Talk:Tadeusz Kościuszko

Religious views
Why is Kościuszko categorized as "Polish Roman Catholic"? This is an absurd as he was known for his anticlericalism and fierce criticism of Catholic Church and organized religion as such. E.g: https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/kosciuszko-o-religii/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.75.116 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Done with Storozynski, need language copy editing before GA
I am done expanding this article with Storozynski. At this point the article could use a language copyediting by a native speaker of English before we can submit it for a Good Article. Any volunteers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the really late reply, but I would be honoured to copyedit as a member of the guild of copyeditors. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality check
This article (including talk page) has been significantly altered in recent months by sockmaster User:Danton's Jacobin operating several abusive sock-puppet accounts including just confirmed User:Guitar hero on the roof blocked on 18 January 2013 by AGK with an expiry time of indefinite, and indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to race and ethnicity as well. Please check the content for accuracy with special consideration given to heritage, purported by any of the relevant accounts. Poeticbent talk  21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are real problems with an editor's interpretation of Nash and Hodges' book, which explores why Jefferson refused to carry out Kosciusko's bequest to free his slaves. The position of Nash/Hodges was distorted as written here and original research/opinion is added in the previous account (i.e., Jefferson was "right" in his assessment, and the political problems led the nation to war...) - rather, Nash and Hodges note what Jefferson said, and how he created even more problems, and criticized him for not carrying out the bequest and exerting his prestige to make it happen. They also note the distortions in what was publicized in 1820 about the terms of the bequest. Similarly, other commentary about this should not be hidden in references, but addressed as cited sources in the article.Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Going to nominate this for a GA, unless there are any objections?
Since there have been no major edits to the article last week, I'd like to nominate it for a GA. Any comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Distortion of issue about Kosciusko's bequest
There seems to have been a misinterpretation of Nash/Hodges' book that explores Jefferson's refusal to carry out K's bequest to use his money in the US to buy freedom for slaves and educate them. In addition, an editor interjected private opinion (Jefferson was right), and hid other sources commentary on this issues by burying them in footnotes. Historians have recently looked at this issue and criticized Jefferson for failing to use the money and the power of his prestige to at least free some of his own slaves, which could have relieved his own financial distress. People can use other sources that support Jefferson's refusal to carry out the bequest, but they should not be distorting Nash and Hodges' position; they did not conclude that Jefferson was right in his actions, as was previously suggested here - in the Lead and in the lengthier discussion. Jefferson created more complexity. The discussion on this issue deserves place in the article - for instance, Nash and Hodges noted distortions in 1820 in how the terms of the bequest were presented publicly. This needs to be accurate.Parkwells (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Jefferson was indeed right. Kościuszko's relative did challenge the will and Virginia law did in fact forbid that such a bequest be honored. This is not a "private opinion". If Jefferson could have honored the will, at that late date in his life, without all the legal and social complications he would have done so. Please don't try to paint him as a 'bad person' for avoiding such legal and prolonged calamity that late in his life. Also, and once again, please don't refer to historians as one unified group in lockstep with your particular view. We've been through this less than honest approach before. After all this time it seems you are still stuck on that number. Before I revert/modify most of your edits I will give you a chance to refer to Hodges 254-256, pages you seemed to have ignored, for commentary. You should have discussed the changes before making so many. The article, before your edits passed a GA review without commentary about selected, cherry picked authors, and had the approval and scrutiny of the editors involved. And btw, Jefferson had many slaves that Kościuszko hoped Jefferson would free. This is not the place to air commentary about Hemings and her children, per undue weight and POV considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of your edits were however appropriate. Have added some content from an existing source, regarding litigation, embezzlement, etc, w/ citation. Btw, please keep 'Cite book' and 'Cite web' info in the bibliography. One of the reasons this article was granted GA status is becuase the text was cleaned up and the bibliography was structured and consistent with its source formatting, ala 'Cite book' and 'ref tag' links to sources in bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My point was that the source, Nash/Hodges, which was already cited in the article, needed to be accurately represented. They discussed Jefferson's reservations, but had a different opinion as to whether he could or should have undertaken the execution of the will. It is only anyone's opinion that Jefferson "would have done so if he could". Not a question of whether he was "right" or not. They clearly thought he could have used his power/prestige to have made some changes. I'm not painting Jefferson as anything. If this source is to be used, the historians should be accurately represented. Nash/Hodges referred to Hemings and her children; they did not suggest they were the only slaves he could have freed. Gordon-Reed noted that Jefferson had valid reasons for not acting as executor, which is why she is used as a source for a differing point of view.Parkwells (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : Parkwells, on second thought some of your edits were fine, however I think Nash and Hodges were given a bit too much 'air time'. I have to admit I was surprised to see Reed, of all people, showing understanding for Jefferson's decision, so on that note, I will return some of Nash (Russell) and Hodges' comments because it is balanced with other comments. Let's keep Hemings out of the picture however because Kościuszko's wishes were aimed at the plight of slaves in general. He did not mention or have particular concern for Hemings on an individual basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the topic is notable enough for its own article - Kościuszko's last will? This would allow us to move all the potentially controversial details there, and just leave a general summary here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons Kościuszko is notable is because he was a good friend of Thomas Jefferson and was made executor of his Will, so on that note we should give the Will a bit more than summary coverage/weight as overall topics in the article go, IMO. However, much of so called "modern" day academia have attempted to attack Jefferson on a superficial premise because he turned down Kościuszko's request and ignore the fact that Jefferson knew all to well about the legal hornet's nest he was being asked to oversee, and at age 77 it is more than understandable he declined such an undertaking. As I mentioned in the text (that was approved for GA), 'Jefferson was right', as he would have been faced with Kościuszko's relatives, con-men and others who indeed came out of the woodwork and challenged the will. And as it turns out, one of the administrators embezzled most of the funds in the process of all the litigation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Refs may need more work
Ref [24] is now invalid, and links to a page with no reference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saved by Internet Archive: Thanks for catching it, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in "Later life"
The sentence "he left Vienna and moved to Solothurn, Switzerland, where his friend Franciszek Zeltner was mayor" is definitely wrong. Zeltner's first name is not Franciszek but Franz Xaver (he was Swiss, not Polish). He wasn't the mayor of Solothurn either, "only" the brother of the former Swiss ambassador. Here is a short biography by the Kościuszko Museum in Solothurn (in German), and here the same in Polish. --Voyager (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For now I've removed any mentions of him, he doesn't seem that relevant to this article. That said, he is notable in general, and it would be good if somebody would stub an article for him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography work
While doing bibliography work and adding locations for publishers to the sources, per advice, there is one publication written in Polish whose location is obscure to this English speaking editor. Would Piotrus or anyone who can read Polish check out this book and if possible add the location ( |location=xxx ) to its 'cite book' entry in the bibliography? It's probably in Poland but I didn't see anything to that effect. The city name would be nice also if that's possible. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers 00:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Links
Mongo, why did you remove links for 'artillery' and 'garrison'? They were not linked anywhere else in the article. I have restored these links. -- Gwillhickers 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing important info

 * The article doesn't say anything about the events that prompted and led up to Kościuszko's last Will, that he left the United States in secrecy in 1798 and that Jefferson procured him a passport to France under a false name and arranged for his departure. ✅


 * Article doesn't mention that Kościuszko turned down an invitation from George Washington to come to Mt. Vernon


 * Missing famous Jefferson quote to Gates about Kościuszko: "He is the purest son of liberty among you all that I have ever known, the kind of liberty which extends to all, not only to the rich."

This information is covered in A Biography'', by Monica Mary Gardner. I am not familiar with Gardner. If her biography of Kościuszko (found in external links) is considered a reliable source I'll add this information. This article is still a good candidate for FA but that doesn't mean it can't get better. -- Gwillhickers 11:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
While many of the recent edits made by another editor were improvements, more care needs to be given when important and definitive items and historical context are deleted. e.g. Mention of Benedict Arnold being a traitor was removed. While condensing the text can be helpful we don't want to truncate the prose too much because when this starts to happen the text starts to read like a police report. One of the FA requirements is a well written article that affords a fair amount of details, context and in depth coverage. Also, unless it is a minor tweak, spelling, etc, editors are encouraged to make edit summaries on a per edit basis, explaining why they are making changes in the literature. -- Gwillhickers 17:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Links in lede
There seems to be quite a few links in the lede which I think would be better if they occurred in the body of the text, esp common knowledge links, such as Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, and the United States. If there is a consensus to reduce this number a bit I think it would be less distracting as the lede goes. It would seem that topics should only be linked here if they are key topics to the article's subject, and only when they are not common knowledge topics. The lede is not the place to invite the reader to tens of other subjects. Interest or curiosity for a topic/link usually occurs when that topic is used in context in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

FA review
Opinions are welcomed at: Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1 -- Gwillhickers 04:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus of Warsaw
Got a note that the FA review might mean that the lack of cites on my edit discussing Thaddeus of Warsaw could cause it to get bumped from the article. Personally, I feel that info sourced on a linked page should be fine but (a) ymmv and (b) that article isn't currently sourced (I took its info from the Jane Porter page, whose sources it presumably shares). I'll go ahead and try to give that page some sources; if they're necessary here, kindly copy them over and restore any blanked info. — Llywelyn II   07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please add a source for . It's a nice edit, but a GA+ article requires refs for new content, or they will be removed so that the article's class is not lowered due to insufficient cites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes
Please see FA review page concerning undiscussed changes. -- Gwillhickers 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dual baptism, bibliography
(Continuing a conversation at User_talk:Novickas between User:Gwillhickers, User:Piotrus, and myself).

About the dual baptism. I think it likely that Mr Krol had insider information about this from his contacts in Belarus. It's probably written somewhere else, but it would be hard to find. IMO it's not worth getting wrapped around the axle about, so it's OK with me to leave it out.
 * Yes, but we should at least say he was baptized a Catholic and given his names. -- Gwillhickers 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

About including number-of-pages-in-book in bibliography entries. G, can you find similar usage in other FAs or a supporting WP:MOS entry? I recently read the Disraeli article while looking for recent biographical FAs, didn't see it there. Because I'm used to the Chicago Manual of Style, which doesn't do that, I found it startling. Maybe User:Wehwalt (Hi!), who has shepherded several dozen articles to featured status, will weigh in? Novickas (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of having to list the number of pages in a book in the bibliographical entry. Is this something asked for at the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to list number of pages, it's something I've done in several bibliographies. Gives you an idea of how extensive the coverage is. Also, when 'pages=123' is used in a 'cite book' template it's usually done so when the template is inserted into the text as a citation (as I demonstrated in bold above), which I find sort of annoying, esp when there are many of them scattered throughout the text. Makes it very difficult to visually navigate and edit the mark up. In any case, it's no big issue with me per any given article. Just wanted to let Novickas know what the number stood for when he removed it thinking it was an actual page number citation, which are not found in bibliographies but under 'References'. -- Gwillhickers 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I persuade you to put p. or pages before number of pages in the bibliography, rather than after it? That is, as ".1,234 pages." or ".1,234 p." rather than "p. 1,234"? Our regional library catalog notes a book's number of pages as p. 1,234, as does the Library of Congress (there, it's helpfully in the Description field). Novickas (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objections with denoting "123 pages" but we are dealing with a template that automatically places data in the given fields in a certain order with a specific format. If we are not going to use the 'pages=' field to indicate page totals then we will have to type it out in one of the other fields, most suitably in the 'publication=' field, so it would read: 'Smith & Jones Publishers, 123 pages'. I added a note at the top of the Bibliography that says the 'p.' in the bibliography denotes the total number of pages. If this is not suitable then we can make the change as you suggest. Reminder, both the Kosciuszko and Pulaski articles made GA using the present convention. Let's get some more feed back before we make any changes. -- Gwillhickers 20:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say not to. While boldness is appropriate at times, doing something different from probably almost all articles on Wikipedia does not seem to me to be the way to attract support for advancement of this article. FAC is very much about doing things conventionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)  ✅ -- Gwillhickers 00:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC) [[File:Smile.png]] Thanks - Novickas (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we stable yet?
Apparently, at long last, we have fixed and tweaked this article more than any other on the planet, it seems. If there's any last items to fix or adjust, let's do it before we put this article on the FA chopping block again, which I hope will be soon. -- Gwillhickers 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. But I was depressed about it after reading the Disraeli article and remain so.

Three actionable things. One, we aren't given a reason as to why he went to France in 1798, just a dramatic introduction: "In March 1798 Kościuszko received a bundle of letters from Europe. The news in one of them came as a shock to him, causing him, in his crippled condition, to spring from his couch and limp unassisted to the middle of the room and exclaim..." Why the shock? We aren't told.

Two, there are two practically identical sentences about the will, right next to each other, one in the Later life section and one in the immediately following will section. Maybe the will doesn't need its own section? Moving the current wills content into the later life section, with a wikilink to the wills article rather than a "main article: see...", would do to my mind.

Three. This one is a little thornier. User:Piotrus has expressed the opinion that K.'s baptism in the Orthodox church is a fringe theory. But I've found a website (in Polish) that discusses this.; Google translation here. It seems reliable to me - the author is Doroteusz Fionik, an ethnographer who has an article in the Polish wiki and a presence in Google books.. This phrase gives me some pause -"Białoruski biograf Kościuszki Józef Jucho również wskazuje na Siechnowicze, uważając że początkowo był on ochrzczony w obrządku wschodnim." Specifically, the word uważając. It could mean either that "[Jozef Jucho] considers that he was first baptized in the Orthodox church ..." or “ considering that he was first baptized in the Orthodox church..." Is Fionik speaking for himself here or for Jucho?

I see his Orthodox baptism as a minority opinion, worthy of inclusion, and we can attribute it as such, to George A. Krol and to researcher Anatol Bienziaruk, but not sure whether to include Fionik. Novickas (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to learn more about those letters, too. PSB does not mention any letters (or anything else) in March; it does however mention that K. was leaving to Europe on an invitation by Talleyrand, who wanted K.'s moral and public support against the Prussians. By the time K. arrived in Europe, T.'s plans were already obsolete. While we could speculate that those letters were related to T.'s invitation, I'd like to have it confirmed before we clarify this in text.
 * Regarding the baptism. I agree is relatively reliable, but the translation os "considers", i.e. it attributes this theory to a particular scholar. I am ok with adding this to the article, properly attributed, perhaps as a note - "Belarussian scholar Józef Jucho also proposed, that K. was baptised in an Eastern Orthodox rite." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosciuszko's sudden departure for France, the Will
As I've asserted before, Kosciuszko's will is one of the key features in the biography as it reflects intimately on Kosciuszko the man and deserves more than a passing mention in his biography here. If there is a wide textual overlap in this and the main article -- good. The two articles deserve to be connected with more than just a passing reference and a link, imo. The bundle of letters, one of which caused Kosciuszko to hastily depart for France, "at once", contained the news that Polish soldiers were fighting under Napoleon in France and that his two nephews... [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27882/27882-h/27882-h.htm ''had been sent in the name of Kościuszko by their mother to Bonaparte with the prayer that they might serve in his ranks. By the end of June, 1798, Kościuszko was in France, in Bayonne''. , Gardner, p.183] I'll work on a summary and work this into the paragraph in the 'Later life' section that mentions the "bundle of letters". As I also said before, I'll let you two sort of the details of Kosciuszko's baptism. -- Gwillhickers 08:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ✅ -- Gwillhickers 09:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences about estate funds used for Kosciusko school in Newark
We have contradictory sentences in the Disposition of American estate section and in the lead with regard to whether any of his US assets were used to free and/or educate slaves. Each of the oppositional assertions are supported by their refs. Of the two statements in the disposition section, one, currently supported in this article by refs using Monica Mary Gardner and Nash & Hodges, is that a school for African Americans was established and that it was funded by the estate. Per Nash & Hodges: “Unlike Kosciusko, who intended to make a major stroke against slavery with his bequest, Lear had to settle for a small school far away from the areas…” (p. 242) (Lear was the executor at that time). No mention of using the funds to buy freedom. The other statement, supported by Storozynski, is that none of the money was used for its intended purposes. (See Storozynski, (p. 282, ).

The current statement in the lead – “the funds were never used for that purpose” – follows Storozynski but not Nash & Hodges and Gardner.

Any thoughts on how to resolve this? Novickas (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I come across opposing statements I usually add a footnote for clarification. Since the school referred to does in fact exist we could instead have the lede read most of the funds were never used for that purpose. -- Gwillhickers 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarification : Neither source actually says Kosciuszko's funds were used to set up the school, only that Kosciuszko's "legacy went to found the coloured school at Newark...which bore Kościuszko's name." Gardner, p.183 i.e.It says found, not fund. -- Gwillhickers 21:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this proposal ("most of the funds were never used for that purpose") strikes me as giving too much weight to the idea that some portion of the funds did go towards at least the education of slaves. We have one modern work by historians that asserts that it did –Nash & Hodges –along with one rather old one by biographer Monica Mary Gardner (1920). And two more modern ones that say it didn’t, at all – Alex Storozynski and John Chester Miller, whom Conor Cruise O'Brien quotes as saying “He [Jefferson] refused to execute this project and as a result the bequest was diverted to other purposes which had nothing to do with furthering the education of blacks.”.


 * The primary meaning of legacy in the online OED is "an amount of money or property left to someone in a will." . The secondary entry is "something left or handed down by a predecessor:the legacy of centuries of neglect." Since Gardner doesn't explicate her usage of the word, I think it's better left out.


 * I propose, for the lead, just saying 'Jefferson declined to execute the bequest, which was beset by numerous legal complications and may never have been used for its intended purposes.” Then in the will section: “Historians offer varying accounts of whether the funds were ever used to free or educate African-American slaves. With a note, to avoid clutter: Note x: According to Gary B. Nash and Graham Russell Hodge, a portion of the funds were used to create the Kosciusko School near Newark, New Jersey.(ref) John Chester Miller (ref) and Alex Storozynski (ref) asserted that no part of the bequest was ever used for its intended purpose.") Novickas (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but currently the text reads "None of the money that Kościuszko had earmarked for the manumission and education of African Americans in the United States was ever used for that purpose.[103] Though the American will was never carried out, its legacy went to found an educational institute for African Americans in the United States." For me, this seems to be contradictory: It says no money was used for education of african americans and in the next sentence it says the money (or parts of it) was used to found a school for arican americans, which for me sounds like eduction for african americans. If there are sources for both, I think there should be a decision for one which is more plausible or it should be stated as an open question - like this it just is confusing.--86.176.115.55 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement in section
I restored 'also' to 'opposed slavery', as numerous sources cite Jefferson opposing slavery all his life, in his letters, writings, political involvements, etc, while owning slaves. Some historians of course question his sincerity, but that is speculation -- much of it politically and socially motivated. -- Gwillhickers 02:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like it - this article is about Kosciusko, not Jefferson. Jefferson's stance on slavery is unlikely to be settled soon. If we include 'also', then to be fair, we would need to include a bunch of other dissenting historians' opinions about Jefferson and slavery, which would seriously clutter this article. If you have reliable sources to the effect, as you say above, that those historians who question Jefferson's opposition to slavery are/were speculative and politically/socially motivated, those should go in the Jefferson or the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article - not here. Why not stick to the indisputable 'he asked his friend Cooke to act as executor, but he also refused'? But...this is kind of a Featured Article-level disagreement and there are no signs that it's going to be re-nommed soon. If that happens we could revisit this disagreement then. Novickas (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No one said that we should include historian's opinions of Jefferson here. We go by facts. The fact is Jefferson said and did much to oppose slavery. This is not an opinion because the proof is in his writings and political actions, so any reference, direct or indirect, needs to reflect this. No, this is not an article about Jefferson, nor is it one of anyone else, yet their names are mentioned about the page. Including 'also' reflects the facts, and doesn't turn the page into something 'about' Jefferson. No one made an issue with 'also' during the previous nomination, and there is no factual reason why one should be raised in the future. Any issue created along this line can easily be addressed. Kosciuszko entrusted Jefferson with his bequest because he knew Jefferson opposed slavery.  -- Gwillhickers 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly the sort of thing we could argue about forever...and in the meantime the article wouldn't be improved. I'm willing to let it go. Let's move on. I see there is more material about why he left the US in 1799. Will add soon. Novickas (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Btw, TK departed for Europe in '1798'. -- Gwillhickers 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

reSubmit for FA
It's been a good number of months since we last tried to get FA status for this article. Unless there are no other issues to deal with we should resubmit and go for it again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I have to admit I've lost heart; I am expecting somebody (or several somebodies) will find some English prose items to nitpick again, and they'll fail this article again. I am having serious doubts whether any prose written by a non-English speaker, or outside of "friends and collegues" who use favorite phrases and parts of MoS of some of the reviewers can pass these days :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If a common phrase is involved and it employs 'less than perfect English' I think we can let it ride. Was there a particular phrase that gave us issues before -- I don't remember any. Seems most of the issues were along historical lines, and from what I can see, they've been resolved. Come on, Piotrus! Chin up! Would Kościuszko give up? He'd say, 'get back on your horse!. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. We originally had a lot of support, then a few minor issues came up, but because the discussions dragged out so long, the nomination went ka-put! In any case, the article has improved since then so there shouldn't be any difficulty, none that we can't handle anyways. If no one sees any issues that need to be addressed I'll resubmit the article for FA. I'll wait another day or so for others to chime just in case there may be any lingering issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)



Nominated for FA
The Tadeusz Kościuszko article has just been nominated for FA. You can view and comment on the nomination page here:
 * Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Featured article star.svg
 * Nomination closed as of May 25, 2014. Article passed FA review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

English pronunciation?
Have s.o. at West Point pronouncing it, but can't tell if that's the normal English pronunciation there, or if he's trying to approximate the Polish for his Polish guests. Does anyone know? Do people give the man the common Usonian and Australian pronunciation of, or is that just for things named after him? — kwami (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a not-very-good attempt to pronounce the Polish, but I'll include it since it's West Point. It would be helpful if we had someone here from West Point to verify.  — kwami (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anachronism
The first sentence of the article is anachronistic: "... became a national hero in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and the United States." Belarus did not become a nation until long after his death. Better would be "... became a national hero in Poland-Lithuania and the United States." Maproom (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really. "became" means that it has already happened but there is no implication that it happened during his life time. This is also a bit of unnecessary splitting of hairs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Volunteer Marek. No need to be deliberating about opinionated issues where content is involved unless there is a clear case of NPOV or other such policy violations, or otherwise outright false statements, involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

IPA-pl
I would consider adding the Polish pronounciation of his name to the lead. It goes like this:"taˈdɛuʂ kɔɕˈt͡ɕuʂkɔ". If editors involved in this article agree and reviewed this it should be moved the the article.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Traitor v. "switched sides"
-- Hawkeye, an official country doesn't need to be involved for one to become a traitor. One can betray his cause/people, switch sides or become a traitor, even when there is no 'country' that has been officially established. The people involved regarded the land for which they fought for as their country. In Wiktionary there are several various definitions that refer to other things besides "country", which is a legal technicality really. They all have this one underlying principle: "Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust". There are a number of biographies about B.A. (and other sources) that use the term traitor in their titles. Since Benedict Arnold is famous for being "synonymous with traitor" and the term was used when the article passed FA it should be restored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In the context as it is discussed in this article I would agree that that the term traitor is more accurate in describing Arnold as he is mentioned only in passing here. In the Arnold bio the term switching sides is done liberally which better suits that article.--MONGO 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. The "official" (i.e. legal) definition of a traitor is one who "gives aid and comfort to the enemy".  You don't have to be a citizen of any particular country to commit treason.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Treason Act 1351 made giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the King treason. But Arnold was pardoned and given a brigadier general's commission. I'm sure that you can find sources that call him a traitor but they do not have to adhere to our NPOV policy. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries. Calling someone a traitor is not neutral; it is pejorative. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pardoned? By whom?  Certainly not the American side -- he was given a British Brigadier General commission, and after the war lived the rest of his life in England.  You would be hard put to find a source that does not call him a traitor.  His own WP article says, in the lede, "...his name quickly became a byword in the United States for treason or betrayal."  Are you saying that's pejorative?  Of course not -- it's a fact.  Facts are always neutral.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, pardoned or not, it doesn't change the fact that Arnold committed treason and since then has been widely known as a traitor. If we were to say he was a "rotten traitor" there I believe we would have a NPOV issue. If someone steals something they are considered a thief. This term could easily be considered a pejorative also, however it is still a neutral term -- much better than saying the man removed items that didn't belong to him, which makes it sound as if the man had never committed a wrong against anyone. One could argue that the stolen items were used to help someone and therefore the term thief is not neutral, which of course is not true. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was pardoned by the British. I presume that loyalists enjoyed a blanket pardon in the United States but I'm not an expert on the modern period. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. He was pardoned by the British for fighting on the American side -- because he switched sides.  The fact that he was pardoned by the enemy, due to giving aid and comfort to that enemy, did not in any way absolve him of the treason charge on the American side. Once again, you would be hard put to find a scholarly source that does not refer to him as a traitor to the Americans.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also add that Arnold had to of been a traitor for the British to pardon him in the first place. i.e.They didn't pardon him because he wasn't a traitor. i.e. A thief who is pardoned is still a thief. (add:) The term traitor, like thief, is not a flattering term but is still a neutral one in of itself. The context in which such terms are used is also an important consideration, and the usage of traitor in this article wasn't such that it was presented in less than a neutral manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, "Benedict Arnold" is a synonym for "traitor". He would also be considered to have been one to the nascent United States — which had declared their independence before Arnold betrayed them — by any objective commentator. Nihil novi (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On retrospect, the phrase "turned traitor", does sound a bit biased. Instead we should say "...attempted to surrender to the British when he became a traitor." Saying "turned traitor" sounds a little personal, whereas "became a traitor" does not, imo. In any case, we need to retain traitor, as the term by itself is neutral, is indeed synonymous with Arnold and reflects what most if not all sources have referred to him as. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Switched sides" is better, because it is not only neutral, it is more readily understood. British readers will see Arnold and Washington as traitors because they rebelled against their king and country. It's like the way we avoid using "the enemy" to describe one side, because that implies a certain perspective. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * -- What person with more than a 3rd grade education is not going to understand the term 'treason'? In any case we can say that Arnold became a traitor against the American cause, as again, Arnold is synonymous with traitor and virtually all sources refer to him as such. -- There's a not so fine line between 'rebellion' and 'treason'. Washington, Jefferson, et al, voiced their complaints for years against an unyielding British crown which finally culminated in wide spread rebellion and revolt. This is not the same as treason, where you pretend to be loyal to a cause, and then turn traitor. I could be mistaken, but I would think not even British historians have ever referred to Washington as a traitor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could be mistaken Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A politically charged newspaper article isn't what I would think establishes Washington as a traitor nearly in the same order that Arnold was. Was this all that came up in the google search? I was referring to sources. By this way of thinking I suppose we could call anyone who 'revolted' a traitor -- so perhaps we shouldn't use words like 'revolt'. Instead we should say 'they objected'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was searching for the incident a decade ago where Washington was branded a traitor in parliament. This set off a public debate at the time as to whether his treason was justifiable or not in the UK, while in the US there was a push to rehabilitate Arnold, which is still underway apparently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That was a hypothetical situation, posed to law students as a training exercise. I know of no credible real-world historian, either American or British, who ever actually accused Washington of treason -- and we're getting quite far afield here.  Arnold was, and continues to be accused of treason against the American side, because what he did was (and is) the very definition of treason.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What he did was no different to what Washington did, which is the definition of treason. Washington is generally regarded as such by historians of the period. (eg. ) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we are getting a little far afield. All that was said was Arnold "turned traitor". I suppose we could say the same of Washington if we were referring to a given incident/time, as we were with Arnold. However, Washington's "treason" was preceded by years of debate, acute indifference and finally rebellion, unlike Arnold who preported to be an American and fought on the American side. Washington never raised arms against the Americans and then "switched sides" and joined them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

-- Is the qualified phrase became a traitor against the Americans less than neutral? If there are no further objections I'll add this to the narrative, as again, traitor is synonymous with Arnold and almost all sources have always used this term. Most importantly, the reference (#40) for this statement (Storozynski, 2011, pp. 128–30) refers to Arnold as an "infamous traitor", and the term traitor was in place when this article passed its FA review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally think "became a traitor against the Americans" is redundant and awkward, not to mention self-evident. But if it'll settle this tempest in a teapot, I won't object too strenuously.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I added "against the Americans" for the sake of appeasing any reservations about neutrality. I would prefer also to just say "became a traitor". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there seem to be no further objections I have just added 'became a traitor' to the narrative, per discussions and sources. If this is still an issue please discuss before making any contested reverts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding the second (alternative) nationality of TK to the preamble of article
There is an alternative opinion that TK was a Belarusian. Actually Belarusian nation hasn't been formed yet in the beginning of the 19-th century. But he claimed himself to be Litwin. Belarusian historyography has an opinion that Litwins has just been renamed into Belarusians because of the policy of Russian Empire on occupied lands. Now there are many sources which could prove either Polish or Belarusian nationality of TK. There is an information about it in the text of article but there is no such statement in it's preamble. In Eastern-Slavic Wikipedias we usually put all the possible nationalities into preamble to add more neutrality to it. So I offer to add this information to the preamble. --Belarus2578 (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are right 100%. The fact is, he even referred to him as a Litvin once, and at the time that was the only way for someone to identify as a Belarusian. What you said is true, Russians were the once who started calling the Litvins Belarusians for political reasons. I would use Polish-Lithuanian as a compromise as well, as the Belarusians were included in that general term. 94.2.161.214 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see prior discussions on this above. And cite your sources, not opinions. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pan Piotr, I could give You 8 sources, but they are not in English. By the way, one of them is in Polish: "Kościuszko, biografia z dokumentów wysnuta" by Tadeusz Korzan (1894. Krakow, Warszawa). It states some facts about the origin of his family, which was not from the modern Poland lands. But, in my opinion, the best source is the mail from Kasciuszka to the Russian Emperor Alexander I, where Tadeusz wrote: «I was born litvin...» The mail is quoted in many literatural sources. Is it enough to write: «... was a Polish-Ruthenian military engineer and a military leader who became a national hero in Poland, Belarus, and the United States?» Or do You need more sources? --Belarus2578 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Languages?
The article doesn't mention Kościuszko's command of languages. It seems self-evident from the biography that he at least spoke his native Polish, English, and French, probably also Russian (?), but what about German? - I'm asking this question because according to the article Thaddeus of Warsaw, Kościuszko praised the German edition of the novel. I'm not sure whether that's even possible, see the talk page there - there may have been no German edition prior to Kościuszko's death. I strongly suspect that the source given may be in error and it was not a German, but a French edition. So, did Kościuszko speak/read German? Though he spent his last years in Solothurn (Soleure) in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, I think he would have managed with French there, as his hosts and all educated people there also spoke French. - Anyway, I would welcome some small paragraph regarding Kościuszko's languages. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall from the sources I read anything about him speaking German. However, querying Polish sources suggest that he did know German; this is stated clearly in - but another source clearly states that he did not speak German or Russian: . I don't have access to any big biogrpahical works of his at this point, so looking at the above old and contradictory sources I am afraid I cannot help much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, both of the biographies that I own (Pula's Purest Son of Liberty and Storozynski's The Peasant Prince) both imply (but don't say outright) that he spoke German. I may have a copy of his memoir somewhere as well -- I'll try to come up with a more definitive answer as time permits.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-read PSB bio and there's nothing about languages there. I'll have access to Strozynski's bio around XMAS/winter, please ping me then if I forget to post here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, though I actually have Storozynski's biography here as well (and some other works about Kościuszko) and can't remember having seen a clear statement about Kościuszko's languages therein, I also will try to find something by browsing through the book again - in any case, there's no entry for "Languages" in the books' index... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

2nd Partition
/Émigré/ section: In "...1793, Prussia and Russia signed the Second Partition of Poland". Was the piece of paper they scribbled their names on actually headed "The Second Partition of Poland", or something else? I could attempt an answer, but I have other things to do, and я говорю только на русском языке, а не на польском. Пожалей меня :) >MinorProphet (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tadeusz Kościuszko. 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/20151117024931/http://minsk.usembassy.gov/kosciuszko2015.html to http://minsk.usembassy.gov/kosciuszko2015.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423172850/http://www.iwp.edu/programs/page/tadeusz-kosciuszko-a-man-of-unwavering-principle to http://www.iwp.edu/programs/page/tadeusz-kosciuszko-a-man-of-unwavering-principle
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005015927/http://charter97.org/eng/news/2005/07/08/krol to http://charter97.org/eng/news/2005/07/08/krol

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) 20:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tadeusz Kościuszko. 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/20121018171643/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/5.2.02/polonaiseanderton.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/5.2.02/polonaiseanderton.html
 * Added tag to http://www.capitalbridges.8m.com/bridges/thaddeus-kosciusko/

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) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tadeusz Kościuszko. 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/20160303204439/http://1bank.by/print%3Apage%2C1%2C35970-ivan-saverchanka-zmicer-sanko-150-pytannya-i-adkaza-z-gistoryi-belarusi.html to http://1bank.by/print%3Apage%2C1%2C35970-ivan-saverchanka-zmicer-sanko-150-pytannya-i-adkaza-z-gistoryi-belarusi.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tadeusz Kościuszko. 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/20140304094823/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/kosciuszko/monuments.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/kosciuszko/monuments.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Freemasonry?
User:HorCrux48 has added "Freemason" to the introduction, giving http://www.loza-galileusz.pl/en/1.polscy.wolnomularze.php as a source, which apparently is a page of a Masonic lodge in Bydgoszcz, Poland, listing famous Poles who, according to this list, were Freemasons. Well, as I already commented when I reverted HorCrux48's first, unsourced edit here, I think there should be a part in the main body of the article, if this addition proves tenable, giving some detail regarding Kościuszko as a Freemason, as the lead section is an overview of the article's topic that should be based on the article itself. But as it stands now, it looks rather untenable to me. Until now, the article doesn't mention freemasonry at all, and as I'm fascinated by Kościuszko, I have quite extensively read about him, and never found anything in the available biographies mentioning that he was a Freemason. For example, there's nothing in Alex Storozynski's biography "The Peasant Prince" (Masons are mentioned there a few times, but never stating that Kościuszko was one). On the contrary, it seems that, according to this article, Kościuszko was "never made a Mason" - Storozynski is there quoted as saying "If I had found anything, I would have surely included it in my book!" So, I think that this list by the Bydgoszc lodge (they don't state any source for their list, so it doesn't seem to be a very good source itself) is too thin a base to describe Kościuszko as a Freemason. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As we know Freemasons keep their secrets to themselves, so it is clear that there are not any public records about Kościuszko being a Freemason. The only thing out there are records of two Masonic Lodges where Kościuszko is mentioned: the first one in Bydgoszcz, Poland(http://www.loza-galileusz.pl/en/1.polscy.wolnomularze.php); the second one in New York, USA(https://nymasons.org/site/thaddeus-kosciuszko/). Furthermore the National Museum of Warsaw, in 2014, held an exhibition curated by Tadeusz Cegielski a Freemason himself, where he mentioned Kościuszko as a Freemason(http://www.mnw.art.pl/en/temporary-exhibitions/freemasonry-ipro-publico-bonoi,5.html) (https://culture.pl/en/article/secrets-of-the-freemasons-revealed-in-warsaw). User:HorCrux48 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Freemasons today aren't as secretive as they used to be. The Bydgoszcz list doesn't seem very convincing to me, it might in part be based on mere assumptions (as stated in the American article I linked to above, it would have been very likely in Kościuszko's time and given his circle of friends in America that he would have been made a Freemason; but apparently, the Masons of America can't find anything supporting that). The New York page you link to is nothing but a copy of the Wikipedia article lead in a "Grand Lecturer's Blog" - not mentioning any direct connection of Kościuszko to Freemasonry. That occasionally Freemasons would simply assume that Kościuszko was one, without further research, is not surprising. But as it stands, I still maintain that we don't have a real base for your addition. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 500 zlotych sprzed denominacji w 1995 roku.png

Lithuanian
Kościuszko identified as Lithuanian: "“What am I if not a Lithuanian, one of your chosen countrymen?… Whom should I defend if not you and myself?… It angers me to be away from Lithuania and serving in Poland…” –Thaddeus Kosciusko" .Kasha lover (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, the concept of a "Lithuanian" at the time was different. Kościuszko identified himself with a region of the Commonwealth not because he felt "Lithuanian". Just like Mickiewicz did when he wrote "Litwo my country" in Pan Tadeusz. For example today, Americans from Texas sometimes call themselves Texans instead of Americans. Do you get that? Your borderline source is not going to make Kościuszko "Lithuanian" all of the sudden. Also because the Commonwealth stretched across today's Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine, Kosciuszko is a National hero in those countries as well and this fact is noted in the article. Okey? GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he was as "Lithuanian" as Adam Mickiewicz (Litwo, ojczyzna moja). Or Pilsudski. What Kosciuszko understood as Lithuanian has been destroyed a century ago by Polish and Lithuanian nationalists, and today it is much closer to what we understand as Polish than Lithuanian, since modern Polish culture celebrates the Polish-Lithuanian union, while modern Lithuanian culture does not. See Polish-Lithuanian identity. Anyway, itt's WP:DEADHORSE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithuania, as Mickiewicz and Kosciuszko called it, are in no way to be regarded as a Polish region. The PLC was two separate countries: the "Crown of Poland" and the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" under one king, but with separate armies, treasuries, etc... Sort of (not entirely) a parallel to European Union. Never was the Commonwealth construed in a manner that Lithuania (as everyone called the GDL) was subservient legally, socially to Poland (even in the Constitution of 1792). What makes Kosciuszko and Mickiewicz Lithuanian is them being born in Lithuania Proper, both emphasising their Lithuanian history, nobility and traditions. Sure they might not have spoken proficient Lithuanian (although Mickiewicz noted some lines in Lithuanian), but it is an identical case as with Ireland. Same language as their oppresors (UK, more specifically England), yet radically ideas about themselves. Naming Kosciuszko and Mickiewicz as purely "Polish" to their face would have been an insult to them (Koszciuszko manifestly wrote that in his letters ( Korzon, Tadeusz (1894). Kościuszko. Biografia z dokumentów wysnuta. Kraków. p. 206. ). Just because one speaks their whole life in a certain language doesn't mean they are of that language - same for most persons from GDL that modern-day Polish call their "own". If someone identifies themselves as Polish (or Lithuanian or Ukrainian for that matter) speaks his whole life only English (as most of them now in USA do), does that make them both English people? No! So, we should be consistent with our logic and apply it here too. Sure, Lithuanian in beginning of 19th century was not identical to now, it is insane to say that simply because Mickiewicz wrote great poetry in Polish, he is now 100% Polish in modern-day terms. In conclusion, I'll write "Polish-Lithuanian" as a compromise and link it to the article Polish-Lithuanian identity instead of simply "Polish". As always, good faith --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

On the points Dear User:Piotrus raised

 * Hello again, having read WP:UNDUE, I assume that you assume that my changes assume too much detail. Nonetheless, articles of Hitler and Stalin cite the respective people to reveal their ideas and how THEY perceived the world. Kosciuszko is a very important European figure and should be revealed in a holistic manner as such (naturally avoiding Original Research as much as possible). Wikipedia needs to show an authentic Kosciuszko. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Grand lower st
No mention of the street in Los Angeles named after him?? It one of the only streets to get you to “ grand lower st” where a bunch of tv commercials were filmed over many decades 107.127.60.27 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)\
 * A quick ask of Google Maps instantly found me eight streets named after him here in Australia. I am certain there would be more than that if I narrowed down my search. We won't be mentioning them all, so I cannot see us mentioning the one in LA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

On currency
Here’s but one example of the currency he’s been on On moneyFile:1000 marek polskich from 1919 - front.jpg Victor Grigas (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)