Talk:Polish–Lithuanian union

Untitled

The following items are not acts that directly affected the relationship between Poland and Lithuania, so I'll remove them from the article.

• 1795 - Third Partition of Poland
• February 16, 1918 - Lithuania declares independence

Appleseed 17:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this be at lowercase 'Polish-Lithuanian union - since there was never an 'offical' Union until PLC?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

Is the current name of article shouldn't be List of Lithuanian-Polish agreements or similar? M.K. (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent page move

Please discuss controversial move proposals on talk page first or start WP:RM procedure. Renata (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know this one is also controversial. I just made an exact translation of the title used commonly in Polish textbooks: Zjednoczenie Królestwa Polskiego i Litwy. Also, it nicely corresponds to similar titles commonly used in English language in reference to related issues such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. greg park avenue (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough the correct translation of the provided Polish term should be Union between Polish Kingdom and Lithuania. It does also not correspond with the United Kingdom - simply because Lithuania except short period under rule of Mindaugas and attempted corronation by Vytautas up until 1795 was not a kingdom even for a single day, it was Grand Duchy. So much of the United Kingdom.--Lokyz (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wales and Northern Ireland were also never a kingdom, still they belong to the United Kingdom or to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The word between wasn't there. Such word means rather an enforced union, see search on Google Union between the States it relates mostly to the War between the States. greg park avenue (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania deserves an article separate from this. This is about a political union, not a state. The United Kingdom is a later version of the Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569). Do note that both articles have different articles on pl wiki: pl:Unia polsko-litewska and pl:Zjednoczone Królestwo Polskie.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the historian, man. Better you than me. Just trying to help to find better title. The current one sucks, remains me of UEFA. No POV pushing in mind. greg park avenue (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no common united/joint state of Poland and Lithuania prior the Union of Lublin and establishment of PLC (and the later was also more confederation of two states, than a unitary state). And Lithuania did not belong to United Kingdom either. Cheers.--Lokyz (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Such a name was not widely used. There was a Polish-Lithuanian union, but not a United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (just a United Kingdom of Poland).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, not widely used on internet, just because some wise guy inserted Union to Polish Wikipedia, and now everyone is pasting this title everywhere forgetting textbooks. I just don't want to repeat this mistake in English Wikipedia; even in English internet there are more entries including united [1], at least some guys think while writing, instead of pasting in thoughtlessly the entries from Wikipedia. Think about it, a union which survived more then five centuries as united one, is no more a union. The word union (związek) is good to describe entities as labor unions or marriagies or the European Union which is even less united than the United Nations or some season republics as Soviet Union; the word united (zjednoczone) describes historical entities as the United States, which are bound to survive, not to be around just for a while, created to solve some temporary or economical problems. And the United Kingdom of Poland sounds too good to me, it could be used as a shortcut, but the full title supposed to include Lithuania too, or you want to face another Polish - Lithuanian clash on Wikipedia. And screw the internet sources at this time, we are making internet not suck, or who? greg park avenue (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any clashes here, do you Piotrus?--Lokyz (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case if someone would accuse me of original research, I paste here (manually) two quotes from English encyclopedias from before internet (found under the title Poland):

1. The World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1974: Queen Jadwiga (1370-1399) married Władysław Jagiełło, duke of Lithuania, in the late 1300'. This marriage established Jagiellonian dynasty and united Lithuania and Poland in federal union. To break up this union, the Teutonic Knights declared war on Poland, Poland defeated them in 1410, and took most of ther land. In 1569, Lithuania and Poland were united under one king and parliament.

2. Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, copyright 1986: In 1569 Sigismund II Augustus united the two realms of Poland and Lithuania. (...) In 1772, the treaty of partition was concluded at Saint Petersburg (now Leningrad). (...) The country was officially termed the Polish Commonwealth. Consent of the Sejm to the treaty was obtained largely by bribery. (which lasted until 1791 - note by greg)

Shame, ain't got no Polish textbooks, but I strongly urge Polish editors to look at them first, before editing Wikipedia articles on historical subjects. greg park avenue (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time: let me highlight the important sentences for you in the sources provided here :

1. Jagiellonian dynasty, federal union (rather personal union really). Otherwise this source is a bit funny, to say the least. Why I do think so, you can read here Union of Krewo and Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War. Now during PLC times - Lithuania and Poland were united under one king and parliament - it would be correct to say under one monarch - King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, but it should be noted, that armies, treasuries, law systems and even foreign relations remained separate.
2. . I will not comment on this as it is halfway right, halfay not: the united thing was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or Res Publica of Both Nations. No United Kingdom on the sight. Please reread the provided links, and ask if you have further questions.

Reading some books is good, the same applies to you dear greg. All the articles I've put links to above, have references section, there is a list of good books provided. Please read them if you're interested in the subject.--Lokyz (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lokyz, after carefully reading your text and the material to which links you have so kindly provided, and taking in account my findings from old books I pasted manually above, I think I am ready to summarize my and yours findings, and they may be not very good news for some editors. First, I think, you're completely right about the correct translation of the word Rzeczpospolita. It doesn't mean "commonwealth", it means "res-publica" and nothing else. Even Henryk Sienkiewicz never used the idiom Rzeczpospolita Polski i Litwy or Rzeczpospolita polsko-litewska. He evidently used it as a term to describe a political system, not a union of nations. Actually, I also never heard the term "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" until recently, only "United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania" or something like that. Now, I think the title of the article Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth may be completely wrong, at least in relation to the time frame described in it. It looks as the term commonwealth was introduced first time in 1772, I guess, see the text above. But it might be not clear to everyone, so let me summarize our findings:

• 1385 - Establishment of the Polish-Lithuania Union Union of Krewo
• 1569 - Establishment of the United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, shortcut United Kingdom of Poland Union of Lublin
• 1772 - Abolishment of UKPL and establishment of Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, shortcut Polish Commonwealth First Partition of Poland
• 1791 - Abolishment of PLC Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791

What do you think?

PS. At this time I don't object to the correct name of this article, because it looks that union by marriage which makes bigger part of it (1385-1569) doesn't contradict calling the unity of both nations based on it as a union. greg park avenue (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think, that you're doing an WP:OR here, since there was no United Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (official Polish name was Rzeczpospolita Obojgo Narodow). And Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is well established name in English sources (see WP:UE). As for union - there was a series of Unions, that this article represents, not a single Union.--Lokyz (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Polish Wikipedia the name Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów: Jest to nazwa ahistoryczna, wprowadzona i upowszechniona przez prace publicystyczne Pawła Jasienicy w XX wieku - it's an ahistorical name introduced and advertised by an amateur historian Paweł Jasienica in XX century. Not much of a source. greg park avenue (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rzeczpospolita Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego does not sound like United Kingdom either. And Polish wikipedia does not cite source for the statement.--Lokyz (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Go to pl:Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów. Reference [1]. The other name is unreferenced, but take a look at names in other languages. Nothing even remotely resembles the ones you have provided. greg park avenue (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Poland–Lithuania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)