Talk:Partitions of Poland

message: 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)
: Wikipedia uses names for historical events which are predominant in English literature. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title 

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe the reliable sources typically call it "partitions of Poland" Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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": [1][2][3][3] ...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)

text: *Chill out . 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)
thread_title:  Improper naming 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Chill out . 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)
thread_title:  Restricting access 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poland vs Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: . Poeticbent talk 16:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccessibility to the Color Blind 

message: I added flag icons to the summary table earlier today (with ), 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  with  and a mention of WP:ICONDECORATION.
To my mind, the flags are justifiable as that policy says , 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:
 Cumulative division of the Commonwealth territory
Partition	To Austria	To Austria	To Prussia	To Prussia	To Russia	To Russia	Total annexed	Total annexed	Total remaining	Total remaining
Partition	Area      	%         	Area      	%         	Area     	%        	Area         	%            	Area           	%
1772     	          	11.17%    	          	4.94%     	         	12.68%   	             	28.79%       	               	71.20%
1793     	—         	—         	          	7.78%     	         	34.11%   	             	41.89%       	               	29.31%
1795     	          	6.40%     	          	6.55%     	         	16.36%   	             	29.31%       	               	
Total    	          	14.57%    	          	19.27%    	         	66.16%   	             	100%         	               	
With flags:
 Cumulative division of the Commonwealth territory
Partition	To Austria	To Austria	To Prussia	To Prussia	To Russia	To Russia	Total annexed	Total annexed	Total remaining	Total remaining
Partition	Area      	%         	Area      	%         	Area     	%        	Area         	%            	Area           	%
1772     	          	11.17%    	          	4.94%     	         	12.68%   	             	28.79%       	               	71.20%
1793     	—         	—         	          	7.78%     	         	34.11%   	             	41.89%       	               	29.31%
1795     	          	6.40%     	          	6.55%     	         	16.36%   	             	29.31%       	               	
Total    	          	14.57%    	          	19.27%    	         	66.16%   	             	100%         	               	
Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Summary table clarity — with or without flags 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article is about Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth partitions, not about just Poland. Craft37by (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be renamed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article name is not historically accurate  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: It's not that it is wrong or misleading, it's just not inclusive.Orczar (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia should not deviate from publications with its own titles and interpretations. Furthermore, I do not see anything [quote] "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)
thread_title:  The Title of "The Partitions of Poland" is incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Fourth partition" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Newbie question - GIS Maps