Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 2 March 2022

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Belarus This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lithuania Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Review comments: Renata (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries: Holy Roman Empire / Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Austria This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Misleading title

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)

Misplaced Pages uses names for historical events which are predominant in English literature. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

•  Comment: It must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Current name violates WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania. If Poland published many books with false naming, it still does not change the fact that it was a DUAL STATE. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. -- Pofka (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Improper naming

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)

I believe the reliable sources typically call it "partitions of Poland" Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, various reliable sources call it both but "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" is more historically accurate and politically neutral, therefore it should be changed. Sources calling it "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth": ...and many more here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22partitions+of+the+Polish-lithuanian+commonwealth%22#q=%22partitions+of+the+Polish-lithuanian+commonwealth%22&tbm=bks Kaukutis talk 03:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Book search

1. "partitions of the Polish-lithuanian commonwealth" About 85 results
2. "partitions of Poland" About 30,800 results

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)

Restricting access

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)

• Chill out Kaukutis (talk · contribs). People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Read the Google Book search from above. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 06:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Poland vs Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

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)

Inaccessibility to the Color Blind

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. Unschool 05:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the maps below were produced by only one user with notable consistency of color. However, I can try to alter them in Photoshop to conform with your ideas using pastel shades of blue for Prussia, pastel shades of green for Austria and pastel red for Russia. I guess, Poland would be in shades of sandy yellow perhaps. Doing this will probably take some time. Thanks for the suggestion anyway. Poeticbent talk 05:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Poeticbent talk 16:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

OMG, I can't believe you did that--and so fast! Thank you very much; it's 100% better! Unschool 02:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary table clarity — with or without flags

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

With flags:

Cumulative division of the Commonwealth territory

Partition	To Austria		To Prussia		To Russia		Total annexed		Total remaining
	Area	%	Area	%	Area	%	Area	%	Area	%
1772	81,900 km (31,600 sq mi)	11.17%	36,300 km (14,000 sq mi)	4.94%	93,000 km (36,000 sq mi)	12.68%	211,200 km (81,500 sq mi)	28.79%	522,300 km (201,700 sq mi)	71.20%
1793	—	—	57,100 km (22,000 sq mi)	7.78%	250,200 km (96,600 sq mi)	34.11%	307,300 km (118,600 sq mi)	41.89%	215,000 km (83,000 sq mi)	29.31%
1795	47,000 km (18,000 sq mi)	6.40%	48,000 km (19,000 sq mi)	6.55%	120,000 km (46,000 sq mi)	16.36%	215,000 km (83,000 sq mi)	29.31%	None	0%
Total	128,900 km (49,800 sq mi)	14.57%	141,400 km (54,600 sq mi)	19.27%	463,200 km (178,800 sq mi)	66.16%	733,500 km (283,200 sq mi)	100%

Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Looks too much like the Rio 2016 medal count, while in fact the partitions were a dark chapter of history that undoubtedly inspired the further European wars of territorial acquisitions. Poeticbent talk 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214183008/http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/polish_army.html to http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/polish_army.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205130036/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/constitution.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/constitution.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524032930/http://www.historycy.pl/Strony/Artykuly/2006%2001/Rozbiory.html to http://www.historycy.pl/Strony/Artykuly/2006%2001/Rozbiory.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

Article is about Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth partitions, not about just Poland. Craft37by (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Article name is not historically accurate

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)

The Title of "The Partitions of Poland" is incorrect

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)

From 1791 (the Constitution of 3 May 1791) Lithuania was a province within Poland, as the Grand Duchy had been officially abolished. Secondly, no English source of the era referred to the event as the "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", as the equality between the two states had been inexistent since the early 18th century. Lithuania was annexed by Russia as a province and became a governorate, whereas Congress Poland remained a kingdom. Sorry, this was already discussed previously. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" is the correct title. The three-stage partition is called "partitions of Poland" in Polish nationalistic usage and as a shortcut term. What was partitioned was the Polish-Lithuanian state, in the Grand Duchy sense of "Lithuanian" (including also modern Belarus). Modern English sources clearly refer to the Polish-Lithuanian state, not just Poland. The creators of the constitution tried to preserve the vanishing statehood by making it more centralized. Congress Poland originated from the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw and its existence is not relevant to the original partitions. It's not about the equality of two states, but about the fundamental nature of the state that was partitioned from 1772. If just Poland was partitioned, then the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" was only "Poland after the Union of Lublin". Holding a vote on this issue would be a good idea.Orczar (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The term "Partition of Poland" is based on the usage in English literature, it's not uncommon to refer to PLC simply as "Poland", which isn't fundamentally wrong and it's based on the historical sources, where the whole state is called "Commonwealth" (Rzeczpospolita) or "Poland". We can of course hold the voting, but as I said the name isn't fundamentally wrong or misleading. Marcelus (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it is wrong or misleading, it's just not inclusive.Orczar (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As much as I see that it is not inclusive, older and contemporary sources use the term "Partitions of Poland" much more frequently. You can request an Request for Comments (RfC) and see what other Wikipedians think, but Misplaced Pages should not deviate from publications with its own titles and interpretations. Furthermore, I do not see anything "nationalistic" about this usage so please refrain from making such claims. Personally, I don't mind either 'partitions of Poland' or 'Poland-Lithuania'. Both are correct, but one may be interpreted as more correct by each user. Merangs (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Fourth partition"

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)

I think this is already discussed (there is a dedicated section to this concept at Partitions_of_Poland#Fourth_Partition), although if you have a source that would confirm your experience, we can certainly add it and make it more clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Newbie question - GIS Maps

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)

Request for comment: the current name of this article violates the WP:NPOV rule and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith principle

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

@Pofka: I've pulled the {{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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography.

You may continue discussion, just not as an RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Legobot: @Redrose64: So how this violation of WP:NPOV can be solved? Before any actions can be taken, there must be a clear support in a discussion, but now you blocked such discussion. It is not possible to seek assistance in various noticeboards without RfC. If you scroll through this talk page - you will easily notice that there are many other complains about this. This violation of WP:NPOV must be finally solved. -- Pofka (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not blocked discussion: discussion can, indeed should continue, just not in the context of an RfC. There is nothing at either WP:BEFOREMOVING or WP:RM#CM that indicates that an RfC should be opened. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2022

It has been proposed in this section that Partitions of Poland be renamed and moved to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages in this article's name. -- Pofka (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is clearly not uncontroversial – the article has been moved several times and there have been numerous contentious discussions on the talk page – so a full RM is needed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick ngrams search shows that shows that "Partition of Poland" is way more common than "Partition of the Polish". Considering that the latter would encompass all mentions of "partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", I'm not really seeing any evidence that historians actually describe (or have ever described) this in a way other than the Partition of Poland. The argument that 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 is 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)

@Mhawk10: WP:COMMONNAME does not overlap WP:NPOV rule and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith principle which are essential in Misplaced Pages. Sources which use term "Partitions of Poland" automatically raises questions about WP:NPOV, so such sources cannot deny the rules of Misplaced Pages. Without such horrendous violation of the rules, obviously we could count on the WP:COMMONNAME rule, but now we are talking about CENSORING one of the countries name. Let me remind you that Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored. The Poles would clearly raise concerns about WP:NPOV if we would rename this article into "Partitions of Lithuania" by completely removing the Poland's name, so I cannot see any valid reasons, apart from widely spread distorted term, why the vice versa process should be tolerated here. Consequently, if this voting will be blocked, I will move this question into higher processes of wiki as it is a clear violation of multiple fundamental rules and principles of Misplaced Pages, satisfying some kind of nationalistic desires (Polish Empire never actually existed). So lets sort this out peacefully and quickly here because it will be inevitably solved anyway. Polonization has no place in wiki. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka: A few things:

1. WP:AGF is a Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline. The point of the policy is to be charitable to other editors. Your attempt to apply AGF to the substantial content issue of article titling, however, seems to be confused. If you can point to any of the text in WP:AGF that says that we should specifically ignore the choice of words an author of reliable sources when we think they made a mistake, be my guest, but I can't find any. Moreover, doing so would be an extraordinary overreach that would violate our policy on no original research, since it would be up to the subjective Misplaced Pages editor to infer that the author actually intended to use the longer name but chose not to because of a mistake; we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
2. As I stated above, WP:NPOV means that we should represent, proportionately, the views published among reliable sources. That there are several ways to refer to the Commonwealth (as "Poland" or as "Poland-Lithuania") and that the extremely dominant view is to abbreviate it as "Poland", actually cuts against your proposed move.
3. WP:COMMONNAME, which is part of the article titling policy, states that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. In this case, there is strong evidence to conclude that "Partition of Poland" is effectively a proper name for the series of events that occurred and resulted in the destruction of the Commonwealth:
   • A JSTOR search for "Partition of Poland" yields 3198 results;
   • A JSTOR search for "Partitions of Poland" yields 1573 results;
   • A JSTOR search for "Partition of Poland-Lithuania" yields 39 results;
   • A JSTOR search for "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" yields 28 results;
   • A JSTOR search for "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" yields 59 results;
   • A JSTOR search for "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" yields 54 results.
4. The appeal to WP:NOTCENSORED is trivially misapplied; the titling of an article does not constitute censorship when the body of the article explains exactly what is going on. The title "Vietnam War" does not constitute censorship of the fact that there were bombings and combat in Cambodia and Laos as well, despite not listing Cambodia and Laos in the article title. We are not engaging in censorship of the existence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by referring to the partition just as the vast majority of historians have.

As is shown above, the term "Partition of Poland" (4735 total results) is orders of magnitude more common than either "Partition of Poland-Lithuania" (67 results) or "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (113 results). It's quite clearly the WP:COMMONNAME among academic reliable sources. It also appears to be the sole widely accepted proper name that refers to a series of historical events; using the title is well-established among reliable sources. No policy-based reason given in support of the the move stands up to basic scrutiny, while there are very real policy-based reasons to keep the article exactly where it currently is. While one might not like how historians and others describe the topic, we are not here to right great wrongs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, but there is a famous proverb: do not try to invent a bicycle once again. By writing such long justifications why Lithuania should be discriminated versus Poland you are doing just like that. The issue is simple and I will repeat the solution once again: if it was a dual state, then we must include both countries names because these partitions partitioned TWO COUNTRIES, not one. Or this article should be copy-pasted into another article named Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but it would be truly pointless to have two articles about the same thing which can be covered in a single article under a completely neutral name Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. -- Pofka (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I've read Pofka's rationale and it seems pretty solid to me. I'm of course open to changing my vote if someone presents a convincing argument to the contrary, so please by all means chip in. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; WP:COMMONNAME used by a vast majority of published sources, books, journals and essays. The term 'Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth' is accurate, but already embedded in the lead section. Hence, I see the renaming of this article pointless. Merangs (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Google search "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", "Partitions of Lithuania" does not link to this article, so it is a must. Term "Polish–Lithuanian" is inevitable in the context of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth if we seek for WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Note - ... here is the issue - Google search:

• partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth = 31,500 results

• partitions of the Poland = 12,500,000 results - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

see also old discussion regarding the move - - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I already said before that we cannot put priority on numbers when they are clearly harmful in this case. Many Lithuanian language sources use term "Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės padalijimai" (Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), however the term is obviously incorrect in a broader context. The same is with various Polish sources of which are plenty that are using term "Partitions of Poland". We are speaking not about the most common name, but about clear violations of the WP:NPOV, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored. This way google search "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" does not link to this important article. So the Grand Duchy of Lithuania never existed? I will be simply forced to seek for assistance in higher wiki processes if this Polish nationalism and incomprehensible desire to humiliate Lithuania will be tolerated here. So lets save each others time and forget harmful nationalism. -- Pofka (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka, the issue is that the vast majority of English language sources use the term partition of Poland for short, such as this one.... But, yes, you are right, the accurate term should be the partitions of the P/L Commonwealth. This is a broader issue that is also discussed on my talk page here -->. I’m intending to address it later today. Pinging the other folks --> Marcelus and Cukrakalnis - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Many of these English sources were published by Polish authors or those who based their works on Polish sources. As I already mentioned before, some Lithuanian sources use term "Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės padalijimai" (Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), however such name is incorrect and we mostly use "Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimai" (Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) or simply "ATR padalijimai". Pay attention that the Lithuanian Misplaced Pages article is called Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimai as well. It would be completely insane if the article in the Lithuanian Misplaced Pages would be renamed to "Lenkijos padalijimai" (Partitions of Poland). -- Pofka (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, because what Pofka says is true and solid. I would also add that a possible solution would be naming the article to "Partitions of Poland–Lithuania", which has about 398,000 results . This takes into account everything Pofka said, in addition to being shorter and more frequently used than the name he proposed.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • If we're going by pure google results (which is not always best because it isn't guaranteed to pick up only RS), it's important to actually put the search term in quotes, since otherwise it is going to pick up all articles with "partitions", "of", and "Poland-Lithuania", even when the three aren't placed next to each other. If we're going to look at pure google results (which is probably an inferior measure to the JSTOR searches above), we find the relevant terms based off of their search ranks:
    1. "Partition of Poland": 448,000 results
    2. "Partitions of Poland": 211,000 results
    3. "Partition of Poland-Lithuania": " 37,800 results
    4. "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania": 12,700 results
    5. "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth": 6 results
    6. "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth": 2 results

  We could also look at the same searches without quotes used in the search term (a methodology I question but used by Cukrakalnis in their !vote). This methodology actually refutes the above !voter's reading of the common name, giving us a similar breakdown to basically every other search methodology used in this discussion:

  1. Partition of Poland: 12,100,000 results
  2. Partitions of Poland: 4,230,000 results
  3. Partition of Poland-Lithuania: 1,180,000 results
  4. Partitions of Poland-Lithuania: 378,000 results
  5. Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: 263,000 results
  6. Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: 73,000 results

  The above shows that Partition of Poland dominates 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)

The thing is that we are NOT "going by pure google results" (which should have been clear had you read what I wrote attentively). Mhawk10 clearly misunderstood the essence of what I was saying.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't go by pure google results (I note this explicitly; read the whole thing), but that the google query you used in your explanation above doesn't actually provide anything substantial against the policy-based WP:COMMONNAME argument. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

My main point was that Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth could be shortened to Partitions of Poland–Lithuania (e.g. for brevity). That was all. I was not saying that we should go by pure google results. You assumed that my methodology followed WP:COMMONNAME, which it did not. Perhaps you got that impression because I mentioned 'results', but I mentioned them to show that my suggestion of using the term "Poland-Lithuania" was not something I created out of thin air. I hope I made this clear.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Lithuania (population: 2,795,680; GDP: $107 billion), Poland (population: 38,179,800; GDP: $720 billion). It is clear why pro-Polish term overshadows Lithuania. Mass usage of such term is a national discrimination and pretention that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania never existed and was never partitioned. We need correct name according to the rules, not the most common name if it's obviously false. -- Pofka (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear case of WP:COMMONNAME across all academic sources. COMMONNAME can trump technical accuracy: it's the reason we call is Invasion of Poland and not Invasion of the Republic of Poland or Unification of Germany and not Unification of the German Empire. Incidentally, COMMONNAME is the reason we call it Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth rather than Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, its formal name. Additionally, the Commonwealth changed its name to simply Commonwealth of Poland in 1791, so it would be inaccurate to call the Third Partition (which took place in 1795) a partition of Poland-Lithuania anyways. Generally, the term Poland was used more often in history than Poland-Lithuania (see Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Name). Eccekevin (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely non-sense arguments. Lithuania never was Poland. Period. So we cannot say that it is the same as "Germany" and "German Empire". Polish Empire never existed. -- Pofka (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to ask user Pofka kindly not to use arguments like "Poles spread false history". Firstly, it is not substantive, and secondly, it is a false accusation. The country we are talking about was commonly called "Poland", "Polish Kingdom" or "Commonwealth of Poland". This is the reason why the name "partition of Poland" is so popular in English literature, it is not the result of some anti-Lithuanian conspiracy of Polish historians. Marcelus (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Lithuania never was called Poland. As I thought, this discussion is being crashed with non-sense arguments by some users who want to secure Poland's superiority, this way ignoring the fundamental rules and principles of Misplaced Pages. Civilized approach is failing. So this question will clearly be moved to higher processes of wiki and will be solved there by administrators. -- Pofka (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point Pofka (talk · contribs) you are currently disregarding trusted sources, publications and search results, which you question and state that they are false because of someone's nationality (regardless whether written by Poles or English speakers). I understand your perception of being inclusive and factual, but they way in which you express your views is uncivil and hints at anti-Polish sentiment. The Misplaced Pages:Template index/Moving/Requested states that the discussion must be "succinct and civil" and currently it is neither. Moreover, you present facts and turn them into illegitimate claims; I do not see how 35,600 results for "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" vs 448,000 results for "Partition of Poland" is the reason to rename the article. Rightly so, based purely on valid statistics, the title "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" or "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" should be embedded as a second title in the lead section. Merangs (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Merangs: Process Partitions of Poland can be a separate process like the Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Pay attention that this article describes the fourth partition of Poland, which is absolutely not related with Lithuania. Many authors, especially Polish, concentrates to the process how Poland was partitioned, so uses phrase "Partitions of Poland" and in such context it is alright (Lithuanian authors are using a vice versa approach when writing about Lithuania's history). However, this article is a mixture of both of these processes and this joint process is called "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth". Statistics of bare numbers do not show the view points of the authors and what they are actually analyzing in their publications. Otherwise, we must transfer all information about partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania into a separate article Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Nevertheless, I do not want to perform such brutal intervention, so we can fix it by simply renaming this article and avoiding two very similar articles about two very closely related processes. Poland is not Lithuania, so Partitions of Poland are not Partitions of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka: As already mentioned here, the likely reason behind the extensive spread of the term "Partitions of Poland" in English is that the Commonwealth was commonly called Poland, particularly in the 18th century when it was erased from the map; perhaps this quote will help: 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:

• google search yields only 2–4 results, including one translation from context.reverso.net
• google schoolar – 0 results ("partitions of Poland" – 6,630 results)
• google books – 4 results, of which probably only one is valid

Please check this map (nr 5, p. 151) in "Atlas of World History" published by University of Oxford in 2007 – you can see that partitions of the whole Commonwealth are described as "Partitions of Poland 1772-95"; and Encyclopedia Britannica published in 2008, Lithuania entry (p. 1123): 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: the whole country was called "Poland", including Lithuanian part that's just a historical fact. And the only reason why this term of partition functions in English literature. I didn't get the impression that anyone involved in the discussion cared about Polish superiority or anything like that. So just stop talking about it, because it's starting to border on personal attacks and anti-Polish sentiment. Personally, I don't mind renaming articles for consistency, the name "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is generally accepted on Misplaced Pages to describe this country. But it must be supported by sources and factual discussion, and not the result of political or national sympathies and antipathies. Marcelus (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Your first sentence clearly show your desire to spread false Polish superiority propaganda and thereafter you unreasonably complain. If you strongly lack knowledge about the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I recommend you and other users to read such things as Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations (1791). The only period when Lithuania's name was erased from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was from 3 May 1791 to 20 October 1791, but that Guarantee fixed it. That's it. Before that and after the Guarantee Lithuania existed as part of the dual state. -- Pofka (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Belarus articles
• Unknown-importance Belarus articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Unknown-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Poland articles
• Top-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• C-Class Lithuania articles
• Top-importance Lithuania articles
• Lithuania articles with comments
• B-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class former country articles
• C-Class Holy Roman Empire articles
• Unknown-importance Holy Roman Empire articles
• Holy Roman Empire task force articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Austria articles
• Unknown-importance Austria articles
• All WikiProject Austria pages
• Requested moves