Talk:Partitions of Poland/Archive 2

message: Please do explain the edit where: 
:"It would take World War I, with the Central Powers defeating Russia and then losing to the Western Allies, and the Treaty of Versailles to restore Poland's independence after 123 years."
was replaced with:
:"It would take the Russian Revolution and the Treaty of Versailles to restore Poland's independence after 123 years."
What makes you think that the Central Powers would allow for the independent Poland if not defeated in WW1 ? --Lysy (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Russia was *not* defeated. Following the Revolution, the Bolsheviks realized their promises and unilaterally withdrew from what they considered imperialist fighting. Russia was a founding member of the Entente, so you can't say that the Entente won the war but Russia lost it. It is nonsense. The fortunes changed frequently, see Brusilov Offensive for that, and noone can say how the war would end if not for the Revolution. --Ghirlandajo 17:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As best I understand, Poland's independence was a result not so much of the Entente's support as of Lenin's internationalist policies. He set many repressed nationalities of the Russian Empire free. Take Finland, for example. Partitions of Poland were regarded by him as a monstrous instance of imperialism, and he was keen to reverse it. --Ghirlandajo 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me try to mention both. There's no doubt that Russian Revolution was a very important factor here. --Lysy (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, I see it's done already. --Lysy (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Revolution 

message: :Please consult the discussion below first, before voting.
:Only then add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, and sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support. Let me cast he first vote, then. After reading the below, I get the impression that everyone substantially agrees that the move should be made. As to "common" vs. "correct" usage, a similar phenomenon occurs in all fields of human endevour. There is a long, formal name which is rarely used, and a short, common name. There's common slang, like tranny, short for transmission. There's Queen, short for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, or even UK.  Correct usage is that the first reference (such as the title) should use the long formal name, and the rest of the discussion may use shortened references, except wherever things may not be clear or a point or emphasis is to be made. linas 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "more common" is an understatement; Google gives 11,300 results for "Partitions of Poland" and 6 results for "Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (see this). Appleseed (Talk) 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now look at the google  (keep in mind that there is at least 10 different ways to say PoPLC). Renata3 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included them in my Google results below, and they return very few hits.  This is all the more reason to use the one universally accepted term, rather than to pick one of 10 uncommon ones. Appleseed (Talk) 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Should be noted when saying "common usage" that "common usage from the angle of History of Poland". Otherwise, the argument misses the point. Lysy, could you correct that at your WP:RM entry? I could do that, but it is signed by you, so I would rather ask you to modify your entry. --Irpen 08:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's in common usage worldwide, not in Poland only. Don you think ? Check google. --Lysy (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've read the discussion above but I'm not sure. That's why I've requested the WP:RM to get more voices from the outside. My POV may be too biased. I don't even know myself which name is more appropriate. I've written the summary as I see it, as the person who initiated the WP:RM --Lysy (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I do not understand what you're trying to say so far, but let me read on .... --Lysy (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As I have pointed out above with G/GS/GB, partitions of Poland seem to be the common usage in English language as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I said. Yes, in English but in the context of the Polish history. There are many good scholars of Polish history who wrote their books in English. Davies is one of them. Our article should be titled from a more general perspective rather than from a narrower Polish history perspective. That's all I am saying. --Irpen 18:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me here. As far as I can understand you, you are saying that it is not the common usage, but the correct one - and I can agree with this. But I still fail to see that 'partitons of PLC' is a common usage anywhere, no matter what the context - just as PLC itself is not the most common terms, and lots of publications refer to Poland where they should refer to PLC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's too much wine, but still, I find it difficult to follow you. Are you saying that Partitions of Poland was not Partitions of Poland from European perspective ? Or, ehm, I'm really lost. I agree that "Partitions of PLC" is more correct, but is not a used term in English. Why do you say that the summary is incorrect ? (please don't tell me to read what you wrote above, because I already had and I still miss your point) :-( --Lysy (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm also happy to withdraw the WP:RM if you think it's better to do so, but I would like to ask that nobody (I don't want to fingerpoint anyone) renames the article until we reach a firm consensus on the name change. Right now I'm rather inclined towards keeping the original title but I also recognize the reasons for the name change. --Lysy (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, my "not finger pointing" is very well in line with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I've seen quite many frivolous name changes lately without any prior discussion, or clearly against the consensus and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Yet, I'm still willing to assume good faith. I don't think we want to go into this here, though. --Lysy (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Back to the topic, now. As to your explanation above, I agree that "PoPLC" seems more correct technically, and that "PoP" is in wider use, even if it's less correct. That's why the choice of the title is not obvious and that's what I've written in the vote summary. What I fail to see is what is wrong with the summary. I have the feeling that we're both saying exactly the same things, yet you think that the summary is wrong. Hmmm.--Lysy (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that Irpen is trying to say that PoP is common usage in works relating to the history of Poland rather than those of, say Lithuania. There are numerous reasons why there are more works on the history of Poland than those on the history of Lithuania, the most important being size and the geopolitical importance during WW2 and the years soon after. That would explain why there are more works talking about PoP instead of PoPLC (Certainly in recent decades) and consequently why the term PoP is more prevalent. Am I right? If so, I would have to say that Irpen's point, although quite true does not prove that the summary is misleading. The history of the duchy of Lithuania and Poland during certain periods of time cannot be studied separately. They are too inextricably linked with each other to be considered separately. Most reputable scholarly works would cover the common history as common history in great detail whether they are written from a Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian or for that matter Courlandish perspective. There is no way to cover these separately. In consequence I believe that the common usage should prevail in this particular matter since that is what would be known best to users worldwide. Of course the fact that it is in fact the PLC that is meant by the article and not just the Crown should be described in detail in the article body itself. Chelman 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Irpen, you keep repeating that the summary is misleading, but you're not explaining what do you find misleading about it. I'm afraid you're the only one who finds anything misleading there. --Lysy (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading vote summary

message: Since someone asked me to take a look at this article, I thought I would try to gather some evidence. Here are the stats from JSTOR, one of the larger scholarly journal archives in the social sciences and humanities:
*"Partitions of Poland" 247 articles (also in books, The Partitions of Poland, 1772, 1793, 1795 by Jerzy Lukowski, etc)
*"Partition of Poland" 549 articles
*"Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" 2 articles
*"Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" 3 articles
*"Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian..." 47 articles (includes articles referring to the "Federation" the "State" etc.) 
*"Partition of Poland-Lithuania" 1 article
*"Partition of Lithuania" 1 article
From my perspective, it makes it pretty clear that the current title is the best bet from a non-involved American view (full disclosure, I am 1/4 Polish and 1/8 Lithuanian by ancestry, as near as I can figure). --Goodoldpolonius2 04:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I hope you encountered "The Sixth Partition of Poland, by Oscar Halecki..." :) Renata3 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then you are 3/8 citizen of PLC! Thanks for your input.--SylwiaS | talk 04:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This stats should be checked to the stats of the usage of P vs P-L. This is, however, impossible, I guess. But, again, any scholar writing about the history of P, would call the event "P of P" in all likelyhood. And, as I said before, I also do not object to using this term in the History of P article. --Irpen 05:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, there would be more articles on the Poland than on the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth/Federation/Union overall, since all contemporary articles would use that term.  However, referring specifically to the partition of Poland/P-L I would not expect that to be prejudiced by the fact that Poland currently exists and P-L does not.  Just as I would expect historical articles to mention Prussia, even though contemporary articles certainly would not.  In short, I think the stats are correct on scholarly usage in English. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, let's try another way. Goodoldpolonius, if the article was called Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the lead it would be mentioned that it's commonly known as Partitions of Poland (all the redirects made etc.) would it be any problem for an English speaker or not? I mean would you prefer seeing the article under the most common name, or it doesn't really matter?--SylwiaS | talk 05:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is, it doesn't invoke a lot of passion in me either way, but I have a mild preference for Partitions of Poland, given that it is the more common term in English, and much shorter.  However, I don't want to step on anyone's toes, especially if this is turning into a Gdansk/Danzig style discussion.  So, I think the long title and intro solution would also be okay. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the statement that a book on the History of Poland would neccessarily call the event PoP. Any legit history book, on this subject, that is worth the paper is printed on would certainly analyse the event from the point of view of the P-L Commonwealth. This means that the choice of name would be derived from a combination of factors, including what is IMHO the most important factor: prevailing usage. Chelman 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Regardless of English usage, it may be also worth taking a look at the name in other languages: in German wiki it is Teilungen Polens, in Dutch - Poolse delingen, in Romanian - Împărţirile Poloniei. --Lysy (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As to changing "PLC" into "Poland" in Union of Brest I fail to see the necessity to do so. Language usage does not always follow strict logic and cannot be expected to be always consistent. As to using the PoP name to title some other article than this particular one, I am afraid that it would be only misleading. I dont think we should be doing this. --Lysy (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, no. Partitions of Poland were always the Partitions. All the other events like 1939 are not really called Partitions. It’s just a symbolic analogy to the first ones. So it doesn’t make sense to have them called Partitions of Poland if those first three are not called like that. If the article was called PoPLC, PoP would have to be a redirect to it anyhow.--SylwiaS | talk 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "don't endorse a name for something, they are an interface element which tries to capture all the somethings which may be called by a particular name; and links to disambiguation pages should be bypassed—we can bicker over the [...] issues in the articles themselves. Whether [...some other...] events ... may be called [...something...] by someone—in this context, who cares?"
I am not a specialist in Polish history. As such, I thought of 1939 as one more partitions. OTOH, I guess, I am not the most ignorant in Polish history wikipedian. If I thought so, others might as well. But if calling '39 a partitions sounds offensive, we don't have to do it. I take no position in that. --Irpen 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not offensive. It's just not a name of it. It's a metaphor, and used only in literature or press, not in the proper historical meaning. It's like a poet may call his beloved a rose, but you wouldn't make a redirect from a rose to his beloved, lol. It’s rather like saying: Yet again the history repeated. It is used with respect to many events, not only the 1939 ones.--SylwiaS | talk 07:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the rose metaphore, lol. But you're very right. Let's wait and hopefully collect some more voices over time. How about asking some non-Polish, non-Lithuanian English speaking historians ? I'd be convinced if several people from outside central/eastern Europe would support the rename. --Lysy (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you asked Goodoldpolonius and he said he'd prefer PoP, but he could also live with PoPLC. I asked Jpbrenna, and he supported PoPLC already. I also asked JCarriker, but it seems he's on a Wiki break. I don't know any more native speakers with any idea about our history. Is there any historian's notice board? Well, I have some American friends who are history teachers, and I can ask them privately. BTW Isn't it funny that the voting Gdańsk/Danzig stirred so much emotions while it seems that hardly anyone is interested in this one? After all it's not just a city here, but quite a big country.--SylwiaS | talk 11:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's easy to stir emotions here as well, but I believe this is exactly what we are trying to avoid :-) IMHO the Danzig vote is the best example of how such issues should not be handled. --Lysy (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you’re right. I don’t really know the Danzig voting only it’s fame, or rather infamy. BTW my English UK spell checker doesn’t know the word Danzig, but knows Gdansk. :)--SylwiaS | talk 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats for reference

message: :Poland's ups and downs, and ethnic diversity, at various times in its long history can be described by knowledgeable people from all sides -- if they are honest and willing to accept complexity and a degree of ambiguity. Lithuania, too, has a long history going back to Gediminas. For part of that history Lithuania was politically merged with Poland, which by virtue of its size became the dominant partner. This is all fascinating history, which some English-speakers may want to investigate, but it shouldn't be a cause for pointless bickering between modern Poles and Lithuanians.
:Again, this complexity doesn't belong in the title of an entry about the partitions of the commonwealth. I can't think of a direct analogy, but as a somewhat parallel example: One wouldn't entitle an article about the postwar division of Germany as, "The Postwar Division of the German Reich, including Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia." In German, the country was officially the deutsches Reich, but in the West it was known simply as Germany.
:In the West, Poland as it existed in the 18th century was known simply as Poland. The modern Lithuanian state came into existence more than a century after the third partition, and thus Lithuania is not relevant to the partitions themselves.
:Wesolych Swiat! Linksmu Kaledu! Und besten Glueckwuensche in den neuen Jahr!
:Sca 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the bright side, I don't think there's so much bickering between the Poles and the Lithuanians today :-) --Lysy (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! Now if the same could only be said of the Poles and the Germans ....  Sca 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously I think this is a problem of size and number of users participating in Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needless bickering

message: I think we should write somewhere an explanation why Poland has been used as a synonym for PLC. After all something like national identity is quite a new thing. It was born in 19th century together with Romanticism. Not only in Poland, but everywhere. So I really think that it didn’t make any difference for Rousseau how he called PLC, but it makes a great difference for us. I read some fanfic stories that take place in the early 19th century. Their authors often forget that the English would not travel to Paris then (Napoleonic Wars), Italy (there was no Italy), Greece (there was no Greece). And, moreover, they would not go for trips in our understanding at all, because tourism didn’t exist. We apply our modern thinking to the past times, forgetting that e.g. before Enlightenment people weren’t even able to define things like we do today. I agree that since the term PoP has been used in English for 200 years it makes a long time to get used to it. But what will it mean in next 1000 years, if we start using the correct name now? In Poland we simply know that not Poland but all the PLC was partitioned, no matter how we call it. Moreover, I believe that all the people living in PLC during the Partitions felt Poles in the general meaning, like Donald Tusk feels now both Polish and Kashubian, but it has changed. How someone studying the history of Lithuania, Belarus, or Ukraine is to understand that the countries were partitioned as Poland? Moreover, would Poland be partitioned if there was no PLC? Norman Davies gives two probable reasons for the Partitions: one that PLC was too modern, decentralised, and developed too fast in comparison to its neighbours, the other is that PLC was simply too large a country situated in a geographic position difficult to defend. We are all descendants of PLC, but we are not all Poles now. When I look at the history of my family, it seems quite accidental that I was born in Poland. Well, my grandpa was born in Habarovsk, Russia, his sister in Lvov, Ukraine, their father in Pinsk, Belarus, while their mother in Prussia near Gdańsk (mind, not near Danzig, although it was in 19th century and her family name was Dietrich), their grandpa was born near Poniewież, Lithuania, and their great grandparents in France. One of my grandpa’s brothers fled from Habarovsk to Harbin, my cousins must be Chinese now, lol. One of his sisters went to Kamchatka, so her grand children are Russian now. But they were all Polish nobles as the citizens of PLC. It wouldn’t make any sense otherwise. Many 19th century western poets, philosophers, politicians etc were sensitive for the Polish case, but they knew that they were talking about the Commonwealth. They simply didn’t know the Poland that exists now. Today people hardly know that there was PLC at all, we should try to change it, not preserve the wrong stereotype.--SylwiaS | talk 15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per its policy, WP cannot be a vehicle for that change. Also, this has nothing to do with stereotypes. Appleseed (Talk) 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An insider's view 

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. 
Also, everyone's opinion and thoughts are counted regardless of whether they "voted" :). The voting system, as it were, just makes it a bit more structured for me to look through things.
WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: So far we have 6 votes. As of now, 10 people expressed their oppinions in discussing the matter and did not vote (Ghirlandajo, Piotrus, Irpen, SylwiaS, Chelman, logologist, Goodoldpolonius2, Sca, JCarriker, Arwel). Please do so! To help you find it in this humongous discussion: Talk:Partitions of Poland#Requested move. Renata3 12:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please everyone vote!

message: I've already had my say above, but as a native English speaker -- AND as a person who's not totally unfamiliar with the history of Poland AND Lithuania -- I have to add that I agree with Irpen that "the choice of PLC for this article is absolutely logical" -- it just doesn't correspond to the reality of English usage.
If you Poles and Lithuanians (and Belarussians and Ukrainians or Ruthenians or WHOEVER) are so passionate about educating the English-speaking world as to the "correct" term for Poland in the 18th century, then WRITE BOOKS that will be so fascinating that millions of English speakers will buy them. Don't expect to transform English usage overnight on one of several online encyclopedia sites. Get real! In English, Poland will always be Poland.
:PS: "East Texas is a stayed prudish land in the humid-subtropical forest of the Southeast" -- HUH??! On what planet? And how could a "land" be "prudish"? This bizarre statement shows the perils of cross-cultural meddling.
Sca 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I do not appreciate the arrogant and suspiscious tone of your post scriptum. In a short order response: 1. I'm on Earth. What planet are you on? All of Texas can be considered the Southeast, from an ecological standpoint East Texas always is. 2. One of the defintions of land is the people of a nation, district, or region] and it was the one I was using. 3. My opinon was solicitied as was yours, I am no more meddling than you are. The theme of my post was that popular perceptions do not change facts and I find it regrettable that you illustrated my point by rejecting what I said about East Texas in favor of a popular, but false perception. This is an online encyclopedia yet when your preconceptions were challenged you just assumed that I had to be on another planet to believe things. Just as Renata writes below of Lithuania your action here (read your rejection of what East Texas actually is in favor of the Cowboy and Cactus lie) is also VERY OFFENSIVE to East Texans. - JCarriker 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality