Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/Archive 2

Invasion from Cambodia March 8, 1794
Can someone remove that idiotic entry in "History" section of right-hand table, please?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solfernus (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Capital
User M.K. introduces completely bad data founded on incorrect references, that can be found as intentionally hoax. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is specifically about those "incorrect references"? I even added necessary quote supporting that Vilnius was second capital of PLC. M.K. (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomas Venclova is poet not historian. In historiography Warsaw is considered as only capital of new state (Commonwealth), and Vilnius was still capital of Grand Duchy of Lithuania as Warsawa was capital of Duchy of Mazovia. see, , , Mathiasrex (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Material, that Vilnius is capital of PLC, is cited in the reliable source and, as I see, you failed to provided any RS to support thesis that Vilnius was not a capital of PLC. Therefore info stays. M.K. (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)P.S. and yet you still failed to answer my previous question: what is specifically about those "incorrect references"?

You added ref without volume. , but why did you delete my editions in your page of discussion? Mathiasrex (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Specific volume number was already present before this comment of yours. M.K. (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Vilnius was never an official capital of the Commonwealth. MK your edits are historically inaccurate - keep yourself under control.-- Mamalala 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if MK is not acquainted with what he does but I have a good faith assumptions.-- Mamalala 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the sources provided by user MK and his edit history, sadly I must say that his edits do not look like they are in good faith. I would like to ask him to discontinue such behaviour. -- Mamalala 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mamalala, could you pls read Neutral point of view? It states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. [my emphasis] This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

We have several WP:Reliable sources that describe Vilnius as the capital of the Grand Duchy during the era of the Commonwealth. In addition to the Norman Davies ref, we have this one published by Cambridge University Press and this one published by Brill Publishers. If you don't have access to Google Print links and thus can't verify these, mention that here or elsewhere, and someone will provide quotes.

If you have equally reliable sources stating that Warsaw was the only capital of the Comm., you could insert a note in the infobox that lays out the issue in a few sentences that contain refs. Notes can contain explanatory text. Something along the lines of: Historians differ...while several describe Vilnius (Wilno) as the capital of the Grand Duchy (ref,ref) or as the second capital of the commonwealth (ref), others... (ref,ref). I don't use notes myself, but you could ask at WP:Help desk for guidance.

However, at this point I'm going to restore the two-capital description, since the sources are quite reliable. If we continue to disagree, we can follow the steps outlined in WP:Dispute resolution.

Incidentally, I don't think Chandler Evans' book is a reliable source for a history article. He was an eighth-grader in 2008. . Novickas (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
Article is in desperate need for major improvement and total rewrite. Lead is very poor and not summarizing article itself. Some sections, like "The political players" (perhaps it is a joke?), hardly even can be called a section. "Commonwealth military" is a, pure original research. Article extensively using bullets, the style that is not advised. And many more problems. M.K. (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we'll start with correcting historical forgery. Vilnius was never the capital of the Commonwealth. Sources presented don't even support that. Check also the versions in other languages, nowhere is written that Vilnius was the capital. I removed this false information, and please discuss on this topic if you want.-- Mamalala  17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Commonwealth
This image is reconstruction of Grand Coat of Arms of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealt based on historical reliable source

in the same way as this is reconstruction of flag of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth

Every Kingdom had Grand Coat of Arms with heraldic tent. This image is not a Coat of Arms of any state but only heraldic shield from greather Coat of Arms. Even is meritocally erroneus because has no heraldic Crown.

Mathiasrex (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Starbucks Logo
Anyone aware of any info on the Starbucks coffee logo with regard to the coat of arms? The "Starbucks" mermaid appears, as a national emblem, on a 17th(?) century space-heater stove (vaguely similar to ), exhibited in the Vilnius Valdovu Rumai. The stove is covered with a repeated pattern of ceramic tiles; one tile shows the Lithuanian Vytis, a second the Polish Eagle coat of arms, a third tile shows the Starbucks mermaid. The first two tiles clearly signify the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th-18th centuries. The mermaid is presented as an equal, in size, proportion, and frequency, of the other two coats-of-arms: it is clearly a coat of arms signifying some or another political/geographical region in union with the commonwealth. But which part? I'm guessing parts of the Belarus, or possibly parts of northern Europe; I'm not clear on which, and thus pose the question here (of course, the stove could well be a bit of 17th century propaganda, as it were -- making the pretension that the mermaid was on par with the Vytis and the Eagle). Would love to know more. I presume that there is no chance at all that the mermaid is that of the Jurate and Kastytis legend, but given the age of the legend, and of the logo, I wonder ... linas (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Poland–Lithuania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Golden Liberty
This page has a section on /* Golden Liberty */ which refers to the main page of Golden Liberty. Right now (22 April 2011) this page duplicates most of that article. If that is the intention, then the article entitled Golden Liberty is duplicative and should be merged in here. If not, then this section needs to be much briefer and depend upon the Golden Liberty article for the full story. Which is it? --Bejnar (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Map
Why the map of Commonwealth use wrong coloring suggesting that Lithuania was part of the Crown? Was it done intentionally? Having in mind that it is misleading map I suggest changing it into a more appropriate.

Serenissima
I noticed that the notes section mentions the name of Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae in the latter periods. This is weird. While "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" (or "Serenissima Polona Respublica") is attested in plenty of sources from all sides (check GoogleBoooks for starters), the mention of GDL in the name is hardly found anywhere outside of Wikipedia. No google hits, no google books hits, nothing. Could anyone please source that and/or comment?  // Halibutt 09:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a map with the full title. I have run across the full ("...and Great/Grand Duchy of Lithuania"<-my Latin is rusty) title but I'll have to go back to look through where exactly that's been.
 * and, e.g., old refs such as here P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you got me wrong, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. The original name was rather two names combined together (which is what the article says right now): Regnum Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae (which is "Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania"). That's what the map you posted uses, that's what the article says, that's what plenty of sources say, no problem with that.
 * What I'm questioning is the later name, the "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" part. As far as I know Lithuania was not included in the name (thus making it "The Holiest Republic of Poland"), contrary to what the article currently says. Hence my plea for some source on the "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae". Plenty of sources everywhere for "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" part, but I can't find any for the second part, the addition of Lithuania to that name. No apparent hits anywhere.
 * Which makes me think that the "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" is the original name (which is what google books sources say), while "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae" is a name coined by and for Wikipedia. Anyone?  // Halibutt 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To make my points clearer, take a look at the claim that in French the state was called Sérénissime République de Pologne et Grand-duché de Lituanie. This statement is backed by this source, but there's no such name used anywhere in the source. What's more, such name is not used outside of Wikipedia projects, unlike the version of the name excluding Lithuania (ca. 1400 links).

Same is true to Latin name (0 links vs. 5700). Same is also true to other language versions. It seems that only in Lithuanian the "and Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is included in that name (see here).  // Halibutt 13:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If we go back to the Latin, there are tons of "Regni Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae" (Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). If I look for the most serene, I find "Serenissima Res Publica Coronae Polonicae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae" (The Most Serene Republic of the Polish Crown and Grand Duchy of Lithuania). P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth → Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ENDASH, "By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash."


 * "[page 212] Ordering the kaleidoscope: the construction of identities in the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since 1569. the problems of state-formation, state power and national identity were particularly acute in the lands of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fouunded at Lublin in 1569 after over a century and a half of a loose dinasty union between the kingdom of [page 213] Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For this remarkable political creation was partioned out of existence (...) The state which was partitioned between 1772 and 1795 was certainly not, in any modern sense, a nation-state; [it was] a multi-national, multi-ethnic polity (...) The political borders set at Vienna in 1815, and solidified in the course of the nineteenth century, evaporated (...) The case of the lands of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however, suggests that the relationship berween 'nation', identity and state power is rather more complex that is often allowed. (...) The Polish-Lithanian Commonwealth at its greatest extent in the [page 214] seventeenth century included most of modern Poland, Lithuania [etc] (...) It thus straddled the great cultural divide between eastern and western Christendom (...) remained dominant in much of the Commonwealth's eastern lands (...) lived within its borders, which also contained. (...) This dogma led to the view that the multinational-polities of the East, whether the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the empires wich partitioned ot, were inherently unstable: the collapse of the Commonwealth [capital C in the original], or Austria-Hundary, or indeed, the Soviet Union (...) Poland-Lithuania had proved one of the more successful and long-lasting states of east-central Europe. (...) For, after the 1569 Union of Lublin, the Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita; Res Publica) was a state built from below (...) a state whole ruling szlachta (noble) elite (...) constructed a successful common identity, one that was explicitly national, even if not in a narrow ethnic or cultural way. (...) The Lublin union explicitly sought to create a political nation in the sense of an inclusive body of citizens formed regardless of ethnic or cultural origin. This concept was by no means ew: already in 1501 the abortive union treaty drawn up in Mielnik had expressed its desire to join Poland and Lithuania in one 'undivided and equal body' to form 'one nation, one brotherhood and a common council'. [page 219] (...) the Constitution of 3 May 1791, which not only rejected the old, decentralised political system, but also sought to redefine the political nation. In the spirit of the American and French revolutionaries, the Constitution proclaimed that the nation was sovereign, and that the nation consisted of whole people. (...) but although it certainly introduced common executive organs, thus ending the system by which Lithuania and Poland had separate institutions of government, it did not, as is sometimes suggested, end the separate status of the Grand Duchy. (...) The Constitution provoked the final crisis and dismemberment of the Commonwealth at precisely the moment when modern political nationalism was born. (...) many of their descendants combined nostalgia for the defunct Commonwealth [capital C in the original] with a burning desire for its reincarnation (...) the old Sarmatian state. Yet if attachment to a political idea had preceded cultural identification in the old Commonwealth, it was a common cultural identity which surviced its collapse. (...) seek the restoration of the state within the boundaris of 1772, it soon [page 220] became clear that if the Soverign Nation, One and Indivisible, was the only true basis for a modern state (...) the problem of who might constitute that nation was intrinsically divisive. (...) The old, class-based idea of a noble nation was gone forever. (...) This the borders of the old noble nation were, in the eyes of the radicals, to be extended to include all the inhabitants of the old Commonwealth [capital C in the original]. (...) whom he accused of betraying the Commomwealth [capital C in the original] [page 227] He still hoped that a Polish-Lithuanian state could be reconstituted within the borders of 1722, but as a federation of nations, not one political nation in the old style" Power and the nation in European history Cambridge University Press, 2005


 * "[page 14] The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the partitions. The newly established Commonwealth (...) was one of the largest states in Europe. It was also highly heterogenous. Its two main parts were Poland proper (...) and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The two had one jointly elected king and a bicameral sejm, and constituted one customs area. Administration, legal systems, treasuries, and armies remained separate, each institution in the Crown [in Poland] having its counterpart in Lithuania. The term Poland and Polish began to be increasingly used to denote the entire commonwealth, the name transcending and not replacing the term Lithuanian. Had another tern been coined equivalent to British, which comprises English, Scottish, and Welsh, some of the confusion between Polish proper and Polish in the sense of state-nationality would have been avoided. In addition to the Poles and Lithuanians, the commonwealth comprised Ukranians and Belorussions [and other groups] (...) The Catholic religion and Protestant denominations pprevailed in the western parts of the state; the eastern borderlands were predominantly Orthodox. (...) [page 16] an arrangement with the Orthodox that would strengthen the Polish-Lithuanian state. (...) The Ukraine was in fact a distinct third component of the commonwealth but was not recognized as such. (...) did not fit easily into the existing socioeconomic structure of the commonwealth." The United States and Poland, Harvard University Press, 1980


 * Britannica: the dynastic link between Poland and Lithuania was transformed into a constitutional union of the two states as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  Polish rule in Ukrainian territories came to an end with the extinction of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in three partitions.


 * PBS In 1569 Poland entered into a commonwealth with Lithuania, its neighbor to the north, creating one of the largest states in Europe. At its apogee, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth comprised some 400,000 square miles and a multi-ethnic population of 11 million.

prior move request.

Also, two related proposals of unified states. Had they been successful, they would have resulted in a single unified state with a partly-decentralized government:


 * Polish–Lithuanian–Muscovite Commonwealth → Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth
 * Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth → Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth

-Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also per WP:COMMONNAME, since all three commonwealths are spelled with hyphens in almost every single book I checked in google books (I listed my searches in the first collapsed box in the prior move request). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Poland and Lithuania appear to have equal standing in the Commonwealth—it's not a Polish type of Lithuanian Commonwealth, in other words. This seems to be the standard way to use the en dash, as noted in the second point of WP:ENDASH linked above. I don't think the caveat quoted above applies, as "Polish-Lithuanian" doesn't exist anywhere as a single entity. — Bility (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I disagree with the logic that "Polish–Lithuanian" is a compound name of a "single entity". Sure it was an entity, but it had two very distinct parts. Renata (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. With all due respect, this is a perfect case of "who cares". Readers will not tell the difference... neither can most editors, because the symbols look the same on the screen. The entire WP:DASH is a major waste of time, where editors could contribute much more creating, well, real content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the last time we went through this, I looked at lots of sources and concluded that there was plenty of precedent for using the en dash in joining multiple state names into a "constitutional union of the two states" and such where the states retain their identities. The "single entity" concept is OK for married individuals, for town names, and for some country names that aren't joins of two region names, but not for this case of a union of separately named territories.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming of Polish Prussian territory
It's a bit silly to be edit warring. There's no clear winner in current sources. I've restored to the copy which mentions both "Royal Prussia" and "Polish Prussia." Time to move on. Best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth mentioning the temporary overseas territories
I've read that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had overseas territories, temporarily in Trinidad and Tobago (New Courland), and St. Andrews Island in Gambia and it involving Jacob Ketter. Not that I could properly source it (the PL Comm. isn't one I'm an expert in), would it be worth mentioning in this article, or would it need to stay in the Duchy of Courland only? Thanks for readingLeftAire (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated material
For some unknown reason, User:Dorantana has been adding material into the article that is a duplication of material already there. For example, a bulleted list of what the new constitution did. I can't make head or tail of it. In any case, I am removing the added section, and proposed changes can be discussed here. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Judging by the decline section, it is like a bad copy of existing content. I'd like to hear Dorentana's version of the story, but it seems to like experiments in editing best kept to one's sandbox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary translation of name
I wonder if we could use the translation of "Najjasniejsza Rzeczpospolita" to "Her Majesty the Republic" ? It would be closer to the common meaning of the use of "Najjasniejsza Rzeczpospolita" i.e. that the republic and democratic rules were more important for the people than the king. Because the kings were elected by nobles and depending on their will, while the republic lasted. Some nobles even revolted against the current king if he tried to limit the democratic rights.

I don't mean it is an exact translation of the name, I just mean that such a modernized translation could be more clear for the readers about the meaning: the republic over any king. We could put it as a side note. Merewyn (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. It will just increase the confusion, just as you are confused. The buzzword "democratic" is an anachronism in this context. There was no democracy there then. It was what is dubbed "noble republic", which was primacy of noblemen assembly over king. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation of 'Rzeczpospolita' as "Republic"
Res publica is Latin rendering for Rzecz pospolita (or vice versa) and it is not the same as modern term "republic". To translate "Rzechpospolita Polska" as "Polish republic" is a confusion, if given without historical explanation. The commonly accepted English translation is "commonwealth" Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)