This is an archive of past discussions about Partitions of Poland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 Crypto12:38, 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 PiotrusTalk14:10, 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). Szopen12:22, 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. --Irpen02:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Irpen, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Traditional, means what is in Polish schoolbooks; "The truth" is what you may find in modern history books. And note that other backward states were not partitioned as Poland was, and was Poland was most degenerated and backward it was not partitioned either, but only when it started to reform itself. Szopen11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"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."
What makes you think that the Central Powers would allow for the independent Poland if not defeated in WW1 ? --Lysy(talk)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. --Ghirlandajo17:15, 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. --Ghirlandajo17:18, 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 PiotrusTalk17:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please consult the discussion below first, before voting.
Only then add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, and sign your vote with ~~~~
Support. Let me cast he first vote, then. After reading the below, 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. linas14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong support - it's the correct name. Now PoP might be more convenient and popular, but PoPLC is the right thing. It reminds me of that sexism issue with "his/her," it's uncomfortable, it's silly, it's annoying, but it is the right thing to do. So it's the right thing to move it. Now saying that May 3rd constitution abolished PLC and thus article title is not valid anymore - that's just over-formalizing. You can add note and that's completely sufficient. In any case May 3rd constitution did not take real power, 3rd partition happened too soon. Renata319:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Support. It's not going to be the most common search phrase with the English-speaking uninitiated (presumably most people who need to look up the Partitions on Wikipedia) will use. Still, if there is a redirect, I don't see why we can't move it to the longer, more correct title. --Jpbrenna19:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think "more common" is an understatement; Google gives 11,300 results for "Partitions of Poland" and 6 results for "Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (see this). Appleseed (Talk) 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've included them in my Google results below, and they return very few hits. This is all the more reason to use the one universally accepted term, rather than to pick one of 10 uncommon ones. Appleseed (Talk) 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine, we should then substitue PLC for Poland everywhere in this list. --Irpen
Support per below ([2], [3], [4], [5]) and Kyiv/Kiev Wilno/Vilnius are totally different cases where choise between two correct names may be based on common usage unlike the choise between the correct and the incorrect one. --Irpen17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong support for the article title that more accurately reflects the history of the events, "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," with redirect from "Partitions of Poland." The Polish-Lithuanian territories that were seized as late as the Third and final Partition (1795) included Vilnius (Lithuania), Navahradak and Brest (Belarus) and Lutsk (Ukraine). This clearly was not a purely "Polish" concern. logologist23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, the PLC became Poland after the constitution was adopted and both the Crown and the Grand Duchy became one state. So, we'd have the Partitions of PLC article for the first partition, and partitions of Poland for the second and third.. Halibutt15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. "Poland" is the accepted short form for "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", just as "France" is the accepted short form of "French Republic," and, at any rate, "Partitions of Poland" is by far the more common term. john k22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Poland is by an order of magnitude the most common usage in English, whether scholarly histories or popular press. I don't see why Wikipedia should make its own naming conventions, even if the arguments for PoPLC are reasonable. --Goodoldpolonius222:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral/Weak oppose. I would propose retaining this article's present title, for the reasons of predominant usage and Poland being short for the larger entity. However, I also see the point of misleading the reader with this traditional title, and so a reasonable way to counter this would be to clearly explain in bold type in the leading sentence that these events are more properly/correctly referred to as the partition of Poland-Lithuania. //Big Adamsky20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
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. --Ghirlandajo15:43, 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.
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"? --Ghirlandajo18:03, 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 PiotrusTalk00:02, 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. --Irpen00:46, 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
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. --Lysy(talk)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 [6], but there is no article about Lithuania at all [7]. 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 | talk03:44, 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. --Lysy(talk)10:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think that we should ask English speaking editors' opinion. I mean, come on, if I were Lithuanian I would vote support already. Since I'm a Pole, it really doesn't matter for me what it's called like. I know the history, I won't get lost looking for books etc. I also understand the preference of non-Polish ascendants of PLC for the longer name. So maybe uninvolved people should just say what they want?--SylwiaS | talk20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I know. I was aware that Lithuanian editors would have much stronger opinion about this. Nevertheless I thought their voice is also important here. Even if it might seem slightly out of balance at the moment. But we do not hurry here, do we ? --Lysy(talk)20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course their voice is important, and sure we do not hurry. It's just that I've decided to make my vote according to English native speakers. If they say it's ok, I'll vote support, if they say it's misleading, I'll vote against. But it can wait.--SylwiaS | talk20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I know what you mean, Sylwia and I'm reluctant to voice my vote for very similar reasons. I see good reasons to support both names. So far the voting is 100% dominated by Lithuanians :-), I think that's rare ;-) --Lysy(talk)22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and definitely worth seeing. I even hesitated to invite people outside of PLC to have once in life a voting in an old PLC style, but I remembered Liberum Veto, and I thought that it will be easier to reach consensus according to Wiki 80% support rule. :)--SylwiaS | talk22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
See, most people without personal connections to Poland or Lithuania or the region in general, do not have an opinion. I highly doubt that anybody not involved will voice an opinion. And I voted not only based on my nationality, but based on common sense - you don't name articles after shortcuts; you create redirects. Besides, PoP, as indicated, also should include WWI & WWII territorial changes. Renata321:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, but my nationality influences my common sense, and I'm sure that's true for everyone to some extent. Nothing bad about it, as long as you are aware of that. --Lysy(talk)22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think they do. Many Americans I know learnt about the Partitions, and indeed, the name they are familiar with is Partitions of Poland. I don't say it's good or bad, it's just how it is. The name of the partitions is not a short name, just what they used to call the country was a shortname for probably some ages. And it was the official name they used, since it's the only one listed in the old encyclopeadia. As I said, I don't have a problem with PoPLC, because in Polish we use both names and I'm familiar with them. But it may be a problem for English speakers. I just would like to know. I agree with you that PoPLC is a sensible name. But on the other hand I know that if someone told me about the Battle of Britain in Polish, I would wonder what they're talking about. I don't mind if you vote basing on nationality or not (I hope I didn't say anything improper), both would be fine with me. But I guess that Lithuanians don't learn about PoP, but PoPLC, so the name would be more familiar and obvious.--SylwiaS | talk22:23, 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. Lysy, 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. --Irpen08:17, 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. --Irpen08:37, 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 --Lysy(talk)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, ---Irpen17:22, 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. --Irpen18:51, 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 PiotrusTalk19:00, 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 Wikipedia articles. --Irpen19:36, 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) :-( --Lysy(talk)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. --Lysy(talk)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. --Irpen20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, my "not finger pointing" is very well in line with Wikipedia: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. --Lysy(talk)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.--Lysy(talk)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. Chelman22:35, 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. --Lysy(talk)10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem with generally using "Poland" to refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as this is standard English usage. john k22:37, 21 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.) logologist05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
)
Nice idea. I know that Davies is quite bold with new words. Still "Polithia" seems dangerously close to "Policia" ;-) --Lysy(talk)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." logologist15:34, 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. Appleseed16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Clarity and accuracy of expression are important. For example, when people carelessly speak of "the Enigmacode" — 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. logologist17:11, 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?
How about Pollithua? Actually I wish our ancestors called us Commonwealth of Central-Eastern Europe. They would call us Europe in short :)--SylwiaS | talk18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Logologist, I've never heard of anyone refer to the "Enigma code", but your point is well taken. However, I never said that the article should sacrifice clarity and accuracy of expression, only that the article name should be the most common name, per WP policy. In our case, Partitions of Poland is more common than any other term by a very large margin (several orders of magnitude, if you trust Google or Google Books). Either way, I expect that the article text will make it abudantly clear that we're talking about the multinational PLC and not just Poland. Appleseed (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Since someone asked me to take a look at this article, I thought I would try to gather some evidence. Here are the stats from JSTOR, one of the larger scholarly journal archives in the social sciences and humanities:
"Partitions of Poland" 247 articles (also in books, The Partitions of Poland, 1772, 1793, 1795 by Jerzy Lukowski, etc)
"Partition of Poland" 549 articles
"Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" 2 articles
"Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" 3 articles
"Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian..." 47 articles (includes articles referring to the "Federation" the "State" etc.)
"Partition of Poland-Lithuania" 1 article
"Partition of Lithuania" 1 article
From my perspective, it makes it pretty clear that the current title is the best bet from a non-involved American view (full disclosure, I am 1/4 Polish and 1/8 Lithuanian by ancestry, as near as I can figure). --Goodoldpolonius204:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This stats should be checked to the stats of the usage of P vs P-L. This is, however, impossible, I guess. But, again, any scholar writing about the history of P, would call the event "P of P" in all likelyhood. And, as I said before, I also do not object to using this term in the History of P article. --Irpen05:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Naturally, there would be more articles on the Poland than on the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth/Federation/Union overall, since all contemporary articles would use that term. However, referring specifically to the partition of Poland/P-L I would not expect that to be prejudiced by the fact that Poland currently exists and P-L does not. Just as I would expect historical articles to mention Prussia, even though contemporary articles certainly would not. In short, I think the stats are correct on scholarly usage in English. --Goodoldpolonius205:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, let's try another way. Goodoldpolonius, if the article was called Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the lead it would be mentioned that it's commonly known as Partitions of Poland (all the redirects made etc.) would it be any problem for an English speaker or not? I mean would you prefer seeing the article under the most common name, or it doesn't really matter?--SylwiaS | talk05:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The truth is, it doesn't invoke a lot of passion in me either way, but I have a mild preference for Partitions of Poland, given that it is the more common term in English, and much shorter. However, I don't want to step on anyone's toes, especially if this is turning into a Gdansk/Danzig style discussion. So, I think the long title and intro solution would also be okay. --Goodoldpolonius205:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, the point I am trying to make is in what fraction of the cited scholarly articles the the primary topic of the article is the History of Poland? Is it comparable to the ratio above? Any scholar writing about the Polish history would call this partition "of Poland" and so would a Wikieditor writing a History of Poland article . But this is a general encyclopedia and not a Polish history book. And this is a separate article and not a part of the Template:History of Poland series. Nor it is a part of the Template:Polish statehood or other Poland-only tied series. As such, its content and its title should be broader than how this is viewed from the Polish perspective. --Irpen06:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement that a book on the History of Poland would neccessarily call the event PoP. Any legit history book, on this subject, that is worth the paper is printed on would certainly analyse the event from the point of view of the P-L Commonwealth. This means that the choice of name would be derived from a combination of factors, including what is IMHO the most important factor: prevailing usage. Chelman21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Moreover, in Russian books you will find much less of referring to the country as Польско-Литовское содружество or ru:Речь Посполита than Польша. This is absolutely right, the readers are more used to call what's called "the Commonwealth" throughout WP as simply "Poland". However, note that by this logic we should purge the "Commonwealth" from most articles and replace it with Poland (take for example the Union of Brest and envision the article with Poland in place of the PLC). If we are going to do that, we may start a separate discussion at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and some of the Naming Policy pages. Note that this is not a WP:Point I am trying to make.
Again, "Partitions of Poland" (that along with these ones, includes 1939) is a separate topic and a separate title for a different article. This discussion here is not similar to deciding which of the titles that clearly mean one and the same thing to choose based on common usage like Lviv/Lvov/Lwow or Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow or Peter Mogila/Petro Mohyla. In these examples there is no ambiguity that all names refer to one and the same thing. In here, we have two different phenomenas and partially, one event may be called by the other due to some perceptions. --Irpen21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As to changing "PLC" into "Poland" in Union of Brest I fail to see the necessity to do so. Language usage does not always follow strict logic and cannot be expected to be always consistent. As to using the PoP name to title some other article than this particular one, I am afraid that it would be only misleading. I dont think we should be doing this. --Lysy(talk)22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As I've said above "some other article" titled so should be a DAB to these partitions and 1939. How would that mislead anyone? --Irpen23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, no. Partitions of Poland were always the Partitions. All the other events like 1939 are not really called Partitions. It’s just a symbolic analogy to the first ones. So it doesn’t make sense to have them called Partitions of Poland if those first three are not called like that. If the article was called PoPLC, PoP would have to be a redirect to it anyhow.--SylwiaS | talk23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Very well, if you prefer a redirect, fine with me too. Note however, that there is no need to be picky in DAB articles. As MichaelZ wrote earlier, the DAb pages..
"don't endorse a name for something, they are an interface element which tries to capture all the somethings which may be called by a particular name; and links to disambiguation pages should be bypassed—we can bicker over the [...] issues in the articles themselves. Whether [...some other...] events ... may be called [...something...] by someone—in this context, who cares?"
I am not a specialist in Polish history. As such, I thought of 1939 as one more partitions. OTOH, I guess, I am not the most ignorant in Polish history wikipedian. If I thought so, others might as well. But if calling '39 a partitions sounds offensive, we don't have to do it. I take no position in that. --Irpen04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not offensive. It's just not a name of it. It's a metaphor, and used only in literature or press, not in the proper historical meaning. It's like a poet may call his beloved a rose, but you wouldn't make a redirect from a rose to his beloved, lol. It’s rather like saying: Yet again the history repeated. It is used with respect to many events, not only the 1939 ones.--SylwiaS | talk07:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the rose metaphore, lol. But you're very right. Let's wait and hopefully collect some more voices over time. How about asking some non-Polish, non-Lithuanian English speaking historians ? I'd be convinced if several people from outside central/eastern Europe would support the rename. --Lysy(talk)10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you asked Goodoldpolonius and he said he'd prefer PoP, but he could also live with PoPLC. I asked Jpbrenna, and he supported PoPLC already. I also asked JCarriker, but it seems he's on a Wiki break. I don't know any more native speakers with any idea about our history. Is there any historian's notice board? Well, I have some American friends who are history teachers, and I can ask them privately. BTW Isn't it funny that the voting Gdańsk/Danzig stirred so much emotions while it seems that hardly anyone is interested in this one? After all it's not just a city here, but quite a big country.--SylwiaS | talk11:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's easy to stir emotions here as well, but I believe this is exactly what we are trying to avoid :-) IMHO the Danzig vote is the best example of how such issues should not be handled. --Lysy(talk)15:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you’re right. I don’t really know the Danzig voting only it’s fame, or rather infamy. BTW my English UK spell checker doesn’t know the word Danzig, but knows Gdansk. :)--SylwiaS | talk20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
An outsider's view
Since I was asked for my opinion (by Lysy), I'll give it, even though I'm neither Polish nor Lithuanian. On the English-language Wiki, it would be needlessly complex and inappropriate to use any other term than "the partitions of Poland." It's unrealistic to expect casual English-speaking readers to relate to a more complex title, particularly since the existing one has been used universally since the early 19th century.
The article should explain "high up in the story," as we say in journalism, that what's generally known in the west as Poland included more than just Poles, i.e. Lithuanians and parts of what's now Ukraine and Belorussia, and it should give some brief historical background on the extent of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But it should be brief, with links to more detailed articles for those who are interested.
BTW, the article could include a reference to "the feast of the black eagles," which according to Halibutt was a Polish term for the third partition at some point. Also, it might mention that the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (a misnomer if ever there was one!) of 1939 was in effect the fourth partition -- part of which became permanent after Comrade Stalin imposed his will on the western allies at Yalta and Potsdam.
Observation: It's one of the ironies of history that the four partitions of Poland, in the meaning above, ultimately resulted in Poland becoming an ethnically unitary state for the first time in its history. Sca22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It is like saying "It's unrealistic to expect casual ... readers to relate to" United Kingdom, Great Britain, Britain, and England. Thus everything should be named England with brief explanations and background. Sorry for far fetched analogy, but that's how it sounds for me. I think Wikipedia should not feed ignorance and should not be orientated towards people who are lazy to figure out that there was no Poland or Lithuania in 1700's.
I don't mean to attack you or anything, I am glad that somebody took a minute to look into this matter and thank you for your comment. Renata313:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I was invited to take a look at this by Renata3. As another non-Pole, non-Lithuanian, native English speaker (well, since age 5 anyway) with a reasonable interest in history, I would say that the great majority of English speakers would not think of looking for "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", as in the first 20+ years of my life I think the only inkling I ever heard that there ever existed an entity called something like "Poland-Lithuania" was in one old Tony Curtis movie. Most English-speakers would look for "Partitions of Poland", I think. I'd also note that as far as the British educational system is concerned, the period and location of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth falls outside the period covered by the examination syllabus (since we never fought a war with P-L, it gets ignored!). When I did my A Level (pre-university) history course 30 years ago, detailed European History ran from 1815 to 1914, so we did briefly cover the "Partitions of Poland" to explain how the "Kingdom of Poland" came to be part of the Russian Empire, and what happened in 1830 and 1848, but previous history is a big blank which is why Wikipedia is such a useful resource. I do however feel relatively safe in asserting that at least 95% of native English speakers have never heard of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Sorry if this ruffles some feathers, it's just how things are. -- Arwel (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
And so there is no reason why we can't have a #redirect from "partitions of poland" to whatever the final title is. This will allow anyone to find it. Redirects are good! linas16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
But should Wikipedia stick with flaws in education or correct them? If schools simplify reality, does Wikipedia also have to simplify? Or should it be of higher standards? Renata318:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect that my query would spawn so many comments. I repeat my request to clear up which country initiated which partition, however. It is important that the Russian Empire, for example, took no core Polish territory in any of the partitions - it only returned the territories of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania. From a Russian point of view, there was no partition of what is today Poland but rather Partition of Ukraine or Partition of Belarus, if you like. The current name of the article seems to imply that Ukraine and Belarus are legitimate parts of Poland. This is clearly not the case, although some editors see no difference between Poles and Belarusians at all. We shouldn't perpetuate misleading or POVish names in this international project. --Ghirlandajo15:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You make a tremendous leap about legitimacy, almost to the point of flame-bait. Is the Confederate States of America a legitimate part of the United States? After all, they had their own government, which was brutally suppressed in a Civil War? Maybe its time they re-asserted independence from the oppressors to the north, take their Republicans home, and leave the Democrats to the north. This may sound silly to you, but many or even most geopolitical battles sound equally silly, with both sides believing that they have true "legitimacy", with considerable historical precedent supporting each side.
Anyway, the reason its called a "partition of Poland" and not a "partition of Ukraine" is because it was the Polish kings, rulers, administrators and bureaucrats that ruled the country, not the Ukranians. The union was created by the marriage of Lithuanian royalty into the union, not Ukranian royalty. linas16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, don't you think that Warsaw is a legitimate part of Poland? Or are you refering just to the first two partitions? Besides this all reminds me of the argument raised IIRC by Halibutt on the PSW dicussion: neither Poland, nor Russia had any rights to those territories: they were two imperialistic powers trying to grab the lands which as you yourself would surely agree in fact belongs to Belorusians or Ukrainians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Needless bickering
Poland's ups and downs, and ethnic diversity, at various times in its long history can be described by knowledgeable people from all sides -- if they are honest and willing to accept complexity and a degree of ambiguity. Lithuania, too, has a long history going back to Gediminas. For part of that history Lithuania was politically merged with Poland, which by virtue of its size became the dominant partner. This is all fascinating history, which some English-speakers may want to investigate, but it shouldn't be a cause for pointless bickering between modern Poles and Lithuanians.
Again, this complexity doesn't belong in the title of an entry about the partitions of the commonwealth. I can't think of a direct analogy, but as a somewhat parallel example: One wouldn't entitle an article about the postwar division of Germany as, "The Postwar Division of the German Reich, including Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia." In German, the country was officially the deutsches Reich, but in the West it was known simply as Germany.
In the West, Poland as it existed in the 18th century was known simply as Poland. The modern Lithuanian state came into existence more than a century after the third partition, and thus Lithuania is not relevant to the partitions themselves.
Wesolych Swiat! Linksmu Kaledu! Und besten Glueckwuensche in den neuen Jahr!
I believe from this simple survey it is obvious that there's no consensus as to the name change. Therefore I would leave it as it is and try to improve the contents of the article instead. --Lysy(talk)18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As I suspected, both sides present good arguments, but true, there is no consensus. Definetly a break from the title to expand the article would be quite useful - this talk page is now as long as the article itself :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we are still discussing and it is too early to conclude. I think for now, discussion here is better than the vote. I have more to say, but haven't got the time now. I will add to this later. --Irpen19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Irpen that voting was premature and that we do not need any random votes, and I'm going to withdraw my earlier WP:RM call. It's interesting that most of us were reluctant to cast our votes too soon, anyway. As for the discussion, it seems that we are beginning to repeat the same arguments. That I we tend to understand both the arguments for and against the rename but I do not see many new things being thrown in. --Lysy(talk)19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey slowdown a bit. Could we have a formal vote so to actually see who's for, against and neutral (to have formal vote count). So far we have 3 official support votes, 1 support vote from Nightstallion. I am not quite sure how to interpret Piotrus, Sca, Sylwia, Lysy, Irpen, Ghirlandajo, Goodoldpolonius2, and others comments. I heard no real strong oppose votes. So I think we need to actually held the pool and see the outcome. There is enough material to base the votes on. Renata319:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not ready to vote, yet :-) but I would vote against the move if you press me now. I think the result would be something like 50/50 if we voted now, hence no consensus. --Lysy(talk)20:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I'd like to see more opinions of knowledgeable native English speakers. So far I'm afraid that my view may be biased. That's also the reason why I've asked a couple of Lithuanian editors to look here. --Lysy(talk)23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
If it isn't clear from above for some reason "how to interpret Irpen", let it be told that I support the PoPLC and I think I explained why.
Just a comment to the following quotes:
Appleseed: "...it is in line with the understanding of "Poland" during that time."
Lysy: "The commonly used in English, or the one that seems factually more correct ?"; "it's in common usage worldwide"
SylwiaS: "it may be a problem for English speakers"
Piotrus: "lots of publications refer to Poland where they should refer to PLC"
Chelman: "common usage should prevail in this particular matter"
Goodoldpolonius2: "it is the more common term in English, and much shorter"
Arwel: "95% of native English speakers have never heard of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth"
Let's just all be consistent here. We are talking about the choice between the two titles that do not mean one and the same thing. In the latter case (like Kiev/Kijow, Lviv/Lwow) we are choosing between the words that definitely mean one and the same thing but are just derived from differenet languages. Naturally, between several versions of one and the same name, we choose the one more used in English as of today (Kiev and Lviv). None of these words are "incorrect", just one is used and the other isn't (or little). Poland and PLC are not one an the same thing. So, the arguments of which one is "correct" makes the difference unlike in the example I brought up.
Should we sacrifice the correct name for the incorrect, but perhaps more common? Well, we may. We may add to it that Poland was indeed a common appellation of the state of its time by its neighbors. If we go by this argument, we should be consistent though. Renaming of Coat of Arms of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth probably doesn't look to sensible, does it? Many of the articles, where the political entity is called the "PLC", this name should then be purged and replaced by Poland because it is "the commonly used in English", "it's in common usage worldwide", "it may be a problem for English speakers", "lots of publications refer to Poland where they should refer to PLC", the "common usage should prevail", "it is the more common term in English, and much shorter", and because "95% of native English speakers have never heard of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth". Let me ask some users here whether based on these very same arguments they would prefer to use Poland in place of PLC in the following articles:
Union of Brest: "...At the time, this church included most Ukrainians and Belarusians, under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian CommonwealthPoland.
History of Belarus: ".. Belarussian lands were included in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, PLCPoland, Russian Empire..."
Ukrainian language: "the lands of Ukraine fell under the Polish-Lithuanian CommonwealthPoland"
It would probably be the most aggravating because of many well-known sensitivities if in the Anti-Semitism PLC is substituted for Poland throughout "because of the common usage".
I brought these examples here to illustrate that the choice of PLC for this article is absolutely logical. We do not need an impression that Wikipedia humbly uses Poland when the country was a victim but uses PLC when the nation was on the offensive. If my comparison hurts anyone's feelings, please accept my apology. I just want to illustrate, the difference between the "correct" and "incorrect" choice most vividly. This is not the choice between several variants which essentially means one and the same thing when the common usage argument should be applied. --Irpen03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're going with Anti-Semitism example, but regarding the other three examples, I think it's perfectly valid to use "Poland" as shorthand if it is clear you're talking about the PLC. If we're talking about the Second Republic, then, again, it's ok to use "Poland" in that context (i.e. no one gets confused when you say "Germany attacked Poland on Sep 1"). I therefore dispute your assertion that, if we're talking about the Partitions, the two titles do not mean the same thing. "Partitions of Poland" refers unambiguously to the PLC. PoPLC is, strictly speaking, also correct, but is not used by historians. If that were to change, I would be the first one to vote for the move. For now, however, I would be very disheartened if you replaced an accepted historical term that yields 11,300 Google results with one that gives 6 (!). (See Talk:Partitions_of_Poland/archive_1#Proof_and_EOT. Appleseed (Talk) 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I did some google and you get much more than 6. It's hard to get exact number, because there are so many different ways to refer to PLC. Just try yourself. Do some google and you'll see quite a few pages that have "Partitions of Poland" refering to WWII period. So it's not that "unambiguously." I would not mind using PoP in article, but I mind using in title. Renata300:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
They must simply be referring to the so-called Fourth Partition--I don't see anything wrong with that. Other users have already listed search results, but we can do them ourselves. I added "-site:wikipedia.org" to these searches:
So in the best case scenario, "partitions of poland" -"world war" (which will doubtless exclude many valid pages) gives us 14,200, whereas combining all the permutations of PoPLC gives us 683. The Google Books results are even more dramatic. Appleseed (Talk) 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Google Books
Partitions of Poland-Lithuania (12)
Norman David's Europe included. It may not be used often but it's used. It also seems that it's used more often in new books, than the old ones (all the books were published after 1990). I think the tendency will be changing towards the correct name. Shouldn't Wikipedia be up to date?--SylwiaS | talk01:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I said "Do some google and you'll see quite a few pages that have "Partitions of Poland" refering to WWII period." to prove that your ""Partitions of Poland" refers unambiguously to the PLC." is incorrect. It is ambigious. Yes, it's more popular to refer to 1700's, but it is also about 1939 and 1945. And as Irpen said many many times before: do disambig page. I found one scholarly article about sixth partition of Poland. So, 1. there was no Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia and so forth in 1770's. 2. PoP refer to much broader historical concept than just the three partitions. In any way you see, the title is incorrect. Renata301:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If you wish to be that precise, then we might say that there was only one partition of the PLC, the first one. The second and third took place after the adoption of the Constitution. Then we might debate whether the Constitution was even valid, and if it was, was it implemented. That's when things get complicated. Appleseed (Talk) 02:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the title is incorrect, but please, there was really no fourth partition in our history. Yes, the term is being used in press and literature, mostly to make some point by an author. But it's not historically correct. If you have an article about 6 partitions than 3 of them were probably called the 4th ones by various authors. Latest event called the 4th partition was our Round Table talks in 1989. Very well the term may be applied to a new event as soon as our politicians argue about something. Similarly, the term third world war was applied to the Cold War, but it never happened, so it may very likely be applied to another event in the future (let's hope not a real war). On the other hand the example with 4th partition shows best that using incorrect names is not a good idea, since they simply stay in our memory.--SylwiaS | talk02:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I would use what is most correct rather than what is common or popular. Common belief is that Texas is a wild untamed land in the Southwestern arid desert that does not change the fact that East Texas is a stayed prudish land in the humid-subtropical forest of the Southeast. It important to acknowledge popular ideas, but they are not always correct or well informed. Popular ignorance leads to stereotypes. You have to fight the Polish plumber stereotype, I have to fight the cowboy stereotype, so we both know that stereotypes are quite harmful, and conceding too readily to popular opinions lends itself to endorsement of stereotypes. The simple fact is that Jagiellon Poland was centuries in the past and the Second Polish Republic was over a century in the future; Poland as a distinct independent political entity did not exist at that time and could not have been partitioned then. Poland as partner in the union with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could have been. Therefore, in my opinion POPLC is the best article title. -JCarriker21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. I think I'm for PoPLC with a redirect from PoP now (and I would vote for Kyiv, not Kiev for the same reason ! ;-) --Lysy(talk)09:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Except that the name Poland was frequently used at the time to refer to the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Consider, for example, the great French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his book on Poland and its political system, Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne et sur sa réformation projetée[8](roughly, in English, Considerations on the government of Poland and its projected reform), published 1770-1771,, available here. Note Lithuania is not mentioned in the title.
Incidentally, what Rousseau writes is fascinating and almost prophetic, given it was written in 1770. Let me quote a sample. This will also illustrate the usage of the word Poland:
POLAND is a large state surrounded by even more considerable states which, by reason of their despotism and military discipline, have great offensive power. Herself weakened by anarchy, she is, in spite of Polish valour, exposed to all their insults. She has no strongholds to stop their incursions. Her depopulation makes her almost entirely defenceless. No economic organisation; few or no troops; no military discipline, no order, no subordination; ever divided within, ever menaced from without, she has no intrinsic stability, and depends on the caprice of her neighbours. In the present state of affairs, I can see only one way to give her the stability she lacks: it is to infuse, so to speak, the spirit of the Confederation throughout the nation; it is to establish the Republic so firmly in the hearts of the Poles that she will maintain her existence there in spite of all the efforts of her oppressors. There, it seems to me, is the only sanctuary where force can neither reach nor destroy her. An ever-memorable proof of this has just been given; Poland was in the bonds of Russia, but the Poles have remained free. A great example, which shows you how to set at defiance the power and ambition of your neighbours. You may not prevent them from swallowing you up; see to it at least that they will not be able to digest you. No matter what is done, before Poland has been placed in a position to resist her enemies, she will be overwhelmed by them a hundred times. The virtue of her citizens, their patriotic zeal, the particular way in which national institutions may be able to form their souls, this is the only rampart which will always stand ready to defend her, and which no army will ever be able to breach. If you see to it that no Pole can ever become a Russian, I guarantee that Russia will not subjugate Poland.
Thank you for bringing attention to this interesting quotation and to the complete text of which it is part.
Regrettably the confusion, by Poles and the wider world, of "Poland" with the "Republic of the Two Peoples" (i.e. Poland and multinational "Lithuania" — rendered from the Polish in Wikipedia as the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth") has in the past given rise to much mischief. We are in a position now to redress some of the harm that resulted, in part, from such inaccurate use of language.
In my opinion, and according to Wikipedia policies as I understand them, Wikipedia's task is to reflect the world as it is, with all its imperfections. It is not Wikipedia's job to "redress" historical mistakes, or correct what it believes are "mistakes" accepted by the mainstream. If the overwhelming majority of historians use a certain term, it is not our job as Wikipedians to force the use of another term. What qualifications would we have to do this? How many of the participants in this discussion have a Ph.D. in history, for example? Furthermore, isn't redressing harm from inaccurate use of language another name for political correctness?Balcer16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, as the non-involved English speaker, I would say that I would expect to find the article under Partitions of Poland, having never heard of the PLC until I played Europa Universalis (excellent game, by the way). That does not mean that the article should not be retitled PoPLC, just that if you guys decide to move it, and have PoP redirect, you might want the intro to explain why I got redirected, so that I know that PoP=PoPLC. Make sense? --Goodoldpolonius203:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, redirect or DAB makes sense. I responded in greater detail in the bottom of the previous section. --Irpen03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Renata's entry in the previous section of this talk confirms what I always thought and, perhaps, read somewhere too, that PoP is better a DAB than a redirect. Please note that DAB pages are totally devoid of opinions and they are there only to direct a user to where it really needs to go. Links to DAB should be avoided anyway, so I don't see any drawback. DAB does not "approve" any particular term. It just says: "may refer to one of the following" and the list of things. Check, for instance, an extremely controversial dab at Ukrainian_Holocaust_(disambiguation). It does not imply that this is a correct or a accepted term of Holodomor. In fact the applicability (or lack of) for the term gets discussed in an article Ukrainian Holocaust, which is not an article about Holodomor but about the term itself (the term article needs improvement, I admit). We can do similar here. The Partitions of Poland would have an "othersuses" template on top. The article itself would discuss a history of the term and its applicability and the link from "otheruses" template to the Partitions of Poland (disambiguation) would list the article about partitions (or to separate articles for each partitions, if ever written) and to the '39 article (whichever we decide, the "Pact" or the "September Campaign" one). --Irpen00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
How would you name the articles about each of the partitions, keeping in mind that the Constitution of May 3 abolished the PLC? Appleseed (Talk) 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
An insider's view
I think we should write somewhere an explanation why Poland has been used as a synonym for PLC. After all something like national identity is quite a new thing. It was born in 19th century together with Romanticism. Not only in Poland, but everywhere. So I really think that it didn’t make any difference for Rousseau how he called PLC, but it makes a great difference for us. I read some fanfic stories that take place in the early 19th century. Their authors often forget that the English would not travel to Paris then (Napoleonic Wars), Italy (there was no Italy), Greece (there was no Greece). And, moreover, they would not go for trips in our understanding at all, because tourism didn’t exist. We apply our modern thinking to the past times, forgetting that e.g. before Enlightenment people weren’t even able to define things like we do today. I agree that since the term PoP has been used in English for 200 years it makes a long time to get used to it. But what will it mean in next 1000 years, if we start using the correct name now? In Poland we simply know that not Poland but all the PLC was partitioned, no matter how we call it. Moreover, I believe that all the people living in PLC during the Partitions felt Poles in the general meaning, like Donald Tusk feels now both Polish and Kashubian, but it has changed. How someone studying the history of Lithuania, Belarus, or Ukraine is to understand that the countries were partitioned as Poland? Moreover, would Poland be partitioned if there was no PLC? Norman Davies gives two probable reasons for the Partitions: one that PLC was too modern, decentralised, and developed too fast in comparison to its neighbours, the other is that PLC was simply too large a country situated in a geographic position difficult to defend. We are all descendants of PLC, but we are not all Poles now. When I look at the history of my family, it seems quite accidental that I was born in Poland. Well, my grandpa was born in Habarovsk, Russia, his sister in Lvov, Ukraine, their father in Pinsk, Belarus, while their mother in Prussia near Gdańsk (mind, not near Danzig, although it was in 19th century and her family name was Dietrich), their grandpa was born near Poniewież, Lithuania, and their great grandparents in France. One of my grandpa’s brothers fled from Habarovsk to Harbin, my cousins must be Chinese now, lol. One of his sisters went to Kamchatka, so her grand children are Russian now. But they were all Polish nobles as the citizens of PLC. It wouldn’t make any sense otherwise. Many 19th century western poets, philosophers, politicians etc were sensitive for the Polish case, but they knew that they were talking about the Commonwealth. They simply didn’t know the Poland that exists now. Today people hardly know that there was PLC at all, we should try to change it, not preserve the wrong stereotype.--SylwiaS | talk15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.
Also, everyone's opinion and thoughts are counted regardless of whether they "voted" :). The voting system, as it were, just makes it a bit more structured for me to look through things.
So far we have 6 votes. As of now, 10 people expressed their oppinions in discussing the matter and did not vote (Ghirlandajo, Piotrus, Irpen, SylwiaS, Chelman, logologist, Goodoldpolonius2, Sca, JCarriker, Arwel). Please do so! To help you find it in this humongous discussion: Talk:Partitions of Poland#Requested move. Renata312:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Reality
I've already had my say above, but as a native English speaker -- AND as a person who's not totally unfamiliar with the history of Poland AND Lithuania -- I have to add that I agree with Irpen that "the choice of PLC for this article is absolutely logical" -- it just doesn't correspond to the reality of English usage.
If you Poles and Lithuanians (and Belarussians and Ukrainians or Ruthenians or WHOEVER) are so passionate about educating the English-speaking world as to the "correct" term for Poland in the 18th century, then WRITE BOOKS that will be so fascinating that millions of English speakers will buy them. Don't expect to transform English usage overnight on one of several online encyclopedia sites. Get real! In English, Poland will always be Poland.
PS: "East Texas is a stayed prudish land in the humid-subtropical forest of the Southeast" -- HUH??! On what planet? And how could a "land" be "prudish"? This bizarre statement shows the perils of cross-cultural meddling.
How's this for humid-subtropical I do not appreciate the arrogant and suspiscious tone of your post scriptum. In a short order response: 1. I'm on Earth. What planet are you on? All of Texas can be considered the Southeast[9][10], from an ecological standpoint East Texas always is. 2. One of the defintions of land is the people of a nation, district, or region] and it was the one I was using. 3. My opinon was solicitied as was yours, I am no more meddling than you are. The theme of my post was that popular perceptions do not change facts and I find it regrettable that you illustrated my point by rejecting what I said about East Texas in favor of a popular, but false perception. This is an online encyclopedia yet when your preconceptions were challenged you just assumed that I had to be on another planet to believe things. Just as Renata writes below of Lithuania your action here (read your rejection of what East Texas actually is in favor of the Cowboy and Cactus lie) is also VERY OFFENSIVE to East Texans. - JCarriker12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply
1. I assumed from your language that you were not a native English speaker. My mistake and apologies.
2. I still have no idea what you meant by "a stayed prudish land." (Staid?) Perhaps you would like to explain.
3. I have driven through both west and east Texas (and central Texas as well). East Texas is indeed warm and muggy in summer, unlike the arid western part of the state. In terms of climate, it is indeed humid-subtropical. However, it is not part of the Southeast United States in the commonly understood meaning of the term, which is more geographical than climatological. Generally, I believe Texas as a whole is considered part of the South more than the Southwest, but these regional terms are amorphous and open to interpretation. For example, my state, Idaho, is said to be part of the Northwest or Pacific Northwest by some and part of the Intermountain West by others. My native state, Minnesota, is known variously as part of the Midwest, the Upper Midwest, the North and the Old Northwest. (There are many companies in Minnesota with "Northwest" in their titles, such as Northwest Airlines, even though Minnesota is obviously not part of the Northwest as we understand it here in the West.)
4. Renate completely misunderstood my comment. I was not suggesting that Lithuania should be ignored or belittling the country (which I have visited many times and find fascinating) in any way. The discussion was about the title for a historical piece on the partitions of Poland in the 18th century, which a number of Polish and Lithuanian Wikipedians think should be changed to "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." My argument has nothing to do with the importance of the two countries; it was solely focused on the fact that this topic is known everywhere in the Western world as "The Partitions of Poland," and that complicating the title by adding "Lithuanian" and "Commonwealth" to it would serve no purpose on an English-language encyclopedia site.
Exactly. No one disputes that PoPLC is the correct version, but as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) puts it, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? (...) Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general." Appleseed (Talk)
PoP isn't incorrect, it's just based on the understanding that, at the time, "Poland" referred to the entire PLC. It's not fair to say the reason that PoP is more popular than any other term--by several orders of magnitude--in Google and Google Books is because everyone (including historians) is wrong or confused. Appleseed (Talk) 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Another tempest in a Polish teapot.* It won't change anything.
* No doubt a very beautiful one, handmade in Boleslawiec.
The purpose of the framers of the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791, in supplanting the erstwhile union of Poland and Lithuania with a unitary state was not to deny the multinational character of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (it was undeniable) but to make the Commonwealth's government more efficient and thereby enhance the Commonwealth's prosperity and security.
Holding to the old expression, "Partitions of Poland," when it was still the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, by whatever name, that was being carved up, perpetuates ignorance of history and — perhaps worst of all — consigns to oblivion the Commonwealth's non-Polish inhabitants.
Last but not least, changing the title to "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" would not, in the slightest, inconvenience Wikipedia users searching for the "Partitions of Poland," who would be redirected to "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," with all pertinent information remaining intact.
One must wonder whether current Wikipedia policies such as have been adduced against change of this article's title to "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" do not require critical review, if those policies are forcing Wikipedia into a reactionary rather than truth-telling role.
Ditto! Moreover, we should remember that nothing is constant. Times change and things change. The term Poland could have been used as a synonym of PLC in 19th century, but it cannot be used now. I’m not surprised that books published before 1990 don’t mention PLC, there was no Lithuania for their authors but USSR. It’s not surprising that the majority of books that mention Partitions of Poland-Lithuania was published during last ten years. Similarly, if we check not websites but news for Gdansk/Danzig or Wroclaw/Breslau. The cities are always called by their Polish names (even in reference to the pre-war history), while the German ones appear as someone’s surnames. Yes, those towns were once called by German names, but cities Danzig and Breslau don’t exist any more. We don’t call nowadays Greece – Ottoman Empire, do we? And we cannot call early 19th century Greece – Turkey. Moreover, Poland never bordered with Greece, nor had a war with Greece. But PLC fought and bordered with Ottoman Empire.--SylwiaS | talk14:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Atsiprasau, but all this detail is of interest mainly to people in the countries concerned. The small percentage of English speakers who (like me) may take an interest in the complex history of the PLC can find out about it through the normal channels, including redirects and links. The reality is, 95 percent of English speakers won't know anything about Lithuania, and of the few who do know something, probably only a minority could even find LT on a map of Europe. Sca16:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, but than is VERY offensive. So let's just throw the whole Lithuania to garbagge and pretend it never existed. Why bother in educating people? Let's all be apes and eat bannana. Renata318:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't intend to offend anyone. This is not an argument to "throw away Lithuania" at all (I'm married to a Lithuanian from Vilnius!), but rather an argument against the more complex title for the partitions on an English-speaking site. All we're talking about is the title. If I were Lithuanian, I might feel sad that few English speakers know much about my country, but I wouldn't take offense over it. Anyhow, Atleiskite. Sca18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
![[10]](http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/docs/SE%20Region%20Website%20Map.jpg){kind=link}