Talk:Crown of the Kingdom of Poland

message: I wouldn't agree that the Crown of the Polish Kingdom is an "archaic name" of anything. It's a CONCEPT born in the 14th century. It describes the idea of the Polish state in late Middle Ages, the idea that the State is separate from its governor (king). It's a new political ideology, new idea of political power. According to the patrimonial monarchy system, the land under king's domination was his property. It could be inherited by his successors, the king was the source of law, etc. The Crown brings a new ideology - national symbols were born at that time (White Eagle), king's power became subject to legal rules, finally the king became elected (from 1573, like a president today) what was really unique in Europe. The Crown was the beginning of the Polish way to democracy and - finally - to adoption of the first European constitution (3.05.1791). It's not a "name". Montessquieu (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The concept my be old but is still relevant (in historical studies).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that it's old :) It's one of the most important achievements of the Piast dynasty (even if they might not have desired that) and a great mental change, in fact - it's the beginning of real "Poland" as a state, community, not just lands under Polish king's authority (which can be sold or whatever). Montessquieu (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic name 

message: I am not sure whether the use of the information relating to the (British) Commonwealth is relevant and appropriate to this page.  Similarly it makes the reference to The Crown seem at odds to the specifics of that definition.  There needs to be a change in either the article or the reference to go back to an evidence-base. billinghurst (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not amke any reference to the British Commonwealth, only to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition for The Crown specifically states that the wikilink/definition relates to British Commonwealth.  It would seem that there needs to be more specific disambiguation through Commonwealth (disambiguation) and thoughts about the use of The Crown .billinghurst (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly; I'll add the disambig to The Crown.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Commonwealth

message: This article should trace the Polish monarchy starting with the Middle Ages, preferably with Mieszko as the predecessor to the first Polish king. I don't see why the Commonwealth is given special treatment, especially give that the Kingdom of Poland had already been in existence for 600 years at the Union of Lublin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.99 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete

message: The translation of names of settlements and voivodship to English is weak, and Poland-based. --83.10.129.87 (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland-centered names 

message: This book is full of lies. I know how does it sound, but I'm a Pole, I'm living in this country and I went through the changes in the 1989, when we were free country again - in short: I know what I'm talking about.
Any references to books written between the years 1945 and 1989 should be thoroughly checked before citing. We were virtually a Soviet republic. As I mentioned in the commentary for my change, any references to the history of Poland before the World War II, especially the kingdom, kings, nobles, even knights etc. were forbidden. Hence the wording "the concept". There was no "concept", this was a reality. And it definitely did not come from Hungary - this is another mockery from Soviet's side.
I have this very book and got to tell you people... I won't destroy it, never - the language, wordings, figures of speeches - all of this was to brainwash us, in Poland, to believe in "one, rightful people's republic of Poland", under the communist regime.
Believe me, we were forbidden to even MENTION the Miracle at the Vistula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_%281920%29 because it was considered as a direct hit at our "best friends" - Russians. Until 1989, this event did not exist - refer to this book I mentioned - there is only a slight note on that...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.95.26 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove references to bardach85-86 source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crown of the Kingdom 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/20161112212830/https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/49da65c5-9917-40de-b542-5c89751cacf6%3AJCR to https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/49da65c5-9917-40de-b542-5c89751cacf6%3AJCR
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) 23:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The banner of the Kingdom of Poland is already in all of the pages for the Kingdom of Poland, and if one is going to be added, it needs to more accurately match the time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner of Kingdom of Poland 

message: one of the thing the king did was to save the kingdom for what it was and not for what it wasn't there for there changes to the kingdom for the whole land it self back then in the 1990's there kings and queen but the queen wanted to rule there way not the kings way and then were princess and princes back then where they will have you wearing qowns 2601:602:C900:5D70:882:446B:C1C3:A6D0 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner of king  

message: @Merangs why did you replaced well sourced content with something that looks like your WP:OR? (). It's inccorect to say that "Crown" replaced "Kingdom" because this two concepts existed simultanousely. You are going against sources and historical facts. Marcelus (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain further? The language of the content you added is somewhat poor and difficult to understand. Moreover, I did not remove anything that disturbed your content and only added about the succession to the Kingdom of Poland ruled by the Piast and Anjou dynasties (and others much earlier). If the concept of the "Crown" came into existence in 1386 then it is appropriate to differentiate between the two. See Kingdom of Poland link which also adds to the confusion. Merangs (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed: The Crown of the Kingdom of Poland (Polish: Korona Królestwa Polskiego; Latin: Corona Regni Poloniae) was a political and legal idea formed in the Poland in the 14th century, assuming unity, indivisibility and continuity of the state. According to this concept, the state ceased to be the patrimonial property of the monarch or dynasty, but became a common good of the political community of the kingdom. to The Crown of the Kingdom of Poland (Polish: Korona Królestwa Polskiego; Latin: Corona Regni Poloniae) is the historiographical name for Poland between 1386 and 1795. It was the dominating constituent realm within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1569, you bascially removed sourced, based on facts content and replaced with something that seems like your WP:OR. "Crown" isn't "historiographical name for Poland" but a term from political ideology of that time, determining constituency of the Polish state. Also your claim "It succeeded the Kingdom of Poland (1025–1386)" is wrong, because Kingdom didn't cease to exist in 1386, the Crown and Kingdom existed simultanousely. Marcelus (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the term 'succeeded' can be replaced with a more accurate word, e.g. was 'transformed'? If the idea of the "Crown" was de facto instituted in 1386 then that would make sense. However, "The Crown of the Kingdom of Poland" is very much a historiographical name for a state/country/entity and I don't know what the issue here is. Furthermore, your content was not deleted but placed in the second paragraph and not in the first as it was much too long. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for guidance. I think it would be much better if there was one single article for the "Kingdom of Poland (1025-1795)" which would explore the topic further and mention that the country was at times fragmented, its name/political concept was altered (as with the "Crown") and that it later became a constituent within the PLC (from 1569). Merangs (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, idea of the Crown emerged in the mid-14th century, there is no one defyning date. Also it's wrong to say that Kingdom was transformed into a Crown. One did not replace the other, they were two completely different things. , no it isn't. "Historiographical term" suggests that a name only exists in historical writing and was not in use at the time, such as "Kievan Rus" or "Byzantine Empire". Moreover, the entire Commonwealth is sometimes referred to as Poland. , I repeat once again you have introduced your own OR, changing the definition of the concept to an erroneous one, not based on sources. Marcelus (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are there dates in this article e.g. 1386? Polish Wikipedia states that it was a name, not only a concept as the EN article now suggests. This whole article requires rewriting and cross-checking. Merangs (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead