Talk:Warsaw Uprising/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Controversy section?

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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)
Image:03 Harcerska Poczta Polowa Zawiszacy.jpg|Boy-scouts acting as field post during the Uprising
Image:Harcerska Poczta Polowa Zawiszacy listonoszki.jpg|Girl-guides in the same role
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svgImage:PAST motopomp flame.jpg|Firemen's pump used by the Home Army soldiers as an improvised flamethrower during the siege of PAST building, in the early stages of the Warsaw Uprising. As the car was damaged, the fuel was pumped directly from its container.
Image:PAST smoke.JPG|PAST building burning during the Warsaw Uprising
Image:PAST smoke2.JPG|cont.
Image:PAST POWs.jpg|German POWs taken after the capitulation of the PAST building
Image:PAST POWs2.JPG|cont.
Image:PAST POWs3.JPG|cont.
Image:Defilade Jan 1945.jpg|Polish and Soviet parade on the ashes of Warsaw; January 17, 1945
From the archive of Eugeniusz Lokajski:
Image:Ant E Wolski Tolek byELokajski.jpg|Tomb of Antoni Wolski Tolek
Image:Lokajski 002.jpg|Home Army soldiers preparing for an assault
Image:Lokajski - Atak na Esplenadę (1944).jpg|Assault
Image:Lokajski - Niemieckie ulotki (1944).jpg|Polish soldiers reading a German leaflet during the Warsaw Uprising
Image:Lokajski - Poczta Główna (1944).jpg009|After the battle
How to incorporate all of those into the article? :) Halibutt 08:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Please add this one too. --Irpen 04:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kaczyński and war time losses of Warsaw 

message: *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 mm.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: #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)
thread_title:  Losses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia isnt doing so good, 

message: 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 | talk  13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

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

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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 | talk  01:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive 

message: 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 | talk  01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote moved 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I am sure we will be working on it!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR close 

message: 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 | talk  09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Scouts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repetition

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explaining the relationship between the Soviet Union and Poland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Films about the Uprising made in Communist Poland 

message: 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)
thread_title: -Featured?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add info on Wikipedia Main site

message: 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)
thread_title: Stalin was correct about this uprising