Talk:Union of Lublin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.
Poland Portal
Union of Lublin is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Union of Lublin is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Statues of Lithuania

What exactly were these "Statues of Lithuania" ? Were they approved by the parliament (Sejm) ? Lysy 21:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Lithuania - maybe mistranslation, in Lithuanian they are known as "Lietuvos statutas". Basically it was like a collection of all the laws, which was unique in Europe at the time, because unlike Poland-Lithuania most of countries were absolute monarchies so didn't needed those things. If I remember correctly, copies of statutes used to be kept in each powiat so they could be used and seen by each person (probably only nobles). DeirYassin 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering who was writing them and who approved them ? Lysy 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got myself a book now. First statute was created in 1522, came into power in 1529 by the intiative of nobles' council, basically it was like standartising and collecting various tribal and traditional laws and writting them at one place, major work was done by Albertas Goštautas. Second statute came into power in 1566 by the order of king/grand duke Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund the Old?) and was larger and more advanced. The king did this because of pressure of Lithuanian nobles, it was done because of expanding nobles' rights the first statute became redundant. Second statute was prepared by a special commition appointed by grand duke and nobles' council, commition consisted of 10 people. Third statute was accepted in 1588, to somewhat alter laws in relation to Union of Lublin.DeirYassin 21:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the info. A stub (at the very least) at the Statutes of Lithuania is in order, I believe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Try at Lithuanian Statutes :) Halibutt 08:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Uh-oh. And now we have to merge them :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EU?

I think that maybe last lines should be removed (I mean ones about many historians considering it to be similar to EU), as it is kinda POV, unnecessary comparement (because EU has no direct connection to the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth), and such things could be written maybe by members of any nation/country about their nation/country being like something (considered "good") of our days. In fact, similar things about union being similar to that of EU, can be said at many unified countries, e.g. Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, maybe even Yugoslavia, etc. and such claims are probably an overpompastification (wrong word probably I know) DeirYassin 20:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of the author, as I interpret it, is to make the point that Poland-Lithuania was the *largest* such union in Europe until the formation of the EU, not that it was merely a unification. --Vegalabs 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon comments

Someone needs to clean up the spelling and grammar of the article. If I see another "it's" instead of "its" I think I'm just going to die. (Done)

And this sentence makes no sense:

"However the commoners, especially peasants, who aggravated by a rapid inserfement as the Ruthenian territory was colonized by Szlachta, continued to speak in their own languages and the Orthodox religion, which eventually created a significant rift between the lower social classes of people and the nobility in the Lithuanian and Ruthenian areas of the Commonwealth."

[edit] Merge

“Poland provided military aid in that war after the union of the two entities, but did not return the previously annexed territories. Lithuania had to recognize its incorporation into Poland.[5]”

Is any chance of merge this sentence with others because it looks a bit about of context especially if trying to read aftermath part. Or at least expand part –“ recognise its incorporation” to - Lithuania had to recognize incorporation of Podlachia, Volhynia, Podolia and the Kiev regions into Poland. M.K 23:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and show us what you mean?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serfdom

First, we should create serfdom in Poland, just like there is serfdom in Russia. Second, this article is quite incomplete. Third, serfdom was not a direct consequence of the Union, and we could discuss whether it should be mentioned at all. But if it is mentioned, I see nothing wrong with noting that it created conditions that were worse than in the West but better than in the East.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Colonization of Ukraine and serfdom that it brought was the direct consequence of the Union of Lublin which legitimized the Polish occupation of Ukraine. On the other hand, the comparison of the Polish serfdom with any other serfdom does indeed belong to the Polish serfdom article, but not this one. Here it is merely irrelevant. --Irpen (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And of course when Piotrus runs low of his "revert quota" the same editors quickly show up to help. An accident perhaps. More looks like a very sad pattern. --Irpen (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I just look at it as the proof that Wikipedia works - multiplie users revert bad edits and support good edits. PS. You are more than welcome to expand, with references, your point that Colonization of Ukraine and serfdom that it brought was the direct consequence of the Union of Lublin which legitimized the Polish occupation of Ukraine. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, Piotrus, you are now saying that my edits are worse than those of Molobo. However outrageous a statement, nothing you say surprises me anymore.
You habit to act off-wikipedia to achieve the onwiki goals have been exposed multiple times and since you never expressed any remorse or apology, even when caught red-handed with the most despeakable off-line actions, you gave no reason to believe that it has stopped.
Thank you for telling me taht I am "welcome and expand" but with a dedicated team reverting my edits, I am not in the mood to merely waste my time. --Irpen (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As I don't see content creation as a waste of time, I will at some point create an article about serfdom in Poland, and likely move various stuff (including some discussed here) there. Until that happens, I see no reason to delete useful and referenced information. I don't intend to reply to your incivil comments; may I remind you you have been asked to refrain from such tone and attitude?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, let me remind you that the community response to this ArbCom clause was overwhelming and shows that ArbCom goofed (it was also discussed not so long ago an ANI). You do not need to respond. Your, now blanked, Piaskownica in pl-wiki is louder than anything you can possibly say, save an apology that has yet to come. --Irpen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you satisfy my curiosity and link the ANI discussion you mention? You can do it on my talk page as we are getting OT here. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion about Commonwealth

The following link and conclusion on Polish website about Lublin Union was removed [1] from wikipedia Union of Lublin

Info-Polen (link below) concludes "that the common republic (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was a sluggish none-functioning body without political and legal mechanisms"

Lublin Union on info-polen (German-Polish site)

MfG 30 Jan 2008

[edit] Royal Prussia

The first paragraph somewhat misinforms. Poland was not in personal Union with ROyal Prussia. Royal Prussia was autonomous part of Poland. Szopen (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)