Talk:Partitions of Poland/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Poland partitions maps

Silesia should be gray, not lime green, since Prussia had already controlled it for three decades before the First Partition of Poland. Also, more of Hungary in the First Partition map should be lime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.174.249.172 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. john k 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons and liberals, oh my!

I don't know enough about this subject to make amendments myself with sufficient confidence. However, two points spring out at me from the article as it stands:

The run-up to the second partition contains the historical weasel-word 'inevitable', in a somewhat cryptic statement about freemasonry. The cited source for this 'Freemasonry Watch', which strikes me as a not-altogether-neutral reference. If freemasonry really did play a significant role, shouldn't this be better explained? If it didn't, can the reference be abandoned altogether?

Secondly, there seems little mention of the reasonably common historical argument that Poland was attacked not (only) because it was historically weak, but because Stanislaw Poniatowski showed strong signs of turning it around at last. I'm aware this view is debateable, but I'd consider it a deal more relevant than freemasonry. AlexTiefling 13:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I'm now researching this topic, and hope to update the article fairly soon. AlexTiefling 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth - Poland

Recently Irpen has changed all the instances of the usage of the word Poland to Commonwealth. At the same time I've been always taught that the Commonwealth ceased to exist with the signing of the May Constitution that merged both parts of the Commonwealth into one kingdom. So, isn't it factually inaccurate to refer to the Commonwealth that was no longer in existence in the times of the last partitions? Halibutt 07:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you look carefully? I only changed for the first partitions. While at it, please provide references for the requested information. --Irpen 07:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm only asking, Irpen, no need to get upset. //Halibutt 13:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If this was a question, then I didn't get it. You made a statement that post-May constitution country should be called Poland (which was not disputed by my edits). You also made a statement that I have changed all the instances of the usage, which is simply not true. I only changed for the parts of the article when the usage of the term is correct as per your own assertion. In the end you asked why I did something that I didn't do. So what were you asking?
And then Molobo without wasting any more time reverted all my edits, that also included some good-faith requests for citations of the kind of info that should be very non-obscure if it is true and a rephrasing of misleading phrase which before my change could have been understood that the loss of 4 million of population was not through a transfer of land at which they lived but through a physical destruction of such a 4 million people. --Irpen 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those changes - I always thought that Poland was rather misleading when used to refer to PLC (just as referring to UK as England or SU as Russia - it was just the most important province of a larger entity, after all). After May Const., as Halibutt points out, a case for Poland being an official name is much better, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"

User:Ghirlandajo claims that the Soviet and German partition of Poland in 1939 is my original research as his justification for removing an image of Germans and Russians fraternizing during WWII. I don't understand, then, why he wouldn't first remove the actual text of the article that plainly describes the Fourth Partition as such. For the record, however, here are some references. Appleseed (Talk) 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On Russia's rights to acquired lands

I wonder why the fact that the lands recieved by Russia in the first partition of Poland, as well as in 1939 were originally Russian lands, taken by Poland from Russia by various means after the X-XI century is not mentioned in the article? With respect, Kosoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.152.153 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Because:
  1. Those were Rusin, not Russian lands
  2. They were not taken by Poland from Russia, but by Lithuania during fights mostly with Tatars
Hope that helps. cheers Szopen 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

as can be seen clearly from this map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Kievan_Rus_en.jpg, the borders of the ancient rus stretch quite far into the west. the ancient russians (are you refering to them as rusins, or are you refering to modern rusins?) as you no doubt know, are now split into modern russians, ukrainians and belorussians. Also, I would like to note that your points contradict each other - kinda like "We never been there" and "We're not agressors, they came first". With respect, Kosoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.152.153 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, exactly. Rusins splitted into Russians, Ukrainians etc. Then suddenly Russians started to claim some lands which were not Russian, but Rusin, basing on that few hundreds ago they were all part of one ethinc group. Well, If you would want follow that logic, Poles and Russians some centuries ago were all Slavs. Why then Poles could not claim some distant lands, which were never Polish, basing on the fact that they were Slavic? Do you see the absurd of this now? The lands were Rusin; Rusins split into Ukrainians, Belarussians and Russians; but Russians tried to claim all the heritage.
As for contradiction, well, it's because of sloppy editing. I merely pointed that Poland didn't conquer this lands (with arguable exception of Red Rus) by but Lithuania (and some Lithuanian editors would of course then told you about how this "conquest" looked, while some Belarussian editors will maybe try to prove, that this Lithuanians were in fact Belarussians, hence Rusins. Szopen 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The political centre of the Kievan Rus moved from Kiev to Vladimir, and than to Moskow. If the western lands weren't lost to Poland for so long, western russians would not become their own ethnicities. Or perhaps you think that Poland had more rights to own Kiev and Minsk than the ansestors of those who lived there for hundreds of years, even before Kievan Rus was consolidated into a medieval super-power? In neither russian nor ukraininan historiography the ancient russians are never called rusins. The truth of the matter is that Russo-Polish relations over the ages have been very complicated, with numerous atrocities commited, even recently, by both participants - Russian NKVD, for example, executed polish officers in Katyn, while polish military massacred Soviet POW's (up to 60 thousand killed) after the Polish-Soviet War in 1920s. All those political issues make it hard to have an unbiased opinion, based on proved facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.152.153 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, that's why it's hard to argue with some of our Russian brethren. Polish military _did not_ massacre 60 thousand Soviet PoW - it's a fairy tale created by Russian nationalist specifically to counter Katyn issue. If you are interested in the discussion, please see the Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) article. Second, I do not claim that Poland had more rights to Kiev than Russia - I claim that Russia had no real right to Kiev. Kiev was and is Ukrainian, not Russian, no matter how hard Russians would try to pretend Ukrainians are just misguided Russians. If you really, really want, you can insert an NPOV statement such as "in official Russian statements the partitions were considered reclaiming ancient Russian lands..." however only if you can find such statements from contemporary times (it should be easy, I, being no Russian, can think immedietely about one) and if you will keep it clearly as presentation of official Russian justification for partitions, not as holy truth. Szopen 07:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a Russian and a Ukrainian by blood, I am a strong advocate for unity and cooperation of all eastern slavic people. Kiev became Ukrainian after it was liberated from Poland. I do not think that Ukrainians are misguided Russians, with polonized and thus corrupt language. All three branches of eastern slavs sprung from the same root. Instead of "in official Russian... etc. what do you think of "while Austria and Prussia gained Polish territory, Russia acquired lands that belonged to Kievan Rus in the past"? With respect, Kosoi.
PS. Maybe you are not aware of that fact that Ukrainians refered to themselves as "rus'kiy" until mid-XIX century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.152.63 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be a strong advocate of pan-slavism. That doesn't mean Wikipedia has to reflect that view. WP:NPOV is worthwhile reading. AlexTiefling 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are most certainly right; however, I think that adding "while Austria and Prussia gained Polish territory, Russia acquired lands that belonged to Kievan Rus in the past" is NPOV, since it gives no opinions, only easily verifiable facts. With respect, Kosoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.152.63 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with following WP:V and WP:RS: can you provide a reliable reference that all of the lands Russia acquired belonged to the Kievan Rus? You may have some difficulty in arguing that Warsaw was Kievan... PS. Please consider registering, it's quick, easy, and will give you access to better editing tools.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Comparing the map of the first partition of Poland http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_1.png and the map of Kievan Rus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Kievan_Rus_en.jpg it easy to see that such cities (towns?) as Polotsk and Vitebsk, that were re-possessed by Russia, were cities in Kievan Rus, just like Smolensk and Kiev that were liberated from the commonwealth earlier.
Let's take a look at the second partition. The map of Kievan Rus shows us that the western-most Rus city of the time was Peremyshl - but those lands are controlled by Austria, while Russia regained control of Minsk, which is consirably to the east.
The third partition is an exception - but if look carefully, my point was only about the first and the last (1939) partitions of Poland. And even during the third partition, the land taken by Russia was mostly Lithuanian, not Polish.
During the 1939 partition Soviet Union repossed those same ancient lands, but including Lvov this time; those lands were conquered by the poles in 1920-1921.
I hope you don't consider comparing ceveral maps, available at wikipedia, as original research. With respect, Kosoi.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.152.63 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps on Wikipedia are not original research, however per our policy of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references you should look for some other sources. I certainly agree that much of territory of PLC and later, SPR, was inhabited by many Ruthenians (later, Ukrainians and Belarusians), and is now part of their independent states. I however find it dubious that significant part of those lands were Russian (i.e. that Russia had any more right to them then Poland), and that at any point it was acting with the intention to 'liberate' anyone. My sources for you are: Review of Jaroslaw Pelenski. The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus'. East European Monographs, No. 337. Boulder, Col.: Columbia University Press, 1998, Kievan Rus' and Mongol Periods. Excerpted from Russia: A Country Study, Glenn E. Curtis, ed. (Washington, DC: Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, 1996) and The Russo-Polish Historical Confrontation By Andrzej Nowak, Sarmatian Review, 1/97. Some highlights: note that there are attempts of differing polities to legitimize themselves by claiming succession from Kievan Rus and that post-1991 authors in Russia and Ukraine have mainly reverted to exclusively nationalistic interpretations of the problem. Then most historians agree that Kievan Rus' was not a homogeneous political, cultural, or ethnic entity and Kievan Rus' splintered into many principalities and several large regional centers. The inhabitants of those regional centers then evolved into three nationalities: Ukrainians in the southeast and southwest, Belorussians in the northwest, and Russians in the north and northeast; thus Russians are not 'older' the Ukrainians or Belorussians, they all have the same ancestry. Finally, Catherine took the whole of Lithuania, Belarus, and most of Ukrainian lands. Politically, however, it was only a coincidence [...] that the territories acquired by Russia had been at one time part of the Kievan Rus. It did not occur to Catherine to rationalize her policy of expansion by arguments of national unity. All subsequent justifications, made either by the conservative Russian Slavophiles or by the liberals, merely reveal a bad conscience about the crimes committed by their ancestors; and also the struggle between Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian state with the historical contest between France and Germany for the control of Burgundy, Lorraine, Holland and Belgium. Just as the Dutchmen and Lorrainers were neither French nor German, so were Ukrainians and Belarusians neither Poles nor Russians. Thus attemps to portray the Russian partitions as some kind of liberations or reunifications are quite erroneus. Please read the above three articles before replying, and if you disagree with them, please present scholarly research that contradicts them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"thus Russians are not 'older' the Ukrainians or Belorussians, they all have the same ancestry" - unfortunately, you are not reading my posts from above, but going with your stereotype of a Russian nationalist. I never claimed that Russians are somehow "older" or in any way "better" than Ukrainians or Belorussians. However, while Russia can claim ansestry from Kievan Rus (just like Ukraine and Belarus), Poland can't, thus Russia had more rights (however small, still more than zero) than Poland to those lands. Certainly, Kievan Rus was multi-ethnic, but I doubt that poles or mazovians ever made up a significant proportion of it's population. With respect, Kosoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.150.107 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not under any streotypes. And who has more rights to those territories - other then their inhabitants - is really a rather pointless debates, especially as allegiances of local population varied in time. Bohdan Khmelnytsky vs. Symon Petlura, Chuguev Uprising and Bulavin Rebellion vs. Kosiński Uprising and Nalyvaiko Uprising, polonization vs. russification and sovietization. The lands were inhabited by many people, who could also claim they had rights to them: "Long before the organization of Kievan Rus', Iranian and other peoples lived in the area of present-day Ukraine. The best known of those groups was the nomadic Scythians, who occupied the region from about 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. and whose skill in warfare and horsemanship is legendary. Between A.D. 100 and A.D. 900, Goths and nomadic Huns, Avars, and Magyars passed through the region in their migrations." Having common ancestry does not mean much, otherwise Finland would still be a happy part of the Swedish Empire, or all Slavs would live happiply in a Pan-Slavic state :) Now don't get me wrong: I am not saying Russia cannot claim ancestry from Kievan Rus, but as I showed you in the quote about Catherine above, regaining ancestral lands - than inhabited by a different nation and culture - was far, far back to the simple policy of imperialist expantion, both to Catherine and to Stalin.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By your logic Russia than had no claim to Sweden in 1700, or to any other succesful agressor? The lands taken by Poland in 1920-1921 have been a part of Russia for decades non-stop (or for centuries on and off) - in 1939 Stalin took them back. I think that comparing casualties for the Germans and the Soviets during that war illustrates the will of the population of eastern provinces very clearly. Anyways, I find this disscussion rather fruitless. I understand that in Poland people prefer to talk about the partition of Poland by Germany and USSR over the partition of Czechoslovakia by Germany and Poland a year earlier, or about how Poland was betrayed by the west over how polish government did everything in their power to destroy a defencive alliance between France and the USSR, or about Polish valor in combat over the cowardice of polish leaders during that war. It is natural. But that is not subject of history, but of historiography. In my opinion, the biggest Polish tragedy is their leaders. Remember what Churchill said? With respect, Kosoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.148.124 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you fail to cite any references for your arguments, this is really going nowhere, and I am not going to engage in POV games on talk. As for the leaders - well, I think we had quite good leaders. Although modern politicians are really competeting for the 'worst ever' award in most contemporary countries, Poland included...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So-Called Polish Partitions

Russian annexation of "Polish" territory was not only legal because of the Sejm's approval, but it was philosophically justified. In all but one of the Malorussian and Belorussian provinces annexed from Poland, the majority of the population was either Malorussian or Belorussian:

http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php

Podolia: 81% Malorussian; 12% Jew; 3% Russian; 2.3% Polish

Kiev: 79% Malorussian; 12% Jew; 6% Russian; 2% Polish

Volhynia: 70% Malorussian; 13% Jew; 6% Polish; 3.4% Russian;

Mohilev: 82% Belorussian; 12% Jew; 3.4% Russian; 1% Polish

Minsk: 76% Belorussian; 16% Jew; 4% Russian; 3% Polish

Vitebsk: 53% Belorussian; 13% Russian; 11.6% Jew; 3.3% Polish

Grodno: 44% Belorussian; 22.6% Malorussian; 17.3% Jew; 10% Polish; 4.6% Russian;

Vilnius: 56% Belorussian, 17.5% Lithuanian, 12.7% Jew; 8% Polish

Kowno: 65% Lithuanian, 14% Jew; 9% Polish; 5% Belorussian; 2.5% Russian
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.139.235 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how ethnic population is relevant here. Anyway, even from your data it's obvious that Russians made below 3% in most of these provinces. --Lysy talk 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You clearly have problems with reading comprehension. Velikorusskiye, Malorusskiye, and Belorusskiye together composed the Russan category in the 1897 Russian census.

The 1897 census clearly showed Malorussians and Belorussians were a majority in every single province except for Kaunus. What you call "Polish Partitions" was in fact Russian territory from 862 until the 14th century stolen by Lithuanians and Poles. These territories above are indisputably Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Lithuanian territory because of the simple fact that they belong to the separate states of each of these groups. In no way are any of the lands above Polish -- neither historically nor demographically. Historically, they belonged to the ancient Russian state from 862 until 14th century and were finally recovered from the Lithuanians and Polish in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.139.235 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I know that Russian nationalists claim that Belarusians and Ukrainians are just a different kind of Russians, but how is this relevant here ? --Lysytalk 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Conveniently, Polish nationalists would like to claim that Ukrainians are different from "Ruthenians" in order to try and mask the presence of ethnic minorities in the interwar period. Polish nationalists would also like to say Belorussian linguistic group was different from the "Local" linguistic group in the 1931 census. Polish nationalists also deliberately undercounted Ukrainians and Belorussians who numbered 6 million in 1931 even though there were 7 million Uniates and Orthodox Christians.

You call these the "Polish Partitions" even though the demographics above clearly show that Poles were a small minority in each Malorussian and Belorussian guberniia. The claim that Poland has a right to the territories it went after in 1920-21 as a result of "Polish Partitions" would be like saying Turkey has a right to rule Irak, Syria, the Balkans, the Caucusus,and all of North Africa. This depiction of a failed empire like Poland as some sort of victim oppressed by big powers is wholly dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.128.212 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If anybody could write an article on Malorussia/Malorussians, it would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you appreciate a link to Little Russia/Little Russians instead ? :-) Evv 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, I now created appopriate redirects.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"This depiction of a failed empire like Poland as some sort of victim oppressed by big powers is wholly dishonest" - I could not have had worded this better myself, and I agree all the way. Unfortunately, many polish people are russophobic, heavily biased against most things soviet and russian. In such a mind, any russian/soviet claim would be invalid by the sole virtue of being russian/soviet. A simple mechanizm is used - vilify Russia/USSR as much as possible while whitewashing Polish history - and voila. Considering the effects of Cold War propaganda, innumerous campaigns designed by professionals to smear USSR with s..t as much as possible, it is understandable why biased polish claimes are seldom contested by wikipedia public. Since Russian/Soviet political weight was many times that of Poland, Russian/Soviet history on wiki is done by many contributors, and is if anything, slightly biased against Russia. On the other hand, Polish history on wiki was written mostly by Poles, and since I'm sure it is less interesting (visited less frequently), it contains heavy pro-Polish bias. With respect, Ko Soi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.34.85 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Objectiveness?

The article is filled with loaded words with no reference. "Dared to", "Abused", "Took great care". It makes the article look as if written by nationalist poles, rather than neutral writers. I have slapped a template onto the article to mark this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.24.29.51 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Of the three usages cited, only "dared to" seems POV to me. The word "abused" does not appear at all. Both references to "abuses" relate to constitutional abuses, which are not a POV invention, but a clearly discernible feature of most constitutional law of any complexity. And saying that Frederick the Great took care of his new subjects is hardly a Polish nationalist POV, and is (to the best of my reasonable knowledge of the subject) accurate. Frederick did not wish to see peasants/serfs flocking over the border back into Poland, as was the case in Russia. Accordingly, he offered his new subjects a more competitive standard of living, and suffered far fewer defections. The article, although woefully incomplete, seems to present with reasonable clarity the documented historical facts of the division of the territories of the Polish crown among its neighbours. The introductory section could perhaps be a little more coolly analytical about the weakness of the Commonwealth in the early part of Stanislaw II's reign, but it's not inaccurate as such. I don't think the article needed a POV tag slapped on it. AlexTiefling 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be a slight slant towards the Polish viewpoint, such as the word "perpetrated", and the way "(unable to resist)" is inserted in to the beginning. Grindl (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name misleads

Article name is misleading, because “Poland” as such appeared for very short period during constitution adaptation, and defeat of its supporters (18 c. context). Plus article should be split – because now there is partition of 18 c. and so called partitions, during later years, discribing quite diffrent states. M.K. 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

About a year ago, some of us proposed re-titling the article to "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Unfortunately, like some other sensible suggestions, this got voted down. From this stems also the continued presence, in the same article, of the Partitions of Poland, properly termed.logologist|Talk 23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I quickly review old poll. As I understood main reason was not to rename due to "more popular" term? Still I am convinced that section of 20c. and similar partitions should go to other article, leaving only 3 well know partitions here. M.K. 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment section

The claims about Poles assisting revolution in 19th century Europe seem to rest on a single quote from a very out-dated history book. The description of the Holy Alliance as tyrannical is not backed up, nor the claim that Poles had shied away from international politics beforehand. The whole section reads as being highly biased towards a depiction of 19th century Poles as romantic revolutionary heroes. (The Holy Alliance was oppressive - don't get me wrong. The article merely overstates the case without evidence.) AlexTiefling 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Care to rephrase that then ? The era indeed coincided with romanticism but the point is that unlike before, many of the Polish elites (intellectuals, military commanders, political activists etc.) emigrated to other countries during the partitions and Polish culture flourished abroad. First half of 19th century was revolutionary indeed and full of various freedom-fighting efforts in many countries, but the later times were probably better characterised by intellectual developments. Why do you think that depicting the early 19th century Poles as romantic revolutionary heroes is biased ? Were they not ? --Lysytalk 16:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The para needs rephrasing for more NPOV tone, but it is basically correct. Unitl the time of positivism in Poland (late 19th century), Poles not only participated in several uprisings in Poland itself but took part in most 'freedom fights' anywhere in Europe: Polish legions (Napoleonic period) is a good example, Polish pariticipation in the Spring of Nations (particulary Hungarian Revolution (1848)) comes to mind, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you try to do this ? --Lysytalk 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot if I get time. One question though - don't incidents like the Siege of Vienna indicate that Poles were active on the international stage well before partition? I'm not sure the romantic image of the Polish hero was entirely new. AlexTiefling 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Working on it. This article needs expanansion, copyedit and inline references...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that Vienna was bordering on the Polish "sphere of interests" at that time. (BTW: Battle of Vienna, not Siege of Vienna). The Poles were afraid that the Turks would attack Kraków or Lwów, therefore they offered their support to the Austrians. While a prominent victory, this was a military operation, that had later been exploited as a romantic legend, in 19th century exactly. But generally, I believe Poles remained unknown other than to their immediate neighbours in Central and Eastern Europe until the partitions. --Lysytalk 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To call Napoleonic Polish legions pan-European freedom-fighters that's quite a stretch. Just a few quotes from the Polish Legions article:

However the Poles could not choose all their fights, and their morale became weaker when instead of being sent against the partitioners of Poland they were used by the French to put down uprisings (like that in the Papal States)

Eventually in 1802 the legions (5,280 strong) were sent to Haiti to put down the Haitian Revolution (on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola, known then as French West Indies or Santo Domingo).

During the Peninsular War in Spain Polish forces, rebuilt to an about 6,000 strong contingent and now known as the Vistula Legion[3] gained fame at the Saragossa (I'm hoping you will agree, that this war wasn't exactly "liberation" campaign either).

So it would be nice if mythological narratives weren't represented as historical facts here in Wiki, if that's not too much too ask. M0RD00R 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, does French Revolution ring a bell ? The French were synonymous with revolutionary throughout Europe then, not only for Poles. --Lysytalk 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And just to stress the points about 'white and black', one may want to look at Revolt in the Vendée, Chouan, or the better known events of the Reign of Terror... :) But of course, news of them were supressed in France and thus mostly unknown in Poland, where France was seen as 'the light in the dark'. Needless to say, Napoleon saw Poles as little more then cannon fodder, but we would be getting off topic here... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, because of the partitions Poles became actively involved in freedom-fighting abroad, Józef Bem, Tadeusz Kościuszko are probably among the best known of them but there were more. --Lysytalk 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, we should add Kościuszko and Kazimierz Pułaski participation on the American War of Independence there, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As the fragment you quote shows, the Legions preffered to fought for, not against, indepenence - although they didn't always had a choice, where they couldn't, rates of desertion and dissention were high. The soldiers and officers wanted to fight for freedom and got their chance often enough. Of course, nothing is always purely white and black, but from the Polish perspective, Napoleon was a hero liberating Europe from absolutist monarchies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
All good points. In discussing international revolutionary politics in the late 18th century, I think it's worth recalling that Poland itself was well-regarded for the comparative good order of its internal reforms (under Poniatowski) - a fact that enhanced the reputation of Polish freedom-fighters abroad, and also meant that the partitioning powers were not looked on particularly favourably by others. The image of Napoleon as the romantic liberator from opression was one which came and went during the course of his campaigns - in Britain, Napoleon was generally depicted as the tyrant, rather than his enemies. Elsewhere, the situation varied.
I still don't think 'tyrannical' is the best description of the Holy Alliance. 'Illiberal and unpopular' would be nearer the mark, and easier to justify from sources. (I don't doubt that many people saw it as tyrannical - I'm just striving for NPOV.) AlexTiefling 09:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory of the territory incorporated into Russian Empire. The medieval united Russian state Kievan Rus

The territory incorporated into Russian Empire was a part of the medieval Kievan Rus, and after the disintegration of this united russian state (in the middle of 12th. century) belonged to the Russian princedoms of Galich, Volhynia, Kiev, Polotsk, Lutsk, Terebovl, Turov-Pinsk etc. The majority of these principalities have been ruined during the Tatar-Mongol invasion in the middle of 13th. century. Some territories in Dniepr region and Black Sea Coast for long years lost Russian settled population and became so-called Wild Steppe, f.e. territory of the princedom of Pereyaslavl. After the Tatar-Mongol invasion these territories become object of expansion of the Polish kingdom and the Lithuanian princedom. For example, in first half of 14th century Kiev, Dniepr region, also the region between the rivers Pripyats and West Dvinas are captured by Lithuania, and in 1352 the Galich-Volyn princedom was divided by Poland and Lithuania. In 1569, according to Lublin Union, the majority of the Russian territories possessed by Lithuania, passed to the Polish crown. The Serfdom and Catholicism extended in these territories . The local aristocracy incorporated into Polish aristocracy. Cultural, language and religious break between the supreme and lowest layers of a society arised. The combination of social, language, religious and cultural oppression leads to to destructive popular uprisings of the middle of 17th century, which the Polish-Lithuanian state could not recover from.(ref: Sergey Solovyov, "History of Russia from the Earliest Times", vol.3-5, ISBN 5-17-002142-9) Ben-Velvel 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite amusing, but incorrect. Warsaw or Vilnius, cities incorporated into the Empire, were never part of the Kievan Rus.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already corrected, "the significant part of the territoty" instead of "the territory" Ben-Velvel 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further problems with the above text:

  • use adjective Russian to refer to entities that were East Slavic / Ruthenian (see leads of Kievan Rus or Halych-Volhynia or others, for example
Ruthenian is the latin form for a word Russian. As well as Polonian for a word Polish. Actually in 11-17 centuries this adjective had the written form Руский both in Kiev, and in Vladimir-Suzdal-Moscow.Ben-Velvel 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Serfdom and Catholicism extended in these territories". The serfdom was common all across Europe, and it was (slightly...) worse in Muscovy/Russian territories then in Poland. While Catholicism spread, missionary activities were much less intence in the tolerant Commonwealth then in the Western Europe (or, again, compared to Muscovy/Russian, where anything other then Orthdox practice was strictly forbidden).
  • the last sentences are not very accurate, you could say this about any other country.
It seems I wrote you already, that the serfdom come to Moskow Rus later, than to Poland. In Poland the Setfdom entered in 14 century, in Lithuania by the middle of 16 centuries, in Muscovy in the beginning of 17 centuries. And uprisings of the middle of 17 centuries in the Polish-Lithuanian state are related to the Polish-Lithuanian Serfdom, not to Moscow... By the way I have already removed the phrase about Serfdom.Ben-Velvel 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree on century old sources. And removing para from James Wycliffe Headlam 1899 book will be a good start towards right direction. M0RD00R 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sergey Solovyov is the respectable scientist, the academic source. Ben-Velvel 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
His works reflect the bias and level of knowledge prevalent in his time. Let's use modern, up to date sources, shall we? There is no shortage of them. Balcer 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the stubborn attempts to insert that "prehistory" section is an attempt to justify the seizure of those lands, by the Russian Empire at least. As such, I am against this in the current form. However, it is a basic fact that each of the three partitionining states did advance, in various forms, arguments that attempted to justify their territorial expansion. In the case of Russia, one justification was the "recovery of the lands of Kievan Rus". If we have a section somewhere to describe what justifications for the partition were advanced, that would actually be quite useful, and the content of the "prehistory" section could go there. Nevertheless, we should not just give the arguments of the partitioners unquestioningly, but critique them appropriately. Balcer 16:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The justification or condemnation is already political question and POV. This article is not the newspaper article. I write about objective historic facts and you should not remove them. Ben-Velvel 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that the justification advanced for the partitions would actually be a very interesting topic, and we should definitely write about it in the article. Anyway, the only way that a 13th century event is relevant to an 18th century event is if people acting in the latter use the former as justification. There is no other possible relation here, and you must be aware of this.
Anyway, I am curious why would you single out Russia anyway? There were 3 partitioners, why not then give the prehistory of all the 3 sections each respectively seized? Balcer 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a real history. Each reader can perceive it as the "justification" or "condemnation". And I write about the territories of the three partitions in 1772-1795. All these territories are not related to today's Russia (these are territories of modern Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus)Ben-Velvel 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The section renamed "History of east territories in 9-17 centuries (modern Ukraine and Belarus)" (no one word Russian and no one word about Russian Empire)Ben-Velvel 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this article to provide a summary of the history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and whatever territories it possessed? Even that would be absurd. Giving such a history for only "Eastern territories" is both absurd and biased. If you want to discuss 13th century events, you must provide a justification of how they are relevant. Putting them in as "objective history" is just not enough. The migration of the Goths during Roman times through that area is also a historical event, but surely including it solely on those grounds alone would be ridiculous.
Again, if you want to discuss the justifications used by the Russian Empire to seize Commonwealth territory, you are welcome to it. But trying to disguise them as just "listing objective historical events" is not going to fool anybody here. Balcer 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A section on justifications would be actually quite useful, but it cannot be written using 19th century sources which are certainly not objective.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to create new sections such as "Justifications" when we already have "Assessment" section. M0RD00R 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Were Massacre of Uman, Koliyivschyna, Cossack uprisings in the times of Goths? The political condition (Anarchy, Haidamaka and Cossack uprisings) and ethnic structure (Prevalence of Ukrainians and Belorusinas in east territories of PKL ) is held back._Tag POV is embedded.87.186.80.85
I removed the tag. This article is about the Partitions of Poland, a specific event that happened in the 18th century. This article is not the place to go over the history of Ukraine and Belarus. Again, if anyone wants a "Justication" section which would discuss how "ending the Polish oppression of Ukraine and Belarus" was the reason given for the partitions by the Russian Empire, they are welcome to add it. Balcer 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Koliyivschyna ocurred in 1768-1769. This events directly preceded the Partitions. Fairly write about the social and political turmoil in PKL before the Partitions and ethnic structure of east territories, if you do not wish the participation of Russian users. (The tag "WikiProject Russian History" is obviously for a beauty)87.186.74.68 14:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
But we do wish for the participation of Russian users, and anyone else interested in the subject. Balcer 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please give the list of themes, what allowed and what forbidden. Were religious, cultural, language, serfdom problems in the east territories? Or all was fine :). 87.186.84.19

If one thinks that tiny prehistory section goes beyond the scope of this article, I'll suggest to take a good look at the Recovered territories article and ask himself, how much of it would fit under "Justifications" section - 50%, 70%, 90%? And what's the deal with that "Justification" section anyway? We have perfectly good "Assessment" section for it. Doesn't article contains enough POV charged language already? M0RD00R 15:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The section "Assesment" shows opinions of critics in deliberately idiotic kind. No word about real problems of Poland before the Partutions. No word about the real situation (Koliyivschyna, Uman massacre etc) in east territories where Ukrainians and Byelorussians prevailed. Please write about it if you do not trust Russian users. And this information can be in section "Prelude" 87.186.84.19 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Russia had the much larger Pugachev's Rebellion at roughly the same time, and somehow did not get partitioned by its neighbours. If we want to discuss peasant disorders in Poland before 1772, it would be nice to explain how they are relevant to this article. Balcer 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I add, the same time Russia was at war against Turkey. If Poland had an opportunity, it immediately would partitioned Russia. You underestimate the Polish problems. Bar Confederation fighted against Polish King and dissidents. Turmoil was in the territories of Ukraine, Belorussia, little and great Poland. 87.186.84.19 17:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
But the article does discuss the Bar Confederation at some length, and makes fairly clear that Poland was in turmoil just before 1772. If you think something is missing, please make additions to that section of the article. The main objection here was to including a large "prehistory" section discussing everything going back to the Mongol invasion, which is obviously inappropriate. On the other hand, intelligent additions to the section about the years around 1772 will be welcome.
Please make some changes you think appropriate, instead of sticking in the POV tag. Balcer 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article as a vehicle for propaganda

A belief that it is Poland's mission in the world to spread freedom to other countries and to liberate other nations from tyrannical regimes, persists to this day in the Polish psyche.

This is very poetic and a nice sample of Romantic Nationalism, but it has nothing to do with the purpose and principles of this (or any other) encyclopaedia. Do Pilsudski's concentration camps or CIA's secret prisons stem from this trait of "the Polish psyche"? --Ghirla-трёп- 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

If we want to discuss how the historians of various eras assessed the partitions, that is fine with me. I would think, however, that it should be indicated to the reader how 19th century historiography of the partitioning powers could be biased in this regard, specifically as it attempted to show that Poland "deserved" to be partitioned, that the partition was "inevitable" and made many other justifications in the same vein.

Similarly, we would not be quoting 19th century statements by then British historians claiming that India "deserved" to be taken over by the British, without any accompanying criticism, now would we? Balcer 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is not biased: "A belief that it is Poland's mission in the world to spread freedom to other countries and to liberate other nations from tyrannical regimes, persists to this day in the Polish psyche"? Bias is in the eye of the beholder, eh? --Ghirla-трёп- 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
One biased statement does not justify including another, just like two wrongs don't make a right. Are you familiar with that principle? Balcer 21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I am fimiliar with the principle that, if an entire page is biased to promote a certain POV, it should be rewritten in its entirety. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the liberum veto was not used after 1764, almost a decade before the partitions started. Hence, citing it as the main cause of the partitions is not very convincing. Balcer 20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was too late to undertake sweeping reforms of the Commonwealth after 1764. Its decline was irrevocable by that time. The parallel with the current EU and Poland's self-seeking behaviour in Brussels is worth noting, though. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is it worth noting, exactly? Can you cite any scholar that would make that specific connection? With all due respect, we cannot insert such a statement just because if is your opinion. Balcer 21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet we can insert someone's opinion that "a belief that it is Poland's mission in the world to spread freedom to other countries and to liberate other nations from tyrannical regimes, persists to this day in the Polish psyche" just because it had been printed somewhere? I could write that "the freedom-loving Russians created the first republic in Northern Europe - the Novgorod Republic - when the Polish people were subjected to the vilest tiranny" and back that up with "printed sources" but I would never do that, because I have some idea what is supposed to be encyclopaedic and what is non-encyclopaedic rant. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That statement is at least referenced. And anyway, it talks about a belief that many Poles have, and does not claim that belief is actually correct. Balcer 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, other nations experienced decline in the 18th century (Spain for example). Somehow they did not all get partitioned. Could it be that Poland faced partition not because of any particular constitutional device it employed for a few decades of its history, but because it was surrounded by 3 powerful, absolutist neighbours bent on expansion? Balcer 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Off cause Spain didn't get partitioned, it was liberated by Napoleon, by strange coincidence with active participation of Polish legions, who made short stop there while on their liberation tour through Europe, before hitting for Haiti to liberate yet another oppressed nation.M0RD00R 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Your parallel does not have merit. In the late 18th century, the Spaniards did not suppress a bunch of European nations imposing upon them their own religion, culture, and language. As for their overseas possessions, these revolted in due time, precipitating the break-up of the polity in the 1820s. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Catalans and Basques might disagree with you. Balcer 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ghirla, I am not suprised that you quote arguments from 19th century Russian empire historiography; they certanly should be mentioned in the article - just as the fact that virtually all modern historiography considers their views highly biased and obsolete. Not that anybody should be suprised that they tried; as modern historians note, the story was simple: Commonwealth was weak but showing signs of promising reform, its neighbours were strong and did not want it to be powerful again, so they ensured it would not be the case. To quote Nowak about Russian historiography from that era: "All subsequent justifications, made either by the conservative Russian Slavophiles or by the liberals, merely reveal a bad conscience about the crimes committed by their ancestors."-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OR

because of persistent attempts by user using (open?) proxy proxy.info-test.pl, which by itself might be a violation of Wiki rules, to insert the text from misquoted source, that does not even mention Partitions of Poland I'm putting OR tag on that section. M0RD00R 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think this fragment needs to stay (I've moved it to For our freedom and yours where it more rightly belongs), I see no reason to invoke WP:NOR here: the sentence summarizes the source statements rather well, I think. Which specific parts of it do you find unverified?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all the source rather speaks about Poland's support for NATO operations not about Polish support for human rights per se. And it says nothing about origins of that support in Partitions of Poland. Therefore synthesis presented in Aftermath section is OR. M0RD00R 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the latter part, which is why I moved the sentence. That said, the source speaks about Polish support for human right per se: "Poland approval... was a support for... defence of human rights".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a look at full text - "Poland's approval for NATO actions was first of all a manifestation of support for international order, whereby action in defence of human rights may sanction the infringement of the sovereignty of a state that is notorious violator of these rights. Yes the text has words Poland and human rights in it, but it does not say Poland supported human rights. It says - Poland supported NATO actions, which infringe sovereignty of a state, but may be sanctioned, if this state violates human rights. M0RD00R 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you read the sentence more carefully, you will see that it (the authors...) imply that Polish support for NATO was also equal to Polish support of human rights (by persecuting their violation).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Could not argue with that. The problem is, it's not the way this sentence is cited here. It should be cited "According to Mr.X and Mr.Y Polish support for NATO operations equals to support of human rights", and not "Poland supported human rights". M0RD00R 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to use such precise formulations unless there is some contradiction: do you have any sources stating that Polish government does not support human rights?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth does any of this have to do with an article on the Partitions? john k 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. M0RD00R 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant removed from lead

I don't think this is that relevant to the article to belong to lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After the Napoleonic Wars, when Napoleon Bonaparte restored a Polish state in the form of the Duchy of Warsaw, the three states that partitioned Poland decided to create out of the territories they annexed somewhat autonomous (at least in theory) regions, which were:

In all cases assurances were made towards the recognition of the Polish language, respect for Polish culture and the rights of Poles. In all cases these promises were quickly broken and the regions annexed.

Sure it does not. Maybe it is time to rename the article to the proper name - Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?--Lokyz (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Dead horse.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberum veto

This: "During the reign of Władysław IV (1632-48), the liberum veto had evolved." is inaccurate and contradicts information found in this article: Liberum veto 67.91.170.251 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia's anti-russian bias

is demonstrated by wiki redactors through incorrectly citing the titleage of Rusian rulers:

"Thus one could characterise Poland-Lithuania in its final period (mid-18th century), prior to the partitions as already not a completely sovereign state: it could be seen almost as a vassal, [5] or in modern terms, a Russian satellite state, with Russian tsars effectively choosing Polish kings."

As is widely known,Russia had internationally recognized status of EMPIRE starting from 1721 so the title "tzar" seems irrelevant in this pasage.Instead,the title "Emperor" should be applied.

Frank Russian (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it's a little more ambiguous than that. Not that Russia was not generally recognised as an empire; but that that title 'Tsar of All the Russias' already conveys the concept of 'Emperor' (or 'Empress') in a specifically Russian context. The title of 'Tsar', as I'm sure you know, derives from the Latin 'Caesar', which was one of the imperial titles. Indeed, 'Caesar' was a distinctively imperial title, whereas 'Imperator', usually translated 'Emperor', also carried an implication something more like 'Generalissimo'. I'm not sure it's evidence of an anti-Russian bias if Wikipedia uses 'Tsar' in place of 'Emperor' in contexts like this, and therefore it's not necessary to change it. If it said 'King' rather than 'Tsar', I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.
As an aside, the concept of 'internationally recognised' is somewhat anachronistic here, since there was no equivalent of the United Nations or even the European Union in the early 18th century. Indeed, the idea of a unified nation-state, on which the concept of formal international recognition rests, was still in its infancy. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


"but that that title 'Tsar of All the Russias' already conveys the concept of 'Emperor' (or 'Empress') in a specifically Russian context."

It doesn't.

Where have you found the source that would state anything like that for middle 18.century Russia(the time in quetion) about "Tzar of All the Russias"?

The official title of the supreme ruler of Russia was "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias".In the sense you put it,the title "Tzar" was used in medieval Russia not in the middle of 18.century.That would be the same mistake to claim today's President of Russian Federation is in fact General Secretary of USSR just because redactor deems the "title" of General Sectetary so "specifically Russian".

wiki:"Originally, the title tsar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is "Tsar" was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states: Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185–1422 and in 1908–1946 Serbia in 1346–1371 Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (after 1721 and until 1917, the title was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor's sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland and Georgia)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzar

One shouldn't use medieval terms in relation to 18.century because that automatically makes them obsolete and therefore unobjective.

"Tzar" was just one of many titles of Russian Emperor, a particular one to the general "Emperor".You could use the titles "Lord of Pskov or Grand Duke of Smolensk" with the same "success" in the same manner by which you subsitute general and extensive "Russian Empreror" with a minor,obsolete and particular "Russian Tzar".

Note the difference between "general and extensive" and "minor,obsolete and particular".That's why I claim there is an anti-russian connotation in the incorrect usage of the title of Russian rulers. Another ridiculous contradiction that authors allow in the article is the co-existence of "Russain tzars" and "Russian Empress".First,this is the same talk about the unobjective way of delivering information to the reader because if we follow your logic,there should have been "Tsaress" not "Empress" in the text but as the redactor perceives it,as long as the relationships between Polish king and Russian monarch are amiable,she is dubbed "Empress" but once she,the same person,turns Poland into Russian puppet-state,the obscure and obsolete and "certainly not-european",MEDIEVAL title "Russian tzars" is applied.This is a technique that is used to create a negative impression about Russia in general.

The main problem for us to understand is that the theme of the article has nothing in common with anything "specifically Russian".Partition of Poland was an international,inter-state process therefore all major participants of Partitions should be denominated in an internationally acceptable manner that existed in the end of 18.century.By that time Russia was EMPIRE not TZARDOM in the eyes of all major participants of Europe's politics(including Poland) so when it comes to the title which should be used for Russian rulers during the times of Russian Empire and in the light of international affairs,it is more objective to refer to the title "Russian Emperor".

"As an aside, the concept of 'internationally recognised' is somewhat anachronistic here, since there was no equivalent of the United Nations or even the European Union in the early 18th century."

It is ridiculous to repudiate the existence of nations and international recognition in the 18.century just because "there was no equivalent of EU in the early 18.century".By the 18.century,such nations as Great Russians,British,French,Swedes had already existed for hundreds of years.Great Russians evolved into a distinct ethnic and political entity not later than 15.century.Of cource,there was also formal recognition of a cetrain status of a political entity(a vassal state,colony,sovereign state,empire and so on).Great attention was paid to formal recogniton because formalities and formal status was somewhat of traditional importance in the aristocatical society of that time.

By А.Б.Мартиросян,"На пути к мировой войне":

The major participants of the international arena of 18.century acknowledged Russia as an Empire:

Denmark- in 1723 Sweden- in 1733 Ottoman Turks- in1739 England- in 1742 Austria- in 1742 france- in 1757 Spain- in 1759 Recjpospolita - in 1764 Prussia and Holland - in 1722

First time Peter the Great was dubbed "Emperor" by english Queen Ann in 1710.

To be more precise as to wikipedia's reliabness in general,I want to stress that comparing to most of other online english data sources ,wikipedia is less unbiased against Russia but still there is plenty of work to improve on that.

Frank Russian (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia has a collective identity as such, or is noticeably biased against Russia or Russians. I think you're trying to push a particular point of view (see WP:NPOV) relating to the style and titles of Russian rulers in this era. I don't think it would enhance this or any other article to refer to the Russian head of state as 'emperor' at every opportunity. May I also draw your attention to WP:POINT? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you bother proving your point or just delete my comment once again?In this case,I'll be forced to report your action.
I think that you make the issue dull.Instead of just changing ONE WORD IN A SINGLE EXCERPT,you preffer to distort the whole conception of what I am aiming for and what I have already proved in the course of our discussion.

Is this my "particular view" to claim that Russian Heads of State were dubbed EMPERORS from 1721 to 1917?(This was a period to which the event described in the article belong.)I have already given you wikipedia's links about the extent of usage of this title,please draw your attention to that.

Will the correct denomination of the Party that was a major force behind the Partitions, enhance the article?I think so because the main principle of Wikpedia is objectivity and it is impossible to write an objective and unbiased article about the Partitions of Poland without getting things clear about the status of the person who put the Partitions into effect.Readers deserve to know the correct political status,extent of power,international influence that a Russian ruler as EMPEROR exerted at those times in order to fully assess the background of the Partitions.

You didn't manage to twart my conclusions and statements and didn't answear my question that I previously asked you:

"Where have you found the source that would state anything like that for middle 18.century Russia(the time the Partitions happened) about "Tzar of All the Russias"?


which makes me suspect that you are lead astray.If so is the case,you certainly have to undeceive both yourself and readers.

I ask you just to change one word in a single excerpt.What makes you hinder with that?

Frank Russian (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Russian (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

At List of Russian rulers, Russian rulers are named emperors from 1721.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Russian, I find your tone hysterical and biased. I've looked at your other contributions to Wikipedia, and I'm not convinced that you're here to do anything other than push an excessively pro-Russian POV. At present I'm much too busy to go rooting through my sources on 18th-century Russia to find examples of styles and usage; and in any case, I don't actually speak Russian, so I can't check the correctness of the translations myself anyway. If you had just gone and edited 'Tsar' to 'Emperor' in the text, I wouldn't have objected. Instead, you vandalised the text with your outraged protestations of anti-Russian bias, and you keep expecting me to engage with enormous walls of partially-capitalised text here in talk. If you care so much about the issue, be WP:BOLD and make a sensible edit, instead of just complaining. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
AlexTiefling,if I had the aim of showing others what you really are in the field of Russian history as well as of discussing and being objective,I would already achieve my point.Other interested users,most notably Piotr Konieczny,are indirectly supporting my point of view by stating same data about titleage of Russian rulers as I have done.This is OK you go rooting on Russian history now but it is bad you haven't done that thouroughly before.

Still,you haven't proved either to me or to any other man of common sense anything and you are not able to answear the questions that I have asked you.

In fact,what you have done is: 1.insulted me by supposedly deleting my previous comments without any legal ground to do that; 2.accused me of being "histerical" just because I used capital letters a few times.I had good reason to do that because you didn't seem noticing relevant questions I had asked you so I was forced to reiterate them in capital letters; 3.accused me of being biased just because I suggested there was a mistake in titleage of Russian rulers; 4.mentioned my past contibutions in different areas as if they are connected with the current discussion,which they are not; 5.showed that I should have used other,correct way to insert my passage in the main article.As I believe,there was no way for me to correct it on my own because the right of making the final desicion if any inclusion is relevant,belongs to wiki redactors and ufortunately,I am not one of them,so first I would have to prove my point to that wiki redactor,who is engaged in supervising the current article.That's why I have started the discussion with you.

As anybody can see now,everything what you have claimed,doesn't make much sense.

Therefore,you have lost the discussion.At least,you have done that till the time when you are finished with "going through your sources on 18-century Russia" to supposedly find proof to your words.

P.S. I suspect it'll take quite a lot of time because...it's hard to find something that doesn't exist.

I wish you better luck in your further mental activities,my english friend

Frank Russian (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1) What comment of yours did I delete?
2) What need should I have of legal grounds to do so?
3) No-one forces you to use capital letters or any other typographical convention. If you expressed yourself more concisely, you would not need to draw attention to the points you feel are most important.
4) I'm not an historian of Russia. My interest is in Central Europe, mostly from an Austrian perspective, which is why I'm interested in the partitions of Poland. My sources on Russian history are scattered through my various history books.
5) I'm not greatly interested in the question of Russian imperial titles. Your edit came to my attention because (a) you had inserted editorialising comments into the main article, rather than simply changing the text, and (b) I disagree with your wider contention that Wikipedia exhibits a significant anti-Russian bias.
6) There is no discrete class of 'wiki redactors' who can make edits to article text. You and I are as able to edit (non-protected) articles as Jimbo Wales himself.
7) Who do you think is supervising this article?
8) I am not interested in 'winning the discussion'. If I get around to finding a source which shows a more ambiguous position than the one you're claiming, I'll post it. Please be less mocking and combative. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

comment on bias

Why all the fuss about whether the eastern Poles were ethnic Russian or not? That doesn't justify invasions. Hitler justified HIS invasion of Poland by whining about ethnic Germans in Polish territory (in reality, like Frederick the Great, he wanted to seize the wealthy port of Danzig/Gdansk). If ethnic kinship justfied invasions, then the United Kingdom would be justified in invading the United States.

Somebody complained that the article was too pro-Polish for criticizing the repeated invasions. Actually it's mild compared to William Durant's account in ROUSSEAU AND REVOLUTION, the best I've read on the subject. While admitting that Poland had serious internal problems, he bluntly referred to the partitions as "the Rape of Poland". Sometimes a historian has to call a crime a crime. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Curio nonsense

Here's what we can read in the last part of the article, called "Curio":

Ottoman Empire as the only country in the world refused to accept liquidation The Republic of Poland as a result of partition and its diplomatic corps reserved the place for Ambassador of lechistan

There's no punctuation, and even if I try to add one, the sentence is nonsense. Very bad english... does someone know what this is about? and either delete it or rewrite this part to make it comprehensible?Munin75 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations

Even after the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations, it is probably more correct to refer to the partitioned state as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, rather than the Republic of Poland. Orczar (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Partitions_of_Poland/Archive_3&oldid=1137071630"