This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partitions of Poland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Why the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are simply referred to as the “Partitions of Poland”? The last time I checked, the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania did not escape the fate of partitions and ceased to exist the same way the Kingdom of Poland did. The title is misleading. Despite Poland’s much greater political influence, Polish being lingua franca as well as the Crown residing in Krakow, the country nonetheless was a bi-federation comprised of two equal political entities – the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It’s the same as taking Hungary out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire title or referring to the United Kingdom as England. The whole argument of most historical sources referring to these events as the "Partitions of Poland" does sound a bit wishy-washy to me. SeriousThinker ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (BST)
We will start in February 2022 with the Polish language reference in the book, Pubic Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US (Racino, 2014 http://www.crcpress.com) to the destruction of my grandmother's (babci's) village and church in Poland via Uncle Joe Bien, son of Julia Centka Bien. Julia Centka Bien is the mother of World War II Polish American Veterans Mary Bien Civiok, Louis Bien, Bernard Bien, William Bien, and Joseph Bien, two of whom began the Steczko Post in Rome, New York, USA. Julia Bien passed in 1974 while her granddaughter Julie Ann Racino was attending Cornell University on Dean's Scholarship and Vice President of Phillip's House on North Campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:A04A:25F1:88E9:1248 ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
It's wrong to call it "Partitions of Poland". It should be called "Partitions of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", because it represents the partitions of the commonwealth, not any Poland-only divisions of land. 151.225.149.106 ( talk) 00:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Poeticbent talk 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
See old discussion at Talk:Partitions_of_Poland/Archive_2#Requested_move. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Since this article has become the aim of repeated vandalism by unregistered user with IP 60.231.70.79 (it's not his first involvement in vandalism, see his talk page: talk), I suggest that the access to editing this article would be restricted to registered users only. Kaukutis ( talk) comment added 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If partitioning affected only Poland why Lithuania did not remain independent and found itself a part of Russia? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that it is not easy to find a map for every article where it is needed, let alone a quality map. The map entitled "Elimination" in this article is actually, a quality map, but it has a major deficiency: its choice of colors.
This map needs eight colors in order to convey the history of the partitions. And ideally, those eight should actually be based upon just three base colors, with three shades of color A for Prussia's annexations, three shades of color B for Russia's annexations, and two shades of Color C for Austria's annexations. Unfortunately, the three base colors chosen here are blue, green and turquoise. Given that turquoise is clearly a shade of blue (and some shades of turquoise are arguably shades of green), this renders the maps difficult for even a person with full color sight to immediately take in. And for some persons with certain types of color blindness, it would be literally impossible to make out.
It would be nice if we could have a map that used red or orange instead of the turquoise. That still would not solve everyone's problems, but it would increase the accessibility for at least some folks. Un sch ool 05:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I added flag icons to the summary table earlier today (with r735390520), as I found it a rather complex table and pretty hard to parse. Use of flag icons can be controversial on Wikipedia sometimes, so it didn't surprise me all that much that someone reverted them — in this case Poeticbent with r735402520 and a mention of WP:ICONDECORATION.
To my mind, the flags are justifiable as that policy says Icons ... should ... serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension
, but that's clearly a subjective call. Rather than bothering with a
3RR dance on something that's really not that big a deal either way, in the scheme of thing, I figure I should ask editors' opinions here to see if there's a clear consensus either way. (Obviously, no consensus would mean the article should stay as-is — the status quo always wins.)
Without flags:
Partition | To Austria | To Prussia | To Russia | Total annexed | Total remaining | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | |
1772 | 81,900 km2 (31,600 sq mi) | 11.17% | 36,300 km2 (14,000 sq mi) | 4.94% | 93,000 km2 (36,000 sq mi) | 12.68% | 211,200 km2 (81,500 sq mi) | 28.79% | 522,300 km2 (201,700 sq mi) | 71.20% |
1793 | — | — | 57,100 km2 (22,000 sq mi) | 7.78% | 250,200 km2 (96,600 sq mi) | 34.11% | 307,300 km2 (118,600 sq mi) | 41.89% | 215,000 km2 (83,000 sq mi) | 29.31% |
1795 | 47,000 km2 (18,000 sq mi) | 6.40% | 48,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi) | 6.55% | 120,000 km2 (46,000 sq mi) | 16.36% | 215,000 km2 (83,000 sq mi) | 29.31% | None |
0%
|
Total | 128,900 km2 (49,800 sq mi) | 14.57% | 141,400 km2 (54,600 sq mi) | 19.27% | 463,200 km2 (178,800 sq mi) | 66.16% | 733,500 km2 (283,200 sq mi) | 100% |
With flags:
Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Partitions 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Article is about Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth partitions, not about just Poland. Craft37by ( talk) 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering wikipedia is widely used for scientific research purposes, every article reaches for the goal to be as accurate as possible, lessening any political or romanticized influence of every wikipedia article. Referring to “Partitions of Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth” as only partitions of Poland is not only inaccurate, it’s misleading as well, undermining the main purpose of wikipedia - to enlighten people and help them to learn accurate history if they have been mislead. Gustasv ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Naming the Partitions of the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is historically accurate, the Partitions of Poland, would be incorrect. If "Poland" was partitioned, Lithuania would have been left. But no, in the Partitions, Lithuania was cut away as well. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would not be named so if Lithuania was not a active part; the Commonwealth is the union of two equal nations: Poland amd Lithuania. It is like this: If I ate two apples, I wouldn't say, "I ate and apple." I'd say, "I ate two apples." If I partitioned a union of two nations, (e.g., Union of 1 and 2) I'd say, "I partitioned the Union of 1 and 2," not, "I partitioned 1." Saying the Partitions of Poland would be misspelling history, insulting the equality between Lithuania and Poland, and giving incorrect information to people seeking knowledge of the historical event, in which a union of two nations were partitioned. It would also cause great confusion if the article name was "the Partitions of Poland" when explaining the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In short, the title is incorrect, and should be changed to "the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Please. And thank you. MarperMay ( talk) 05:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In my limited experience this seems to be usually used to mean 1939, when it is used: if that's true, then we should probably note that. Double sharp ( talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a GIS map for the partitions of Poland that has layers by year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PegATL ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The name of this article must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The current name clearly violates the WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania which following the Union of Lublin in 1569 co-existed with the Kingdom of Poland for centuries and was partitioned during the same partitions described in this article. Pay attention that the rulers of the state constantly held two titles: King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. There even is a separate article Russian Partition which mostly covers the situation of the territory of the partitioned Lithuania. If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE. It is the responsibility of these authors for spreading false propaganda which is incompatible with the assuming good faith principle. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. Such horrendous Polonization of the Lithuanian history has no place in Wikipedia. At most, the title "Partitions of Poland" can be nothing more than a second title (like in Russian Partition article). The Google search offers over 35 600 results for name "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", so it is historically accurate and widely used. In any case, the truth is more important than various numbers. -- Pofka ( talk) 10:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag for several reasons. First, RfC is
not for discussing page renames; second, your RFC statement is
not neutrally worded and is also far from brief. Its length also makes it unrecognisable to
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs), causing breakage at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography.The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME even if it is not entirely accurate. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 22:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Partitions of Poland → Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – The name of this article must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The current name clearly violates the WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania which following the Union of Lublin in 1569 co-existed with the Kingdom of Poland for centuries and was partitioned during the same partitions described in this article. Pay attention that the rulers of the state constantly held two titles: King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. There even is a separate article Russian Partition which mostly covers the situation of the territory of the partitioned Lithuania. If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE. It is the responsibility of these authors for spreading false propaganda which is incompatible with the assuming good faith principle. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. Such horrendous Polonization of the Lithuanian history has no place in Wikipedia. At most, the title "Partitions of Poland" can be nothing more than a second title (like in Russian Partition article). The Google search offers over 35 600 results for name "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", so it is historically accurate and widely used. In any case, the truth is more important than various numbers. I can see that somebody reverted such page move performed on 12 December 2021, so please ensure that in the future other users would not be allowed to continue violating the basic rules and principles of Wikipedia in this article's name. -- Pofka ( talk) 15:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATEis asking us to ignore reliable sources. Since WP:NPOV,
which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, seems to actually cut against asking us to ignore the vast majority of RS published throughout all of history on this topic, I oppose the move. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Moreover, WP:NPOVNAME states
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.In this case, there is strong evidence to conclude that "Partition[s] of Poland" is effectively a proper name for the series of events that occurred and resulted in the destruction of the Commonwealth:
Note - ... here is the issue - Google search:
see also old discussion regarding the move - [3] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Partition[s] of Polanddominates google search results in both methodologies by an order of magnitude relative to all other proposed titles terms. (I prefer JSTOR searching, since the search is better inasmuch as it's going to be a search of reliable sources as opposed to a search of the whole internet, but the results align in this case.) In any case, there's clearly a WP:COMMONNAME, no matter how you'd like to measure it, and it's not one with a hyphen. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
By the early eighteenth century, if not earlier, the Commonwealth was referred to ubiquitously as 'Poland' .(Butterwick, Richard (2012). The Polish Revolution and the Catholic Church, 1788-1792: A Political History. Oxford University Press. p. 5.). And there are no two "separate processes" (Lithuania and Poland) in English literature – the phrase "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is almost non-existent in English sources:
Lithuania was acquired by Russia in the Third Partition of Poland in 1795.It seems clear that what English encyclopedic sources mean by "partitions of Poland" are the partitions of the Commonwealth. And it's unlikely this term is used by other authors in the meaning of a separate process that encompasses only lands of the Polish Crown or at least the number of such cases must be few.-- Hedviberit ( talk) 19:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Pofka, Hedviberit, Merangs, Eccekevin, Mhawk10 Are you folks interested in stating your opinion here please? --> [7] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partitions of Poland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Why the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are simply referred to as the “Partitions of Poland”? The last time I checked, the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania did not escape the fate of partitions and ceased to exist the same way the Kingdom of Poland did. The title is misleading. Despite Poland’s much greater political influence, Polish being lingua franca as well as the Crown residing in Krakow, the country nonetheless was a bi-federation comprised of two equal political entities – the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It’s the same as taking Hungary out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire title or referring to the United Kingdom as England. The whole argument of most historical sources referring to these events as the "Partitions of Poland" does sound a bit wishy-washy to me. SeriousThinker ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (BST)
We will start in February 2022 with the Polish language reference in the book, Pubic Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US (Racino, 2014 http://www.crcpress.com) to the destruction of my grandmother's (babci's) village and church in Poland via Uncle Joe Bien, son of Julia Centka Bien. Julia Centka Bien is the mother of World War II Polish American Veterans Mary Bien Civiok, Louis Bien, Bernard Bien, William Bien, and Joseph Bien, two of whom began the Steczko Post in Rome, New York, USA. Julia Bien passed in 1974 while her granddaughter Julie Ann Racino was attending Cornell University on Dean's Scholarship and Vice President of Phillip's House on North Campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:A04A:25F1:88E9:1248 ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
It's wrong to call it "Partitions of Poland". It should be called "Partitions of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", because it represents the partitions of the commonwealth, not any Poland-only divisions of land. 151.225.149.106 ( talk) 00:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Poeticbent talk 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
See old discussion at Talk:Partitions_of_Poland/Archive_2#Requested_move. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Since this article has become the aim of repeated vandalism by unregistered user with IP 60.231.70.79 (it's not his first involvement in vandalism, see his talk page: talk), I suggest that the access to editing this article would be restricted to registered users only. Kaukutis ( talk) comment added 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If partitioning affected only Poland why Lithuania did not remain independent and found itself a part of Russia? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that it is not easy to find a map for every article where it is needed, let alone a quality map. The map entitled "Elimination" in this article is actually, a quality map, but it has a major deficiency: its choice of colors.
This map needs eight colors in order to convey the history of the partitions. And ideally, those eight should actually be based upon just three base colors, with three shades of color A for Prussia's annexations, three shades of color B for Russia's annexations, and two shades of Color C for Austria's annexations. Unfortunately, the three base colors chosen here are blue, green and turquoise. Given that turquoise is clearly a shade of blue (and some shades of turquoise are arguably shades of green), this renders the maps difficult for even a person with full color sight to immediately take in. And for some persons with certain types of color blindness, it would be literally impossible to make out.
It would be nice if we could have a map that used red or orange instead of the turquoise. That still would not solve everyone's problems, but it would increase the accessibility for at least some folks. Un sch ool 05:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I added flag icons to the summary table earlier today (with r735390520), as I found it a rather complex table and pretty hard to parse. Use of flag icons can be controversial on Wikipedia sometimes, so it didn't surprise me all that much that someone reverted them — in this case Poeticbent with r735402520 and a mention of WP:ICONDECORATION.
To my mind, the flags are justifiable as that policy says Icons ... should ... serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension
, but that's clearly a subjective call. Rather than bothering with a
3RR dance on something that's really not that big a deal either way, in the scheme of thing, I figure I should ask editors' opinions here to see if there's a clear consensus either way. (Obviously, no consensus would mean the article should stay as-is — the status quo always wins.)
Without flags:
Partition | To Austria | To Prussia | To Russia | Total annexed | Total remaining | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | |
1772 | 81,900 km2 (31,600 sq mi) | 11.17% | 36,300 km2 (14,000 sq mi) | 4.94% | 93,000 km2 (36,000 sq mi) | 12.68% | 211,200 km2 (81,500 sq mi) | 28.79% | 522,300 km2 (201,700 sq mi) | 71.20% |
1793 | — | — | 57,100 km2 (22,000 sq mi) | 7.78% | 250,200 km2 (96,600 sq mi) | 34.11% | 307,300 km2 (118,600 sq mi) | 41.89% | 215,000 km2 (83,000 sq mi) | 29.31% |
1795 | 47,000 km2 (18,000 sq mi) | 6.40% | 48,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi) | 6.55% | 120,000 km2 (46,000 sq mi) | 16.36% | 215,000 km2 (83,000 sq mi) | 29.31% | None |
0%
|
Total | 128,900 km2 (49,800 sq mi) | 14.57% | 141,400 km2 (54,600 sq mi) | 19.27% | 463,200 km2 (178,800 sq mi) | 66.16% | 733,500 km2 (283,200 sq mi) | 100% |
With flags:
Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Partitions 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Article is about Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth partitions, not about just Poland. Craft37by ( talk) 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering wikipedia is widely used for scientific research purposes, every article reaches for the goal to be as accurate as possible, lessening any political or romanticized influence of every wikipedia article. Referring to “Partitions of Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth” as only partitions of Poland is not only inaccurate, it’s misleading as well, undermining the main purpose of wikipedia - to enlighten people and help them to learn accurate history if they have been mislead. Gustasv ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Naming the Partitions of the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is historically accurate, the Partitions of Poland, would be incorrect. If "Poland" was partitioned, Lithuania would have been left. But no, in the Partitions, Lithuania was cut away as well. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would not be named so if Lithuania was not a active part; the Commonwealth is the union of two equal nations: Poland amd Lithuania. It is like this: If I ate two apples, I wouldn't say, "I ate and apple." I'd say, "I ate two apples." If I partitioned a union of two nations, (e.g., Union of 1 and 2) I'd say, "I partitioned the Union of 1 and 2," not, "I partitioned 1." Saying the Partitions of Poland would be misspelling history, insulting the equality between Lithuania and Poland, and giving incorrect information to people seeking knowledge of the historical event, in which a union of two nations were partitioned. It would also cause great confusion if the article name was "the Partitions of Poland" when explaining the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In short, the title is incorrect, and should be changed to "the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Please. And thank you. MarperMay ( talk) 05:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In my limited experience this seems to be usually used to mean 1939, when it is used: if that's true, then we should probably note that. Double sharp ( talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a GIS map for the partitions of Poland that has layers by year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PegATL ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The name of this article must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The current name clearly violates the WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania which following the Union of Lublin in 1569 co-existed with the Kingdom of Poland for centuries and was partitioned during the same partitions described in this article. Pay attention that the rulers of the state constantly held two titles: King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. There even is a separate article Russian Partition which mostly covers the situation of the territory of the partitioned Lithuania. If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE. It is the responsibility of these authors for spreading false propaganda which is incompatible with the assuming good faith principle. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. Such horrendous Polonization of the Lithuanian history has no place in Wikipedia. At most, the title "Partitions of Poland" can be nothing more than a second title (like in Russian Partition article). The Google search offers over 35 600 results for name "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", so it is historically accurate and widely used. In any case, the truth is more important than various numbers. -- Pofka ( talk) 10:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag for several reasons. First, RfC is
not for discussing page renames; second, your RFC statement is
not neutrally worded and is also far from brief. Its length also makes it unrecognisable to
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs), causing breakage at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography.The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME even if it is not entirely accurate. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 22:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Partitions of Poland → Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – The name of this article must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The current name clearly violates the WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania which following the Union of Lublin in 1569 co-existed with the Kingdom of Poland for centuries and was partitioned during the same partitions described in this article. Pay attention that the rulers of the state constantly held two titles: King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. There even is a separate article Russian Partition which mostly covers the situation of the territory of the partitioned Lithuania. If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE. It is the responsibility of these authors for spreading false propaganda which is incompatible with the assuming good faith principle. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. Such horrendous Polonization of the Lithuanian history has no place in Wikipedia. At most, the title "Partitions of Poland" can be nothing more than a second title (like in Russian Partition article). The Google search offers over 35 600 results for name "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", so it is historically accurate and widely used. In any case, the truth is more important than various numbers. I can see that somebody reverted such page move performed on 12 December 2021, so please ensure that in the future other users would not be allowed to continue violating the basic rules and principles of Wikipedia in this article's name. -- Pofka ( talk) 15:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATEis asking us to ignore reliable sources. Since WP:NPOV,
which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, seems to actually cut against asking us to ignore the vast majority of RS published throughout all of history on this topic, I oppose the move. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Moreover, WP:NPOVNAME states
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.In this case, there is strong evidence to conclude that "Partition[s] of Poland" is effectively a proper name for the series of events that occurred and resulted in the destruction of the Commonwealth:
Note - ... here is the issue - Google search:
see also old discussion regarding the move - [3] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Partition[s] of Polanddominates google search results in both methodologies by an order of magnitude relative to all other proposed titles terms. (I prefer JSTOR searching, since the search is better inasmuch as it's going to be a search of reliable sources as opposed to a search of the whole internet, but the results align in this case.) In any case, there's clearly a WP:COMMONNAME, no matter how you'd like to measure it, and it's not one with a hyphen. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
By the early eighteenth century, if not earlier, the Commonwealth was referred to ubiquitously as 'Poland' .(Butterwick, Richard (2012). The Polish Revolution and the Catholic Church, 1788-1792: A Political History. Oxford University Press. p. 5.). And there are no two "separate processes" (Lithuania and Poland) in English literature – the phrase "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is almost non-existent in English sources:
Lithuania was acquired by Russia in the Third Partition of Poland in 1795.It seems clear that what English encyclopedic sources mean by "partitions of Poland" are the partitions of the Commonwealth. And it's unlikely this term is used by other authors in the meaning of a separate process that encompasses only lands of the Polish Crown or at least the number of such cases must be few.-- Hedviberit ( talk) 19:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Pofka, Hedviberit, Merangs, Eccekevin, Mhawk10 Are you folks interested in stating your opinion here please? --> [7] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)