Talk:First Partition of Poland

Title
Gosh: Not a, or The Poland - just ol' Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (hence First Partion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Should we stick to the established historic and legal name?--Lokyz (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do know that the state name beginning of L does drive some people insane.--Lokyz (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The name First Partition is rather ridiculous, as per Disk partitioning. In popular language First partiton is more common referring to partitions of HDD. Should we move it to a longer but more relevant name?--Lokyz (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this title is unreasonable. Go ahead and move it to something less ambiguous. - Oreo Priest  talk 08:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree too and moved to correct name. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Per our naming conventions - in particular, Naming conventions (precision) and Naming conventions (common names) - First Partition is enough. There is no need for disambig, as there is no other "First Partiton" used in literature. For the same reason we don't need to move it to First Partition (1772) or First Partition (by Austria, Prussia and Russia) or anything else. This was discussed for at length at Talk:Partitions_of_Poland/archive_2.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No other "First Partiton" used in Literature? Did you bother to check at all? Apparently not. How about First Partition Treaty with its "First Partition Treaty" 600+ Google Book hits? Piotrus, get real. Revert your move. -- Matthead Discuß   16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And even without those two events, a search for "First Partition" -Poland -treaty +history yields 600 hits, for "FIRST PARTITION OF EAST AFRICA", "FIRST PARTITION OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY", "first partition of Bengal", and what not else. -- Matthead Discuß   16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or First Partition of Luxembourg? Some L-words apparently have less problems to get into titles than the others. --Irpen 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you insist, then the First Partition of Poland is the common name of this event.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These (1,2,3...) are pretty much always referred to as "Partitions of Poland". "First Partition" does appear to be rather nondescript. —PētersV (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin

 * Seen the hook "... that Frederick II of Prussia was elated by the First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?" on DYK, and knew exactly who wrote that. I guess some day, this article will be split into three, so that all three partitioners can get their fair share of blame on DYK. Never mind the Polish Sejm playing along nicely. Besides, no before&after maps illustrate the partition. And the source, Dr. Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin as Google Books author was, as I found out while editing Globus Jagellonicus, a New York based public health expert who wrote the amateur history book "The Political History of Poland, 1917" during WW1 to promote NPoV among the Entente (and on Wikipeda). According to TIME, he was in 1930 the "Stoutly Acting Chairman" of a "Committee of Twenty on Street and Outdoor Cleanliness, a group of New York City medicos disgusted with the condition of their city's streets": "The appellation 'Ash Can Beauty Contest' " said he severely, "is not only facetious but fallacious insomuch as the contest is for a litter basket and not an ash can. . . . The litter basket is to be the receptacle for paper wrappers, newspapers, and other small discarded articles. . . . The purpose of the ash can is well known." - Thanks for sharing this info, Ed. He made some career and became an Executive Secretary in NY who according to the NY Times in 1915 showed up in a fancy dress dance given by the Tuxedo Club. Not even the Pinkowski-Institute knows much about him, yet pronounces him poles.org: physician, historian, lecturer. Guess I have by now written enough Wiki articles to be a historian, and enough talk to be called a lecturer by somebody? He seems to have been born in 1885, so would have retired by the 1950s. In fact, he died in 1953, so is not yet dead 70 years, so some the pics from his book, uploaded to commons, should be deleted, as I understand. Enough to write a stub by now. WP:RS? -- Matthead Discuß   02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes, Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin is blacklisted on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist! Due to Monica L.? Error? Somebody read his book? Using Edward H. L. Corwin instead. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Had no problem to create an entry Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin as a redirect to Matt's article and then, moved over redirect. --Irpen 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems they had blacklisted the space sign by error. Ouch. -- Matthead Discuß   03:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Was not it Piotrus who objected to old sources all the time? How come he now uses the book published in 1917? This is an amazing article. The more I read it, the more I wonder. --Irpen 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Old sources can be used for non-controversial info. If anything referenced from this old source strikes you as controversial or erroneous, do point it out and we will research it further.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with you that old sources may be used in some circumstances. But sources of dubious scholarly quality cannot be used, old or new. What makes a medical doctor a historian whose works are citeable in an encyclopedia? --Irpen 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the bio article, Piotrus had just tried to declare him a lecturer and historian, based on the Pinkowski-Institute (poles.org) entry : physician, historian, lecturer which about his "Birth - Death" can only say "n/a", which illustrates the helpfulness of that website. Pretty embarrassing move by you, Piotrus. Started a stub for the site, too, despite its probable lack of notability, yet alone WP:RS. Please expand. -- Matthead Discuß   15:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Pinkowski-Institute -- Matthead Discuß   15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Style etc.
-- Matthead Discuß   06:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Frederick II of Prussia was elated with his success", says Mr. Corwin. "Prussia's shares might have been the smallest, but it was also significantly developed", says EB. "A high percentage of the Prussian population being German may be the cause of both", says me.
 * "Frederick II making token gestures for the welfare of his new Polish subjects" His bio article says, "750 schools were built from 1772-1775." Maybe he should have build hundreds of token sand boxes and Kindergartens for his Polish subjects instead.
 * "By seizing northwestern Poland, Prussia instantly cut off Poland from the sea, and gained control over 80% of the Commonwealth's total foreign trade.". Currently, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Belarus are cut off from the sea, each a Landlocked country. One wonders which country controls how much of their foreign trade? And through which country could they instantly gain access to the Baltic via corridors?
 * "Through levying enormous custom duties ...", like what, 700%? The EB article is given as reference. I can't find one, but rather "During the two decades that separated the First and Second Partitions, the country experienced a remarkable revival. ... Cut off from the Baltic, Poland reoriented its trade toward the Black Sea. Producing for the national market, early manufacturing concerns grew on both royal and magnate land. Many estates began to operate with tenant farmers rather than serfs. Banks and joint stock companies appeared, canals were built, and roads improved.". So that was the effect of Prussian customs and Prussian duties?
 * "Austrian statesman Kaunitz of Austria" reminds of an assistant in a 1980s TV quiz show, checking for words mentioned twice. She was a female Austrian woman from Austria.
 * "Catherine of Russia was also satisfied." At last. She had been a widow for 10 years.
 * "the largest share of the spoils, as far as population and revenue were concerned, went to the party least interested in the partition, Austria". Poles were even less interested in a partition, one may assume, and they retained the by far largest share.


 * By all means, feel free to copyedit the article and improve the language.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish civil war?
[http://books.google.com/books?id=hC0-dk7vpM8C&pg=PA142&dq=%22polish+civil+war%22&lr=&sig=4Z6V0IjhOhdQViRVhyh2eD2XZEg Polish civil war? What Polish civil war?] There are over 100 Google book hits for "polish civil war", some of them misleading hits for a brigade in the US civil war, but there are "polish civil war" 1768, and "polish civil war" 1792, and also 1610. I do did not have a closer look into 20th century. There are some entries on List of Polish wars and List of civil wars, but no Polish civil war which would enlighten us.

I wonder whether some events, which are currently named Repnin Sejm or Bar Confederation, would better be called Polish civil war (1768)? Or might that create the false impression that there was any interior dissent prior to external aggression, called partition?-- Matthead Discuß   19:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, let's create a category "Polish civil wars" or "Polish internal conflicts" to eradicate the thought that there WAS NEVER "any interior dissent prior to external aggression, called partition". Zebrzydowski Rebellion, War of the Polish Succession, Lubomirski's Rokosz, Rebellion of wójt Albert, Chicken War (similar to "Kartoffelkrieg") are just a few that come to my mind right now. I can investigate for more, because there must be a dozen of them, but naming each one a "Polish civil war" and then a date is confusing, unclear and quite frankly ridiculous. Dein Freund Weltraumkadett (Umlaufbahn) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Polish civil war should certainly be a disambig, there were indeed several events referred to as such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just started Polish civil war. Everybody's invited to join in and expand it. -- Matthead Discuß   17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Elated/Proud/Satisfied
I marked that section. It is full of non-neutral, highly disputable language that cannot be presented passingly (as facts can be) whether they are referenced or not. We cannot pass judgments from the source's authors, especially in such blatant form. I wonder what happened with Piotr's dislike to old sources. Especially this one written not by a historian but by a physician but whatever it is, this text is unencyclopedic and unacceptable. --Irpen 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited this section, indeed 19th century wording is not really encyclopedic. Feel free to improve the wording further. I have explained my attitude to old sources above and in many discussions before.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is less about old sources and more about the works of the person whose credentials lie in medical field who chooses to entertain himself in writing about history. If a historian with no credentials in medicine writes something on the latter, would it be usable for the Wikipedia articles about medicine? Perhaps, but only if that work is published in New England Journal of Medicine or other similarly reputable publisher known for the peer-reviewing scrutiny. --Irpen 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While the works of a certified historian are preferable, there is no policy that prevents us from using works of others if they are relevant, particularly when they are non-controversial. So please - show the errors in the sources, show the controversiality, and we can consider removing it - or stop this pointless discussion. I certainly intend not to waste my time repeating what we have discussed ad nausea in the past, many, many times. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, anything referred to the amateurish work will be removed per WP:V and WP:RS. --Irpen 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, as soon you can show it is unreliable/controversial/erroneous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a personal favor, I removed only clearly nonsense stuff, left uncontroversial info in for now and marked the statements in between as sources to an unreliable source. Again, please note that my objections are primarily not to the source's age but to the lack of any way to confirm the author's qualification. --Irpen 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you repost the statements you would like to reference further here, so we can discuss them in more detail? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to repost. I marked them with rs. Just find the suitable ref and that would be it. --Irpen 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I advise to read the rules on Wikipedia. You are not personally deciding on who can be used as a source on Wikipedia, nor are you authorised by anybody to dictate Wikipedians how should they write articles.--Molobo (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Molobo, pls show a rule that allows works of a medical doctor with no credentials in history whatsoever to be a reference for an encyclopedia article. --Irpen 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like a highly educated person who decided to write a history book. Quite ok as as source per Wikipedia rules.--Molobo (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter how highly I value your opinion, there is no provision in policies about "highly educated person who decided to write a history book." --Irpen 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel uncomfortable at Wikipedia Irpen, perhaps you will find comfort at Citizendum. Best regards,--Molobo (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy/paste from EB
Piotrus, please do not endanger the Wikipedia by copy/pasting phrases directly from EB. I cleaned up some of that now. Also, incidentally, some of what you referenced to EB included rather significant difference to what EB was actually saying. --Irpen 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed title
First Partition during Partitions of Poland. --Molobo (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically yes, but "First" does already indicate there's a "plural" of partitions, so redundant from that sense. And we have the "Partitions of Poland" parent article already in place. :-) —PētersV (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First Partition of Poland
I think that First Partition of Poland is a reasonable compromise. First Partition can either be a redirect with dis note in that article or a disambig itself, depending on the popularity of First Partition in various contexts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no objectins, I'd like to move this article to First Partition of Poland and redirect First Partition to here, adding a dis note for the other articles to the top of this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First Partition of Poland seems logical solution. Although I personally think that First Partition should be turned into disambig itselfly.--Staberinde (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I think that it should be renamed to First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (why at least redir was removed??), as leaving just Poland will cause only another round of dispute, rather then solving it. If it is too long, perhaps can be modify to TWO Nations or Both Nations or something similar. Therefore, I do object moving from one disputed title to another. M.K. (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirect was deleted by User:MZMcBride, do ask him for the rationale. It appears that we need a RM if we want to move this article. Oh well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Move.
 * First Partition → First Partition of Poland —(Discuss)— current title confusing non-Polish nationals as per comments in section above, also per complaints brought by other users incl. User:Matthead with whom I agree - see the first section "Title" --greg park avenue (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, see talk above, and to be made a disamb for the other uses mentioned. Even though I acknowledge that "partition of Poland" is the more common name (due to convenient shortness, I guess), for correctness I'd prefer the previously deleted First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though, as that was the proper name of the state. Its use outnumbers  that of "First Partition of Poland-Lithuania". -- Matthead  Discuß   08:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, with First Partition becoming disambiguation. I dont really have clear preference between calling it partition of Poland or partition of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth but both are clearly better solutions then current one.--Staberinde (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose naming this article to First Partition of Poland, but I completely support naming it as First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, (or shorter one - First Partition of Poland-Lithuania) as it was dual state (see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), rather then one as the proposed title suggest. Therefore proposed title (just of "Poland") misleads. M.K. (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It is the most common name used in the literature, as shown above, and leaves no need for any further disambiguation. It should also satisfy all better than Pirmasis Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimas :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "I rozbiór Polski" is not quite satisfying, either. Stop trying to make fun of interwiki titles, Piotrus. Besides, it was you who introduced "First Partition" and insisted on it for too long, so your support comes a little late. -- Matthead Discuß   14:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose most used is not necessary the best. I'd support First partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth instead. Newest English language publication tend to use this name. --Lokyz (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've corrected the missing the.--Lokyz (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lokyz, you missed "the", and gave others a chance to joke about a well established name. As pointed out in my post above, "First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is used, as are "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" and "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". -- Matthead Discuß   14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that changes the picture: instead of 0, we get 1 publication since 2000 using the "the" version. "First Partition of Poland" gives just [269 more. A statistical error, I am sure, certainly nothing to argue that the claim "Newest English language publication tend to use this name" is a wishful dream.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Google generation. Consider taking a look at this -  how many books are published let's say in 2006. Of course one could not mind the fact, that google, because of it's copyright paranoia, as one put it in other place, does not scan newest books. And of course, one would wonder how many references to older books does this number hold (just fer examples First Partition of Poland, p. 1 89. 5" , Herbert H. Kaplan, The First Partition of Poland (New York/London l962) is often criticized for errors and misinterpretation.).--Lokyz (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of insulting other editors, perhaps you would like to cite sources for your assertion that PotPLC is more popular in modern works that PoP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you find particularly insulting?--Lokyz (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [Sure, all 0 of them :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, with exactly that spelling you will get 0 results no matter what date limitation is ;) --Staberinde (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 *  Support - as Piotrus Alden or talk with Alden 12:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. "First Partition of Poland" is the most common name.[ [[User:Olessi|Olessi]] (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and make disambiguation page. Visor (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Veto :) Official name of that state was "Commonwealth of Both Nations", but i belive that noone cares about what`s real in opposite to what`s common knowladge. I supose that "First partition of Poland" will won this beauty contest, despite the fact that it can be redirected to the proper name. Mikołajski (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The official name was Rzeczpospolita, if you want to go into details. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. First Partition is way too ambiguous. First Partition of Poland is unambiguous and most commonly used. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support "First Partition of Poland" as far less ambiguous and as the common name. —  AjaxSmack   03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
As per currently 9 users above, a move away from First Partition is consensus. The new name is not so, though, as some point out that the history of Lithuania is neglected. There would be these options:
 * This subdivision of the move request is not necessary. As of 03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC), there is clear support for the move as proposed. —   AjaxSmack   03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, most correct, yet longest name
 * 1) -- Matthead  Discuß   14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- M.K. (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reflects state dualism. titles should not mislead, in case of just of Poland it does. I also have no problems with just Poland-Lithuania. Also per Austria-Hungary, as main topics have dual naming.
 * 3) -- Mikołajski (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) However i think that "First partition of the Commonwealth of Both Nations" would be much more correct.
 * Support for First Partition of Poland-Lithuania, a compromise name
 * 1)  -- Matthead  Discuß   14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- M.K. (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) very good alternative to First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, reflects state dualism. Also per Austria-Hungary, as main topics have dual naming.


 * Support for First Partition of Poland, quite common and conveniently short, but a matter of criticism
 * 1) Common usage, as opposed to pedantry. English calls the eighteenth-century state Poland at least nine times out of ten, and probably calls the Partitions Partitions of Poland far more frequently. Let the text explain that it was a compound state. As the obvious parallel, we use Foreign relations of the United Kingdom, not Foreign relations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (The mind quails at the result of applying this proposal to Austria or Russia: that is, to the "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, King of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Chersonesos, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Belostok, Karelia, of Tver, Yugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhny Novgorod, Chernigov; Sovereign of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all the northern territories; and Sovereign of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories; Hereditary Lord and Ruler of the Cherkass and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg...".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, nobody presenting suggestions between 4 words VS 30 ones here. And please write more to topic and compact ideas. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The obvious parallel would have been Foreign relations of England. We do not use England in lieu for the UK, for good reasons. Neither is Poland enough to refer to the PLC. Also, as you mention Austria: we do use Austria-Hungary. So, your Vergleich hinkt. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a weblog, so accuracy should prevail over sloppy common usage, especially when the latter is flawed or wrong. I do not call you Sepp for short, either, even though that name is 10 times more frequent than your nickname, according to Google. -- Matthead Discuß   16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you are missing key point that Pmanderson is trying to make: Poland is used in PLC context; all of your examples are not used in the contexts you try to put them in for comparison.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you missed the point. Main articles of Austria-Hungary encompass dual state naming Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Aviation Troops (even have no single hint in, but this not limits present proper state name), Line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne, etc.M.K. (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely common usage, let's stick to it. I've never heard or read of it discussed as a partition of P-L or Commonwealth thereof. I've noted below regarding Lithuania. PētersV (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 Common usage. Space Cadet (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4 Common usage, per megabytes of talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by Russian Empire, Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Prussia in 1772, a fully descriptive name

Discussion
Matthead:You have stated the real point precisely: English does normally "use Austria-Hungary"; but we do not routinely use Poland-Lithuania, especially in this context. Similarly, we do not describe the foreign policies of Metternich or Kaunitz by mentioning the Lands of the Bohemian Crown or the Banate of Croatia; Wikipedia is not an institute for language reform. (As for myself, Sepp would be odd, since I'm not a Josef; but feel free to use Sept, like everybody else.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of the term First Partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There is even no equivalent in Polish like that Pierwszy Rozbiór (Rzeczypospolitej) Polski i Litwy? I am even not sure if Lithuania lost part of its territory then, the big loser was Poland. greg park avenue (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move to First Partition of a State that ceased to be called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth following the passing of the constitution of May 3rd, 1791. How about that?  // Halibutt 02:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Could anyone explain a difference between 1772 and 1791? Any reasoning why anachronistic assumptions should be applied backwards in a timeline?--Lokyz (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are two different numbers, years and historical contexts. Chose one which you prefer.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you evaluate what's the difference between timeline and context?--Lokyz (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying that the Commonwealth was officially proclaimed to be referred to as Poland in the Constitution of May 3rd in 1791. Although 1772 was the 1st partition of the Commonwealth, it is rather widely known as the 1st Partition of Poland. Space Cadet (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This does seem to be getting a bit silly. Being Latvian (and thereby nearly Lithuanian), I certainly advocate for full recognition for the Lithuanian component of "Poland-Lithuania" as such. But it's quite clear that these are always referred to as the partitions of Poland. —PētersV (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Corwin and exile of senators
See this. Corwin writes: "Those of the senators who advised against this desperate step were after the well known Russian fashion arrested and exiled to Siberia by the representatives of the Tsarina". But indeed, I cannot find any refs supporting this (although there are also no refs to the contrary, and Russians have arrested Polish senators before, so it is not an exceptional claim). Can anybody find a better refs? It is possible that Corwin is mistaken and he refers to the senators arrested during the Repnin Sejm (1767–1768); I cannot find more information on senators arrested around the time of Partition Sejm (1773-1775) or in the period of the first partition (1770-1772). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Piotr: I reread parts of The Last King of Poland and Liberty’s Folly but there are no references. I also looked thorough a book I not read called Constitution and Reform on Eighteenth-Century Poland but I could find no mention.  Between them I would have expected at least one to say something. It does appear to be a mistake but I it difficult to prove as books tend to say what Russia did rather than list all the things they did not do.  Jniech (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I (quickly) checked Daniel Stone's history of Poland-Lithuania and did not find references. Of course, that something is not mentioned does not mean it did not happen. Russia's treatment/exploitation of its share of Polish territory was much harsher as compared to the other respective parties and theirs. PētersV (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Definetely can be sourced. I read about it in a scholary book about Polish history of XVIII century a year ago while looking for other history book in academic bookshop of an university. Sadly I only remember it had green cover and was either Gdanks or Wrocław University publication. I will try to look for it. Perhaps "Rozbiory Polski 1772–1793–1795" by Tadeusz Cegielski would be of help as well.--Molobo (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
A number of recent changes have been made, whilst some - relying on reputable scholars' works - adding some background information, some others seem out of context. If the figure - 300,000 German colonists is correct, we might add it somewhere, but given the context in Molobo's 'diff', I'd suggest finding a better place for this, once we agree this is necessary information. Just take alook! I'll just point out my disagreement at the moment and let others make up their mind first. I've had problems with the same user over and over again during recent days, so I wouldn't like to touch the matter here, too, right now, to avoid further charges. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; this seems to detailed for this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Partition of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420213012/http://www.opcja.pop.pl/numer28/28kal.html to http://www.opcja.pop.pl/numer28/28kal.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704074025/http://www.naszradziszow.com/pl/art45.htm to http://www.naszradziszow.com/pl/art45.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not up to modern GA standards
I was involved in getting this to GA in 2009. 10+ years later, I can only shake my heads at how low our standards have been back then. I don't know when I'll have the time to work on this again. WP:GAR might be needed. Pin, hmmm, User:Buidhe? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)