Talk:Subdivisions of the Polish–Lithuanian territories following the partitions

Strange article

Well, it seems that this is going overboard. Polish teritories? Gubernia Litewska? Yekaterinoslav Governorate (gubernia jekaterynosławska)????? As far I'm informed Polish language was newer official language in Russian Empire. If you insist to have name "Poland" I do also insist to have "Lithuania", because of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Lithuanian Governorate. Or else it is pure WP:OR--Lokyz (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article seems strange. One takes the administrative divisions of three totally different countries and offers for them to be looked as "administrative division of Polish territories". I am not familiar of any academic work where the administrative division of territories belonging to three different countries are studied together only because at some particular point of time they belonged to Poland or PL-dominated PLC. This is outright OR. --Irpen 04:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support renaming this article to Administrative division of Polish-Lithuanian territories after partitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So would I if there are scholarly works that study disparate subdivisions of so different countries under this particular angle. Until then, this is just pasting of different stuff together, a WP:SYN by definition. --Irpen 05:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are claiming that in the past few minutes you have conducted a comprehensive review of literature and determined there are no works on that subject? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, as an article's author it was your duty to show that such works exist. None are listed and I don't know of any either. --Irpen 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of works from the area of political geography who discuss partitions of Poland. Larry Wolff's Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment; Tanisha M. Fazal's State Death: The Politics and Geography of Conquest, Occupation, and Annexation for example, not to mention a wide body of literature on partitions of Poland. This article my lack references, but it contains no OR.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More: PWN Encyklopedia has an article on Polska. Historia. Ziemie polskie pod zaborami, which starts by discussing the administrative division. "podział administracyjny ziem polskich pod zaborami" is mentioned as one of the topics of this course, publications listed include H. Izdebski, Historia administracji, Warszawa 2001 and M. Pietrzak, Model demokratycznego państwa prawnego, ,,Studia Konstytucyjne” 1990, t. 7. Anna Radziwiłł W. Roszkowski, HISTORIA 1789 -1871, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN Warszawa 1995r. , has a chapter on Podział ziem Rzeczypospolitej po 1815 r. Heck, you can find this topic covered in almost any Polish book on the history of the partition period (ex. Jerzy Zdrada, Historia Polski 1795-1914, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2005). But the best overview you can find here: a course dedicated to HISTORIA USTROJU ADMINISTRACYJNEGO ZIEM POLSKICH XIX-XX W. The course lists the following literature: A.Ajnenkiel, Administracja w Polsce. Zarys historyczny, Warszawa 1977 J.Bardach, B.Leśnodorski, M.Pietrzak, Historia ustroju i prawa polskiego, Warszawa 1993 Archiwum Państwowe w Gdańsku. Przewodnik po zasobie do roku 1945. oprac. C.Biernat, Warszawa 1992 M.Dereszyńska-Romaniuk, Kancelaria Urzędu Wojewódzkiego Pomorskiego w Toruniu w latach 1919-1939, Warszawa 1998 H.Izdebski, Historia administracji, Warszawa 1984 J.Malec, D.Malec, Historia administracji i myśli administracyjnej, Kraków 2003 S. Grodziski, Historia ustroju społeczno-politycznego Galicji 1772-1848, Wrocław- Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk 1971 S.Grzybowski, Dzieje prawa, Wrocław 1981 A.Gulczyński, Ministerstwo byłej dzielnicy pruskiej (1919-1922), Poznań 1995 P.Gut, Organizacja sądownictwa w pruskiej prowincji Pomorze w latach 1806/1808-1848- 1849, Szczecin 2002 M.Hładij, D.Malec, J.Malec, Z.Zarzycki, Historia administracji wybór źródeł. Pod red. J.Malca, Kraków 2002 J.Starościak, Zarys nauki administracji, Warszawa 1971 Historia Pomorza, t. III, cz. 1, Poznań 1993; t. IV, cz. 1, Toruń 2000. Straty bibliotek i archiwów warszawskich w zakresie rękopiśmiennych źródeł historycznych, t. II, Archiwa porozbiorowe i najnowsze, Warszawa 1956 J.Wąsicki, Ziemie polskie pod zaborem pruskim. Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie 1815-1848, Warszawa-Poznań 1980. So any accusations of OR or SYNTH simply indicate ignorance, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There surely exists a good number of books that discuss the partitions and the time of partition. But you did not show that any of these books study the subject of administrative divisions of three so different states together particularly where they expand to the former territory of the Polish kingdom. You just take unrelated administrative units of totally different states and paste them together into this article. This is WP:SYN. --Irpen 05:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Wolff's Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment deals with the 18th Century.

Tanisha M. Fazal's State Death: The Politics and Geography of Conquest, Occupation, and Annexation says on the subject (p.114) "On October 24, 1795, Austria, Prussia, and Russia signed the final treaties of partition. Poland was dead, and its conquerors meant it to stay that way." Even the temporary resurrection of Poland between 1807 and 1813 does not warrant the comparative treatment of the subject in a reference work. There were no Polish administrative divisions outside of the Administrative division of Congress Poland. In effect the entire article is original and non-notable research, and subject to deletion--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you paid attention to the title, you'd note this is not about a Polish administrative division but an administrative division of Polish territories.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I paid attention to the title, but the territories were no longer Polish, but were of the Polish speakers. Poland as an independent state had ceased to exist. You are suggesting that Poland continued to exist, but simply changed the administrative division of its territory! This is completely untrue and constitutes original research based on your own articles linked to in the intro! Moreover you linked to the articles areas that never even had a significant Polish speaking population in the first place--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange article 2

Several questions, Piotrus:

1. this is not about a Polish administrative division but an administrative division of Polish territories has a POV all over it which is the claim that Volhynia, Polissya or Kiev Governorate were "Polish terrirories". Former territories of Polish Kingdom? Yes. Polish territories? POV
2. There is no sign that the administrative division of western Russian Empire, eastern Germany and northern Austria-Hungary were ever studied and looked at together just because these belonged to the Polish Kingdom at some remote point of time. Wikipedia artilces are not collections of random info. The article aboit Topography of the parts of the continents that were under water at 100 A.D. would be deleted on the spot. It is OK to study the topography of coastal Americas, Africa, Europe, etc.
3. You listed the Wolf's book while in fact it deals with a totally different time. Did you do it deliberately knowing the book's subject or you listed it without actually looking?

--Irpen 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The article is already named in a neutral way. If you disagree, try to get comments from the NPOV noticeboard.
2. Extensitve research on that subject presented here
3. Seems quite relevant to me, although not as much as the works I mentioned above.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So, calling Kiev Governorate a "Polish territory" in the 19th century context is "neutral"? --Irpen 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the word former is unclear? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does not have "former" anywhere in its title. --Irpen 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So? The title is not the place to put everything.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Title is not the place for everything but there are still guidelines for titles. Per WP:NCON#Descriptive names:

"Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

Lithuanian or Kiev Governorates being called "Polish territories" has a strong POV implication. They were neither Polish, nor Polish speaking in the 19th century. In fact, they were never Polish-speaking. And the territory of the Lithuanian Governorate was never "Polish" either, at least until after the WW1. --Irpen 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when Lithuanian Governorate is Polish territory? Or Yekaterinoslav Governorate?--Lokyz (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz, I noted above I support a move to Administrative division of Polish-Lithuanian territories after partitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, your replacement of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by Poland, despite your claims "per Piotrus", is pure POINT and not endorsed by me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please use the proper talk pages to discuss articles. As we speak, I am writing a post at TF's talk. --Irpen 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support proposed move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion space for the proposed move

• Please note, this is not an invitation to a vote. Provide sources to back up your arguments.
• Object. Bizarre contortion of a name, with an obvious intent of creating a POV fork. Btw, mgr, I thought you wanted to delete this article. What have convinced you its worthy of a move? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please see Encyclopedia of World Geography by Peter Haggett for an example of usage, because even though "all Polish territories were divided between the three great powers", [2] after 1795, they remained as such in English historiography... and for a good reason, namely, the sense of socio-political continuity. --Poeticbent talk 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No disagreement as far as the territory of Congress Poland is concerned. This was both "Polish" and "continuity" applies very well. But what does it have to do with territories like Lithuanian or Kiev Governorate? Was Smolensk Governorate "Polish" as well for the purpose of "continuity"? No one would object to Administrative division of Congress Poland. But pasting Russian territories together with German territories together purely on the basis that at some point of time they were conquered by Poland can only be done to make a point. --Irpen 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's why they are called "territories", just like Puerto Rico, Cuba and Philippines were also once called territories of the United States. No point in changing old names which were in common use to suit the present political correctness. greg park avenue (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent point, Greg! Good luck finding an article where Administrative division of Philippines, Cuba are mainland USA are studied together. This is exactly what this article is doing though. --Irpen 01:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • What about The Republic of Cuba and Guantanamo Bay? There is another one Cuba–United States relations in relation to Cuba, also there is more on the United States territory article. greg park avenue (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Again, Greg, a great point. Note, however that all these above are separate articles. It did not cross anyone's mind to start a hodge-podge of all this stuff together, for example Administrative division of Cuba and Philippines or International relations between the former US territories. --Irpen 02:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
            • It would cross someone's mind if the division of all occured at the same time. But that's enough. Oppose this and any other title like that which includes the word "Polish population". And before you guys start to waste other users' time again with another frovolous RM, read first what does the neologism mean. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The idiom "administration of population" doesn't make any sense in English. It remains me of speeches by Władysław Gomułka W ostatnim roku nastąpił kolejny wydatny wzrost spożycia pogłowia trzody chlewnej i bydła rogatego na statystycznego obywatela i wyniósł (w kg na głowę mieszkańca) .... Sorry, can't even translate it to English. greg park avenue (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the word "territory" is applied in its political subdivision sense, it generally refers to a geographic region. The administrative regions of Poland ceased to exist, so we must be referring to the geographical--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't really suggest using Public administration, because that term did not yet enter the English language, never mind Russian in 1795

By the way greg park avenue, while I generally agree with your point, the territory after partition was not subdivided into "territories", but was incorporated into the three partitioning states, so the comparison to territories of the United States is somewhat misplaced--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vote yet, because its a neologism. Make up your mind and find better term, then will see, however, I don't suggest to change historical names. greg park avenue (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there probably should be a "the", so Administration of ''the'' Polish population etc. which parallels use of "services to the rural Polish population" by Lee in World War II: Crucible of the Contemporary World : Commentary and Readings--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. The former territories of Poland, which were divided, were subject to the new administration, not just the Polish population meaning Poles - Poland back then was a multinational entity, not just Poles only. What about Jews, Tatars, Armenians, Ukrainians, etc etc. greg park avenue (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point, so Polish-speaking? But that doesn't work either because I suppose Ukrainians continued to speak Ukrainian and Jews probabaly largely spoke Yiddish. Any suggestions?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So how they communicated? greg park avenue (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so Administration of the Polish speaking population after the Third Partition of Poland, but that doesn't work either because clearly there were Polish speakers outside Poland before the Third Partition. It may be why I had suggested deletion of the article in the first place.

By the way, "administration of public...." cam into use after the First World War, and was replaced by Public Administration sometime in the 1960s. Before that for much of the 19th century it was called "governing", hence governors and the direct borrowing into Russian of "gubernya", so maybe Governance of the Polish speaking population after the Third Partition of Poland --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Poeticbent Space Cadet (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

at this point the proposed title has been changed again

• Comment. Changed to what now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1: The present title is quite clear in its scope, and any ambiguity is (or can be) clarified by the lead. 2. The proposed title is inferior. a) "Governance" can refer to law, taxation, police, water; "administration" is more clearly about lines on a map. b) "Polish territories" sounds rather unambiguously like "territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". "Polish speaking population " is woeful: it implies that Polish speakers had different "governance" than Yiddish or Ukrainian speakers, that they were carved into their own little enclaves, and so forth. Administration was by land, not language. So let's not muddle the issue, and stay with what we have, which is not that bad. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and Dazed and Confused Since "Polish" can be interpreted in different ways, and given the territory encompassed, I'd suggest "Post-partition administrative divisions of Poland-Lithuania". Yes, technically there are partitions plural and yes, once the partitions were complete, Poland-Lithuania became a "former". I just think this wording would be clear and to the point for the average reader. As for the proposed title, it's quite impenetrable.
     As for aforementioned evidence of being studied together, one only has to look to genealogy for the regular practice of, and value in, mapping former territories into later administrative divisions, precisely what is being done here. —PētersV (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose new title as per my comments above regarding an idiom/neologism containing the words "administration of - Polish - population". The term population means chiefly a. "all the people in a country or region" meaning all - not only Poles or Polish speaking, b. "the number of these", c. "a specified part of the people in a given area (for example the Japanese population of Hawaii)". When applying the c. version to the new title it would make as little sense as the article titled Governance of the English speaking population after the Fall of the British Empire would. Please, see the meaning of the term neologism - creating such is against WP:NOR policy, in some cases may also be considered as a symptom of serious mental disorder when applying to adults. greg park avenue (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the problem of the article is its scope and not its title. The article is a hodge podge of disparate info about the adm. div. of unrelated countries pasted together for no good reason. Adm. divisions exists of the countries or some political entities of sub-country level. No one objects to the Administrative division of Congress Poland being a valid topic but there cannot be any "administrative divisions" of arbitrary picked territories. There cannot be the Administrative division of the Danube Basin, Administrative division of English speaking territories or the Administrative division of the former Roman Empire. What's more, the article dares to expand into territories that where never "Polish" in any sense (even politically) and pastes them to the rest. As such, the very scope of this article is tendentious and it cannot be corrected by mere renaming. Renaming of a bad article cannot bring any improvement. So, since the discussion was turned into voting, I vote as does not matter. --Irpen 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Your argument is based upon nothing more than IDONTLIKEs. What you call arbitrary is instead quite logical (partitions...) and as I showed above, there is a body of literature dedicated to this subject (i.e. covering in one place part of the Austrian, Prussian and Russian administrative divisions of former Polish territories).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Your argument is nothing more that ABF. I have a right to see things differently from you without being accused of any of such thing. --Irpen 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • However unlike you I cite my sources. Since you don't, your POV is only that - your POV, unsupported by any sources (reliable or not...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Piotrus, I have not seen any sources you claim to exist in the article. If there are such sources only in Polish, this is somewhat suspicious but even those are not used within the article itself. Also, from my experience of your, I would say, liberal interpretation of sources that are difficult to verify, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I am somewhat wary of your claim. But yet again, if my worries are all premature and the existence of the topic and its scholarly standing of the sources can be demonstrated we can return to this subject. --Irpen 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • We are discussing this article, not some random diffs from 2006.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another name: Administrative division of Polish-Lithuanian territories after partitions

I propose the name with the addition of "-Lithuanian", to address the point that this article describes the administrative divisions of territories of former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Per my concerns about "Polish" and here also "Lithuanian" Administrative division of Poland-Lithuania after partitions would be clearer. —PētersV (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Administrative division of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after partitions? But in any case, that seems more or less appropriate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Administrative division of the Commonwealth territories after the partitions of Poland? There were no partitions of Commonwealth but partitions of Poland, and there was no division of Poland only but of all Commonwealth. greg park avenue (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you want during, not after? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, "during" is then, meaning Administrative division of the Commonwealth territories during the partitions of Poland, corresponds nicely with Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II and with Partitions of Poland. This title is least offensive to anyone than any of the ones suggested previously. The word Commonwealth aka Rzeczpospolita was in common use and it suggests, Lithuania also possessed territories, that should make some editors happy, but for the sake of Wikipedia, keep it simple and omit "Polish-Lithuanian" part in the title. It's enough to mention it in the lead. The term "Poland-Lithunia" is WP:OR and never was in common use, with an exception of soccer games. greg park avenue (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I support 'during'. I am not yet convinced whether "the Commonwealth" is better than the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". There are many commonwealths in English language, with the British Commonwealth being probably the most popular, so I think we need the "Polish-Lithuanian" for disambiguation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. greg park avenue (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the alternative variant, based on our discussion with Greg, would be: Administrative division of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth territories during partitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Poland" is accepted shorthand for the Commonwealth as can be seen in some of these articles. However, I question why this article is needed at all. Coverage of the subject can be done at Polish Partitions#Aftermath but listed like this it reads more like a list of irredenta. — AjaxSmack 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an article which takes all of the territory covered by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then looks at its division after the partitions could be a useful successor article to Administrative division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as the level of detail would be inappropriate for the Polish Partitions#Aftermath article. With the addition of the required information, the unambiguous and well-defined title Administrative division of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth territories during partitions could be used. Although Polish is sometimes used as shorthand, it is ambiguous and it is not clear from the title what definition of the word is intended. Knepflerle (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another opinion

Moved from User talk:Ezhiki#Dispute regarding historical Polish administrative division articles

I'd appreciate your input regarding the proposed merger and removal of names, removal of this info and the requested move. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, the administrative division of Polish territories after partitions article is supposed to serve as an overview of administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw, and administrative division of Congress Poland, correct? I can't say I like the existing implementation all that much (there is too much overlapping and intertwining between the articles on administrative divisions and the general history articles), but the idea itself seems to have merit. The name of the article definitely needs changing, though; to what exactly, I have no opinion, but you'll have to agree on the new title based on the existing academic studies of the subject (only if it is impossible would the article fall under WP:SYN).

I'd have to agree with the removal of Polish names here, primarily on the grounds of this being the English Wikipedia, in which English names matter the most. Polish names can be added to the articles on the actual governorates in cases where doing so is warranted.

In this edit, I understand Irpen's intent, but it doesn't seem to agree with what the paragraph intends to convey: it does not claim that all of the territories in the list were Polish or Lithuanian, but rather lists the governorates into which the territories that were Polish or Lithuanian had been incorporated. I can see how the list can be misintepreted if one takes the current title of the article into consideration.

All this is strictly my personal opinion, of course, but I hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eziki, thanks for your request at my talk to comment. My thoughts are outlined elsewhere, mainly at Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions.

The topic of this article just does not make sense. It arbitrary defines "Polish territories" in the context of the 19th century but based on the past history. Further, it pastes together the Adm. Div. of the Ru Empire, of Austria-Hungary and of Germany while these are completely separate (and unrelated) topics. There is no singular concept of the "administrative division of whatever was Poland at this or that point of time". Administrative divisions exists of the political entities, not some arbitrary defined territories. There cannot be "administrative division of the Dnieper Upland" or of the "Former Roman Empire". There can be administrative divisions of the states or units that formed by the time but there is nothing in common between the Austrian and Russian administrative divisions to paste them into one article. The only political entity that can be called Poland in the context of the time was Congress Poland. Administrative division of Congress Poland is a legitimate topic and no one has a problem with it.

More at [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. --Irpen 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpen. I understand these concerns, but still think that the article has a right to exist as a general overview. If the subject of "division of Polish territories after partitions" (or whatever other, more neutral title can be come up with) is studied (and, I trust, Polish historians wouldn't have missed this opportunity), then it is only fair that we have an article about it. Part of the problem here is lack of sources in the article as of present, but since Piotrus stated that such sources do exist, I'm sure he'll eventually find and add them (thus showing that the definition is not "arbitrary"). Even if such studies are not common outside of Poland, we should still cover them as doing so would help combat the systemic bias. Of course, if that's the case, proper sourcing and clear identification become even more important. If no such sources can be demonstrated within reasonable time, well, then it's another story entirely. Anyway, I'll wait for Piotrus' reply to the above before going on with speculations any further :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure, there are sources about Poland after partitions. And they go straight to the History of Poland articles and its subarticles. There are also sources of the administrative divisions of the 19th century empires. And they should be (and are) used in the articles devoted to the administrative divisions of the empires. However, no sources have been demonstrated specifically dedicated to the administrative division of western Russia, eastern Germany and northern Austria together. Such arbitrary topic is non-scholarly nonsense just as the "administrative division of the former US possessions (Philippines and Cuba) in the 21st century" attempted to be studied as related. This is not systemic bias. But there is more. Contrary to the title, the article covers territories that where never "Polish" in any sense even formerly. The problem of hodge-podging disparate stuff together in an unscholarly way just just prove the point and air nationalist grievances plagues the Wikipedia much more than any systemic bias. --Irpen 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect - as I pointed out earlier (and apparently was ignored by you) there is a big body of Polish literature dedicated to administrative division of Polish territories under partitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, could you, please, clarify your point of view on the list of publications Piotrus provided? It seems to be quite relevant to the subject at hand.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[17]. --Irpen 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. So, as I understand it, if you were able to verify these sources and make sure that they indeed deal with the subject at hand, you would lift your objections?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to see what's in these sources first to tell what I think about using them as the basis of the article. --Irpen 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, any way you could oblige Irpen in that regard? I realize it's a hassle, but seeing how you folks don't trust one another, it seems to be the only viable option.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The very titles and the descriptions there support what I have written. You can ask at WP:PWNB for independent verification by Polish speakers. Alternatively, we could ask Clio at WP:RDH to check if there is indeed nothing in English literature. Good faith manages.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, good faith doesn't manage in this case because of so much animosity. Irpen, would you be willing to go through the steps Piotrus outlined? After all, it is you who challenged this article in the first place. Piotrus, could you, please, add these sources to the article and format them as inline citations so it is clear which work supports which part? Otherwise this discussion is purely theoretical. Would these steps be a reasonable compromise?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ezhiki, this is not a matter of mere "trust". I've linked above several past instances when Piotrus referred to a source for something that is just not there.

(ec)Piotrus, "good faith manages" but note the evidence to the contrary clause in WP:AGF. If one has a history of misusing sources, demanding to continue "assuming" is too big an extension of AGF. In any case, this point is moot yet. None of the sources are presently used in an article. When they are used, we will discuss their reliability and the propriety of their use. --Irpen 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The post above edit-conflicted. So, to answer you, yes. I trust Clio can verify the absence of English sources or point them out. When the article gets sourced, we will return to the subject of its content. --Irpen 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, I am not adding those positions to the article as references as they are not used as a reference (yet). Irpen claimed that there are no works that discuss in one place administrative divisions of more than one partition. I have provided the above works to prove him wrong. They could be added to the article as further reading, or once I (or somebody else) actually has the time to read them in more detail, they could be used to expand the article as references.

And all of the Irpen's examples are bogus. He writes a bogus critique - "Piotrus misuses sources [because Irpen sais so]" and later links it here, as if this was to make it more true. So I hardly consider his critique serious - one might as well accuse me of advocating the flat Earth POV. Not to mention that it is Irpen who is the only one who has been found guilty of using highly biased (ex. Mikhail Meltyukhov (Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Criticism) and clearly outdated sources (Talk:Warsaw Uprising (1794)/Archive 1). That said, unlike Irpen, I don't intend to turn this discussion into another rant about other editors. The issues at hand is the article title (still discussed) and notability/verifiability (which I believe was proven, and if not, the proper way to deal with this is a simple WP:AFD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued hostilities towards one another (and this concerns you and Irpen equally) will not get you anywhere, not here, not in any other article over which you'll happen to clash next. Looking back, every time I run into Irpen he complains about Piotrus, and every time I run into Piotrus he complains about Irpen, and that is considering that I don't run into either of you all that often! At the risk of sounding like your mothers, showing signs of good faith towards one another would do much more for patching your relations than continuous suspicions and accusations. No one expects you two to become best pals, but a little effort would still go long way. Yes, it means more work, but more work is always needed to fix something than to break it. Piotrus, if you are not willing to do the fully developed citations, can you at least quote appropriate passages from the books you used, so Irpen's doubts regarding the applicability of those books to this subject could be taken care of? Irpen, can you in turn submit this material to someone whom you both trust for independent review and verification? I don't expect either task would take any more than a couple hours of time for each of you, but at least you'll be on the same page, willing to listen to one another without invoking past grievances, and to work towards the only goal that really matters—building an encyclopedia. If, on the other hand, you are not willing to take these small steps, then I'm afraid I won't be of much help to you here; no one will be. You'll just continue at each other's throats as usual. Surely this is not what either of you wants? After all these years, I can imagine how it could get a bit too tiring...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The administrative division of Polish territories after partitions was geared not as much as an overview of those articles - although it is certainly related - but as a place do detail how the former Polish territories were administered by other countries during the partitions. In that regard, it is similar to Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II. I am not sure what English name would be better; the current one is a translation of Polish terms that I listed here (so while the topic may be new to English literature, it has been researched in Poland).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then change "after" to "during". Actually, "partition(s)" in this context was an event which lasted until 1918 or until the Greater Poland Uprising (1918–1919) succeeded. greg park avenue (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, perhaps Administrative divisions during the partitions of Poland? Here we don't need "Poland-Lithuania" since we're using common English usage to refer to the partitions. Per my earlier comment on genealogy (and having assisted those doing research), I strongly believe the article is valuable on its own merits. —PētersV (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not get what is wrong in mentioning Lithuania in the name, since author did Lithuanian lands into the article, namely Lithuanian Governorate. Or should we split the article into two - Polish and Lithuanian territories?--Lokyz (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just keeping to convention, I would actually personally prefer Administrative divisions during the partitions of Poland-Lithuania so the extent of territory is clear. If it doesn't exist, there should probably be a redirect from Partitions of Poland-Lithuania to Partitions of Poland (we'll see soon enough if it's red-linked!). —PētersV (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, traditions from 18th-19th century. I've heard, that during negotiations before Union of Lublin Polish side suggested to rename Lithuania into New Poland. Lithuanian delegation that time simply left home and ceased the negotiations.--Lokyz (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get what is wrong with that name? I tell you what is wrong. There was once a term "United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania" in common use, but there was never a term "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" in common use, which came long after that Kingdom term. Everyone simply used the "Commonwealth". It's like omitting the term "North" from the long definition of the "United States of North America". Do you know someone who does use this long term today instead of simple USA, US or America? If you do, let me know. greg park avenue (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Poland-Lithuania" is common use in scholarship, I'm going to assume that's not under dispute. :-) —PētersV (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct assumption. In today's perception, one must refer to them as to two separate states, but with common history. But there is no reference to that term as a historical name. Even Henryk Sienkiewicz, who died before 1918, in his many historical novels, referred to this entity simply as "Commonwealth". Would you refer to today's UK as United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and North Ireland in any Wikipedia title about UK? greg park avenue (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this particular problem is related to the fact that in Poland, we use the term I Rzeczpospolita for the PLC. II Rz is the Second Polish Republic and III RP is the post-1989 Polish state. PLC is refered to either as Poland or as IRP. Some modern people, in Poland and abroad, equate IRP with Poland. It is of course a gross simplification; for the contemporaries IRP consisted of Poland (Crown of Poland) and Lithuania (Grand Duchy of). In English, instead of First Commonwealth (or just commonwealth, as obviously the inhabitants of PLC didn't term it the first, but just - THE rzeczpospolita), the term Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is used (despite that the Polish-Lithuanian was not used by inhabitants of that country and is not used by Polish literature...). A bit confusing, but this is why I prefer Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (translation of more correct and official IRP) to just Polish-Lithuanian (which can also refer to the earlier Polish-Lithuanian union).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Rzeczpospolita is a translation of phrase Res publica (Common matter), and was more often used in that meaning. And the two nations - Poland AND Lithuania was ruled by two political nations - Polish and Lithuanian, even after constitution of May the 3rd, as this right was granted by Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations. And I think here lies main problem with this article - since nationalism and modern nations started to emerge in 19th century, the strive to own heritage of the Res Publica started to become one of the means to re-esablish and sometimes redefine the nation, even to the point to legalise territorial pretenses. It seems to me that this article has somewhat similar aim.

As for Sienkiewicz, since someone mentioned him - I think in Potop there is a phrase said to Kmicic: - "there are two best warriors in the Republic - I'm on Crown, and you on Lithuania". So he seems to have known the distinction very well, although the choice of character shows his preferences.--Lokyz (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Who was saying "I am on the Crown", Pan Wołodyjowski? There is another one coming this time from your hero Kmicic when addresing Wołodyjowski after a lost duel: "Finish Mister!, save shame". greg park avenue (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I fail to see how those citations are relevant with the current discussions about the article name.--Lokyz (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty strange, because they come from you. I only filled in the last line. greg park avenue (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's different book you're talking about. And by the way - I didn't say that anyone from the Deluge book is my hero, this is another time you're mistaken. Well, since this fork of the naming discussion has already gone way off-topic, I think I'll withdraw myself from it.--Lokyz (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about another book. I am talking about your edit above: quoteI think in Potop there is a phrase said to Kmicic: - "there are two best warriors in the Republic - I'm on Crown, and you on Lithuania"end of quote. And I still don't get any idea why you have introduced it there in the first place? Was it a kind of a smokescreen or something? Know what? I am becoming tired of these Lithuania-related articles. I already feel like I was in a Cookoo's Nest, and this one is the first I got involved with, hardly two days ago. greg park avenue (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this article about?!

This article covers the period 1772-1918. It does not cover the administrative divisions of two main Polish states of the 19th century - administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815) and administrative division of Congress Poland (1815-1918).

Let me do the maths here, 1918 - 1815 - 1807 = 1806

So the article is only about the 1772-1806 period. Why all the other discussion, as yet unsourced?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is also about the administration of the territories from 1807 onward that were not under any - more or less nominal - Polish administration, but were under it before 1772-1795.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if we stopped tagging and haranguing over this being a Piotrus-Polish-POV concoction, some steadier progress might be made on the article. Just an observation. —PētersV (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag removed

I'll be removing the notability for English speakers template. As I've indicated, this sort of material is particularly invaluable for genealogy as the territory encompasses far more ethnicities than Poles, from Jews to Ruthenians, shielded from Russian influence and developing into today's Ukrainians and Belarussians (per Stone's text, not my personal opinion). It's truly tendentious to suggest this is somehow material that is useful to Polish-speaking Poles only and it has been uselessly been created in English only to make a POV point that Poland was tri-sected by major regional powers (my perception, others' mileage may vary, it has been accused of being POV material). Organizations that use English that believe this topic is notable by discussing it, and challenges associated with personal records:

• pgsca.org (Polish Genealogical Society of California)
• feefhs.org (Federation of East European Family History Societies)
• jewishgen.org (Jewish Genealogy, affiliated with the Museum of Jewish Heritage)
• eegsociety.org (Eastern European Genealogical Society)
• cjh.org (Center for Jewish History)

I trust no one here is suggesting information widely discussed and used in genealogical research is not notable in English. —PētersV (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is not a word on genealogy in the article. In any case, the article is far too general for genealogy research. Besides that, the real migration started in 1848, so does not fall within the period covered by the article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's more than useful to those starting out or just with an interest in what happened to Poland-Lithuania, a central/eastern European empire that lasted for centuries, when it was carved up and where the piece-parts all went. Personally, I find the topic fascinating. If you find it dull and general, then I would respectfully suggest you work to improve detail in the article (instead of tagging it as useless to English speakers). I personally think it's a great start. —PētersV (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of this ridiculous tag.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the current taggings of the article particularly useful:

• Mrg3105's {{unreferenced}} and {{globalize}}, closely followed by Irpen's {{Synthesis}}
• and Mrg3105's original and restoration (following my delete) of {{notability|notability}}

I'd like to make two points with regard to the above tags:

1. I truly fail to comprehend how the changes in territorial administration covering an area once encompassing a vast empire, that erased that empire, would not be notable in every language. Meaning, also, there's nothing here to "globalize" to make it relevant to a wider audience. (Per the tag and other comments, I'm taking the {{globalize}} tag to indicate only Poles would be interested given the current structure/content of the article).
2. I also truly fail to comprehend how such a notable topic, providing details on the carving up of an empire, is somehow a synthesis. By definition, for the content to be accurate, it cannot be anything but an aggregation of existing, 100% verifiable, information.

It's a bit discouraging to find tagging and allegations of POV ("tendentious" regarding territories that were "never Polish") and Polo-centricity regarding what should be, and is, a cut-and-dried list. Poland-Lithuania was an enormous, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural state. What happened to it as it got progressively carved up into nothing, and where it ended up, is one of the great topics in history. —PētersV (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There was never a question of notability, also this reference tag is superfluos. One doesn't need references when writing about obvious and very well documented facts. Same thing in physics. When you refer to the Lorentz transformation writing an article to Physical Review, you don't need sources to provide, they would be deleted anyway. Only less known or latest research is required. In Wikipedia we got links to document obvious facts and events, and they are supplied in abundance in this article. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Vercumba, I wonder that you joined the usual camp here and fail to notice that "Administrative division of former imperialistic enterprises" that ceased to exist can work both ways. Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions is no different by approach from the would be Administrative division of Soviet territories after the dissolution of the USSR. Pulling together the somewhat similar divisions of Ukraine and Belarus', with a largely reformed divisions of the Russian Federation and, of course to make you happy, add the division of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, paste this all into one article and give it the irredentist title would inflame passions and create megabytes of the talk page discussion. For some reason, none of the Russian or pro-Soviet editors grieve the lost greatness so much as to create such articles. But here this is tolerated and even advocated by editors from the countries that suffered from imperialist neighbors on their own. --Irpen 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hello Irpen. In principle, and putting aside issues of territorial sovereignty regarding the USSR's constituent republics, I support Administrative division of Soviet territories after the dissolution of the USSR. It would likely be of limited value as it would basically be a list of republics (pre-collapse) now countries (post-collapse). Where the state language has changed, or administrative divisions redrawn, the topic would be more useful. That all said, the active carving up of Poland-Lithuania is quite a different situation from the dissolution of the USSR. —PētersV (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I do believe that the study of administrative change in post-Soviet states is notable...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative division of German territories after expulsions, anyone? After all, the Potsdam Agreement expressingly placed some of them "under the administration of the Polish State" for 45 years as "the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement" of 1990. -- Matthead  Discuß   07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, I question why this article is needed at all. Coverage of the subject can be done at Polish Partitions#Aftermath but listed like this it reads more like a list of irredenta. "Administrative division of German territories after expulsions" is a bit inflammatory but I would wager that even and "Administrative division of German territories after World War II" that included areas of pre-War Germany no longer under German control would be resisted as irredenta as well.

If anything, the information in this article should be added to Polish Partitions#Aftermath and, if the Polish Partitions article gets too cumbersome, aspects such as the Third Partition of Poland and the Aftermath of the Polish Partitions can be split off. Having the information in this article shunted away here does not tie it in with its context well enough and, without that context, it is close to WP:NOTDIR material. — AjaxSmack 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue, you are mistaken. Wikipedia is a reference work, and as such should only include articles that are of notable substance worthy of reference for the English speaking users. All articles in Wikipedia need to show they are notable, including Gravitation, usually through used of references, and the specific points of notability cited in the references provided.

Just because a subject is notable to a non-English-speaking user-base somewhere does not immediately qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia. For example the The unsurfaced roads of Masvingo Province, or Horse breeding in pre-colonial Java. These are not noteworthy articles for English readers of Wikipedia because they have little or no supporting references in English, meaning no one has bothered to do th3 original basic research in the subject area of sufficient depth to warrant its publication.

The case of Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions is right up there with lacking in notability in English. Unless it can be shown that references in English do exist, it is not a notable subject for an article, and its existence is only based on its synthesis of other notable articles--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The case of Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions is right up there with lacking in notability in English. Unless it can be shown that references in English do exist

The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918 (History of East Central Europe) by Piotr S. Wandycz comes to mind. Minor existance among English scholars shouldn't discourage us from writing on the subject if non-English sources exist. Why this is english-language wikipedia its topics are centered on English speaking world but the whole world.

--Molobo (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean about notability for English users. Its a single work from a very specialised academic source. It is hardly likely to be of general interest to a wide number of reference users. This is why there is a single work template, but in this case there is no way to expand the reference since there aren't works outside this one. Aside from GoogleBooks, I also did a search through the local university library catalogue, and didn't find anything in its own right that deals with post-partition areas as administrative entities--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic would be discussed in a book on the topic in the context of the aftermaths of the partitions. Doing a simple Google books search yielded as its top item the non-Polish Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture which disscusses whose domain the peasants wound up in. That took all of 30 seconds to find. I don't intend to have a Googling contest here, just accept that what pieces went where is, in fact, notable. —PētersV (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"This topic would be discussed in a book on the topic", this is speculation on the possible future publication of such a book? The one you found is not a substantial source for the subject of this article being proposed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Rather than offer a specific title, I would like to suggest something that includes "Poland-Lithuania" instead of "Polish" as an adjective in the title. Properly documented, this article might be a bit large to add to the Partitions of Poland article, however, it should certainly be linked in as "for more detail." "Polish" as an adjective can be interpreted in different ways, potentially leading to confusion. —PētersV (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And how is the Yekaterinoslav Governorate Polish or Poland? The analogy with a hypothetical article of the administrative divisions of parts of former Germany with the emphasis on their being now under Poland is very apt. This is exactly what this article is. I doubt Vecrumba would like much the article about Latvian administrative composition presented through the angle of this being a Former Soviet Republic.

This article is nothing but an irredentist hodge podge of arbitrary information put together to make a point. While the Governance of the Polish speaking population in the nineteenth century would be a somewhat coherent topic, the current article's emphasis is plain wrong. I am tagging it with {{title disputed}} which questions that propriety of the title and/or subject matter. Not only the hodge podge is synthetic, calling territories of Lithuania or Yekaterinoslav "Polish" screams POV all over it. Poles never comprised even a significant minority to speak of in what later became Yekaterinoslav Governorate. I appreciate an outdated sentiment of the Great Poland "od morza do morza" but please keep this out of the wikipedia. --Irpen 01:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen--from the very article you cite: In 1764, the Novorossiya guberniya [fore-runner of Yekaterinoslav Governorate] had been created to administer much of the southern steppe after first partition of Poland, and the removal of the Zaporozhian Host and integrating it into Russia proper. I've already indicated quite clearly that Poland-Lithuania at its greatest extent was a multi-cultural multi-ethnic state (per Stone) and noted the problem with "Polish" being open to interpretation. You appear to continue to insist on interpreting "Polish" in the context of this article as some sort of assertion of Polo-ethnic territorial hegemony and then alleging screaming POV and irredentism.

   As for the example of Latvia having been formerly administered as a SSR, I myself have edited articles dealing with the Latvian SSR. It was what it was. I've never had any issues with representing the Baltic SSRs factually.

   Personally, I think you're getting all worked up over something you see in this article, whether content or intent, that simply isn't there. —PētersV (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name makes as much sense as Administrative division of Russian territories after the fall of Russian Empire, or Administrative division of Russian territories after the fall of USSR would. And why not go other way round. Why stop with "after", "before" is just as good. Following same logic we can create articles like Administrative division of Russian territories before they were integrated into Russian Empire following partitions? And since we are talking about administrative division of former countries. How about Administrative division of former Vistula Country or Administrative division of former Russian Poland since 1917? M0RD00R (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The tri-partite predatory (not my word, used by scholars) iterative division of Poland-Lithuania into nothingness is a unique event. I see the following here:

• editors portray documentation of that event to be just like any other "before" and "after" de jure or de facto change in territorial administration and therefore it's silly to have an article, what if we had articles like that on every such event?
• editors denounce the article as a blatant Poland-über-alles concoction
• the afore-mentioned editors, how shall I put this? typically find themselves in the editorial opposition with regard to the editor who created the article

I'm making the case for the article here not because I might editorially align myself more often with the article creator than not (not always). And not because I'm pursuing some personal pro-central/eastern/Baltic Europe agenda. The partition of Poland-Lithuania was one of the pivotal geopolitical events of the era, with lasting repercussions. The editorial opinions presented here in opposition to the article are little more than belittlement and derision, best summed up by the notability tag indicating only a Pole could possibly be interested in the topic. I respectfully suggest to anyone who passionately dislikes the article that they please put it up for RfC or AfD and then at least we'll debate this before a broader community.

   I also believe the changes in administration are significant and numerous enough that this article would be too big to add as a section to existing articles--this should stand on its own. —PētersV (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is quite simple - former countries do not have administrative division. Simple as that. We don't have articles like Administrative division of former Yugosalavia, Administrative division of former Czechoslovakia, Administrative division of former Austria-Hungary etc.

The way each of these countries desintegrated is somewhat unique, but this uniqueness does not justify creation of POV fork articles like this one. M0RD00R (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And that simply illustrates such articles need to be written. Very recently I was looking for an article on Administrative division of former Austria-Hungary and I was disappointed not finding it. They are not POV forks, although I am sure that for some, they will be IDONTLIKETHEMs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case Administrative division of former Vistulan Country would be a good start, any volunteers for that? How about Administrative division of German territories after 1945? M0RD00R (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please no more strawmen. Administrative division of Austria-Hungary would have been a useful article but to make a comparison with this masterpiece, one needs an article of Administrative division of former Austria-Hungary that would survey the modern subdivision of Ukraine, Moldavia, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland.

Mordoor, the analogy with the hypothetical Administrative division of German territories after 1945 is inexact. That would be Administrative division of Polish territories after 1797. This title here uses the grievance term rather than the date. So, we are talking [[Administrative division of German territories after the expulsion of the German population. --Irpen 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a fork, it should appear as a "further detail" article. It details the administrative aftermath of the division of Poland Lithuania. All I see is a lot of interesting and insulting "similar" articles that are being facetiously and derisively suggested. The title is "administrative division of".., that is, "how the tripartite powers administratively divided...". The title is not saying there are "divisions" (territorial entities) directly associated with a defunct empire. If someone has substantive disagreement with the form of the article let's hear it. The topic is notable. My only constructive suggestion at this juncture is to change "Polish territories" to "Poland-Lithuania" to avoid the kinds of polemical misinterpretations that we've had here. —PētersV (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A sidenote

even Polish wikipedia does not go so far to call those lands Polish - there is a template called Ziemie I Rzeczypospolitej pod zaborami 1772-1807 - I think Rzeczypospolita in this case would be translated as Commonwealth or Res Publica. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Lokyz (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See Rzeczpospolita... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

From the article presented it seems I'm right.--Lokyz (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to "Administrative division of Poland-Lithuania after Partitions"

I've added a move request template, per Lokyz's note that "Polish" is not the best descriptive term for the territory included. I capitalized Partitions to be in line with the title Partitions of Poland. —PētersV (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see template was removed because I didn't post at WP:RM--but I read the move request rules and they were open to interpretation. Foiled again, but worth continuing the discussion... —PētersV (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as the new title still proposes the concept of the administrative division of the political entities that did not exist and by the very meaning of the administrative division, there cannot be administrative division of anything rather than political entities. Administrative division of former Roman Empire, Administrative division of former British Empire, Administrative division of countries along the Atlantic Coast where the administrative divisions of different entities are simply lumped together on the arbitrary basis or Administrative division of the Danube Basin cannot exist. The only coherent Polish political entities of that time were Congress Poland and Duchy of Warsaw whose administrative divisions are valid entries. Outside those, the territories were part of the Administrative division of Russian Empire, of Austria-Hungary or of Germany. Lumping them together just based on the fact that these lands belonged to Poland at some point of time is no different than lumping together the modern administrative divisions of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh into one article because they were all part of British Empire in the past. Since the new title still fails to define a coherent subject, I oppose because changing one bad title for another one makes the situation worse by making a false impression that the problem is being addressed. --Irpen 01:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  On the comparison to "is no different than lumping together the modern administrative divisions of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh into one article because they were all part of British Empire in the past", I'll take it we have a honest divergence of opinion on usefulness. I personally see Post-colonial administrative division of the British Indian sub-continent as something notable, of interest, and of value. —PētersV (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  Administrative division of such thing as a subcontinent is its division into nations. Therefore, all there is to say about the adm. div. of this subcontinent is that it is divided into following countries: India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Just the same way as the territory of former PLC was divided between Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. But if you want to go deeper in subdivisions and say that India is divided into states and territories, Pakistan is divided into provinces this is already said in the respective articles and an article where India's States are lumped together with Pakistani provinces would not be an article about administrative subdivision of anything meaningful but a hodge podge of stuff that just make no sense together but make perfect sense separately. Same here. Adm. div. of each of the Empires is a valid topic. Further subdivision of the subnational units of the empires, like that of Congress Poland, is also a valid topic. But Russian Governorates and German Districts lumped together into a single article is as sensible as lumping together the Indian States with Pakistani provinces. --Irpen 07:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, see, the whole raison d'être is to document the territorial administrative continuities in the descent from a prior unity into a subsequent hodge-podge. Whether it's one sovereign State in the subsequent state or numerous States in the subsequent state is completely immaterial--but you contend it makes all the difference. The article is driven by what something was at the start, not by what that something ended up as (your hodge-podge). —PētersV (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  What about dividing Tennessee into three parts called Eastern Tennessee, Middle Tennessee and West Tennessee and lump it together into Grand Divisions (Tennessee)? Who says you can't do that with Ukraine? I say you may do that and won't be complaining; same with India, Pakistan and all other -stans. For the record: I never made it even to Nashville thru the Smoky Mountains, too far away from NJ having only 4 days vacation, just made it to a town called Crossville off the interstate 40 (only few days ago). Cheer up! greg park avenue (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Poland is better than Polish, but the term "Poland-Lithuania" gonna be a hard sell, not a historical name. The common name was "... of Poland and Lithuania". What about merging Crown of the Polish Kingdom with the Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and make some research to find the proper title. I recall from Polish school textbooks something like United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania. Let me ask for help and insert an {{expert}} template to the article. greg park avenue (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment II - What about the Administrative division of the Commonwealth territories during the Partitions of Poland? Beginning with the First Partition of Poland in 1772, the name Commonwealth in releation to both nations Poland and Lithuania (Lithuania was still there), was for the first time in official use, quote: the country was officially termed the Polish Commonwealth end of quote. As per Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, MCMLXXI-MCMLXXXVI, The first partition and the Polish commonwealth, vol. 21, p.109 (ISBN 0-8343-0072-9). greg park avenue (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • During the "Partitions of Poland" the Commonwealth was a non-existent political entity and non-existent entities cannot have administrative divisions. Administrative divisions of Western Ukrainian People's Republic during the Polish occupation makes just as much sense. --Irpen 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What about Administrative divisions of the Ukrainian territories during Polish-Soviet War? greg park avenue (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • All there is to say about that the "administrative divisions of the Ukrainian territories during Polish-Soviet War" is that they were divided between several countries (Ukraine, Romania, Poland and several short-lived pro-Soviet entities.) This is already said in the History of UA article. Lower level subdivision with each of these entities are totally different and belong to the subdivision articles of these entities. Pasting together the way how they were administered by Poland, by Romania, by Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic is plain nonsense. Just the same way as would be pasting the administrative divisions of British Mandate of Palestine and of the British Raj into one article. --Irpen 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Not my fault Ukraine was bigger than Tennessee those days. But if you know so much about Ukraine, then maybe you can help me with establishing the origin of this song Hej Sokoły (song)? It's probably a Ukrainian traditional. Don't you know its original name by any chance? I know I am sidetracking now, but we're still inside the Talk Page guidelines about improving the Wikipedia article. Just trying to kill two birds with one stone. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd much more prefer Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth than less precise Poland-Lithuania.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'd be glad to second that change. I'll try and get to a "proper" rename request soon! —PētersV (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm opposing this based on the simple truth of history that there were no administrative divisions of any country after that country ceased to be, as was the case with the Poland-Lithuania after Partitions. There is the simple logic that institution of administrative areas is made through a sovereign government, and comparison of such administrative entities after the third partition of Poland constitutes original research because the mere fact of the population speaking same language across borders does not bear any relevance to the existing administrative entities--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There were, after the Louisiana Territory ceased to exist, there were many administrative divisions and subdivisions created out of it. For the complete list of such existing and non-existing entities you may want to go to the Historic regions of the United States. greg park avenue (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying, that the article Louisiana Purchase should be renamed Administrative division of France after sale in North America? How about Administrative division of European states in North America after 1776? I can easily write a synthesis article like this That will include the British, Spanish, French and Russian empires--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Dear mrg3105, the title is "administrative division of", that is an action (and its result), not "administrative divisions" (noun indicating units of management organization). No one is arguing that an ersatz PLC continued to exist. —PētersV (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have hair that thin to split. An administrative division of territory and its creation through divisions is usually accomplished through the same legislative process--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is contemporary construction of historiography. Correct name is Rzeczpospolita Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego Commonwealth of the Polish Crown and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After Lublin Union one political organism was formed like United Kingdom was founded in 1707. Since then commonly used name of this state was Rzeczpospolita Polska (RP) which consisted of Korona (Crown) and Litwa (Lithuania). It was one political nation of Polish gentry of diffrent roots (Rusins, Belarussians, Lithuanians, Poles etc. Since 1699 Polish language was official language of Lithuania. After partitions eastern provinces of Commonwealth occupied by Russia were the most ardent nest of Polish national movement, University in Vilnius was formed genetations of Polish inteligentsia etc. Mathiasrex (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - trilingual people that do refer to themselves as Lithuanians not necessary are Polish. Or should we call 18th century (mostly) Francophonic German aristocracy as French? Another question - what year was the May 3rd Constitution adopted. Are you sure it was 1772? (I do not even ask whether it was still in act 1795). Several further question - whether Scottland had it's own army, treasury and foreign policy in United Kingdom, and newerminding this did it have a liberty to elect a monarch on it's own will, as it happen in case of Stephen Bathory.--Lokyz (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) updated link on--Lokyz (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • That's a valid name after 1772, which applies to this article. The official name of this entity in Latin before 1772 was Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae. Could someone translate it to English? I need it for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment: Latin name of this state since 1569 was Respublica sive Corona Regini Poloniae et Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae (Commonwealth or Crown of the Polish Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Diffrence of Lithuanian army was stricte formal - no more strange than Scottish Regiments in UK Army since 1707. Polish was language of command. Even more Polish gentry from Lithuania was more polonized than Ruthenian gentry from Ruthenia (Ukraine was part of the Polish Crown). Mathiasrex (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Language of written commands in Lithuanian units was Lithuanian even after the establishment of another chanclery language, it's documented. Scottish Regiments weren't acting as a Scott's foreign policy representatives. Lithuanian uprisings were trying to reestablish sovereign multinational but not Commonwealth. And the question still remains actual about 1772(what did it change in the in internal naming, I do not doubt that Prussian Emperor, i.e. International Agressor had some other thoughts), and 1795. I'd be glad to get some answers to exactly that.--Lokyz (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • And a P.S. Was German Aristocracy speaking German? Since Fichte had some other view.--Lokyz (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • In 1772 (first partition of Poland) nothing has changed in nomenclature of Commonwealth. In 1795 (Third partition of Poland) this country ceased to exist. After Constitution of May 3, 1791 Polish Sejm in Zaręczenie Wzajemne Obojga Narodów formally assured that Commonwealth as Rzeczpospolita Polska (Polish Republic) has guarantee rights of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Mathiasrex (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, the constitution itself was abolished in 1792 by the king :)--Lokyz (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Your title yields 0 hits on Google [18]. It's probably translation from Polish original research into Recent Latin (1900 - present). Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae yields 86 hits including sources from before 1772 [19]. For exammple see pl:Acta litteraria Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae - journal from 1755. It's probably the actual name of the country before 1772 written in New Latin (1600-1900) or even in Renaissance Latin (1300-1600). Also the title included in the article Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Serenissima Res Publica Coronae Polonicae Magni Ducatusque Lithuaniae, yields only 5 hits, most of it from Wikipedia. Could you at least, User Mathiasrex, translate the title I supplied. In my amateur translation, it looks like: Kingdoms of Poland and of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Couldn't find the word regni in current Latin Wictionary, it looks like a plural to me, but kings of old often used plural form, and used We instead of I when addressing themselves. It's a shortcut anyway, some titles include Prussiae, Rutheniae etc. But there is no word resembling "commonwealth" or even "republic". Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latin lesson

Proof positive that Google searching is evil incarnate when it comes to discussing encyclopedic content. Everyone is right or wrong to some degree, part of the issue is quoting titles without regard to their context or how they were declined, for example, "Regni Poloniae" is "OF the Kingdom of Poland", so "Acta litteraria Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae" is "The literary chronicles of the Kingdom of...".

• Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae

  = "OF the Kingdom of Poland and OF the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" ERGO

  Regnum Poloniae et Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae [4th declension "Ducatus" is the same in nominative and possessive]

  = "The Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania"

• Res Publica sive [siue] Corona Regini Poloniae et Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae

  = The Republic [literally, "matters of the people"] on the one hand, on the other, the Crown [Monarchy] of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuanaia ["siue" can be translated as a simple "or" but that does not capture its full meaning]
  P.S. REgini is misspelt.

• Serenissima Res Publica Coronae Polonicae Magni Ducatusque Lithuaniae ["Magni Ducatusque" is the same as "et Magni Ducatus"]

  The Most Serene Republic of the Polish Crown and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (note change in sense of republic applying to both Poland and Lithuania, and for Poland it's now the Polish (adjective) crown/monarchy.

So, the points being:

• Poland is a monarchy, whether as kingdom or republic/commonwealth
• Lithuania is always the "grand (or great) duchy of..."
• in the "most serene", it's a republic/commonwealth constituted of the Polish monarchy and of the duchy of Lithuania

They all mean pretty much the same thing with the exception of the republic evolving applying first to Poland and then both Poland and Lithuania, in this order of titles. "Res publica" literally means "Matters of the People", so "republic" (as much as it looks the same) is not the only translation. Just as in the U.S. one can have "states" or "commonwealths" describing equivalent units of territorial organization, whether we call it a republic or commonwealth in English depends on preference and on articles of organization, not on the title in Latin. Both "republic" and "commonwealth" are equally valid translations of the phrase "Res Publica." That concludes today's Latin lesson. :-) —PētersV (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Most Serene Republic, too :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, User Peters, for this Latin lesson, and especially for the translation of "Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae", it makes a lot of sense - I thing the "of" we can skip, and make it Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania instead of Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth (between 1569 and 1772) or something like that. The other titles you have provided above (I just made a shortcut meaning their second part): "Corona Regini Poloniae et Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae" and "Coronae Polonicae Magni Ducatusque Lithuaniae"- both yielded 0 and 4 Wikipedia/Youtube hits on Google, meaning, not acceptable under WP:V guidelines as source of notability. The word Serenissimo shows up only once in those 86 (or rather 63 but still a lot) hits mentioned by me above in here, but it relates to Stanislao Poniatowski and the year 1788, when the term commonwealth was already known. Sorry, User Piotrus, but Serenissima Repubblica is an Italian term, not Latin, and applies to Italian small towns like Venice or Genoa or San Marino. Don't know what mighty Poland and Lithuania does in that unreferenced Most Serene Republic article anyway? greg park avenue (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One needs to find whether it does confirm with WP:UE. And, PētersV, the Kingdom and the Grand Duchy titles are equal in a sense of monarch, they do differ because of traditional name of the state. see for example title of Gediminas.--Lokyz (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Serenissima is indeed Latin, and it's "Res Publica", so it qualifies as the most serene commonwealth/republic in Latin. :-) (Trust me, you don't forget 5 years of Latin that easily, even if it is years later!) There's no sense in the translation (to Lokyz's point) of one monarchical entity being superior to the other. —PētersV (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, one would only begin using the term "Commonwealth" when "Res Publica" appears in the territorial title. —PētersV (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those 64 hits are all notable sources, ripe for Wikipedia, in many languages - Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, English etc. Serrenisima maybe trendy word back then (meaning: sorry republica or republica of sorrow) among shitheads who sold Poland short when partitions were in progress, but it was after 1772, not before. Same thing about IV Rzeczpospolita during actual Lech Kaczynski reign. Polacks just have this kind of sarcasm about themselves. Don't take offence, talking about myself this time. greg park avenue (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Serenissima does indeed mean most serene or most tranquil. If a title exists, it exists. It's silly to use Google as a filter for notability for a term not widely used... serenissima and res and publica in various permutations don't add up to tons of matches. (This after edit conflict with Greg park avenue's response, so responding to earlier Googling.)

   The initial "OF" appears because there was something before it as in, new map of, king of, etc., "OF" was never meant as belonging to the beginning of the title. I've seen maps that just start off in the possessive, but it's not the proper form of a territorial title. —PētersV (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right and it beats me, there is always something before it as a map of (Poland) or something like pl:Acta Physica Polonica same as ch:Acta Physica Helvetica (Polonica meaning of Poland and Helvetica meaning of Switzerland) or envoy of (Poland). But I think Polonica or Helvetica means country, and there were no entries simply meaning country as in encyclopedia now. Always something related to a country. As in a Tsar of all Russias or in Her Majesty of Great Britain and... greg park avenue (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proof the word "regni" may also be used without OF. See here. It's a title of the book "Regni Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae. Nova et exacta tabula", issued in 1739 by an author Homann, Johann Baptist (1664-1724), and there are many entries like that. Besides, the term Regni Poloniae yields 3550 Google hits, while the term Regnum Poloniae only 490. greg park avenue (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Regni" can be singular genitive possessive of "Regnum" or it can be plural nominative of "Regnum" (i.e., plural, Kingdoms). "Regni" is still possessive in your example, it's part of a modifier phrase for what follows—in more natural word order:
Nova et exacta tabula Regni Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae", that is "A new and complete map of the Kingdom of Poland and of the Great Duchy [also possessive genitive] of Lithuania." It's nomenclature for maps, and it's outnumbering the proper nominative form in your Google search. Google doesn't know Latin grammer. :-) —PētersV (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's original research. There are many examples of regni in Latin names of old as a title without prefix of. See here], from Andreas Cellarius: In 1652 the Amsterdam publisher Gillis Jansz Valckenier printed his description of Poland, entitled Regni Poloniae. Wanna more? greg park avenue (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just on the other example, Polonia and Helvetia are place names, Polonica and Helvetica are both adjectives. Helvetica feels like a noun because we're used to it as the name of a type face. —PētersV (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Republic or the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Respublica sive Corona Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae (Republic or Crown of the Polish Kingdom and (Grand Ducal Crown) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) i think this name is similar to true one. Poland since XIV century was very romanized. Polish political thinkers very often cited ancient Roman writers in their political works. Power of Polish kings was relatively weak so Polish gentry very willingly compared themselves to Roman Republic equites. First time term Republic for describing Crown of the Polish Kingdom was used just in 1358 by Maćko Borkowic. In 1465 Polish political writer Jan Ostroróg wrote Monumentum de rei publicae ordinationem, describing Polish Kingdom as republic. In 1551 Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski issued De Republica emendanda. In XVIII century constitutions of Polish Sejm contained phrase: Król i Rzeczpospolita (King and the Republic) as acting legal entities.

Respublica sive Corona Regni Poloniae et Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae (Republic or the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania) Grammar diffrerence implies that Respublica is linked only with Poland and Lithuania is diffrent state. Mathiasrex (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, the "Republic or Crown" of the Kingdom of Poland above refers only to Poland, while in the "Most Serene...", republic (or equally, commonwealth) refers to both Poland and Lithuania. —PētersV (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Najjaśniejsza Rzeczpospolita (Serenissima Respublica or Most Serene Republic) is common phrase for Republic or the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania derived per analogiam from Venetian Serenissima but proper name for both Poland and Lithuania is Republic or the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Term Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth appeared only in XX century per analogiam to United Kingdom. Mathiasrex (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Res Publica sive [siue] Corona Regini Poloniae et Magnus Ducatus Lithuaniae If this is the "republic or the crown" version (Latin), that part only applies to Poland. Only when we get to Serenissima Res Publica Coronae Polonicae Magni Ducatusque Lithuaniae does the term republic/commonwealth extend to Lithuania as well as to (original) Poland—I take it from yours that "Serenissima" is more an affectation than "official" in terms of naming. And the "or" part has disappeared. I think we're pretty much in agreement here. Point taken on Venetian influence in central/eastern Europe, especially given their territorial ambitions. Can you put the terms (the three original discussed) into chronological order? —PētersV (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, User Mathiasrex. "Serenissima" applied only to the king Stanislaw Poniatowski as his nickname meaning most serene or sleepy. I have already provided that reference above. Not my fault they called later the repuplic like that. Poles have this thing for being sarcastic. Recent example is Czwarta Kaczorowa meaning "IV Ducky Rzeczpospolita" after Lech Kaczynski, nickname Duck or Kaczor, tried to suspend democracy in 2005 for one year, until he as he expressed himself fix everything. Same as Wojciech Jaruzelski tried in 1981 give me 9 months time and I fix everything. greg park avenue (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative division of Republic or the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania territories after partitions

I would still like to remind those contributing here that the subject of the question is not the title, but the scope of the article and the lack of authoritative English language sources that suggest these territories ever were a subject/s of study worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania" yields 29 valid hits in English language on Google out of 55, and since the king of Poland was also the Grand Duke of Lithuania, it's the most exact translation from Latin "Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae", which a title has many valid alternatives regarding the second part like "Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae", without "et". So what about Administrative division of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania? The name of the article Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should be changed accordingly to the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but it's the featured article, so I don't touch it right now. There many names of countries in English Wikipedia with "and" in the middle, for example: Papua and New Guinea or Trinidad and Tobago. Sounds a bell? greg park avenue (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You still forget "fomer".--Lokyz (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Former" is OK with me and even better than some one time commonwealths or part time republics in the meantime during partitions. greg park avenue (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Apparently no consensus to change the title of the article to more proper one, except maybe "after" to "during" - anyone can do it without requesting RM procedure I guess. Few remarks: The name Most Serene Republic or the commonwealth of some sleepy towns as San Marino relates to the reign of the last Polish king Stanislaw August Poniatowski (1764-1795), not to the kindoms ruled previously by personalities such as the conqueror from Vienna John III Sobieski. After 1569 and before 1764, the country was called Regni Poloniae etc, the parliament was a joke because of Liberum Veto. Kings ruled the country, not parliament, they were just elected, as the Popes are by some enclave - no matter how long it takes, one must be elected - by a parliament, which was no good for nothing else. And as long as kings were kings, the country was strong. Poniatowski became the first and last shithead and instead of taking care of the country he took care of collecting arts leaving public affairs to the parliament, and liberating liberum veto, while the kingdom became a shitty republic, shitty, because they ain't got even a constitution. Even I am surprised it took as many as 33 years to take this Titinic (as for European standards) called Regni Poloniae, down to founder. James Cameron's took only two hours. Who signed all those three partition acts if not the parliament? If the liberum veto was still in use, those shameful acts would never take place. Am I right or wrong? I don't think anyone can challenge that. Do you think you can handle this? greg park avenue (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So per WP:UE We should stick to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth I think.--Lokyz (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, especially regarding historical names. They always sound better in English. greg park avenue (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)