Talk:Liberum veto

Not exactly

Contrary to what the article states, the Latin term "Liberum veto" does not mean the same as "I freely forbid". Explanation: "veto" is a temporal verb which is rendered correctly as "I forbid". The only attribute to a temporal verb in this language may be an adverb (like English "freely" is an adverb), and to make this a Latin equivalent of English "I freely forbid" it has to be "libere veto".

"Liberum" however, is an adjective (like English "free" is an adjective), and so according to Latin grammar cannot stand by a temporal verb. So, it seems to me, the only correct explanation is to take the "veto" as an artificially substantivized verb: 'Liberum "veto"' in Latin or 'Free "I forbid"' in English (just at this point it occurred to me, that it is the standard way of rendering it in Polish, as 'wolne "nie pozwalam"' - apparently the Polish translation was done by a lot better Latinist than the one who wrote the article). 82.210.159.30 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "I freely forbid" is certainly not correct. If I remember my History classes correctly, it means "The free men's Veto", describing the right of the "free" (i.e. members of the nobility = liberi) to say "veto" ("I forbid!"). In this context, "veto" is a noun, describing the act of raising a veto (or the right to do so) and "liberum" is the plural possessive case. If nobody objects, I will change the article. --Markusle 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. "Liberum" can't be the plural possesive. The plural possesive ending is -orum (-um alone only in few fixed exceptions, "liber" doesn't belong to them). "Liberum" is singular nominative in the neuter gender: free "veto", where veto is to be taken as a noun. 83.7.50.139 (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, "I freely forbid" is not quite correct. Something that might be closer is "I forbid unimpeded", which I think is a bit more precise anyway. Warmenhoven (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Liberum" also works a genitive plural, but that's chiefly poetic and neither here nor there. It can't be "I forbid unimpeded" either, though, as "liberum" is neuter and cannot refer to a person (unless it is understood to agree with a word like "mancipium", which would make no sense anyway). Grammatically, it looks like "I forbid the freeman". I really don't think that there is any way to reconcile the intended meaning with the grammar. 66.87.7.212 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You are all overcomplicating a simple idea. "Liberum veto" ('free "I forbid"') is a construct grammatically identical to "triste vale" = '"sorrowful "goodbye"'. -79.185.197.68 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Or "grande 'sophos!'" - a big "great!".

Davies on lv

I am moving this paragraph from the main article. It lacks page references, and my brief scan through the Davies chapter on 1764-1795 did not show any clear arguments supporting this. Perhaps I wasn't looking close enough, but nonetheless, this cannot return to the article without proper page references. (The general reference was God's Playground, a History of Poland, volume 1, Columbia University Press, 2005, passim, ISBN 0199253404). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Some historians, such Norman Davies, note that the effective end of the veto, in 1764, allowed for a rebirth of proper governance. Davies argued that the country had ascended from the veto's anarchy and had organically developed the desire for a new course in politics. He further argues that the anarchy of the veto fed a rebirth of culture that led to the development of the 1791 constitution. In all, these historians argue that the liberum veto did not bring about the end of the nation but did bring acceptance of the need for a new, modern, constitution.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liberum veto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

In "Origins": I don't think "overrulement" is a word. Instead, I'd say "the veto was still occasionally overruled", or something like that.

In "Zenith", that last paragraph is too short. You should either expand it or combine it with the other paragraph.

In "Final years", "the foreigner powers" should just be "foreign powers".

The "In popular culture" section is way too short to be a section. Could it be combined with "Modern parallels" somehow?

The "Modern parallels" section should be in paragraph form, not disjointed sentences.

References and See also look fine.

The image you have is good. Another would be nice, if you can find something appropriate, but it's certainly not necessary.

That's it for my first pass. I'll have another look after you get through these. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Coemgenus: Tried to address most of the issues raised, through there's little I can add. I think that the slightly expanded short para at zenith should be fine now. Here are my edits. (I also removed one unreferenced para I missed previously). What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, that looks good. I'm going to give it one last copyedit before I pass it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One last nit-pick: Dalibor Roháč is mentioned out of the blue. It might help the reader to say "Historian Dalibor Roháč..." or something [if he is an historian, that is].

Also: is that Veto card game available in English? It looks like fun! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Coemgenus: Seems he is more of a political scientist, added the info. Linked him and Veto, which has an article on pl wiki; sadly the game is only available in Polish and its doubtful it would get translated. It was popular enough in Poland to get a few expansions and such, but I am not sure who outside Poland (and Lithuania/Ukraine) would care for its historical theme - at least enough to warrant the investment :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me: passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with equality

It is repeatedly stated that Liberum veto was based on the notion that all nobles were equal. That is illogical. All nobles are equal therefore have the same vote - that does not mean that one noble can override the rest - which is what Liberum veto does. The origins are based on some thing else.125.237.105.102 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And what is that? And please cite your sources. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Content reused in 'Consensus decision-making' article

Dear editors, thanks for putting in the hard work to make Liberum veto a 'Good Article'! I wanted to acknowledge that I used the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an (unfortunate) example in Consensus decision-making by using content I reshaped from Liberum veto. Thanks again, and let me know if you have questions/suggestions. Douginamug (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

U.S. history

"Thus was emphasized a second weakness in the Articles of Confederation, namely, the liberum veto which each State possessed whenever amendments to that instrument were proposed. " https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.2/ALDE_00000002/ John Mark Wagnon (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)