Talk:Nihil novi

Untitled
I translated the Polish version of the act into English. Perhaps both Polish and English version should be moved to Wikisource? It would be also good to find the original, Latin version. – Kpalion (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The bit about the Latin Vulgate seems wrong. That verse goes "Nihil sub sole novum", not "nihil novi sub sole", and the relevant verse is Ecclesiastes 1:10 in the Vulgate version (even though that part appears in 1:9 in the English translations) -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.154.228 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Please correct. Source: R. Weber cs, ed., Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, (Deutsche Bibel Gesellschaft: Stuttgart 1994 4th imprint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.161.121 (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Latin text
I've found what claims to be the latin text on archive dot is (don't know why it's blocked), use 'LbILP' after domain name, and here, but I can't actually see (with my poor latin) any reference to the text that has been translated into English on this page. Can anyone see it, or perhaps is there more of the document? Thermocycler (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've found working link to the original Latin here and have added it to the page Thermocycler (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Date of signing by King Aleksander?

 * On 3 May 2005 User:Piotrus supplied a date for Nihil novi's signing by King Aleksander: 3 May 1505.
 * On 10 December 2022 a non-registered contributor changed the date to 30 May 1505.
 * Norman Davies. God's Playground, vol. 1, 1982, p. 211, says: "The constitution of Nihil novi passed at Radom on 14 June 1505..."
 * Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way, 1987, p. 99, says Nihil novi was "granted on 31 March 1505 by King Aleksander."
 * Can someone give an authenticated date for when King Aleksander signed Nihil novi?
 * Thanks.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nihil novi First, we can cite Davies and Zamoyski for different dates, with footnotes and commentary "sources vary". Second, more than one date may be correct (signed... passing... granting... are a bit different). For example, the two referenced dates makes sense - the king granted it first, then a few weeks later, Sejm passed it.
 * This, which I cannot access even through the Wikipedia Library, would likely support it, I can see a snippet sentence "konstytucję wydano z datą 30 maja"; Here's another article for the date of 30 May. And here. And here.
 * I have to say that 14 June date may be an error on Davies part, no other source I see uses it. For the record, pl:Sejm radomski 1505 lasted from 30 March to 31 May, making the June date extra dubious (those dates can be confirmed in some of the sources I cited in just above). Likewise, I couldn't find anything for the 31 March (Zamoyski) except this source I cannot access, that states the King arrived at the Sejm in Radom around that time (30 or 31 March). Zamoyski might have been confusing the date the Sejm started with the date of this act passing. The Sejm passed a number of acts over its duration, although no other was as significant as this one.
 * So overall, I think we can quote three dates, based on reliable sources (Davies, Zamoyski and, well, various Polish scholars for the 30 May). Or we can make editorial judgement and just use the date 30 May, which seem to be accepted in Polish historigraphy, and ignore Davies and Zamoyski. I'll also ping User:Mathiasrex, User:Orczar, User:Merangs, who are interested in Polish history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can include somewhere in the body that the exact day and month of the signing remains questionable or is disputed by historians. This could be summarised in two sentences so not an issue. In the lead section we just keep 1505. Merangs (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, Merangs: If King Alexander Jagiellon's signing of the act is the crucial date, then it would seem appropriate to give, in the body of the article, that date (whether 3 May, 30 May, or another) and the most reliable source(s), presumably Polish; and to give in the lead just the year, 1505.
 * Thanks.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nihil novi I've added some sources we've discussed above to the article done done a bit of c/e. The article is of course in need of more (both content and references). So many years here, still so much to do, right? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Piotrus.
 * (The other day, I sent you a cautionary email about Microsoft programs.)
 * Nihil novi (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)