's campaign are criticized by Mocek. Clearly Mocek is critical about the new president in general. Please, write your comments here if you disagree.--SylwiaS | talk 16:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We should leave the information how much damage the Geramns inflicted according to estimates.The information on reaction to this information by German media is more fitting in articles on President Kaczynski and German-Polish relations. --Molobo 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this section doing here? "Silesia" is going to file a claim against Germany for destruction inflicted by Germany? Hello, but Silesia was German until the end of WWII so how can Germany be sent a bill for destruction inflicted on its homeland? Is the idea that the Germans should have repaired everything in Breslau, etc. before they were expelled? I suppose the same applies to Stettin? Perhaps in that case the Soviets should bill Poland since the Warsaw Uprising destroyed so much property that could have been useful to them! And most important of wall, what has Silesia, etc. have to do with an article about the Warsaw Uprising?Bdell555 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example,  ==The Biography==  would be changed to  ==Biography== .

 * Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
 * You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
 * Thanks, Andy t 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Losses

 * 1) s of troops:

Ok, I can see that the Germans may have had 25,000 troops in the city at the beginning of the Uprising, but that they used only those to subdue the rebels is just idiotic. When Berlin got word of the AK's Revolt, they pulled out all the stops: SS, FJ, Engineers, Luftwaffe, Heavy Armor, most of which were vets. They VASTLY outnumbered the Home Army. I am changing it. ELV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.158.221 (talk • contribs).

German strength 25,000 German losses 26,000

Am I missing here something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.13.8.14 (talk • contribs).
 * You are missing German reinforcements. From the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger article - "The regiment arriving in Warsaw numbered 881 men and officers, and during the battle they received reinforcements of 2,500 soldiers, losing 2,733 in progress, and leaving only 648. Casaulties in the battle reached 315%" Mieciu K 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt doing so good,
If this article is one of the best of the service. Cause its full of nonsense, from the names of the units, numbers of troops commited by each side, the names of the weapons ie whats listed as machine pistol is actually numbers of submachine guns and also the loses and type of personel lost of each side. I suggest somebody that actually knows something about the subject rewrites the whole article as now its nothing more than ultra nationalist polish chest beating with little or no connection to what actually went down, but so is for most of the knowledge you get from todays tv documentaries and internet from where sure the authors got their "info".

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

 * Note that Sub-machine gun and machine pistol are pretty much the same thing. It all depends on the terminology one prefers. In both Polish and German MP is simply a synonym to SMG.  // Halibutt 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Update needed
As can be seen from comments above, this article is overdue for a rehaul. Today it would not qualify for a GA class, not to even mention FA class. The first major issue is adding inline references; a good copyedit would not hurt neither.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FA status
an FA article with stub sections?? Might be time to call WP:FAR. nadav 05:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvement drive
In accordance with the recent FAR procedure, me and Piotrus decided to improve this article to modern FA standards. It's apparent that, while a decent article back in 2005, in 2007 this article would not pass all the tests. In-line citations, sources, text flow, sub-articles... there's plenty of work to do and we'd really appreciate some help from you. In order to coordinate all efforts I'll add a todo template to the top of this page shortly. Feel free to comment - and join us in the tedious task of improving this article.  // Halibutt 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fact spamming is pointless. Every sentence needs an inline cit, if I fact spammed it it would look ugly to casual readers. I have begun adding refs, we should concentrate on that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote moved
I just don't see a good place for it. It describes German losses prior to the uprising, but we have a nicer quote in Eve and it doesn't really fit the opposing forces. It should be moved to Wikiquote I think... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

More than 1,000 members of German Ordnungspolizei and Sicherheitspolizei have died in the course of their normal police duties; this does not include the losses during participation in any special operations. Alongside those losses, the number of 500 casualties among the various officials of all administration sectors deserves a separate mention.

FAR close
I closed this a "default keep" on FAR. It had been nominated at the end of April (!) and had to go off the page one way or another. Much work has been done and I assume people will finish the remainder of the to-do list. Marskell 08:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am sure we will be working on it!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Boy Scouts
What became of the picture of the three boy scouts that used to be in this article?
 * Don't know but I restored it, we have ample space for that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Repetition
Sorry I can't be of more help here. This article is obviously hotly debated and I don't know anything relevent. It seems to contain a few bits of repetition. The most notable one to me is the quotation: "I do not consider it advantageous to the long-range general war prospect for me to join you in the proposed message to Uncle Joe." from T. Roosevelt which appears twice. IceDragon64 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the relationship between the Soviet Union and Poland
The section about Soviet (non) involvement is incredibly long and repetitive, and doesn't really organize the opposing viewpoints well. I think part of this problem comes from the tone, which seems to imply that the Soviet Union in some capacity "betrayed" Poland. There's this weird and unsupportable undercurrent in a lot of articles related to this that seem to assume "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is some sort of natural law, when a lot of historical evidence suggests that many states felt (correctly) that the enemy of my enemy is probably just another enemy.

The historical enmity between the Poles and the Russians (Soviet-Polish war, anyone?) expressed itself throughout the 20's and 30's, and continued in the lead up to the war and during the war. The Soviets tried to stopped the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, whereas Poland actively participated and grabbed some territory, Then in 1939, the Russians split Poland with Germany, and then the massacre of the Polish officers, and so on. It seems somewhat obvious that the Polish Home Army and the Red Army were enemies working at cross purposes, in the same way that the Yugoslav partisans and Chetniks were enemies, and we should explain this dynamic to casual readers.

What might be useful to do is divide the behavior of the Soviets into three sections: one describing the historical relationship, one arguing (proving?) that the soviets refused to assist, and then some rebuttals, counter-arguments, and alternative explanations for why they didn't cross the river. I think this could be done without a separate article examining the lack of outside assistance, which in practice is just a POV fork for talking about what ratfinks the Soviets were. Detruncate (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Films about the Uprising made in Communist Poland
My own knowledge of the uprising initially came about due to a Polish film 'Kanal' made in 1956 and directed by Andrzej Wajda. It certainly impressed in terms of the horror of the siege and the bravery of the Home Army soldiers, although it didn't glorify war at all, being part of Wajda's anti-war Three War Films trilogy. The uprising was also referenced in the third of the trilogy - 'Ashes and Diamonds' 1958. My impression as a young and idealistic student seeing these films in the 1960s was that it really brought home the serious resistance that the Home Army put up, with the inevitable human fallout arising from such an horrific battle. Although the films were produced in post-war communist Poland, they packed no punches, and demonstrate that although there was censorship, the message about the Warsaw Uprising was effectively getting through to cinema audiences at least. Stuartsh (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC) I think that Schwere Gustaw can not fire in Warsaw Uppraising becaue of amount of time necessary to mount the gun it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6rser_Karl)Morser_Karl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.87 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

-Featured?
This article has a few fact tags, and could really do with more references and a copyedit. That would probably be appropriate since it doesn't seem like its changed much since its FAR review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I came across the Military description of the Warsaw Uprising article as part of the WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 drive. I'm not sure why there is a need for a "Military Description" of the Warsaw Uprising. It is one subject and I think the information should be in one article. --dashiellx (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not agree. I see beter organization in separation: brief description in article Warsaw Uprising and large elaborate in article Military description of the Warsaw Uprising. --Cinik (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Add info on Wikipedia Main site
Would be great if information about uprising was add to main site in first August. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.234.20 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin was correct about this uprising
Please, I'm not a marxist or a stalinist.Even so, I must agree with the Stalin's opinion about this uprising:a bloodfull failure did by a group of men, looking for power.Even if Stalin would, he couldn't support this uprising.More poles were killed by this unresponsable uprising than the number of japaneses killed by two atomic bombs in 1945.The bombing of Dresden killed less germans than this unresponsable uprising killed poles.Looking for power and glory, these men doomed the AK forever and make the dominion of Poland by marxism even more easy.Agre22 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)agre22

title: Talk:Warsaw Uprising/Archive 2