Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Invasion from Cambodia March 8, 1794

Can someone remove that idiotic entry in "History" section of right-hand table, please?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solfernus (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Capital

User M.K. introduces completely bad data founded on incorrect references , that can be found as intentionally hoax. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What is specifically about those "incorrect references"? I even added necessary quote supporting that Vilnius was second capital of PLC. M.K. (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomas Venclova is poet not historian. In historiography Warsaw is considered as only capital of new state (Commonwealth), and Vilnius was still capital of Grand Duchy of Lithuania as Warsawa was capital of Duchy of Mazovia. see , , , Mathiasrex (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Material, that Vilnius is capital of PLC, is cited in the reliable source and, as I see, you failed to provided any RS to support thesis that Vilnius was not a capital of PLC. Therefore info stays. M.K. (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)P.S. and yet you still failed to answer my previous question: what is specifically about those "incorrect references"?

You added ref without volume. , but why did you delete my editions in your page of discussion? Mathiasrex (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Specific volume number was already present before this comment of yours. M.K. (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vilnius was never an official capital of the Commonwealth. MK your edits are historically inaccurate - keep yourself under control.--Mamalala 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if MK is not acquainted with what he does but I have a good faith assumptions.--Mamalala 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources provided by user MK and his edit history, sadly I must say that his edits do not look like they are in good faith. I would like to ask him to discontinue such behaviour. --Mamalala 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mamalala, could you pls read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? It states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. [my emphasis] This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

We have several WP:Reliable sources that describe Vilnius as the capital of the Grand Duchy during the era of the Commonwealth. In addition to the Norman Davies ref, we have this one published by Cambridge University Press and this one published by Brill Publishers . If you don't have access to Google Print links and thus can't verify these, mention that here or elsewhere, and someone will provide quotes.

If you have equally reliable sources stating that Warsaw was the only capital of the Comm., you could insert a note in the infobox that lays out the issue in a few sentences that contain refs. Notes can contain explanatory text. Something along the lines of: Historians differ...while several describe Vilnius (Wilno) as the capital of the Grand Duchy (ref,ref) or as the second capital of the commonwealth (ref), others... (ref,ref). I don't use notes myself, but you could ask at WP:Help desk for guidance.

However, at this point I'm going to restore the two-capital description, since the sources are quite reliable. If we continue to disagree, we can follow the steps outlined in WP:Dispute resolution.

Incidentally, I don't think Chandler Evans' book is a reliable source for a history article. He was an eighth-grader in 2008. . Novickas (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Article is in desperate need for major improvement and total rewrite. Lead is very poor and not summarizing article itself. Some sections, like "The political players" (perhaps it is a joke?), hardly even can be called a section. "Commonwealth military" is a, pure original research. Article extensively using bullets, the style that is not advised. And many more problems. M.K. (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we'll start with correcting historical forgery. Vilnius was never the capital of the Commonwealth. Sources presented don't even support that. Check also the versions in other languages, nowhere is written that Vilnius was the capital. I removed this false information, and please discuss on this topic if you want.--Mamalala 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Commonwealth

This image is reconstruction of Grand Coat of Arms of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealt based on historical reliable source

in the same way as this is reconstruction of flag of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth

Every Kingdom had Grand Coat of Arms with heraldic tent. This image is not a Coat of Arms of any state but only heraldic shield from greather Coat of Arms. Even is meritocally erroneus because has no heraldic Crown.

Mathiasrex (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Starbucks Logo

Anyone aware of any info on the Starbucks coffee logo with regard to the coat of arms? The "Starbucks" mermaid appears, as a national emblem, on a 17th(?) century space-heater stove (vaguely similar to this one), exhibited in the Vilnius Valdovu Rumai. The stove is covered with a repeated pattern of ceramic tiles; one tile shows the Lithuanian Vytis, a second the Polish Eagle coat of arms, a third tile shows the Starbucks mermaid. The first two tiles clearly signify the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th-18th centuries. The mermaid is presented as an equal, in size, proportion, and frequency, of the other two coats-of-arms: it is clearly a coat of arms signifying some or another political/geographical region in union with the commonwealth. But which part? I'm guessing parts of the Belarus, or possibly parts of northern Europe; I'm not clear on which, and thus pose the question here (of course, the stove could well be a bit of 17th century propaganda, as it were -- making the pretension that the mermaid was on par with the Vytis and the Eagle). Would love to know more. I presume that there is no chance at all that the mermaid is that of the Jurate and Kastytis legend, but given the age of the legend, and of the logo, I wonder ... linas (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (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)

Golden Liberty

This page has a section on /* Golden Liberty */ which refers to the main page of Golden Liberty. Right now (22 April 2011) this page duplicates most of that article. If that is the intention, then the article entitled Golden Liberty is duplicative and should be merged in here. If not, then this section needs to be much briefer and depend upon the Golden Liberty article for the full story. Which is it? --Bejnar (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Map

Why the map of Commonwealth use wrong coloring suggesting that Lithuania was part of the Crown? Was it done intentionally? Having in mind that it is misleading map I suggest changing it into a more appropriate.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth c.a. 1635

Serenissima

I noticed that the notes section mentions the name of Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae in the latter periods. This is weird. While "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" (or "Serenissima Polona Respublica") is attested in plenty of sources from all sides (check GoogleBoooks for starters), the mention of GDL in the name is hardly found anywhere outside of Wikipedia. No google hits, no google books hits, nothing. Could anyone please source that and/or comment? //Halibutt 09:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a map with the full title. I have run across the full ("...and Great/Grand Duchy of Lithuania"<-my Latin is rusty) title but I'll have to go back to look through where exactly that's been.

and, e.g., old refs such as here PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you got me wrong, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. The original name was rather two names combined together (which is what the article says right now): Regnum Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae (which is "Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania"). That's what the map you posted uses, that's what the article says, that's what plenty of sources say, no problem with that.

What I'm questioning is the later name, the "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" part. As far as I know Lithuania was not included in the name (thus making it "The Holiest Republic of Poland"), contrary to what the article currently says. Hence my plea for some source on the "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae". Plenty of sources everywhere for "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" part, but I can't find any for the second part, the addition of Lithuania to that name. No apparent hits anywhere.

Which makes me think that the "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" is the original name (which is what google books sources say), while "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae" is a name coined by and for Wikipedia. Anyone? //Halibutt 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To make my points clearer, take a look at the claim that in French the state was called Sérénissime République de Pologne et Grand-duché de Lituanie. This statement is backed by this source, but there's no such name used anywhere in the source. What's more, such name is not used outside of Wikipedia projects, unlike the version of the name excluding Lithuania (ca. 1400 links).

Same is true to Latin name (0 links vs. 5700). Same is also true to other language versions. It seems that only in Lithuanian the "and Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is included in that name (see here). //Halibutt 13:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If we go back to the Latin, there are tons of "Regni Poloniae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae" (Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). If I look for the most serene, I find "Serenissima Res Publica Coronae Polonicae Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniae" (The Most Serene Republic of the Polish Crown and Grand Duchy of Lithuania). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth → Polish-Lithuanian CommonwealthPolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ENDASH, "By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash."

• "[page 212] Ordering the kaleidoscope: the construction of identities in the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since 1569. the problems of state-formation, state power and national identity were particularly acute in the lands of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fouunded at Lublin in 1569 after over a century and a half of a loose dinasty union between the kingdom of [page 213] Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For this remarkable political creation was partioned out of existence (...) The state which was partitioned between 1772 and 1795 was certainly not, in any modern sense, a nation-state; [it was] a multi-national, multi-ethnic polity (...) The political borders set at Vienna in 1815, and solidified in the course of the nineteenth century, evaporated (...) The case of the lands of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however, suggests that the relationship berween 'nation', identity and state power is rather more complex that is often allowed. (...) The Polish-Lithanian Commonwealth at its greatest extent in the [page 214] seventeenth century included most of modern Poland, Lithuania [etc] (...) It thus straddled the great cultural divide between eastern and western Christendom (...) remained dominant in much of the Commonwealth's eastern lands (...) lived within its borders, which also contained. (...) This dogma led to the view that the multinational-polities of the East, whether the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the empires wich partitioned ot, were inherently unstable: the collapse of the Commonwealth [capital C in the original], or Austria-Hundary, or indeed, the Soviet Union (...) Poland-Lithuania had proved one of the more successful and long-lasting states of east-central Europe. (...) For, after the 1569 Union of Lublin, the Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita; Res Publica) was a state built from below (...) a state whole ruling szlachta (noble) elite (...) constructed a successful common identity, one that was explicitly national, even if not in a narrow ethnic or cultural way. (...) The Lublin union explicitly sought to create a political nation in the sense of an inclusive body of citizens formed regardless of ethnic or cultural origin. This concept was by no means ew: already in 1501 the abortive union treaty drawn up in Mielnik had expressed its desire to join Poland and Lithuania in one 'undivided and equal body' to form 'one nation, one brotherhood and a common council'. [page 219] (...) the Constitution of 3 May 1791, which not only rejected the old, decentralised political system, but also sought to redefine the political nation. In the spirit of the American and French revolutionaries, the Constitution proclaimed that the nation was sovereign, and that the nation consisted of whole people. (...) but although it certainly introduced common executive organs, thus ending the system by which Lithuania and Poland had separate institutions of government, it did not, as is sometimes suggested, end the separate status of the Grand Duchy. (...) The Constitution provoked the final crisis and dismemberment of the Commonwealth at precisely the moment when modern political nationalism was born. (...) many of their descendants combined nostalgia for the defunct Commonwealth [capital C in the original] with a burning desire for its reincarnation (...) the old Sarmatian state. Yet if attachment to a political idea had preceded cultural identification in the old Commonwealth, it was a common cultural identity which surviced its collapse. (...) seek the restoration of the state within the boundaris of 1772, it soon [page 220] became clear that if the Soverign Nation, One and Indivisible, was the only true basis for a modern state (...) the problem of who might constitute that nation was intrinsically divisive. (...) The old, class-based idea of a noble nation was gone forever. (...) This the borders of the old noble nation were, in the eyes of the radicals, to be extended to include all the inhabitants of the old Commonwealth [capital C in the original]. (...) whom he accused of betraying the Commomwealth [capital C in the original] [page 227] He still hoped that a Polish-Lithuanian state could be reconstituted within the borders of 1722, but as a federation of nations, not one political nation in the old style" Power and the nation in European history Cambridge University Press, 2005

• "[page 14] The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the partitions. The newly established Commonwealth (...) was one of the largest states in Europe. It was also highly heterogenous. Its two main parts were Poland proper (...) and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The two had one jointly elected king and a bicameral sejm, and constituted one customs area. Administration, legal systems, treasuries, and armies remained separate, each institution in the Crown [in Poland] having its counterpart in Lithuania. The term Poland and Polish began to be increasingly used to denote the entire commonwealth, the name transcending and not replacing the term Lithuanian. Had another tern been coined equivalent to British, which comprises English, Scottish, and Welsh, some of the confusion between Polish proper and Polish in the sense of state-nationality would have been avoided. In addition to the Poles and Lithuanians, the commonwealth comprised Ukranians and Belorussions [and other groups] (...) The Catholic religion and Protestant denominations pprevailed in the western parts of the state; the eastern borderlands were predominantly Orthodox. (...) [page 16] an arrangement with the Orthodox that would strengthen the Polish-Lithuanian state. (...) The Ukraine was in fact a distinct third component of the commonwealth but was not recognized as such. (...) did not fit easily into the existing socioeconomic structure of the commonwealth." The United States and Poland, Harvard University Press, 1980

• Britannica: the dynastic link between Poland and Lithuania was transformed into a constitutional union of the two states as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Polish rule in Ukrainian territories came to an end with the extinction of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in three partitions.

• PBS In 1569 Poland entered into a commonwealth with Lithuania, its neighbor to the north, creating one of the largest states in Europe. At its apogee, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth comprised some 400,000 square miles and a multi-ethnic population of 11 million.

prior move request.

Also, two related proposals of unified states. Had they been successful, they would have resulted in a single unified state with a partly-decentralized government:

• Polish–Lithuanian–Muscovite Commonwealth → Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth
• Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth → Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth

-Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also per WP:COMMONNAME, since all three commonwealths are spelled with hyphens in almost every single book I checked in google books (I listed my searches in the first collapsed box in the prior move request). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Poland and Lithuania appear to have equal standing in the Commonwealth—it's not a Polish type of Lithuanian Commonwealth, in other words. This seems to be the standard way to use the en dash, as noted in the second point of WP:ENDASH linked above. I don't think the caveat quoted above applies, as "Polish-Lithuanian" doesn't exist anywhere as a single entity. — Bility (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree with the logic that "Polish–Lithuanian" is a compound name of a "single entity". Sure it was an entity, but it had two very distinct parts. Renata (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. With all due respect, this is a perfect case of "who cares". Readers will not tell the difference... neither can most editors, because the symbols look the same on the screen. The entire WP:DASH is a major waste of time, where editors could contribute much more creating, well, real content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – the last time we went through this, I looked at lots of sources and concluded that there was plenty of precedent for using the en dash in joining multiple state names into a "constitutional union of the two states" and such where the states retain their identities. The "single entity" concept is OK for married individuals, for town names, and for some country names that aren't joins of two region names, but not for this case of a union of separately named territories. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Naming of Polish Prussian territory

It's a bit silly to be edit warring. There's no clear winner in current sources. I've restored to the copy which mentions both "Royal Prussia" and "Polish Prussia." Time to move on. Best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth mentioning the temporary overseas territories

I've read that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had overseas territories, temporarily in Trinidad and Tobago (New Courland), and St. Andrews Island in Gambia and it involving Jacob Ketter. Not that I could properly source it (the PL Comm. isn't one I'm an expert in), would it be worth mentioning in this article, or would it need to stay in the Duchy of Courland only? Thanks for readingLeftAire (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated material

For some unknown reason, User:Dorantana has been adding material into the article that is a duplication of material already there. For example, a bulleted list of what the new constitution did. I can't make head or tail of it. In any case, I am removing the added section, and proposed changes can be discussed here. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Judging by the decline section, it is like a bad copy of existing content. I'd like to hear Dorentana's version of the story, but it seems to like experiments in editing best kept to one's sandbox. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary translation of name

I wonder if we could use the translation of "Najjasniejsza Rzeczpospolita" to "Her Majesty the Republic" ? It would be closer to the common meaning of the use of "Najjasniejsza Rzeczpospolita" i.e. that the republic and democratic rules were more important for the people than the king. Because the kings were elected by nobles and depending on their will, while the republic lasted. Some nobles even revolted against the current king if he tried to limit the democratic rights.

I don't mean it is an exact translation of the name, I just mean that such a modernized translation could be more clear for the readers about the meaning: the republic over any king. We could put it as a side note. Merewyn (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It will just increase the confusion, just as you are confused. The buzzword "democratic" is an anachronism in this context. There was no democracy there then. It was what is dubbed "noble republic", which was primacy of noblemen assembly over king. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation of 'Rzeczpospolita' as "Republic"

Res publica is Latin rendering for Rzecz pospolita (or vice versa) and it is not the same as modern term "republic". To translate "Rzechpospolita Polska" as "Polish republic" is a confusion, if given without historical explanation. The commonly accepted English translation is "commonwealth" Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Native names in the infobox

1) Currently, the native names in the infobox include the Latin name and the Polish name. If one includes only the official languages, then one should also include at least the Ruthenian name, as it was the officially recognised chancery language used in GDL for long time (until 1697?). If one includes all major languages spoken, then Lithuanian naming should also be added. The argument that all that information is available in the "Name" and "Languages" sections is insufficient, as the infobox makes the impression that it was a purely Polish state. An argument that Polish was more "prominent" is insufficient. Was Latin "prominent"? It was used in the diplomatic communication with the West, while Ruthenian was used in the communication with the East.

2) The Polish name used at that time was just "Rzeczpospolita". The addition "Obojga Narodów" is a modern one. If one argues that this is the common Polish usage today, then it is no more "native" but the modern usage in one of the successor states, and then the usage in all successor states must be included (Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian). --Off-shell (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3) I removed the editorial comment that when western Europeans called the Commonwealth of Poland simply Poland, they were "applying the pars pro toto synecdoche. How is is possibily relevant in a article about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to note the particular figure of speech (really trope) invoked when shortening the name to Poland? It seems like an extraneous rhetorical analysis of one particular name. There are hundreds of figures of speech in this article, all of which could have the specific trope (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, etc.) used to form them named. It was an odd aside. In addition, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which one substitutes the part for the whole, so referring the the "pars pro toto [part for whole, in Latin] synecdoche" is like say the "part for whole part for whole figure of speech"--which makes the out of place editorial gloss even odder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.186.169 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to add a Lithuanian and Ruthenian term. This has been reverted. As the Polish native name seems to be not contemporally, but a modern interpretation, better to leave it out altogether for the time being. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is propolish vision of history. This country wasnot First Polish Republic. It was commonwealth/--Rapuha89 (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Obojga Narodów" is not a modern one

Union of Lublin Rzeczypospolity obojego narodu (text article I).

Sejm 1569 in act Unia Xięstwa Litewskiego z Koroną (Union Duchy of Lithuania with [Polish] Crown) : Rzeczypospolitey oboyga Narodu Volumina Legum 2 p. 189 f. 770 Pilot Pirx (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The naming of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobility

Pamishelisz (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) First time poster here, apologies if there's already a similar topic somewhere, but I really could not find it. To put it brief, I've noticed in many of the biographical sections of the nobility originating from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that the names in italics are often only written in Polish and that Lithuanian translations are missing. In turn, I have tried to insert the proper Lithuanian renditions of the names in italics and my actions have been reverted and I was acused of vandalism by suggesting that back then the Lithuanian language did not exist. We are mainly talking about GDL nobility who lived between late 17th to early 19th century.

I believe that this makes no sense. First and foremost there is ample evidence that the Lithuanian language was used in some GDL regions since the 13th century. Furthermore, The voivodeships with predominant ethnic Lithuanian populations - Vilnius, Trakai and Samogitia - remained almost wholly Lithuanian speaking, both colloquially and by the ruling nobility. Finally, the first Lithuanian book was already published in 1547.

So could please someone shed some light on this, because it totally makes no sense to argue that names should only be written in Polish and not also in Lithuanian, whilst supporting this claim by suggesting that at that time Lithuanian language did not exist.

But most of this nobility wasn't ethnic Lithuanian. With some exceptions (like the Radziwills) they were ethnically Ruthenian or Polish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. It's fine to have Lithuanian names for Lithuanian nobility, but szlachta, or Polish-Lithuanian nobility, is a larger concept. See also Polish-Lithuanian identity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into it. But what about the accusations of conducting acts of vandalism on the grounds that the Lithuanian language did not exist? Does it have any factual basis at all?Pamishelisz (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't link to the relevant WP:DIFF, I don't have time to look where and when you might have accused of that. It's not vandalism, but in the past there were disruptive editors who specialized in inserting/removing Lithuanian/Polish names in various articles. Some old members who remember those trolls may be a bit over-reactive. I'd strongly encourage you to consider doing other types of edits than just inserting/removing Lithuanian/Polish names, if you want to develop good reputation in the community of editors who work on those subjects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Broken footnotes

Please take a look into "References" section. Quite a few broken references. I have never learned this fancy syntax. Whoever knows the ropes, please fix. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Urbanization

I understand the suspicion which underlies this edit but please use sources rather than just removing the information on the basis of personal feelings/opinions. 20% urbanization rate for PLC at the beginning of 17th century is not unreasonable. Lithuania, which was the more sparsely populated part, had an urbanization rate of about 15%. "The Crown" was higher so together it could have been 20%. Keep in mind that the PLC underwent a urbanization boom in the 16th century. Of course it went through a process of de-population and de-urbanization starting from about mid 17th century, so that by 1680 or so it was probably less urban than it was at the beginning of 1500's.

50% for Netherlands is also not unreasonable. It's a bit high for Italy except in certain regions (and Italy too underwent de-urbanization during this period).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ruthenian language

Ruthenian was official in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1696 and therefore is a regional language. Both Polish and Latin were used throughout the country. Ruthenian, Lithuanian and other languages like Hebrew were recognized but to a certain extent and area.

Oliszydlowski (TALK) 14:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Ruthenia" is just latin word for Russian. Before Lithuania was consumed by Poland as PCL , its full official title was "Great Kingdom of Lithania, Samogitia and Russia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.149.220 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring

OK. I do not know, nor do I especially care what the ongoing edit war is about. But It needs to stop. I have fully protected the page for 2 days. That should be enough time to sort this out. If the problem persists after that I will consider other measure, not excluding blocks. If one or more participants are editing from IP addresses I can easily protect the page to put a stop to that. So settle the content dispute here. Please remember that there are multiple avenues available for resolving disputes. See WP:DR for suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing the picture of the map.

I see that the image that's used for this article is the borders of it in 1714. I'd like to propose we change it to its borders around 1619-1621 when it was at it's greatest extent. If we could get it with the same design of the current picture with it highlighted in green, that'd be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There is already a map from 1618 at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth#Administrative divisions. In addition, if we were to change to the proposed timeframe map then a person with a good knowledge of how to create or edit SVG files is needed. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be hard to get someone to edit the picture? I imagine it wouldn't. Also the picture you mention doesn't show other countries from the time and is a bit lopsided. – ICommandeth 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

3 May Constitution

First in Europe ? The French Revolution began two years earlier. It included a new non-autocratic constitution. Without deeper knowledge of this constitution, I can just assume that inspiration came from France. Also - wasn't the reason for Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, based on a fear of a return of the Catholics ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It was actually the second in Europe, after the 1755 Corsican Constitution, which was the first Constitution to be titled as such, whereas the 3 May wasn't even titled as Constitution, unlike the first French Republic Constitution approved just a few months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.82.4 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant or not ?

@Oliszydlowski: I'm sorry, but I really cannot see how the only Tsar in foreign captivity ever and the conquest of Moscow in 1610-12 isn't of relevance. Personally I think that's the most well-known part of Polish-Lithuanian history. Also, when reading this lead, one gets the impression of this empire as some kind of very nice humanitarian power. Which I really doubt existed anywhere in Europe during the very warious or bellicose 17th century. Without having any specific source in my head or at hand right now, I would still also argue that there indeed were huge conflicts between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Perhaps not to compare with the Thirty Years' War or the Crusades but still. The Catholic vs Orthodox issues eventually lead to Ukraine's inclusion to Russia in 1654, as the Orthodox population were afraid of Catholic return. (Whilst the common people in those days usually were less patriotic, if compared to the times from around the 1848 revolutions and later. Commoners were not educated, illiterate and had enough trouble of their own). The year 1654 combined with Ukraine is still today of significance as Communist Nikita Khrushchev (who was born in Russia, but close to Ukraine and had Ukranian parents) in 1954 gave Crimea away, from Russia to Ukraine as a "300 birthday present" etc. And how relevant is the 3 of May constitution really ? I mean the idea must have come from the French 1789 revolution ? And we must not cherry pick nor use a non global perspective. That goes equally also for, for instance the Swedish Empire and each and every nation, historical or present. Boeing720 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not doubt the things you are saying. You misunderstood me. I am just highlighting that this sort of extensive information does not belong in the lead, especially the first paragraph, where everything is short and summarized (eg data, size, location). Basics. This information is added within the body of the article, within history section. That is the foundation of an introduction to every article or essay. Oliszydlowski, 06:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Capital of Poland - Warsaw since 1569, although Cracow never got over it

Hi, This article is incorrect. The capital of Poland was moved by king Sigismund III Vasa from Cracow to Poland in 1596 and it remained the capital of Poland since that time, through the end of the last partition in 1795, when Poland regained independence in 1918 and until the present time.

Whoever is editing this may not be aware that there has been perpetual feud between Warsaw and Cracow ever since the capital was moved to Warsaw, for over four centuries. Some people from Cracow refer to Warsaw as a "village" to this very day! The article that is linked to the footnote 2 referring to Warsaw as a "tiny village" is a Wayback Machine article does not exist on the current page of UJ. It was not a "tiny village" with a castle, expanding city and the site of the Polish Congress (Sejm).

The capital of Poland should be changed to "Cracow (or Krakow) until 1596 and Warsaw (or Warszawa) since 1596." Otherwise, this article is laughable and I cannot take Wikipedia seriously any longer. You can take any history book or historical documents available (except for few written by people from Cracow that hate Warsaw), and the capital will ALWAYS be Warsaw, in books written in 1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s. This should be edited on all pages!

Also, Vilnius or Wilno was the capital of Lithuania. It was NEVER a capital of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I do not know why someone added it here.

Thank you for fixing these errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella2178 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gallery

Oliszydlowski, what is the point of that gallery? Just to show random stuff from the Commonwealth? I could understand if some of the pictures went under the art section, but this is just pointless, and in fact Wikipedia discourages the use of random galleries if they do not have a specific purpose.

This shows that you haven't fully analyzed the article. All images are referenced in the body eg (Pic 13, 14 etc.) in different sections, for instance in the Culture section. Personal opinions about whether a gallery belongs here is out of the question as the images are a reference to the provided information. In order to remove the gallery you need to restructure the whole article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my point, if you have to sit and figure this out it's not very practical, at least the individual galleries should be at the end of each section, I've never seen such a format on other pages, its very impractical. --E-960 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I see more reasons to keep the gallery than to delete it. All images inclined are worthy of mentioning and highlight every field or aspect of the former PLC. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• sorry guys just realize there's an ongoing chat..... the gallery link format does not work in mobile view and should be removed|fixed as soon as possible for excess ability concerns.--Moxy 🍁 17:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference to the US Constitution should be removed

There is a parenthetical reference to the U.S. Constitution that should be removed - first, because it is not relevant; second, because it is wrong.

The U.S. Constitution was the world's 20th written constitution; not the first. It wasn't even the first American Constitution, but the written constitutions of all 13 states and the Commonwealth of Vermont (1777-1791) pre-dated it, along with the first U.S. federal constitution. New Hampshire even had *two* written constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was written! So that parenthetical reference in the text of the article should be removed. 2601:645:C300:3950:484C:AD81:B236:10D1 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This statement is supported by references. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Representation in Fiction

I disagree that this addition is trivial. The remembrance of things past is of an import, especially in present-day central Europe of the politics of remembrance. The cited authors aspire to show the multicultural and multiethnic character of Poland-Lithuania, instead of claiming it for this or that modern nation-state. You reverted my reverting without discussion. I added the above explanation to my original reverting. Hyrdlak (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

First Polish Republic

@LordParsifal, Oliszydlowski, and KIENGIR: Discuss the matter here instead of edit warring. I want to also add that LordParsifal has already made three reverts in the last 24 hours so he is already on the brink of breaking the WP:3RR policy. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sabbatino:,

Thank you for your intervention (however, regarding me, you know very well one edit is not EW hence I advised the talk for the other parties as well).

LordParsifal, contrary to your argumentation, talk is needed because of WP policies, after a few reverts back and forth, moreover regardless of it's presence in book or i.e. some RS, as well we have to make it clear it was not a contemporary term.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

I did not meant that you were edit warring. I wrote it that way so that everyone in this back and forth cycle would take notice. I also issued a warning to LordParsifal for edit warring (he ignored your advice and just reverted), because he is already at 3RR. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the Royal Banner of the Commonwealth.

The one in use is the 1605 version, which was the banner in use by the Vasa dynasty when they ruled Poland. Too much often I see people on the internet use this banner to represent the Commonwealth though all manner of time which is historically inaccurate. I encourage the use of of a banner not featuring the vasa arms, along side a version featuring it. I also ask for adding a section explaining why this banner is was not in use in the 1790s for example. KoziPLUS (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The current banner is well documented by the Stockholm Roll (Rolka sztokholmska) from the period. Other banners of similar kind are mostly the imaginary creation of Wikimedia users. The caption clearly tells the year the banner/flag was used, but I'll clarify it further as you do have a point. Merangs (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be historically the most accurate to perhaps just use the flag with the Polish eagle and the Lithuanian Vytis (aka. Pogoń in Polish) without any dynastic symbols like those of the Saxon dynasty, the Vasas, etc.? After all, that flag would be valid for the whole time the bi-federation existed, unlike those which contain any dynastic symbols. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there such a flag on Wikimedia which is evidently sourced and visible on accounts from the period? Merangs (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Not as of now, there seems to be none. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are visually "nice" but imaginary sadly. Merangs (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

The word FORMERLY is incorrectly spelt as formally, which has a completely different meaning.

Kind regards

John Jackson 2A00:23C6:F485:F000:755F:3131:CEFF:79D9 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. All uses of formally seem fine. Which one are you talking about? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Change the greatest extent map to this one: https://imgur.com/a/LNyu6sb The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia.

sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 M4SOPMODII (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, the map would need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have uploaded the map to wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Polish_Commonwealth_at_its_greatest_extent.png

also since the discussion has been established already is it possible to reach the consensus here about editing the map or not, we talk about big chunk of territory and some people might find it too extreme or controversial so i would like to hear opinions about it or map change propositions. M4SOPMODII (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Diarchy?

According to the Wikipedia definitions offered of Diarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a diarchy. It should have that category removed. What is the consensus about this? --Po Mieczu (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at greatest extent map

Hello i made this section to discuss change of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth map of greatest extent to this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Polish_Commonwealth_at_its_greatest_extent.png The picture above can be edited if the quality is bad, i did all i could to draw borders as good as i can. The map portrays Polish-Swedish union from 1592-1599 and its greatest extent at 1596 with moldovian vassal state because of Jan Zamoyski's raid on Moldavia. I am here to establish consensus of editing the map or not and eventual changes to it. sources and links to wikipedia articles proving the changes i try to make aren't false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cecora_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suceava_(1595) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieremia_Movil%C4%83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4SOPMODII (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Official Name

Hello fellow editor @Merangs, I recently noticed you reverted one my edits and not intending to editwar, I opened this discussion. I request you to please look at Template:Infobox country. It says that the conventional_long_name parameter must have the "Formal or official full name of the country in English" and the native_name parameter must have the "Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s), hence in italics (double quotemarks)". The name in the box should not correspond with the article title, which is the common name. The name in the box should be the formal/official full name of the country, while the native name should be rendering of that full name in the official language(s) of the state. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. I am ok with the change then, though the infobox will be long. Merangs (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"Density of urban network" map

The caption and legend of this image, File:The density of the urban network per voivodeship of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth ca. 1650 (Eng).png, do not sufficiently explain what is meant by "density of the urban network". It apparently is not the same thing as population density, as the unit is not something like population/km², but just km². My best guess is that maybe it's like the inverse of population density (how much area per person), but then I don't understand how the values could possibly be so high. Maybe it isn't about population density per se and is just about the "urban network", like the number of towns and roads or something. Also, where did the data for this map come from? Was there a census around 1650? The file description does little to clarify any of these matters. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Imposed Polonisation and Catholicism

First, the link to the reference (Brittanica) is broken.

Second, that fragment in Brittanica does not back up the claim it is supposed to back up.

Third, generally Polonization in the Commonwealth is believed to have been voluntary. I imagine that some point could be made about cases when it was done forcefully but I don't think it's right to simply say that "Poland [...] imposed Polonization". Maybe these instances (if they do exist) should be mentioned here as a side note, I'm not sure, people smarter than me should know what to do.

Fourth, assuming that it's okay to say that Catholicism was imposed (again, I believe more often conversions were voluntary), why are we blaming just Poland? Lithuanians were Catholic as well, so they should share this supposed blame (unless of course there is a specific source backing up this claim). Ponewor (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There are great articles and books on these topics. Overall, it was more voluntary among the upper classes and imposed on serfs and local populations, hence the uprisings in the east. Alfred J. Rieber in his book titled The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands: From the Rise of Early Modern Empires to the End of the First World War stated that it was the Polish government responsible for Catholicising and Polonising local populaces in large parts of the Commonwealth that led to resistance from [some] minorities. This was accelerated when Polish and Lithuanian magnates expanded their holdings in the Eastern Borderland regions and followed this trend. See pages 159 and 160 for more detail. Simultaneously, Lithuanian gentry and nobles (eg. Radziwills) adopted Polish culture more voluntarily according to Lithuania: Stepping Westward by Thomas Lane, page 24 and others. There are countless sources that support this. I will amend the article for a more neutral outlook, but the general context present on the page is nonetheless correct. Merangs (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What does Rieber even mean by Polish government? King that was a ruler of both Poland and Lithuania? Or sejm? Isn't it just an unfortunate case of pars pro toto, where he actually meant Commonwealthian? Ponewor (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Rieber doesn't say that the "Polish government" (or anyone else for that matter) imposed polonization on peasants or other local populations. There was no governmental imposition of the Polish language or culture on peasants/serfs in the PLC, and the polonization of nobles seems to have been largely voluntary (see for example: Lane et al. - p. xxiv, Magocsi – p. 157, I can provide quotes if the pages are unavailable) or at least it wasn't enforced by the government. He does write about the imposition of serfdom (not polonization) by magnates and the worsening conditions of peasants, and also how the Greek Catholic church was opposed and resented by the Orthodox. (p. 160) The creation of the Uniate Church only added to the socioeconomic tensions between the Polish/Polonised Catholic magnates and the Orthodox Ruthenian population - there were multiple factors contributing to the uprisings in Ukraine.

The Union of Brest could indeed be described as an "imposition of Catholicism," so this part is probably correct, and that's also the only place where Rieber talks about the role of the "Polish government" (at one point: "The Polish government denounced the Orthodox spokesmen as fanatical heretics and opposition to the Uniat Church as criminal"), but he also describes it primarily as the church and szlachta initiative. (e.g. "the decisive initiative leading to the Union of Brest was taken by the Orthodox bishops of the eastern borderlands of the Commonwealth"). Hedviberit (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we avoid Britannica as a source in general; it is not a reliable site. Moreover, the claim that Polonisation (especially among lower classes) was entirely voluntary is not fully supported and seems like bias; largely is cited so it may remain as that was the trend, hence I suggest changing it to "Polonisation was largely voluntary, but Catholicism was imposed across the vast realm [...]". It is noteworthy that Polonisation often came with Catholicisation and the Catholic faith was at times brutally enforced during the Counter-Reformation period in some parts of the Commonwealth. As such, one does not exclude the other. Merangs (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I amended the unsupported fragment according to the sources available to me and replaced Britannica. Hedviberit (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Clutter

@Guccee, sorry! I had meant to link WP:LEADLANG and had double-checked the shortcut but forgot to change it in my edit summary. Under no circumstances do we need to include a French translation for a name in this article, for crying out loud.

Also, I assume you didn't mean to undo my changes to the infobox that bring it closer to compliance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense诉 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you've confused me with another user. Forgive me for undoing your edit related to the infobox, I didn't do it on purpose. It seems to me that a French name could still be useful, but e.g. Catalan does not make any sense. Heroldicas (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we agree that the infobox with certain nowrap templates/inputs is excessively enlarged. If line breaks (i.e. "< br >") are not to be utilised, can we seek an alternative so that the box's width is not almost one third of the page?

Now I'm confused! I ensured that the width was not affected by making use of forced wrapping and non-breaking spaces, and it was reverted again regardless. Even though the practice is ubiquitous on Wikipedia, line breaks have a semantic meaning and should not be used when not intending to break up the content. It's confused and bad for accessibility. Remsense诉 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert?

Hello @Sbaio. I noticed you reverted one of my recent edits to this page, so I opened this section to discuss it with you. Since you didn't provide an edit summary, could you tell me why you reverted my edit? I just moved the official languages from common languages parameter to the official languages parameter as is the case in other articles like Russian Empire and German Empire. PadFoot (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Everything is discussed at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth#Languages so there is no need to split into different parameters (this particular section lists about five "officially recognised" languages). I did not leave an edit summary, because I accidentally pressed the "Enter" button so it was too late to write it. – sbaio 17:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio, but I still don't see why must the official languages parameter should be removed by you. There is a need here as common languages parameter should not be used to list official languages. The official languages parameter should be used here. If you wish all the five languages can be added or any other change you want there. PadFoot (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Should also mention that it's the job of the infobox to summarise important information from the article. The reader should have to scroll through the entire article just to know the official language(s). PadFoot (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You ought to reconsider your attitude, because you are starting an edit war (you also have a final warning for that on your talk page). In addition, Template:Infobox country quite clearly says that common languages parameter should be used for former countries. – sbaio 13:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio, it never says that you are not allowed to use the official languages parameter. The documentation is outdated. Compare the example given for German Empire and the real article about the same. And you still refuse to provide a plausible reason for reverting. It would be helpful if you were to give your actual problem rather than beating around the bush. Besides I should also mention that you are also editwarring. PadFoot (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not supposed to restore your version when you are reverted for the first time (WP:BRD). I tend to stick to what template's documentation says. If you think that it is outdated then propose your changes on its talk page and see where it goes. In addition, your decision to omit German and Ruthenian languages from official list is rather strange. – sbaio 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio, you should have mentioned earlier that you wanted German and Ruthenian to be included. Besides BRD is an optional essay and there are numerous alternatives and exceptions provided as well. PadFoot (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent edit, I'd like to point out that "officially recognised" does not mean a language has been recognised as official or state/administrative. Actually, it denotes the formal acceptance of the use of that language within a territory or country, for example the use of the Armenian language by the Armenian minority in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Throughout the existence of Poland–Lithuania until the very end (1795) only two languages were deemed co-official and all written documents were published in these languages - Polish and Latin. Ruthenian lost that status in the 17th century. Merangs (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Merangs, if that's the case then I am restoring my original edit. PadFoot (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

I would like the state to be referred to as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Poland-Lithuania in all sentences of this article, rather than just 'Poland.' The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a dual state, so disregarding one of its members—Lithuania—is both disrespectful and intolerant toward Lithuanians like myself. 78.56.98.211 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is there a redirect to the page titled Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Isn't that this page?

Like really? Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Lithuanian Name

I would like to request that the name should be listed in Lithuanian, alongside Polish and Latin, in the infobox. One of the realms of the entity was literally the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania", so I think it's distasteful that the name in Lithuanian is not included.

According to the Lithuanian Wikipedia, the name in Lithuanian (although the name to match the one the infobox in English uses) would be Lenkijos karalystė ir Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė. StrawWord298944 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@StrawWord298944: – I think the reason behind it is the fact that Lithuanian (spoken by a small minority then) did not have an official status in the Commonwealth after 1569, as per the first paragraph. Ruthenian, which was largely spoken in the Grand Duchy, didn't either after the 17th century. In any case, the modern Lithuanian name for the state is included in the footnote, in first sentence. Merangs (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Grammar

The grammar in this article is pretty bad but it's locked to editing. Can a native English speaker please go over the article? 78.136.162.215 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? It is quite a long article. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)