Talk:Constitution of 3 May 1791/Archive 2

Why not a less cryptic name? Call it Polish (or Polish Lithuanian)
This is an English language encyclopedia. The vast, vast majority even of very well educated English speakers will not realize this is a Polish (or Polish-Lithuanian, whateva) constitution. You are really hiding the light under a bushel. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRECISION. There is a limit to how much info can be in the title. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that there is ambiguity to the Constitution's situation. Before the document was enacted, the pertinent country was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  That Commonwealth was changed by the Constitution into a unitary Poland; the Commonwealth, as an official polity, ceased to exist.
 * Given this ambiguity, it's best to leave out "Polish" and "Polish-Lithuanian" (especially since the "Lithuania" in question was mostly Belarus). Nihil novi (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Britannica labels it as Polish as do other sources. I think the common sense thing is to label it as Polish. An American has NO CLUE that this is about Poland from the 1791 title. We are not labeling things well...64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Commonwealth ceased to exist by being made more unitary (the word is just one of the possible English equivalents for Rzeczpospolita (of the two "nations")), but calling the article "Polish Constitution of 1791" would be close enough and a lot less confusing. Orczar (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether Lithuanians would necessarily agree.
 * "Konstytucja 3 maja zniosła podział na Koronę i Litwę." ("The Constitution of May 3 [1791] abolished the division into Crown and Lithuania.") — Encyklpedia powszechna PWN, vol. 2, Warsaw, 1974, p. 543.
 * "W celu integracji państwa [Konstytucja 3 maja] zniosła unię Polski z Litwą..." ("In the interest of integrating the state [the Constitution of May 3, 1791] abolished the union of Poland and Lithuania...") — Encyklopedia Polski, Kraków, 1996, p. 307.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Reciprocal Guarantee still speaks of the two nations, so may be its text overrules the Polish encyclopedias. We could call the Constitution rather safely "Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of 1791", without being overly technical about what exactly Polish-Lithuanian meant at this moment. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not abolished. Otherwise, how could half of all offices be guaranteed to its citizens? Orczar (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After the adoption of the Constitution of May 3, 1791, the polity was called the "Commonwealth of Poland" — i.e., it was regarded as a unitary state.
 * I don't know whether you'll get all our Belarusian or Ukrainian friends to vote for "Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791".
 * On the other hand, none of the various "nations" in question can object to, simply, "Constitution of May 3, 1791". Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3rd is an idiosyncratic construct understood by Poles, so that's how it is called in Poland. Poles know we're not talking about a Corsican or Albanian constitution. In the English language Wikipedia the name should tell the reader simply what the article is about, for example "French Constitution of 1791" or such designations used for many other constitutions. The name "Constitution of May 3, 1791" does not serve that function, but rather implies some sort of exceptionability. A reasonable normal name would be either "Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of 1791" or "Polish Constitution of 1791". The argument is about whether the new constitution changed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the Commonwealth of Poland (the latter name used in the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations, which, however, obviously speaks of the two nations, implying a a federation). Some Polish historians claim that the nature of the state was changed on that occasion from federal to unitary. In the English language literature the state is often referred to as Poland-Lithuania until 1795, when it ceased to exist. Stanisław Grodziski in Volume 6 of the Great History of Poland (1999) states simply (p. 109) that the Reciprocal Guarantee "described the essence of the relationship between the Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". Belarus and Ukraine or their names are not the issue in this dispute. Belarus was a part of the Grand Duchy, and a part of Ukraine belonged formally to the Polish Crown. "Lithuania" in this historical context normally means the Grand Duchy. Orczar (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Constitution of May 3rd is an idiosyncratic construct understood by Poles - this is not true. "Constitution of May 3rd" is used at least in US and probably in other English speaking countries. English language source bare this usage out. See below. Volunteer Marek 14:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now you've screwed it up
Originally the article title was under "Constitution of May 3, 1791". This is the title under which it passed GA review.

There is some discussion about the name above, with alternative names suggested by an anon IP and pretty much opposed by all established editors who have been active on this article, including on bringing it up to GA.

Then however, before the discussion was concluded and any kind of consensus reached User:TCO moved the article to "Polish constitution of May 3, 1791". There are several problems with this title some of which have been raised above, one big one being that it is not the name as used in most sources.

Then User:M.K moved the article to "Polish-Lithuanian constitution of May 3, 1791". There are several problems with this title some of which have been raised above, one big one being that it is not the name as used in most sources. Actually this one's used in hardly ANY sources.

MK also messed with the "[Polish constitution of May 3, 1791]" redirect which makes it pretty much impossible to manually move the article back to its original title without admin tools. Whether this was done deliberately as a salting or not, I have no idea.

The thing is that in order to move this article what SHOULD'VE been done is to have a proper REQUEST MOVE. Now we got a title which is not used by any sources and trouble moving it back.

Here's the break down on stats:

For "Polish-Lithuanian constitution of May 3, 1791" we have 2 hits. That's right two. And one of them is Moliere's Tartuffe so I don't think particularly relevant. The other hit, from Time-Life books, doesn't even have snippet preview so we can't check whether it's actually about the topic.

For ""Polish constitution of May 3, 1791" we have 39 hits. That's thirty nine. Browsing through some of the hits, a lot of these seem to be very outdated (i.e. contemporary with the document).

For "Constitution of May 3, 1791", the original title that the article passed GA under, we have 87 hits. That's eighty-seven.

For "Constitution of May 3", without the 1791, we get 114 hits. And it looks like most, if not all, of them are in fact about this document.

So "Constitution of May 3" or "Constitution of May 3, 1791" greatly outnumbers other variations that have been invented here on Wikipedia. Per WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR, and WP:NC the article should be moved back to its original title. Then if there still any doubt about what the sources call this document, someone can start a proper WP:RM. Volunteer Marek 14:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was the IP.TCO (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the article back to its old name. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and ok TCO. So now, do we need to have an RM or are the hits stats given above convincing enough to keep the title as is? Volunteer Marek 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I support not moving the article, and I'd suggest semi-protecting the move button to avoid future anon interference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Constitution of May 3, 1791," has brevity and clarity to recommend it; and I doubt that confusion for Americans is either likely or pertinent.  Nihil novi (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Polish constitution of 1791" gets 29,500 hits. 

Realio trulio...I think the average 'murican would be confused and wonder if the just a dated constitution of 1791 refers to, for instance, the US Constitution after the Bill of Rights were enacted (1791). I really don't care if it is Polish or Poles and Liths. Just so I know it is sort of "over there". I mean consider some discussion of Austria-Hungary versus Austria. Either one is preferable to having me not even know what corner of the entire globe is concerned.

Oh...fwiw...""Polish-Lithuanian constutition of 1791" only gets 7 Google hits.

But I am not going to revert or other lame shit like that. Just talkin'...

TCO (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Primacy claim
The claim that this was "Europe's first and the world's second modern codified national constitution" either needs to be put in historical context, or changed. Why don't the Swedish and Corsican constitutions mentioned in previous talk sections and history of democracy "count"? Were they fundamentally different, or are they simply being overlooked by the references cited? -- Beland 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Gierowski references
I may add a few more references from Gierowski's parts that I haven't covered yet. I will use some of the material and references from this article in the history 1764-1795 article, when I get to that point. Orczar (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)