This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Polish鈥揕ithuanian Commonwealth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Polish鈥揕ithuanian Commonwealth is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2005. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 24, 2013, October 24, 2016, and October 24, 2021. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This page is affected by the
Gda艅sk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{ Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
1) Currently, the native names in the infobox include the Latin name and the Polish name. If one includes only the official languages, then one should also include at least the Ruthenian name, as it was the officially recognised chancery language used in GDL for long time (until 1697?). If one includes all major languages spoken, then Lithuanian naming should also be added. The argument that all that information is available in the "Name" and "Languages" sections is insufficient, as the infobox makes the impression that it was a purely Polish state. An argument that Polish was more "prominent" is insufficient. Was Latin "prominent"? It was used in the diplomatic communication with the West, while Ruthenian was used in the communication with the East.
2) The Polish name used at that time was just "Rzeczpospolita". The addition "Obojga Narod贸w" is a modern one. If one argues that this is the common Polish usage today, then it is no more "native" but the modern usage in one of the successor states, and then the usage in all successor states must be included (Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian). -- Off-shell ( talk) 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
3) I removed the editorial comment that when western Europeans called the Commonwealth of Poland simply Poland, they were "applying the pars pro toto synecdoche. How is is possibily relevant in a article about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to note the particular figure of speech (really trope) invoked when shortening the name to Poland? It seems like an extraneous rhetorical analysis of one particular name. There are hundreds of figures of speech in this article, all of which could have the specific trope (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, etc.) used to form them named. It was an odd aside. In addition, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which one substitutes the part for the whole, so referring the the "pars pro toto [part for whole, in Latin] synecdoche" is like say the "part for whole part for whole figure of speech"--which makes the out of place editorial gloss even odder. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 45.48.186.169 ( talk) 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is propolish vision of history. This country wasnot First Polish Republic. It was commonwealth/-- Rapuha89 ( talk) 10:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Union of Lublin Rzeczypospolity obojego narodu ( text article I).
Sejm 1569 in act Unia Xi臋stwa Litewskiego z Koron膮 (Union Duchy of Lithuania with [Polish] Crown)聽: Rzeczypospolitey oboyga Narodu Volumina Legum 2 p. 189 f. 770 Pilot Pirx ( talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Pamishelisz ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) First time poster here, apologies if there's already a similar topic somewhere, but I really could not find it. To put it brief, I've noticed in many of the biographical sections of the nobility originating from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that the names in italics are often only written in Polish and that Lithuanian translations are missing. In turn, I have tried to insert the proper Lithuanian renditions of the names in italics and my actions have been reverted and I was acused of vandalism by suggesting that back then the Lithuanian language did not exist. We are mainly talking about GDL nobility who lived between late 17th to early 19th century.
I believe that this makes no sense. First and foremost there is ample evidence that the Lithuanian language was used in some GDL regions since the 13th century. Furthermore, The voivodeships with predominant ethnic Lithuanian populations - Vilnius, Trakai and Samogitia - remained almost wholly Lithuanian speaking, both colloquially and by the ruling nobility. Finally, the first Lithuanian book was already published in 1547.
So could please someone shed some light on this, because it totally makes no sense to argue that names should only be written in Polish and not also in Lithuanian, whilst supporting this claim by suggesting that at that time Lithuanian language did not exist.
Please take a look into "References" section. Quite a few broken references. I have never learned this fancy syntax. Whoever knows the ropes, please fix. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand the suspicion which underlies this but please use sources rather than just removing the information on the basis of personal feelings/opinions. 20% urbanization rate for PLC at the beginning of 17th century is not unreasonable. Lithuania, which was the more sparsely populated part, had an urbanization rate of about 15%. "The Crown" was higher so together it could have been 20%. Keep in mind that the PLC underwent a urbanization boom in the 16th century. Of course it went through a process of de-population and de-urbanization starting from about mid 17th century, so that by 1680 or so it was probably less urban than it was at the beginning of 1500's.
50% for Netherlands is also not unreasonable. It's a bit high for Italy except in certain regions (and Italy too underwent de-urbanization during this period). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ruthenian was official in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1696 and therefore is a regional language. Both Polish and Latin were used throughout the country. Ruthenian, Lithuanian and other languages like Hebrew were recognized but to a certain extent and area.
Oliszydlowski (TALK) 14:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I do not know, nor do I especially care what the ongoing edit war is about. But It needs to stop. I have fully protected the page for 2 days. That should be enough time to sort this out. If the problem persists after that I will consider other measure, not excluding blocks. If one or more participants are editing from IP addresses I can easily protect the page to put a stop to that. So settle the content dispute here. Please remember that there are multiple avenues available for resolving disputes. See WP:DR for suggestions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that the image that's used for this article is the borders of it in 1714. I'd like to propose we change it to its borders around 1619-1621 when it was at it's greatest extent. If we could get it with the same design of the current picture with it highlighted in green, that'd be better. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth ( talk 鈥 contribs) 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
First in Europe聽? The French Revolution began two years earlier. It included a new non-autocratic constitution. Without deeper knowledge of this constitution, I can just assume that inspiration came from France. Also - wasn't the reason for Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, based on a fear of a return of the Catholics聽? Boeing720 ( talk) 01:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
It was actually the second in Europe, after the 1755 Corsican Constitution, which was the first Constitution to be titled as such, whereas the 3 May wasn't even titled as Constitution, unlike the first French Republic Constitution approved just a few months later. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 89.181.82.4 ( talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Oliszydlowski: I'm sorry, but I really cannot see how the only Tsar in foreign captivity ever and the conquest of Moscow in 1610-12 isn't of relevance. Personally I think that's the most well-known part of Polish-Lithuanian history. Also, when reading this lead, one gets the impression of this empire as some kind of very nice humanitarian power. Which I really doubt existed anywhere in Europe during the very warious or bellicose 17th century. Without having any specific source in my head or at hand right now, I would still also argue that there indeed were huge conflicts between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Perhaps not to compare with the Thirty Years' War or the Crusades but still. The Catholic vs Orthodox issues eventually lead to Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, as the Orthodox population were afraid of Catholic return. (Whilst the common people in those days usually were less patriotic, if compared to the times from around the 1848 revolutions and later. Commoners were not educated, illiterate and had enough trouble of their own). The year 1654 combined with Ukraine is still today of significance as Communist Nikita Khrushchev (who was born in Russia, but close to Ukraine and had Ukranian parents) in 1954 gave Crimea away, from Russia to Ukraine as a "300 birthday present" etc. And how relevant is the 3 of May constitution really聽? I mean the idea must have come from the French 1789 revolution聽? And we must not cherry pick nor use a non global perspective. That goes equally also for, for instance the Swedish Empire and each and every nation, historical or present. Boeing720 ( talk) 03:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, This article is incorrect. The capital of Poland was moved by king Sigismund III Vasa from Cracow to Poland in 1596 and it remained the capital of Poland since that time, through the end of the last partition in 1795, when Poland regained independence in 1918 and until the present time.
Whoever is editing this may not be aware that there has been perpetual feud between Warsaw and Cracow ever since the capital was moved to Warsaw, for over four centuries. Some people from Cracow refer to Warsaw as a "village" to this very day! The article that is linked to the footnote 2 referring to Warsaw as a "tiny village" is a Wayback Machine article does not exist on the current page of UJ. It was not a "tiny village" with a castle, expanding city and the site of the Polish Congress (Sejm).
The capital of Poland should be changed to "Cracow (or Krakow) until 1596 and Warsaw (or Warszawa) since 1596." Otherwise, this article is laughable and I cannot take Wikipedia seriously any longer. You can take any history book or historical documents available (except for few written by people from Cracow that hate Warsaw), and the capital will ALWAYS be Warsaw, in books written in 1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s. This should be edited on all pages!
Also, Vilnius or Wilno was the capital of Lithuania. It was NEVER a capital of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I do not know why someone added it here.
Thank you for fixing these errors. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Isabella2178 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oliszydlowski, what is the point of that gallery? Just to show random stuff from the Commonwealth? I could understand if some of the pictures went under the art section, but this is just pointless, and in fact Wikipedia discourages the use of random galleries if they do not have a specific purpose.
There is a parenthetical reference to the U.S. Constitution that should be removed - first, because it is not relevant; second, because it is wrong.
The U.S. Constitution was the world's 20th written constitution; not the first. It wasn't even the first American Constitution, but the written constitutions of all 13 states and the Commonwealth of Vermont (1777-1791) pre-dated it, along with the first U.S. federal constitution. New Hampshire even had *two* written constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was written! So that parenthetical reference in the text of the article should be removed. 2601:645:C300:3950:484C:AD81:B236:10D1 ( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that this addition is trivial. The remembrance of things past is of an import, especially in present-day central Europe of the politics of remembrance. The cited authors aspire to show the multicultural and multiethnic character of Poland-Lithuania, instead of claiming it for this or that modern nation-state. You reverted my reverting without discussion. I added the above explanation to my original reverting. Hyrdlak ( talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak
@ LordParsifal, Oliszydlowski, and KIENGIR: Discuss the matter here instead of edit warring. I want to also add that LordParsifal has already made three reverts in the last 24 hours so he is already on the brink of breaking the WP:3RR policy. 鈥 Sabbatino ( talk) 08:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The one in use is the 1605 version, which was the banner in use by the Vasa dynasty when they ruled Poland. Too much often I see people on the internet use this banner to represent the Commonwealth though all manner of time which is historically inaccurate. I encourage the use of of a banner not featuring the vasa arms, along side a version featuring it. I also ask for adding a section explaining why this banner is was not in use in the 1790s for example. KoziPLUS ( talk) 00:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word FORMERLY is incorrectly spelt as formally, which has a completely different meaning.
Kind regards
John Jackson 2A00:23C6:F485:F000:755F:3131:CEFF:79D9 ( talk) 07:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the greatest extent map to this one: https://imgur.com/a/LNyu6sb The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia.
sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: /info/en/?search=Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) /info/en/?search=Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 M4SOPMODII ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Also, the map would need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia definitions offered of Diarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a diarchy. It should have that category removed. What is the consensus about this? -- Po Mieczu ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello i made this section to discuss change of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth map of greatest extent to this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Polish_Commonwealth_at_its_greatest_extent.png The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia. I am here to establish consensus of editing the map or not and eventual changes to it. sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: /info/en/?search=Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) /info/en/?search=Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by M4SOPMODII ( talk 鈥 contribs) 15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor @
Merangs, I recently noticed you reverted one my edits and not intending to editwar, I opened this discussion. I request you to please look at
Template:Infobox country. It says that the conventional_long_name
parameter must have the "Formal or official full name of the country in English" and the native_name
parameter must have the "Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s), hence in italics (double quotemarks)". The name in the box should not correspond with the article title, which is the common name. The name in the box should be the formal/official full name of the country, while the native name should be rendering of that full name in the official language(s) of the state.
PadFoot2008 (
talk) 08:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The caption and legend of this image, File:The density of the urban network per voivodeship of Polish鈥揕ithuanian Commonwealth ca. 1650 (Eng).png, do not sufficiently explain what is meant by "density of the urban network". It apparently is not the same thing as population density, as the unit is not something like population/km2, but just km2. My best guess is that maybe it's like the inverse of population density (how much area per person), but then I don't understand how the values could possibly be so high. Maybe it isn't about population density per se and is just about the "urban network", like the number of towns and roads or something. Also, where did the data for this map come from? Was there a census around 1650? The file description does little to clarify any of these matters. 70.181.1.68 ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
First, the link to the reference (Brittanica) is broken.
Second, that fragment in Brittanica does not back up the claim it is supposed to back up.
Third, generally Polonization in the Commonwealth is believed to have been voluntary. I imagine that some point could be made about cases when it was done forcefully but I don't think it's right to simply say that "Poland [...] imposed Polonization". Maybe these instances (if they do exist) should be mentioned here as a side note, I'm not sure, people smarter than me should know what to do.
Fourth, assuming that it's okay to say that Catholicism was imposed (again, I believe more often conversions were voluntary), why are we blaming just Poland? Lithuanians were Catholic as well, so they should share this supposed blame (unless of course there is a specific source backing up this claim). Ponewor ( talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Guccee, sorry! I had meant to link WP:LEADLANG and had double-checked the shortcut but forgot to change it in my edit summary. Under no circumstances do we need to include a French translation for a name in this article, for crying out loud.
Also, I assume you didn't mean to undo my changes to the infobox that bring it closer to compliance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense 璇 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Polish鈥揕ithuanian Commonwealth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Polish鈥揕ithuanian Commonwealth is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2005. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 24, 2013, October 24, 2016, and October 24, 2021. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This page is affected by the
Gda艅sk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{ Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
1) Currently, the native names in the infobox include the Latin name and the Polish name. If one includes only the official languages, then one should also include at least the Ruthenian name, as it was the officially recognised chancery language used in GDL for long time (until 1697?). If one includes all major languages spoken, then Lithuanian naming should also be added. The argument that all that information is available in the "Name" and "Languages" sections is insufficient, as the infobox makes the impression that it was a purely Polish state. An argument that Polish was more "prominent" is insufficient. Was Latin "prominent"? It was used in the diplomatic communication with the West, while Ruthenian was used in the communication with the East.
2) The Polish name used at that time was just "Rzeczpospolita". The addition "Obojga Narod贸w" is a modern one. If one argues that this is the common Polish usage today, then it is no more "native" but the modern usage in one of the successor states, and then the usage in all successor states must be included (Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian). -- Off-shell ( talk) 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
3) I removed the editorial comment that when western Europeans called the Commonwealth of Poland simply Poland, they were "applying the pars pro toto synecdoche. How is is possibily relevant in a article about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to note the particular figure of speech (really trope) invoked when shortening the name to Poland? It seems like an extraneous rhetorical analysis of one particular name. There are hundreds of figures of speech in this article, all of which could have the specific trope (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, etc.) used to form them named. It was an odd aside. In addition, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which one substitutes the part for the whole, so referring the the "pars pro toto [part for whole, in Latin] synecdoche" is like say the "part for whole part for whole figure of speech"--which makes the out of place editorial gloss even odder. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 45.48.186.169 ( talk) 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is propolish vision of history. This country wasnot First Polish Republic. It was commonwealth/-- Rapuha89 ( talk) 10:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Union of Lublin Rzeczypospolity obojego narodu ( text article I).
Sejm 1569 in act Unia Xi臋stwa Litewskiego z Koron膮 (Union Duchy of Lithuania with [Polish] Crown)聽: Rzeczypospolitey oboyga Narodu Volumina Legum 2 p. 189 f. 770 Pilot Pirx ( talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Pamishelisz ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) First time poster here, apologies if there's already a similar topic somewhere, but I really could not find it. To put it brief, I've noticed in many of the biographical sections of the nobility originating from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that the names in italics are often only written in Polish and that Lithuanian translations are missing. In turn, I have tried to insert the proper Lithuanian renditions of the names in italics and my actions have been reverted and I was acused of vandalism by suggesting that back then the Lithuanian language did not exist. We are mainly talking about GDL nobility who lived between late 17th to early 19th century.
I believe that this makes no sense. First and foremost there is ample evidence that the Lithuanian language was used in some GDL regions since the 13th century. Furthermore, The voivodeships with predominant ethnic Lithuanian populations - Vilnius, Trakai and Samogitia - remained almost wholly Lithuanian speaking, both colloquially and by the ruling nobility. Finally, the first Lithuanian book was already published in 1547.
So could please someone shed some light on this, because it totally makes no sense to argue that names should only be written in Polish and not also in Lithuanian, whilst supporting this claim by suggesting that at that time Lithuanian language did not exist.
Please take a look into "References" section. Quite a few broken references. I have never learned this fancy syntax. Whoever knows the ropes, please fix. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand the suspicion which underlies this but please use sources rather than just removing the information on the basis of personal feelings/opinions. 20% urbanization rate for PLC at the beginning of 17th century is not unreasonable. Lithuania, which was the more sparsely populated part, had an urbanization rate of about 15%. "The Crown" was higher so together it could have been 20%. Keep in mind that the PLC underwent a urbanization boom in the 16th century. Of course it went through a process of de-population and de-urbanization starting from about mid 17th century, so that by 1680 or so it was probably less urban than it was at the beginning of 1500's.
50% for Netherlands is also not unreasonable. It's a bit high for Italy except in certain regions (and Italy too underwent de-urbanization during this period). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ruthenian was official in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1696 and therefore is a regional language. Both Polish and Latin were used throughout the country. Ruthenian, Lithuanian and other languages like Hebrew were recognized but to a certain extent and area.
Oliszydlowski (TALK) 14:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I do not know, nor do I especially care what the ongoing edit war is about. But It needs to stop. I have fully protected the page for 2 days. That should be enough time to sort this out. If the problem persists after that I will consider other measure, not excluding blocks. If one or more participants are editing from IP addresses I can easily protect the page to put a stop to that. So settle the content dispute here. Please remember that there are multiple avenues available for resolving disputes. See WP:DR for suggestions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that the image that's used for this article is the borders of it in 1714. I'd like to propose we change it to its borders around 1619-1621 when it was at it's greatest extent. If we could get it with the same design of the current picture with it highlighted in green, that'd be better. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth ( talk 鈥 contribs) 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
First in Europe聽? The French Revolution began two years earlier. It included a new non-autocratic constitution. Without deeper knowledge of this constitution, I can just assume that inspiration came from France. Also - wasn't the reason for Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, based on a fear of a return of the Catholics聽? Boeing720 ( talk) 01:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
It was actually the second in Europe, after the 1755 Corsican Constitution, which was the first Constitution to be titled as such, whereas the 3 May wasn't even titled as Constitution, unlike the first French Republic Constitution approved just a few months later. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 89.181.82.4 ( talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Oliszydlowski: I'm sorry, but I really cannot see how the only Tsar in foreign captivity ever and the conquest of Moscow in 1610-12 isn't of relevance. Personally I think that's the most well-known part of Polish-Lithuanian history. Also, when reading this lead, one gets the impression of this empire as some kind of very nice humanitarian power. Which I really doubt existed anywhere in Europe during the very warious or bellicose 17th century. Without having any specific source in my head or at hand right now, I would still also argue that there indeed were huge conflicts between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Perhaps not to compare with the Thirty Years' War or the Crusades but still. The Catholic vs Orthodox issues eventually lead to Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, as the Orthodox population were afraid of Catholic return. (Whilst the common people in those days usually were less patriotic, if compared to the times from around the 1848 revolutions and later. Commoners were not educated, illiterate and had enough trouble of their own). The year 1654 combined with Ukraine is still today of significance as Communist Nikita Khrushchev (who was born in Russia, but close to Ukraine and had Ukranian parents) in 1954 gave Crimea away, from Russia to Ukraine as a "300 birthday present" etc. And how relevant is the 3 of May constitution really聽? I mean the idea must have come from the French 1789 revolution聽? And we must not cherry pick nor use a non global perspective. That goes equally also for, for instance the Swedish Empire and each and every nation, historical or present. Boeing720 ( talk) 03:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, This article is incorrect. The capital of Poland was moved by king Sigismund III Vasa from Cracow to Poland in 1596 and it remained the capital of Poland since that time, through the end of the last partition in 1795, when Poland regained independence in 1918 and until the present time.
Whoever is editing this may not be aware that there has been perpetual feud between Warsaw and Cracow ever since the capital was moved to Warsaw, for over four centuries. Some people from Cracow refer to Warsaw as a "village" to this very day! The article that is linked to the footnote 2 referring to Warsaw as a "tiny village" is a Wayback Machine article does not exist on the current page of UJ. It was not a "tiny village" with a castle, expanding city and the site of the Polish Congress (Sejm).
The capital of Poland should be changed to "Cracow (or Krakow) until 1596 and Warsaw (or Warszawa) since 1596." Otherwise, this article is laughable and I cannot take Wikipedia seriously any longer. You can take any history book or historical documents available (except for few written by people from Cracow that hate Warsaw), and the capital will ALWAYS be Warsaw, in books written in 1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s. This should be edited on all pages!
Also, Vilnius or Wilno was the capital of Lithuania. It was NEVER a capital of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I do not know why someone added it here.
Thank you for fixing these errors. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Isabella2178 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oliszydlowski, what is the point of that gallery? Just to show random stuff from the Commonwealth? I could understand if some of the pictures went under the art section, but this is just pointless, and in fact Wikipedia discourages the use of random galleries if they do not have a specific purpose.
There is a parenthetical reference to the U.S. Constitution that should be removed - first, because it is not relevant; second, because it is wrong.
The U.S. Constitution was the world's 20th written constitution; not the first. It wasn't even the first American Constitution, but the written constitutions of all 13 states and the Commonwealth of Vermont (1777-1791) pre-dated it, along with the first U.S. federal constitution. New Hampshire even had *two* written constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was written! So that parenthetical reference in the text of the article should be removed. 2601:645:C300:3950:484C:AD81:B236:10D1 ( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that this addition is trivial. The remembrance of things past is of an import, especially in present-day central Europe of the politics of remembrance. The cited authors aspire to show the multicultural and multiethnic character of Poland-Lithuania, instead of claiming it for this or that modern nation-state. You reverted my reverting without discussion. I added the above explanation to my original reverting. Hyrdlak ( talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak
@ LordParsifal, Oliszydlowski, and KIENGIR: Discuss the matter here instead of edit warring. I want to also add that LordParsifal has already made three reverts in the last 24 hours so he is already on the brink of breaking the WP:3RR policy. 鈥 Sabbatino ( talk) 08:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The one in use is the 1605 version, which was the banner in use by the Vasa dynasty when they ruled Poland. Too much often I see people on the internet use this banner to represent the Commonwealth though all manner of time which is historically inaccurate. I encourage the use of of a banner not featuring the vasa arms, along side a version featuring it. I also ask for adding a section explaining why this banner is was not in use in the 1790s for example. KoziPLUS ( talk) 00:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word FORMERLY is incorrectly spelt as formally, which has a completely different meaning.
Kind regards
John Jackson 2A00:23C6:F485:F000:755F:3131:CEFF:79D9 ( talk) 07:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the greatest extent map to this one: https://imgur.com/a/LNyu6sb The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia.
sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: /info/en/?search=Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) /info/en/?search=Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 M4SOPMODII ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Also, the map would need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia definitions offered of Diarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a diarchy. It should have that category removed. What is the consensus about this? -- Po Mieczu ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello i made this section to discuss change of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth map of greatest extent to this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Polish_Commonwealth_at_its_greatest_extent.png The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia. I am here to establish consensus of editing the map or not and eventual changes to it. sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: /info/en/?search=Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) /info/en/?search=Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by M4SOPMODII ( talk 鈥 contribs) 15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor @
Merangs, I recently noticed you reverted one my edits and not intending to editwar, I opened this discussion. I request you to please look at
Template:Infobox country. It says that the conventional_long_name
parameter must have the "Formal or official full name of the country in English" and the native_name
parameter must have the "Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s), hence in italics (double quotemarks)". The name in the box should not correspond with the article title, which is the common name. The name in the box should be the formal/official full name of the country, while the native name should be rendering of that full name in the official language(s) of the state.
PadFoot2008 (
talk) 08:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The caption and legend of this image, File:The density of the urban network per voivodeship of Polish鈥揕ithuanian Commonwealth ca. 1650 (Eng).png, do not sufficiently explain what is meant by "density of the urban network". It apparently is not the same thing as population density, as the unit is not something like population/km2, but just km2. My best guess is that maybe it's like the inverse of population density (how much area per person), but then I don't understand how the values could possibly be so high. Maybe it isn't about population density per se and is just about the "urban network", like the number of towns and roads or something. Also, where did the data for this map come from? Was there a census around 1650? The file description does little to clarify any of these matters. 70.181.1.68 ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
First, the link to the reference (Brittanica) is broken.
Second, that fragment in Brittanica does not back up the claim it is supposed to back up.
Third, generally Polonization in the Commonwealth is believed to have been voluntary. I imagine that some point could be made about cases when it was done forcefully but I don't think it's right to simply say that "Poland [...] imposed Polonization". Maybe these instances (if they do exist) should be mentioned here as a side note, I'm not sure, people smarter than me should know what to do.
Fourth, assuming that it's okay to say that Catholicism was imposed (again, I believe more often conversions were voluntary), why are we blaming just Poland? Lithuanians were Catholic as well, so they should share this supposed blame (unless of course there is a specific source backing up this claim). Ponewor ( talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Guccee, sorry! I had meant to link WP:LEADLANG and had double-checked the shortcut but forgot to change it in my edit summary. Under no circumstances do we need to include a French translation for a name in this article, for crying out loud.
Also, I assume you didn't mean to undo my changes to the infobox that bring it closer to compliance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense 璇 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)