Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:14, 16 December 2005

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Old talk

Hello,

First of all, I'd like to congradulate you on the work you have been doing with the encyclopedia and that it has helped me out on numerous occassions.

The Partitions of Poland had a larger impact on European history then is mostly realized. One example of this is the impact it had on the developing state of Prussia. Before the first partition, Prussia was highly efficient but very small in comparison to it's neighbours, especially Austria. After the partitions, however, Prussia doubled in size, making it a major power in the region. This increase in size had a definite impact on Prussia's road to becoming the most powerful of the German states and leading the role in German unification during Bismark's time. Another example of its impact on Europe was how it moved Russia closer to Europe. For centuries , Russia was always seen by other European states as an Asian state, with Poland acting as a form of buffer. However, after the partitions, Russia's European possessions increased tremendously bringing it deeper into the heart of Europe both geographically and politically.

O.K. I'm in no way a proffessional historian so if there are any qualms about what I had written, please contact me. I hope it helps in any way. Stefan Klosiak

em

Actually the first two partitions were of Lithuanian - Polish Commonwealth, while the third, after constitution that didn't mention Lithuania, was a partition of Poland. But that is too inconvenient. --Vytautas 15:03, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

You are wrong. All three partitions were of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not poland. Study better history of your country. 85.206.195.99 13:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not that it did not mention the PLC, it simply declared a creation of a new, unified state. Not that it made a difference to this article anyway... ] 20:14, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Taken from the main page

TODO trauma for Poles, never-ending source of troubles for Europe (alliance with Napoleon, uprisings: 1830-1, 1846, 1848, 1863, 1905...)

This article is falsificated

There were partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not poland. 85.206.195.99 13:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

They are commonly known as Partitions of Poland in English language. While Poland was partitioned between three neighbours, Lithuania was simply occupied by Russia. Wojsyl 13:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The term of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was started using in English historiography short time ago - until that was Poland. It was because of lack of possibility for Lithuanian historians to speak worldwide because of soviet occupation. So polish falsificators did their job. The term 'partitions of poland' is an atavism from those times. It is completely wrong and must be changed. Wojsyl, your knowledge in Lithuanian history seems very poor - Lithuania was occupied in 1795 by Russia (the larger part), Prussia (Sudovia) and Austria (small district near Brasta (Brest)). 85.206.195.28 20:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Just correcting - Actually, Lithuania was partitioned between Russia and Prussia (province of New East Prussia) DeirYassin 14:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on this, obviously. Thanks. Wojsyl 17:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As Wojsyl sais, the most common title (and policy of Wiki is to use that one) is 'partitions of Poland'. True, it was in fact partition of PLC - and it sais so in the lead. I see no problem with this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a compromissional version, with both versions of the name bolded and explaining the more common usage of partitions of Poland, would both sides agree to the usage of this? DeirYassin 19:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article should start with its title, for consistency. Also, it should be kept in mind that the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 created a unitary state, abolishing the union of Poland and Lithuania. So at least the last two of the three partitions were formally partitions of Poland only. Balcer 19:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, I hate edit conflicts... Here's what I wanted to point out before Balcer beat me to it: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't GDL dissolved by the constitution of 1791? If so, then there could be no Partition of PLC since the PLC did not exist any more... Halibutt 19:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know, afak constitution was abolished by certain "units" after a year of it's coming into power, and anyways at least first partition was actually of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And decapitalizing Commonwealth was incidental. Maybe "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" would be better then as a compromissional reference to them all...DeirYassin 19:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Three Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Dear Polish friends, what do you learn in your Poland?

• The Gardinas (Grodno) seimas (sejm) in 1793 abolished all decisions of Constitution of May 3, 1791 and ratified Second partition of PLC.
• But even at the time when Constitution of May 3, 1791 was in force, was passed Act of Guarantees of Both Nations ('Zaręczenie Obojga Narodow') which guarantied continuation of PLC. PLC was in force from 1569 to 1795. All tree partitions were of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not Poland.
• Do you understand? 85.206.195.28 20:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The Grodno Sejm of 1793 was a farce set up by Russia so I would not worry too much about it.

However, there may be some point to what 85.206.195.28 is saying. Here is what the Polish Encyclopedia PWN says about this:

Uchwalona na Sejmie Czteroletnim Konstytucja 3 maja 1791 przemilczała kwestię wzajemnego stosunku Korony i Litwy; uchwalone 20 X 1791 Zaręczenie Wzajemne Obojga Narodów nawiązało do unii lubel. 1569 i, korygując milczenie aktu Konstytucji 3 maja, potwierdziło federacyjny charakter Rzeczypospolitej.

Passed by the Four-Year Sejm, the Constitution of May 3, 1791 passed in silence over the question of the relation between Lithuania and the Crown; passed on October 20, 1791, the Act of Guaranees of Both Nations (correct translation, I hope) referred to the Union of Lublin of 1569 and, correcting the silence of the Constitution act of May 3, confirmed the federetive character of the Commonwealth.

So, this needs to be cleared up. Balcer 20:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think that the PLC was ever officially dissolved (unless we count act of partition from 1797, but it was never signed by PLC representative, obviously). While the May Const. did not use the word 'Lithuania' even once, there was the mentioned 'Zaręczenie Obojga Narodow', which...well, I am not sure what it did (gotta read up on this, anybody got any links?). However after reading Jasienica and Davies recently with emphasis on May Const., I don't think that the phrase 'PLC was abolished in favour of a unitary Poland' is true. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the text: Wikisource, maybe a better link here.

Clearly the text refers many times to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so obviously it was not considered abolished at the time.

Tnx. I thought it would be much bigger. It does show one thing clearly: the state name is Rzeczpospolita Polska (Polish Commonwealth or Republic, ABBREVIATED - Poland), and it consists of Oboje Narodów (Two Nations): Korona Polska (Polish Crown, i.e. Poland proper) and Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie (Grand Duchy of Lithuania). In addition, nowhere in the May Constitution I can find anything that could be interpreted as change of name. As we discussed on Talk:Ignacy Domeyko, what was known as Poland in that time was not the same as what we call Poland today. In 18th century, Poland reffered to what call the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (thus Rzeczpospolita Polska in the name of the mentioned act), not modern Poland without (obviously) Lithiania - hence the confusion. The main problem is not the 'partitions of what?', since the correct answer is 'partitions of Rzeczpospolita Polska' or 'partitions of Poland' (but in the 18th sense! - perhaps a note would be appropriate), but rather - how do we translate those names, and what was the name(s?) used in documents from 1569 till 1791? While the term 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' makes a rather good NPOV name, I don't recall ever reading about 'Rzeczpospolita Polsko-Litewska'. IIRC, both Polish and Lithuanians used the term Republic of Two Nations (Rzeczpospolita Objoga Narodów, Abiejų tautų respublika) or just Rzeczpospolita (Žečpospolita). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mentioning of 'Rzeczypospilita Polska' is only in one place in this text. Many all others deny that. It only shows trying of polish 'executors' to make unitarian state (this trying unsuccessfully lasted many centuries). Lithuanians always resisted to that. This act is a product of this resistence. But even this situation didn't satisfact many Lithuanians. That trying of unitarism was one of the reasons why 'Lithuanian Confederation' was made in 1792. Gardinas (Grodno) seimas (sejm) abolished all decissions of Constitution of May 3, 1791 and returned all to pre-1791 situation.
• Very important thing is pointed in Act - confederation of GDL and KP - Skonfederowanych Stanow. This is an answer to polish federationalistes and unitaristes.
• The very best wishes from Vilnius, Lithuania. 85.206.193.46 05:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

To the Lithuanian editors: we are not Polish nationalists, believe it or not, but are really trying to write the best article possible. Please, let's stay civil. Balcer 21:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the "Zaręczenie wzajemne Obojga Narodów" document mentioned by the anon - it indeed mentioned GDL, but only as one of two provinces (or cantons) of the Rzeczpospolita Polska, or the Republic of Poland (the other province being called Korona Polska - the Crown of Poland). The full text of the decree is available from wikisource (sadly in Polish only).

Also, the "stany skonfederowane" should be translated as "unbreakable parliament or simply as Confederated sejm and not as "States united in a confederation", since that would have little sense. The same with "Lithuanian confederation" mentioned by the anon - it did not mean that Lithuania was composed of many federated states... Halibutt 07:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Its only your bla-bla-bla, dear Hello-but. 85.206.194.143 07:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Come back when you think of some arguments to post, ok? Halibutt 18:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dates

Lead sais: The three partitions occurred in:

• February 17, 1772
• January 21, 1793
• October 1795.

This is incorrect. Partitions took months, and years in case of the first one (Austria invaded in 1769 already). Do those dates refer to the dates Sejm accepting the treaties? If so, we need to expand on the third one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong pictures

Two first pictures are correct. Three last are wrong. The last - old (possibly from 19th century) - picture just shows polish historic chauvinism. 85.206.192.120 21:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? I agree that the last, old picture, which is from an old British atlas by the way, shows a lot of the historical prejudices of the time. If anything, it reflect pro-Russian bias, showing White Russia and Little Russia. I find it interesting as a snapshot of the historical view of the time. Plus it is a nice looking map. Still, if you find it so objectionable, I will unlink it. Balcer 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Balcer I see you are honest man without that bestial nationalistic chauvinism (shadow of past) which is very characteristic to many (unfortunately) your countryman. Thank you very much for that! 85.206.192.120 21:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to report that in fact most Poles I know are pretty reasonable people. Certainly I have not met any Polish bestial nationalistic chauvinists. Are you sure they exist? Balcer 21:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There are grave problems in the maps: the OTHER changes in neighboring borders (after 1500's and before any of the partitions) are not accounted and thus certain neihgbors are shown wrongly. Estonia did not belong to Sweden in 1772, it and Livonia belonged to Russia. Hungary did not belong to Ottomans in 1772, it belonged to Habsburgs. And Silesia did not belong to Habsburgs in 1772, it belonged to Prussia. Therefore the maps are basically crap.

Additionally, the partitions itselves are nor correctly shown in these maps. The area ceded to Russians in first partition is not shown by a lucid bordering (also against the previous Russian border). And the clarity of ceded areas in each time could be better shown. 62.78.106.50 17:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that especially the 1772 map needs some work. The other maps just need some minor tweaks. I would suggest unlinking the map for now, until corrections are made. Balcer 17:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nu i jak panowie?

Balcer - RESPECT! Zuch. Ačiū! 85.206.192.120 21:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

This is a suggestion to both sides. How about writing Partitions of Poland-Lithuania? Poland-Lithuania term is used sometimes, similar to Austria-Hungary, and if this term would be used there would be no need to discuss if it was commonwealth or no, etc. (as these discution the way they goes now probably won't lead to much compromise). The fact still would remain that the country, however it was called, was made out of merged countries of Poland and Lithuania, so term Poland-Lithuania would be more or less accurate maybe. What do you think about it? Or suggest something else... Because the way it goes it won't lead anywhere, revert after revert. DeirYassin 10:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. This term is using in world historiography. Could be used and term Partitions of Republic of Both Nations. 85.206.194.121 12:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would most surely be a compromise version, although it would be both misleading and incorrect. The more correct term would be "Partitions of Crown and Lithuania" since that were the names of both parts of the Republic of Poland at that time. Which is, of course, not a good name either. Halibutt 11:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hello-but, "Republic of Poland" never existed before 1918. 85.206.194.121 12:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear anon, Republic of Poland is one of the possible translations of Rzeczpospolita Polska. Try working on your English skills. And why is the 1918-1939 Poland called Second Polish Republic? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Piotr-Piotrus, try working on your logic and English skils. "Republic of Poland" ("Rzeczpospolita Polska") never existed before 1918. In 1569 - 1795 existed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Republic of Both Nations (Abiejų Tautų Respublika, Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow) - confederal state consisted from Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland. Not "Rzeczpospolita Polska". Do you understand? How to call Poland (1918 - 1939) is a problem of polish nationalistes. 85.206.194.143 17:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, one of the anons (was it you?) mentioned the Zaręczenie wzajemne... act of 1791 as a proof of something. It might be interesting to read the text of that act. The preamble starts with the following words:

Za zgodą Panów Rad Senatu, tak Duchownych, jako i Świeckich oraz Posłów Ziemskich Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, bacząc ustawicznie na powinność Naszą, ku wspólnej Ojczyźnie swej, Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, której wszystką ozdobę, pożytek pospolity, a najwięcej umocnienie od niebezpieczeństwa tak wewnętrznego, jak zewnętrznego, opatrzyć powinniśmy (...)

which could be roughly translated as:

With consent of the Councillors of the Senate, both clerics and lay people, as well as members of the Sejm from both the Crown of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, bearing in mind our obligations towards our fatherland, the Republic of Poland (lit. Rzeczpospolita of Poland - Halibutt), to which we owe securing of its beauty, common benefit, and most of all its strengthening against both internal and external dangers(...)

So, according to the kings of Poland and grand dukes of Lithuania, Poland was a republic well before the first World War. Halibutt 18:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hello-but, I will not repeat 10 times the same what is in commentaries above. See Talk here -> Three Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And see carefuly the text of Act. 85.206.194.143 18:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

1. My nick is Halibutt, please at least try to put it down correctly.
2. Above I could see only your wishes, not actual arguments. You don't have to repeat them, but trying to support them with data or sources would be a good move
3. I've read the document I quoted repeatedly before I translated the fragment. And it is clear that the king of Poland (and grand duke of Lithuania at the same time) was referring to his homeland as "Rzeczpospolita Polska", which proves your argument about the republic being started in 1918 wrong. The term was used at least 130 years before that year.
4. Finally, the document we quoted (or was it some other anon?) partially proves my point and partially proves yours: from it it's somehow clear that the state called the Republic of Poland or Commonwealth of Poland (depending on how one translates the term Rzeczpospolita Polska was composed of two equal lands, or cantons. This would suggest that Poland was indeed a confederation rather than federation.

--Halibutt 19:12, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Proof and EOT

Remember that Wiki policy is to use the most common name as a title and explain other, less often ussed names after the lead - even if they would be technically more correct. This is why, for example, Polish-Soviet War:3,940 is preffered to Polish-Bolshevik War:745, or World War II:20,700,000 to World War Two:729,000 or Second World War:4,070,000. Google hits: "partitions+of+Poland": 11,300, "partitions+of+Poland-Lithuania": 294, "partitions+of+Polish-Lithuanian": 7 (Commonwealth 6, Rublic 1), "partitions+of+Rzeczpospolita": 4, "partitions+of+Lithuania+Poland": 1, "Partitions+of+Republic+of+Both+Nations": 0, "Partitions+of+Republic+of+Two+Nations": 0, "Partitions+of+Republic+of+the+Two+Nations": 0, "Partitions of Crown and Lithuania": 0 . Also, in case of the naming problem which I wrote about earlier: "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth": 21,900, "Rzeczpospolita Polska" (English only):5,940, "Republic+of+Both+Nations": 383, "Republic of the Two Nations": 119, "Republic of Two Nations": 98. Feel free to add any names I could have forgotten to check, but common use is clear: partitions of Poland, but the state name is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It is all mentioned in the lead. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

However, this is only applied when there are three similar namings to the same thing/event (as in World War 2 or Polish-Soviet war case example). But where neutrality is disputed, this is not how it is done. E.g. thre is article Nanjing Massacre, this term gets 87,200 hits. Term "Rape of Nanking", which was once name of article and is about same event, gets 149,000 hits. However, it's neutrality was disputed therefore article renamed. Excluding Misplaced Pages mirrors/links, "Prussian Holocaust" probably gets slightly more results than Evacuation of East Prussia too, but the article on earlier name was later renamed to the latter name cause of neutrality. The ammount of links IMO just tells the "common" view, which is influenced e.g. by availability of internet in certain countries or population of certain countries or knowledge of English in some countries (e.g. US view will always be represented better than say Indonesian or Kazakh; same for Polish and Lithuanian views (there are more Poles and historically Polish historians had more influence) - but Misplaced Pages is here exactly to find neutral solutions) DeirYassin 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you can only support your point by providing such extreme and controversial examples. Yes, these entries were controversial because they used highly charged words like "rape" or "holocaust". I do not see any extreme words like that in the title we are proposing.

As for the acceptance of the term, it has little to do with the availability of the internet, and it has been used in English publications for a long time. For example:

• Encyclopedia Britannica

• Columbia Encyclopedia

So, Partitions of Poland should be first in the title. Still, maybe we can also mention Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth more prominently in the title. Maybe a slight cosmetic change will ease some of the emotional reponse here by some editors. Balcer 15:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I will repeat what was written above in commentaries: The term of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was started using in English historiography short time ago - until that was Poland. It was because of lack of possibility for Lithuanian historians to speak worldwide because of soviet occupation. So polish falsificators did their job. The term 'Partitions of Poland' is an atavism from those times. It is completely wrong and must be changed. 85.206.194.143 17:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As a note, it may be noted that contemporaries usually did use name "Poland" for denoting whole country in XVIII century. If you want, I will dig out the quote by one of Polish hetmans who said something in the sens "I will call you all Poles, since you are all sons of the same mother" when referring to his army, composed of Poles, Lithuanians and Rusins. Idea of calling the whole state "Poland" is not invented in XX century, but rather concept dating to XVIII century (And sometimes even earlier: i've seen articles which said that "nostra Polonia" conscience started to develop in Lithuania in early XVII century). Szopen 07:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As for internet, I just said the situation about numbers of google hits, but you are right that it was used previously. As anonymous said however, what is used most common is not necessarily most neutral or the best. I don't think it only applies to articles with these words, but any places where the most used name for a thing or event might be non-neutral, or a thing from the past or such. That is my opinion however. DeirYassin 18:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Out of respect for DY, I will reply for the last time: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Misplaced Pages is not 5. Primary (original) research such as (...) coining new words. We can explain (and we do - and if anon can prove the history of the term with a source, we can add this to), but we cannot create. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a notice - the other ways to call it are being used too as your websearch showed, just that not as much as the current version; so it wouldn't be same as creating new words or neologisms. DeirYassin 18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Second Partition in Luxembourg?

Family legend says that Frederik II of Prussia had his headquarters in our family home in Luxembourg when he was planning the Second Partition. Is there any credibility to this? --Stereo 22:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Prussia was engaged in fighting revolutionary France just before it turned to partitions of Poland, and IIRC Frederic did in fact participate in some battles, so it is plausible Frederic would've been near French front - and Luxemburg is a good place for it. I don't have any specific sources for that, though. May I ask what your house is/was? If it was a famous palace or such it should be easier to trace. Any more details on the legend - i.e. when was he staying, with how, for how long, etc.? One more thing: Frederic was the brain behind the 2nd Partitions - he blackmailed Catherine into it, saying in a letter that if he wasn't compensated for his recent losses against France he would have to sign a peace with France. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The house was a big farm outside the capital on the road that goes from the capital to the French fortified city of Longwy. IIRC, he is supposed to have stayed there for a day or two. He allegedly gave a baptism robe to the owners to thank them, and that robe has been used for the children of the various owners of the house since. I'll ask the family and see if I can dig up more. --Stereo 03:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Is it really that clear? (Poland/PLC)

Dear friends, I understand my late appearance in this discussion and can foresee your reaction, however I see too much discussions not contributing to correctness of the articles, being some kind of demagogy and advocacy of one's national pov. Here are a few notices: The statement "the were partitions of Poland, not the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth" implies that common state of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not exist i.e. those were either two separate states or one single state, both being not true. Its simply logical. Stop generating those sophisticated arguments/methods/etc..

BTW1: At the same time, an an article Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth is talking about the commonwealth, later having a sentence "the country was partitioned in three stages", which implies "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned in three stages". Thus these two articles contradict to each other...

BTW2: The same article is talking about may 3 constitution "These reforms came too late, however, as the Commonwealth was immediately invaded from all sides by its neighbors. The latter feared the revolutionary implications of the May 3rd Constitution's political reforms and the prospect of the Commonwealth regaining its position as a European empire. In the end the May 3rd Constitution was never fully implemented, and the Commonwealth entirely ceased to exist only four years after the Constitution's adoption." From this we can derive: a) the constitution did not really create a single state (what i believe to be quite true de facto); b) we had partitions of the commonwealth, not Poland.

There are contradictions in evaluation of events (facts) even if they are evaluated by "the same" editors, which means they are evaluated as needed for some given situation. A bit not seriuos, huh..

Traditional history vs...Misplaced Pages?

The article starts with this paragraph:

In traditional history one finds the claim that the regional powers partitioned the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth because of the degeneration of the state and because of the inability of the Poles to rule themselves at the time. Nevertheless the darkest period of Polish history and the nadir in the degeneration of the state occurred in the first half of the 18th century, whereas the partitions happened when Poland had been showing the beginning signs of a slow recovery — in fact one can see the last two partitions as an answer to strengthening reforms in the Commonwealth and the potential threat they represented to its neighbours. In other words, the partitions did not happen because Poland was a degenerate, weak and backward country; rather, Poland suffered partitioning because it was weak, backward, and tried to reform itself.

I have to admit, I found it a little disconcerting to read "traditional history says this, but instead it was like this". Is this now the universally accepted view, then? If it isn't, it needs altering for NPOV. — Matt Crypto 12:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is unfortunately phrased, and the last sentece was quite POVed (I removed it), but the paragraph seem to be consistent with my knowledge (will look for sources later). The partitions did happen because of the final drive to reform and constitutional monarchy threatened PLC neighbours (who didn't want the strong PLC to be reborn, the FA Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 should be interesting if you haven't read it yet), but the partitioners spread the myth that they partitioned Poland to free the serfs, end the civil wars, introduce law and order, etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did introduce that sentence quite long, long ago, in meaning exactly as Piotrus said. In Prussian/Russian historiography (and then adpoted by western historiographies) Poland was partitioned because it was backward. Also in Polish historiography it was presented as it was historical inevitability (Surely Also Piotrus remembers the lessons about how some events in XVI century led to partitions in XVIII century. I, for one, was always fed up with them). Szopen 12:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am very disturbed by the "traditional view" vs "the truth is" phrasing, especially in the very beginning, but so would be anywhere in the article. Encyclopedias don't reflect the "truth", they reflect "knowledge". As such, "traditional view" should receive the utmost credence and the rest, if notable, should be presented as clearly an alternative view and attributed.

One may claim that untruths made it to the mainstream and we should correct that. Well, too bad that untruths made it to the "western historiography" spread from the biased "Prussian/Russian" historiographies but others would claim the opposite and these arguments are not for encyclopedic articles but for the scholarly literature. Once, the "traditional view" gets evolved in the mainstream academic community, the encyclopedias would present an evolved view as the main one. This intro needs rewritten IMO to reflect the "traditional view" and the attributed alternative views may be presented and discussed further in the article. A very similar debate has occurred some months ago and preserved at Talk:Ukrainian_language#Untraditional_version_of_origin where I invite everyone to read the arguments of the sides. That the UA L article got so little reformed after the massive damage due to the suppression of "traditional" views by the "nontraditional" ones and other edits and deletions is my fault but I keep that on my todo list. --Irpen 02:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian Revolution

Please do explain the edit where:

"It would take World War I, with the Central Powers defeating Russia and then losing to the Western Allies, and the Treaty of Versailles to restore Poland's independence after 123 years."

was replaced with:

"It would take the Russian Revolution and the Treaty of Versailles to restore Poland's independence after 123 years."

What makes you think that the Central Powers would allow for the independent Poland if not defeated in WW1 ? --Wojsyl 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Russia was *not* defeated. Following the Revolution, the Bolsheviks realized their promises and unilaterally withdrew from what they considered imperialist fighting. Russia was a founding member of the Entente, so you can't say that the Entente won the war but Russia lost it. It is nonsense. The fortunes changed frequently, see Brusilov Offensive for that, and noone can say how the war would end if not for the Revolution. --Ghirlandajo 17:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As best I understand, Poland's independence was a result not so much of the Entente's support as of Lenin's internationalist policies. He set many repressed nationalities of the Russian Empire free. Take Finland, for example. Partitions of Poland were regarded by him as a monstrous instance of imperialism, and he was keen to reverse it. --Ghirlandajo 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian Revolution was an important factor, so was the defeat of Central Powers. Why not mention both events? IIRC Entente main reason for recreating Poland was weakening Germany. I think that our Polish-Soviet War explains Lenin's intentions towards Poland. Bolsheviks were more friendly then the Whites towards the idea of minorities self-governance - provided it was a bolshevick self-governance.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to mention both. There's no doubt that Russian Revolution was a very important factor here. --Wojsyl 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I see it's done already. --Wojsyl 19:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Partitions of Poland → Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: Partitions of Poland is the commonly used name while the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seems more correct but not in common use. --Wojsyl 08:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Please consult the discussion below first, before voting.

Only Tthen add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, and sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

It is strange that the Polish editors, who insist on referring to the 18th-century Poland as "the Commonwealth", prefer to talk about the partitions of Poland. I propose to move the articles to the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for the sake of consistency. Other drawbacks of this article are the proliferation of strange {EB} notices and the lack of data as to which country *initiated* which partition. --Ghirlandajo 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is poor and indeed needs much work, including referencing. As for the move: I have considered it myself in the past, but rejected it for the following reasons:

• this term is much less used then "Partitons of Poland" (617:43500 Google, 0 Scholar, 4:190 on Google books)
• while the first two partitions were of PLC, the last one is somewhat dubious, raising issues of the name change from PLC to Kingdom of Poland (IIRC) in the May Constitution

For those reason I don't think that a move would be a good idea, however a section about the name would be in order.

PS. Remember that Poland in that historical period had a different meaning then today: it reffered to the PLC, not the Poland proper (Crown of the Polish Kingdom).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Poland is also a prevalent appelation of the 17th-century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which doesn't hinder you (among other Polish editors) to prefer the term "Commonwealth" for the period in question. Also, is it alright if I purge the text from those strange EB notes, presumably standing for "Encyclopedia Britannica"? --Ghirlandajo 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PLC is a term fairly popular in English, but Partitions of PLC is not. If you can reach consensus with others about changing the name I won't object, but I don't think it is a good idea (besides, the name would be rather too long). EB: It would be nice to review the edit history and see who put the EB references, ask him for exact reference and transform it into proper footnotes, don't you think so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can easily see how it is considered and perceived as the "Partitions of Poland" in Polish national historiography. Since the history of Poland gets more researched internationally than the Lithuanian history (reasons aside), this resulted in that "P of P" is more a popular collocation than "P of PLC". However, despite these events are justifiably perceived as "P of Poland" by the Poles, this is not what the article is about. This article is about the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and currently it simply sits under the incorrect name. As I see it a Partitions of Poland should be a DAB page which would list all these partitions as well as the partitions between the USSR and Germany in '39. However, for this article, the name does not reflect the topic and should be changed. --Irpen 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's... quite a good argument. It's great when people approach local (Polish) issues from other (non-Polish) POVs. That's Wiki's strenght. I am eagerly awaiting other comments :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to ask fo a third opinion, not from Poland or Eastern Europe, but how this is viewed from outside. So far I see the arguments for both names derive from different grounds:

• "Partitions of Poland" is based on common usage, but is not quite correct in the modern sense
• "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is based on historical correctness, but would be inventing new terminology

As it's not clear which of the reasons is prevailing, I'd say we should go through formal WP:RM procedure. That's what it's for. --Wojsyl 08:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think that the name Partitions of Poland derives from Polish historians. On the contrary, I remember descriptions like Upadek Rzeczpospolitej (the Fall of Commonwealth) etc. I think the term comes from western historians and I decided to check why. I looked it up in 1911 encyclopaedia to see how it was referred to once. And of course it’s called Partitions of Poland. But, in the same encyclopaedia one can find an article about Poland and its history , but there is no article about Lithuania at all . Lithuanians are referred to as people who live in Russia, Poland and Prussia, although Poland didn’t exist when the encyclopaedia was written. Similarly, there is no mention about Polish-Lithuanian Union, or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though words like “union” and “common” appear in the article. I think they used to refer to Poland as we refer to England. It’s easier to say England than United Kingdom or Great Britain. There is an English Queen and English parliament, so we use the name England as common, but officially we often use the proper name. There was a Polish king in PLC, and parliament gathered in Warsaw, so they used to say Poland. Partly out of laziness (it’s my guess), and partly because they didn’t see then the many peoples living in PLC as separate nations. I think the view will be changing now, since today historians are more careful about proper names, and there are several countries in the place of PLC. After all a view like political correctness didn’t exist once at all. And e.g. Norman Davies in his Złote Ogniwa (I think it’s called Golden Links in English) writes about Partitions of Poland referring to history of Poland. But in his Europe he mentions both Partitions of Poland and Partitions of Poland-Lithuania (page 661).

I also checked the article Battle of Britain. There are 16 articles about the battle in different Wikis. I can’t read the name of the article in 3 Wikis, but out of remaining 13 only 4 articles are called Battle of Britain (the English Wiki included) while 9 articles are called Battle of England. Among them articles in popular languages like French, German and Spanish. If e.g. French was the most popular language of communication today, we would all use the incorrect name of the battle in the main encyclopeadia as common, even though the English themselves call it Battle of Britain. Well, I don’t have my own opinion on the name of the article yet, but I think we should take all the things under consideration.--SylwiaS | talk 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I think as well. The question is which of the names should be used for the article's title here ? The commonly used in English, or the one that seems factually more correct ? I've asked a couple of Lithuanian editors for help on this. --Wojsyl 10:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading vote summary

Should be noted when saying "common usage" that "common usage from the angle of History of Poland". Otherwise, the argument misses the point. Wojsyl, could you correct that at your WP:RM entry? I could do that, but it is signed by you, so I would rather ask you to modify your entry. --Irpen 08:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's in common usage worldwide, not in Poland only. Don you think ? Check google. --Wojsyl 08:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide in the context of the History of Poland. It is not studied in Poland exclusively. Check what is said above. --Irpen 08:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the discussion above but I'm not sure. That's why I've requested the WP:RM to get more voices from the outside. My POV may be too biased. I don't even know myself which name is more appropriate. I've written the summary as I see it, as the person who initiated the WP:RM --Wojsyl 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I explained above why I see your summary misleading. Some of the voters might not read the whole discussion and vote, mostly based on the summary only. "More a common usage" is usually a very strong argument in move votings and cannot be used in the summary lightly. The correct way to say it is "More common usage in the context of the History of Poland". If you refuse to modify the summary, I will have to add this correction to your summary myself. I do not assume the bad faith on your part. I am just saying that you, understandably, view this from the same perspective as the historians who specialize in the Polish history, ---Irpen 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not understand what you're trying to say so far, but let me read on .... --Wojsyl 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above with G/GS/GB, partitions of Poland seem to be the common usage in English language as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I said. Yes, in English but in the context of the Polish history. There are many good scholars of Polish history who wrote their books in English. Davies is one of them. Our article should be titled from a more general perspective rather than from a narrower Polish history perspective. That's all I am saying. --Irpen 18:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You lost me here. As far as I can understand you, you are saying that it is not the common usage, but the correct one - and I can agree with this. But I still fail to see that 'partitons of PLC' is a common usage anywhere, no matter what the context - just as PLC itself is not the most common terms, and lots of publications refer to Poland where they should refer to PLC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I try a different example. I've seen Ukrainian history books that view the Eastern front of what we call here a Polish September Campaign as a unification of historic Ukraine: unification of Ukrainians with there Western brethren. I've seen similar terminology in Soviet books when they also referred to "liberation" of not only Ukrainians but Belarusians. The former view is entirely justified from a narrow Ukrainian historian's perspective. What that historian fails to see is that he is applying a Ukrainian perspective to an event that was indeed of the grand-European scale, perhaps even a world-wide scale. He sees the trees but doesn't see the forest.

This is somewhat similar here. From the perspective of the Polish history, no matter who writes it, this is a partition of Poland. It made it to the books by international scholars and I respect that. Therefore, I don't mind using this terminology, even considering that it is incorrect, in the History of Poland article, but not in the article of its own, whose title should match the content. I am not speaking about correct/incorrect terminology for calling the same thing differently, like Kiev vs Kyiv, where there is no doubt that this is one and the same thing. The partitions of Poland, that includes the '39 events is not the same thing as the Partition of PLC, unless you concede that PLC was just Poland. In the latter case, please make sure you correct for that in all other Misplaced Pages articles. --Irpen 19:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's too much wine, but still, I find it difficult to follow you. Are you saying that Partitions of Poland was not Partitions of Poland from European perspective ? Or, ehm, I'm really lost. I agree that "Partitions of PLC" is more correct, but is not a used term in English. Why do you say that the summary is incorrect ? (please don't tell me to read what you wrote above, because I already had and I still miss your point) :-( --Wojsyl 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm also happy to withdraw the WP:RM if you think it's better to do so, but I would like to ask that nobody (I don't want to fingerpoint anyone) renames the article until we reach a firm consensus on the name change. Right now I'm rather inclined towards keeping the original title but I also recognize the reasons for the name change. --Wojsyl 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Partition of PLC" is also a partition of Poland as far as the History of Poland is conserned, as well as far as the scholars of the History of Poland are conserned and as far as the Poles are conserned. "P o PLC" is not an unused but a less used term in English because there are many books on the history of Poland where it is understandibly called the "P of P". Go ahead and use it in the History of Poland article too. I have no problem with that.

However this article, is an article about the event and not about the Polish history. It should not be viewed through a prizm of the Polish history, and as such, should have a name that reflects the content. '39 was indeed a Partition of Poland from any POV.

Finally, to your last point, the ongoing vote doesn't prevent any bad-faith user from moving the article and make a PITA for everyone. Your finger-pointing contradicts an Assume good faith rule. I said earlier at a different talk, and I am ready to repeat that here, that from now on whenever I see any article move that's made with a dirty trick of artificial history creation, it would be immediately brought up to the attention of the community and such moves will likely soon be reverted regardless of their merit based simply on the fact that the trick was used. --Irpen 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, my "not finger pointing" is very well in line with Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. I've seen quite many frivolous name changes lately without any prior discussion, or clearly against the consensus and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Yet, I'm still willing to assume good faith. I don't think we want to go into this here, though. --Wojsyl 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the topic, now. As to your explanation above, I agree that "PoPLC" seems more correct technically, and that "PoP" is in wider use, even if it's less correct. That's why the choice of the title is not obvious and that's what I've written in the vote summary. What I fail to see is what is wrong with the summary. I have the feeling that we're both saying exactly the same things, yet you think that the summary is wrong. Hmmm.--Wojsyl 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Irpen is trying to say that PoP is common usage in works relating to the history of Poland rather than those of, say Lithuania. There are numerous reasons why there are more works on the history of Poland than those on the history of Lithuania, the most important being size and the geopolitical importance during WW2 and the years soon after. That would explain why there are more works talking about PoP instead of PoPLC (Certainly in recent decades) and consequently why the term PoP is more prevalent. Am I right? If so, I would have to say that Irpen's point, although quite true does not prove that the summary is misleading. The history of the duchy of Lithuania and Poland during certain periods of time cannot be studied separately. They are too inextricably linked with each other to be considered separately. Most reputable scholarly works would cover the common history as common history in great detail whether they are written from a Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian or for that matter Courlandish perspective. There is no way to cover these separately. In consequence I believe that the common usage should prevail in this particular matter since that is what would be known best to users worldwide. Of course the fact that it is in fact the PLC that is meant by the article and not just the Crown should be described in detail in the article body itself. Chelman 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a reasonable discussion and thanks god we haven't got yet voters brought in by the WP:RM listing, voters who having no clue on the topic, would just place a vote based on a misleading summary. Since the WP:RM listing is not withdrawn, I will modify it first thing when I have any time for some editing in accordance with what has been said earlier. --Irpen

Irpen, you keep repeating that the summary is misleading, but you're not explaining what do you find misleading about it. I'm afraid you're the only one who finds anything misleading there. --Wojsyl 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Let me cast he first vote, then. After reading the above, I get the impression that everyone substantially agrees that the move should be made. As to "common" vs. "correct" usage, a similar phenomenon occurs in all fields of human endevour. There is a long, formal name which is rarely used, and a short, common name. There's common slang, like tranny, short for transmission. There's Queen, short for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, or even UK. Correct usage is that the first reference (such as the title) should use the long formal name, and the rest of the discussion may use shortened references, except wherever things may not be clear or a point or emphasis is to be made. linas 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Partitions of Polithia

The title "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" has historic truth to recommend it. "Partitions of Poland" has convenience on its side. (The second title is 8 syllables, or nearly 60%, shorter than the first title.)

Actually, the term "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is an English interpretation rather than a translation of Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów. Accordingly, perhaps we could ask Norman Davies and other prominent historians to adopt a handier moniker for the Multiethnic Entity, such as "Polithia" — a conflation of "Poland-Lithuania." We might then enjoy both historic truth and convenience in the same title, "Partitions of Polithia." (We wouldn't have to call it Commonwealth of Polithia, as we don't ordinarily speak of the Republic of Poland.) logologist 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) )

Nice idea. I know that Davies is quite bold with new words. Still "Polithia" seems dangerously close to "Policia" ;-) --Wojsyl 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Less so in Polish (Politwa). And it wouldn't have to be used by Poles, while the English version's -a ending distances it from the English "police." logologist 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we're over-engineering the solution to this problem. To me, the solution is quite simple. Partition of Poland is the most common term, so it should be the article title (per WP policy). Any other variations should be redirects. And since we're actually talking about PLC and not Poland, we should say PLC and not Poland in the intro. The whole nuanced discussion about the Constitution of May 3 and whether it abolished the PLC should be in the body. Appleseed 16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarity and accuracy of expression are important. For example, when people carelessly speak of "the Enigma code" — which was actually a cipher — this tends to confuse thinking on the subject. When people speak of "Poland" when they are referring to the Polish-Lithuanian-Rusian historical entity, it inevitably confuses many people — and leads to bad blood among descendants of the historic "Polish Republic's" non-Polish citizens. What is "common" (e.g. "Partitions of Poland") is not necessarily accurate or desirable. logologist 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's now (at least) the third time that's been said on this talk page, and I agree. The long, formal name should be used first, and in particular, used in the title. Once the formal name has been established, the pop/common name can be used with abandon. What's the problem?

(Oh, there is a problem with Polothia, and that is that its a neologism and WP policy explicitly prohibits that.) linas 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, every word was a neologism once. The policy probably refers to a ban on Misplaced Pages editors introducing neologisms. But maybe Professor Davies would oblige? logologist 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)