Jump to content

Talk:Constitution of 3 May 1791/Archive 1

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

Translation

Making the first translation - I know it is not today's English, I am at the same time trying to make it understandable and keep the orginal form. Believe me, it sounds as bad in today's Polish as in English. Any suggestions welcome. --Piotrus 18:37, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I found the translated text here: http://www.polishconstitution.org/index1.html I will @ them if they allow us to use it here. --Piotrus 19:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

...And..? Halibutt 12:10, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

And they have not replied at all. Perhaps if few more people would enquire and send emails to info@polishconstitution.org that would help? Tommorow I will post here the text of email I sent, so you can just copy&paste. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

update - good news. I have received email from the above site (from Andrzej Batorski) and he kindly writes: I have no problem releasing it, but I did not translate it and I don't know the source of this translation. All other content on the web site is original, written by my wife, and can be used without limitations. The only thing I ask is to give proper credit when publishing any information coming form www.polishconstitution.org --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
published polish and english text on wikisource, see external links in the article for links --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Second free?

From [1]: May 1791: After four years of discussion and drafting, Poland gets the first freely adopted, written constitution in Europe. The only earlier written Constitution in Europe was imposed on Sweden.. What was this Sweden constitution? When, imposed on whom, etc.? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia article, Constitution of 1772. Following the Swedish King Gustav III's coup d'etat against the country's oligarchs, its Estates-General on August 21, 1772, at the King's demand, within 20 minutes adopted a constitution of 57 articles. The document was subsequently amended in January 1789. This Swedish constitution, however, is considered a far cry from what would be regarded as a modern national constitution. Indeed, it is entirely passed over in the collection of constitutions, Najstarsze konstytucje z końca XVIII i I połowy XIX wieku; wybrał, przełożył i wstępem opatrzył Paweł Sarnecki, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 1997. logologist 03:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Swedish Instrument of Government from 1772 was not even the first codified constitution in Sweden. It basically ended the period of relative democracy preceding it, what was known as the Age of Liberty (which had been established by the Constitution of 1719). I use the world relative here because in early 18th-century Sweden nobles were still one of the most dominating groups in society. But that's not important. What I think is important is that the key word in this debate is modern. The May Constitution can correctly be considered the first modern codified national constitution in Europe. But simply saying that it was the first codified constitution in Europe (of any kind) is misleading, and is likely to confuse some readers. —Gabbe 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for this information, some of which I've incorporated into the article. It does help put perspective on the matter of "first constitutions." logologist 23:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791

This document is known in Polish as "Konstytucja 3 maja" — "May 3rd Constitution." (It is in fact — due to its unique importance, which was immediately recognized at the time — the only Polish constitution that is called by a specific date; all subsequent ones are commonly designated only by month of adoption.) I propose that this article be retitled either "Polish 1791 Constitution" or "Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791."

The second version has the advantage of being more faithful to the Constitution's Polish name, including as it does the date of adoption. The first version, on the other hand, is recommended by simplicity. (This was, after all, the only Polish constitution that was adopted in 1791).

The article's present title, "May Constitution of Poland," is perhaps the worst that could be selected: it is both ahistoric and uncommunicative. logologist 04:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I support "Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791". Unless there any objections, which I don't really expect, I'll move it in a day or two. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the Polish name is Konstytucja 3 maja, then why isn't this article called Polish Constitution of May 3? Were there other Constitutions made in Poland on other May 3s? Kingturtle 02:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, nihil novi constitution of 1505 was adopted on the very same day. There are several English names, but Google test shows that 'Polish Constitution of May 3' is the most common. Adding a date is simply a kind of a disambig extention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Government Act

Dear Peter,

In your "Note on Polish constitution definition," you overexerted yourself in seeking to justify why the May 3rd Constitution was adopted as a "Government Act" rather than as a "Constitution." The body of the Government Act itself (i.e. the text of the Constitution) refers to itself repeatedly as "this Constitution," as inspection of either the Polish original or its English translation (on Wikisource) will show.

The reason that the document went through the Sejm as the "Government Act" was simply that the Polish May 3rd Constitution, contrary to the way the U.S. Constitution came into force, was voted in by the existing national legislature as an ordinary act, instituting a framework of government. logologist 08:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goes to show that working ot 2am is not always the most efficient way :) Btw, I adopted this info from [2]. You may want to check this, seems fairly credible (being the official Polish government site). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I find its argument and language a bit difficult to follow.
Regrettably, even the writings of "experts" must be approached cum grano salis. For example, the caption to Matejko's painting that illustrates the paper by "Hon. Carl L. Bucki" describes the painting as "show[ing] Stanislaw August Poniatowski, King of Poland, being bourn [sic] in triumph from the Royal Palace..." If so, then who is the gentleman in the regal-looking ermine-lined cape, entering the Cathedral on the left?
"Constitutions" were very much in the air well before the various "world's first written national constitutions" were adopted. Much as Polish politicians in the 1990s sought constitutional models in western Europe and America, so on the eve of the First Partition of Poland a member of the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm was sent on a mission to ask the French philosophe Mably and antiphilosophe Rousseau to draw up tentative constitutions for a new Poland. Mably submitted his recommendations in 1770-1771; Rousseau finished his in 1772, when the First Partition was already underway.
I think the May 3rd Constitution article already qualifies for Featured Article status. The introduction is now adequate. The article is comprehensive, with nearly all linked references worked up, is informative, and is well written. logologist 00:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think I can still expand this article a little - for axample with your info on Mably and Rousseau. Do give me a few more days :) Could you redirect/write articles about Mably and antiphilosophe? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Quotes

I urge that the "Quotes" not be italicized (it's distracting and unnecessary) and that they be rearranged in chronological order: Burke, von Hertzberg, Establishing Act, Szczęsny Potocki, Kołłątaj and Ignacy Potocki, Marx, Churchill, John Paul II. (In their current order, they're a historic hash.) logologist 08:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be bold :) I agree with you. I will do it soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I've added a quote from Thomas Jefferson and rearranged some quotes. (I think the reasons are clear, but I'll be happy to provide them.) I've also abridged, without loss of substance, the quote from Edmund Burke, who uses an obsolete expression ("defacated") that the reader will probably misread as "defecated." logologist 05:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The term

We must be careful not to overdo the uniqueness of the Polish political system. Yes, Poland had one of the world's first modern written national constitutions and was not burdened with a divine-right monarchy. But Britain, for example, even if she still doesn't have a "written constitution," had gone through a civil war a century and a half earlier to limit monarchical power (and had killed her king). The Polish story is remarkable enough without gilding the lily. logologist 09:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try to be NPOV, but sometimes I may get to POV - it happens. I hope you and others will correct me when I make such mistakes :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FA close

The article is 32kb now, which means it reached my bottom-lenght line for a comprehensive article. What it needs now is:

  • logical restructuring - i.e. rewriting - of the Features section. It contains all the needed information, but reads *bad*. Not only it has too many short paragraphs, but it jumps from one fact to another, repeats itself, and such.
  • general 'Logologist magic' for the entire article, yet again - i.e. making it into beautiful English prose. I am sure I can count on you, L, for this :)
  • well, that's all I can think of. We are close :) Hopefully FAC will be made this weekend. Perhaps we can make if for the May 3 anniversairy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Numbers/rerefences for this:

Under the May 3rd Constitution, Poland extended political privileges to its townspeople and to its nobility (the szlachta), which latter formed some ten percent of the country's population. This percentage closely approximated the extent of political access in contemporary America, where effective suffrage was limited to male property owners. Ok, I can just see this being torn apart at FA. We need info on: what % of Commonwealth population were the townsfolk? Reference for what % of USA were the 'male property owners', and what is meant by the 'effective' in this sentence? I will have to rewrite it or move it here if we cannot back this statement up by sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


State of this article

I've re-edited half this article, and have some questions and misgivings. For example:

I'm not sure that mandatory majority rule at sejmiks was introduced at the early stage suggested in the article. In any case, at sejmiks the threat of the liberum veto could be overridden by means of "confederating" the session, as with sejms.

I did some research. I couldn't find the exact answer to your question (i.e. about history of voting specifically on sejmiki), but the history of voting in sejm shows that majority voting was common until late 16th century, when unanimity and liberum veto took hold. This concides with the rise of confederated sejms which preserved majority voting. It appears logical that this voting custom chage is true for both sejms and sejmiks. I assume that whatever holds true for sejms is true for sejmiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If both sejm and sejmik abolished the liberum veto at the same time, then the sejmik couldn't have done so before the First Partition (the impression given by the article) since the sejm did so on May 3, 1791.

Some reforms that were introduced after the First Partition, e.g. Andrzej Zamoyski's proposed codification of laws (completed 1780), seem to be alluded to anachronistically before the First Partition (1772). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you fixed this mistake.
So, did Andrzej Zamoyski present a plan for municipal reform? When? In what form? What became of it? Was it acted on? Was it implemented?

How many deputies total were there at the time of the April 19, 1773, Sejm?

Good question. It would be nice to find the answer, but I don't think it is of key importance.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

logologist 10:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "Only 102 deputies attended..." is meaningless if we don't know how many didn't. logologist 15:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sections to give direct reference to.

A quick start on some examples of sections which should have references.

important information

  • The Constitution instituted political equality between townspeople and nobility (Polish: szlachta) and placed the peasants under the protection of the government, thus mitigating the worst abuses of serfdom.
    • This is explained in text and based directly on constitution text available on wikisource. Perhaps I will add articles numbers to make it more evident. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The first such constitution [....] The second was the constitution adopted by the Polish-Lithuanian ...
    • Well...this is basic encyclopedic knowledge - but I can add a source. For example: John Markoff, 'Waves of Democracy'. 1996, ISBN 0803990197 which I have just next to me: p.121 'The first European country to follow the U.S. example was Poland in 1791'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • while the peasants languished in abysmal conditions and the city dwellers were hemmed in by an array of anti-municipal legislation and fared much worse than their thriving Western contemporaries.
    • This is confirmed by many sources, and in such strong terms definetly expressed in 'Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów' by Paweł Jasienica --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Catherine vowed to "protect in the name of Poland's liberties":
    • The quotes are translated by me and logologist from Polish orginal text. On Wikiquote there are links to site I found them, and that site gives printed references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Even before the First Partition, a Sejm deputy had been sent to ask
  • the ensuing debate and adoption of the Government Act took place in a quasi-coup d'etat:

might be disputed

potentially controvercial phrasing which should be attributed

Mozzerati 19:39, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

I wonder whether the fact that revered historians such as Jasienica use emotional language is reason enough to copy their style here. The following bit: They spent lavishly on banquets, drinking bouts and other assorted amusements, while the peasants languished in abysmal conditions and the city-dwellers were hemmed in by an array of anti-municipal legislation and fared much worse than their thriving Western contemporaries as true as it may be, is too strongly worded and reads more like a passionate newspaper editorial or worse still, an internet forum post by an excited user rather than a matter-of-fact encyclopedic article. As a Pole I understand feeling emotional about the 17th - 18th century Polish magnates, but we should keep things more businesslike. I suggest rephrasing this bit to improve the style while retaing the contents. Dawidbernard (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Section titles

...are now decent. People, don't make redundant titles. Don't say "History of the blah" if the article's title is already "Blah." What else would a "History" section concern, if not the topic of article? And for god's sake, don't make a sub-article section inside the article. Why was there a "May 3 constitution" section inside an article about the May 3 constitution? Is the rest of the article unrelated to the May 3 constitution or something? Jesus christ. 141.211.234.229 16:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

While the titles were to long (tnx for trimming them), I had to reintroduce 2nd level sectioning (i.e. subsectioning) to make the table of contents more readable. I have also moved the 'features' section to the bottom of the article - it is now structured into history first, features later, instead if features in the middle of the history sections. I have also merged 'importance' into legacy, it makes more sense now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

World's second modern codified national constitution

The current article states that it was "the world's second [modern codified national constitution] after the United States Constitution. How was this determined? Specifically, why do the Articles of Confederation not qualify as an earlier "modern codified national constitution?" -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:59, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I never heard Articles of Confoderation described as a constitution. Perhaps you should ask this on the articles or US constitution talk page. As far as May constitution - which I researched - is concerned, many sources, including Markoff (referneced in text) mention that PCM3 was the second constitution. To quote Markoff: "Constitutions explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders: The Constitution of US, ratified in 1789, was the model, inspiring numerous successors. Important precursors include some of the documents produced in the course of the English revolution of 1640s and the 18th century Swedish constitution. The first European country to follow the US example was Poland in 1791." I'd say that any documents before that era simply don't qualify to requirements of the constitution definition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The reference did not support the claim. Now the claim follows from the reference. Was this constitution in the olympics or something? 1st in this, 2nd in that. --Dlatimer 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't as clearly stated in that reference as in the two new ones that I have provided now. Is this satisfactory?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Big deal. I can find dozens of references which say that the US constitution is the oldest enduring national constitution or sometimes just oldest constitution. These references include the US State Dept, and Library of Congress. People in the US are taught this when they are kids. So long as American authors claim their constitution is oldest, the May constitution of Poland will appear to be second oldest. And how many Americans are going to make themselves aware of San Marino? So the myth will be perpetuated.
I've added something in the US Constitution article, an 'first' which is not able to be disputed. We shall see if this lasts. But I cannot understand why you deliberatly create this inconsistancy, when you are aware of it. Will you next erase the reference to San Marino in the constitution article, so there is no conflicting information? I have no personal interest in San Marino, whereas you present with a Polish name. If you have any personal interest in promoting the history of Poland, then it seems misplaced. Doesn't Polish history tell us that might is not right? That concludes my appeal to your conscience. I'll not spend more time on this. I've made the appropriate efforts twice now. --Dlatimer 17:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Dlatimer, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. As long as academic sources we have claim that US was the 1st, and PL the 2nd, that's the info we have to give. If we have academic sources that cast doubht on that, than by all means, let's mention them in the article. The constitution article is the best place for this - it already mentions various other constitutions (like San Marino, Corcisan, Massachussets, etc.) that can claim to be 'the firts'. But until it can be shown that current scholars have discarded the first/second/etc. claims of the US/PL ones, I see little point in trying to present alternate, unsourced views in specific articles (although a footnote may be a good solution).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's dismiss your assumption of original research: Foundations of Comparative Politics (also in book form) --Dlatimer 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's a Power Point presentation. Can we get an article or a book with the same statements?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the power point presentation is summary of the book and I'm not planning on ordering it. If you must, contact the authors: Professor Kenneth Newton and Professor Dr. Jan W. van Deth. Did you think I looked up a high school student project? --Dlatimer 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So what's the relevance of their argument to this article? Could you please summarize it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have already stated the power point presentation is summary of the book. Reread your own comments above about original research to understand the relevance. --Dlatimer 00:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Corsican constitution

After a note on Polish wiki, I found out there is another legal act that might be the 'first' constitution - before Polish May and US: the Corsican Constitution of Pasquale Paoli. Direct text of the constitution is linked from PP wiki article. Some aditional info I googled: "It all started when Pascal Paoli led the Corsican nationalists of the day to resist the rule of Genoa and drew up a democratic constitution in 1755. In 1765, the writer Boswell said of Corsica that it was "the best model... ever to exist in the Democratic tradition"." [4]. "In this text of 1755, during the independence of Corsica, Pascal Paoli defined the great principles of the Corsican Constitution that will later be part of the inspiration for the Constitution of the United States of America." [5]. "In 1755, at the Consulta of Casabianca, the representatives of the people adopted a modern constitution. It asserted national sovereignty and organised the separation of powers and the election of a national representative assembly with the power to raise taxes, pass laws and declare war, elected by all citizens over 25, including women. The assembly elected an executive, the Supreme Council, which was the government. The head of the government was directly elected by the assembly, which kept the name of Consulta. One of the first decisions was to create the University of Corte to train the future cadres of the nation. It was no doubt not a model of absolute democracy." [6]. "Settling the capital in Corte he made vote there a Constitution asserting the sovereignty of the Corsican Nation and also the separation of powers, made strike a coin, gave the law regular courts, created an army and tried hard to give the country a small fleet." [7]. "He wrote a project of egalitarian Constitution which was known by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and possibly inspired Thomas Jefferson." [8]. "a local called Pascal Paoli managed to unite the Corsicans and lead an insurrection against the Genoese. He gained enough power to cobble together a rough constitution, a unique act in an era of dynasties and absolutism." [9] I was unable to find, so far, any references to this constitution in more academic texts, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

That fact is fairly well-known in Corsica, but not to the outside world. In fact most of the guidebooks to Corsica mention it, as well as some history books on the Polish constitution as well (I could dig up a ref or two should you need it). //Halibutt 15:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it - I find it quite interesting, and it appears there are no Corsican (or other) Wikipedians (yet) who want to develop that issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

One simple question: was the Constitution of May 3, 1791 a Polish constitution or a constitution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a multinational state? It would be "Polish" if it concerned only Korona (the Polish Crown) and not the entire Rzeczpospolita (the PLC). In my opinion the neutrality of the article's title, which states it was a "Polish" constitution, is disputable. It's an example of Poles trying to poach the historical heritage that we should share with other nations of the 1st Rzeczpospolita.

So we should rename it to Polish-Lithuanian-and to some extent Ruthenian, Cossack, German, Balts, Jews and other minorities Constitution of May 3, 1791? Please see Talk:Partitions of Poland, where we had an extensive debate over why it should not be named Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Also, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and then try to compare the number of academic (or any other...) sources using 'Partition of Poland' or 'May Constitution of Poland' with your variants.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the "extensive" debate you mentioned doesn't prove anything, it doesn't contain any final conslusion. Well, I wouldn't mind mentioning all indigenous nations of the state the constitution concerned. I mean NATIONS and not ethnic minorities you've listed above, of which some are imigrant minorities. If we don't write it was also Lithuanian constitution (or possibly Ruthenian too), then we shouldn't use the word "Polish" neither. Lithuanians and Ruthenians weren't any kind of minorities in their own country, even if they could have been less numerous than ethnic Poles. They were state nations. Didn't the king in the constitution's preamble write "We [...] king of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Duke of Rutenia, Mazovia [... etc.]"?
What you propose is "hey, everybody is making that mistake, let us do it too", as the objectivity of many academical sources, especialy those concerning history, is a fiction. Warszawiak
I respect your opinion, but we have to rely on academic sources. And they seem to overuse the word Poland and Polish in respect to all things PLC. In article's text I have no objections towards using PLC as often as possible. Over the past two years we have replaced many references to Poland with those to PLC, but I draw the line names of the articles. They should be as short as possible to be typable in the searchbox, and thus in such cases adjective 'Polish' (meaning of 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth', not of 'Poland') is preferable. For the same reason I object to adding 'of country' to the names of PLC monarchs - because 'of Poland' is misleading, and 'of PLC' is too long. PS. You are welcome to convince other editors to support your POV. If majority agrees with you, then we will introduce the necessary changes. Creating an account would be a good step, and adding useful content to articles would be another, if you plan to stay around wiki for longer and have any noticable impact.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Dear Piotr Konieczny, thanks for inviting me to this discussion. The person which is not signed in made some good remarks and your remarks is understandable too. I believe that constitution was produced by both sides Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania effort and to avoid misunderstandings and long terms in headline why not make just Constitution of May 3, 1791 ? It would be simple and easy to understand with a bit less tension. So how this possibility? Support M.K 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a good name, as there are no other Constitutions of May 3, 1791, to be confusd with it. Let's wait a few days and see if there are any further comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes no need to rush at all! M.K 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. KonradWallenrod 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought this would never happen... :) Well, in both Poland and Lithuania the constitution is known only as May 3rd constitution, so yes, I support the move. Renata 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that naming the article simply Constitution of May 3, 1791 is a very good idea. Polish, German and Slovene versions of this article have already adopted similar solution. Warszawiak Kastuś
Support. "Constitution of May 3, 1791," is an elegant and inclusive title. logologist|Talk 06:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.

Dominant religion

"The Constitution acknowledged the Roman Catholic faith as the "dominant religion," but guaranteed tolerance of, and freedom, to all religions."

I think this statement is misleading. The relevant fragment of the Constitution can be translated as follows "The National Reigning Religion is and will be the Holy Roman Catholic Faith with all its laws. Conversion from the reigning religion to any faith is forbidden under the punishment of (apropriate for) apostasy." The Polish term "religia panujaca" is way stronger than "dominant religion". It should be translated to "reigning", "ruling" or perhaps "predominant" religion. I can't see any religious freedom in this. Tolerance, maybe. (Slawekk 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Name spelling

Why is the Polish name "Ignacy Potocki" spelled as "Ignas Potockių"? It looks like a Lithuanian spelling. The article about (Ignacy Potocki) does not mention any Lithuanian ethnic origin. Tsf 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness taken too far? Rv that part, this is English Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The second constitution? Simply not true.

This is not true according to the article of the very same Wikipedia, namely the Constitution article:

In 594 BC, Solon, the ruler of Athens, created the new Solonian Constitution. It eased the burden of the workers, however it made the ruling class to be determined by wealth, rather than by birth. Cleisthenes again reformed the Athenian constitution and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC.
The Romans first codified their constitution in 449 BC as the Twelve Tables. They operated under a series of laws that were added from time to time, but Roman law was never reorganised into a single code until the Codex Theodosianus (AD 438); later, in the Eastern Empire the Codex Justinianus (534) was highly influential throughout Europe. This was followed in the east by the Ecloga of Leo III the Isaurian (740) and the Basilica of Basil I (878).
There are a few historical records claiming that this law code was translated into Ge'ez and entered Ethiopia around 1450 in the reign of Zara Yaqob. Even so, its first recorded use in the function of a constitution (supreme law of the land) is with Sarsa Dengel beginning in 1563. The Fetha Negest remained the supreme law in Ethiopia until 1931, when a modern-style Constitution was first granted by Emperor Haile Selassie I.
The earliest written constitution still governing a sovereign nation today may be that of San Marino. The Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law, judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the Codex Justinianus, and it remains in force today.
In 1639, the Colony of Connecticut adopted the Fundamental Orders, which is considered the first North American constitution, and is the basis for every new Connecticut constitution since, and is also the reason for Connecticut's nickname, the Constitution State.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted its constitution in 1780, before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution. It is probably the oldest still-functioning nominal constitution, that is, where the document specifically declares itself to be a constitution.

etc. etc. etc. (emphasis added)

I can understand the national pride of some people who contribute to this article with such passion - but any selfrespecting encyclopedia should be at least consistent with itself. So please either fix this article, or rewrite Constitution#History.

212.76.37.190 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Second. Modern. Codified.. Per references. Nuff said.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me say that "the second modern constitution" is an equally useful definition as saying that Mercedes-Benz is a producer of the second modern car in the world, for some definition of modern. But "the second-oldest national constitution in the world" hardly means "the second-oldest modern and codified national constitution in the world." Now, it isn't the second codified constitution in the world (see beforementioned examples) so please explain me what exactly "modern" means by your definition. Meanwhile I'm rephrasing the sentence to make it less misleading but it is still useless without the definition of "modern". 212.76.37.190 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Two May 3 Constitution Pages?

As of May 4, 2007, there are two slightly different pages dedicated to Polish May 3, 1791 Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Constitution_of_Poland and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_May_3. They need to be merged / redirected. --Ttyre 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All seem to redirect to this page now, so I assume it's fixed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as developed

Markoff doesn't say that the "important precursors" ... "were not as developed". The whole paragraph is as follows:

Constitutions explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders: The Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789, was the model, inspiring numerous successors. Important precursors include some of the documents produced in the course of the English revolution of the 1640s and the eighteenth-century Swedish constitution. The first European country to follow the U.S. example was Poland in 1791. The French constitution of 1791 (and the subsequent constitutions of that revolutionary decade) was widely imitated by neighbouring countries or imposed by French military forces. In the early nineteenth century, Spanish colonies in the western hemisphere wrote constitutions after acheiving independence.

This does not substantiate the final sentence of the "Legacy" section as it presently appears in the article. Furthermore, since Markoff is talking about "limiting authority", he presumably isn't referring to the Swedish Constitution of 1772 (which brought about absolute monarchy and ended the Age of Liberty), but the one established in the first half of the eighteenth century. Gabbe (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest the text is changed? Please check others refs, I think some of them may be of more use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've checked the other references, but none of them seem to explicate on what the US and Polish constitutions have that the Corsican one lacks. Or other pre-1788 constitutions for that matter. My suggestion is to just leave the final sentence as "Other constitutions preceded both it and the US one, for example the 1755 Corsican Constitution.[50]" Admittedly, this will appear incongruous with the preceding statements by Blaustein and Moyers, but I see no way around it that wouldn't violate WP:SYNTH. Gabbe (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That would however go against the prevailing scholarship. While I haven't focused on constitutions in my research, most scholars do agree - if without making it clear why - that May 3 constitution was "the second", following "the first" US one. There is something that made the US modern and substantially different from others - even if minority of scholars disagree or use different counts. To ignore this would be problematic. Bottom line, May 3 one was not just "one of many", but "the second" - we just need to figure out "the second" what. I tend to prefer "second modern constitution" myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Which sources call it the "second modern constitution"? Do you have a reference saying what the prevailing view is among scholars? Gabbe (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
For example, "second+modern+constitution"&dq="second+modern+constitution"&hl=en&ei=32nlTcSZNKrY0QGyttmzBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ this source. It is rather hard to get a ref for "prevailing view is among scholars", but overview of many sources seems to suggest it is the case. I also talked to prof. Markoff himself today, and he agrees with this reasoning, noting that what differentiates US constitution from others is 1) the act of creation something new 2) the act of codification 3) cultural, worldwide influence. You are more welcome to suggest a different wording, but you cannot deny there are plenty of sources who call this constitution "the second" something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There sure are! Take Blaustein (1993), for example: He calls it "the world's second national constitution". That leaves us with multiple ways of interpreting what he writes: One is that he's just plain wrong, and that he had no idea that there were "national constitutions" prior to 1788. Another interpretation is that he uses the word "constitution" not in the general sense of "the system of laws and basic principles that a state, a country or an organization is governed by", but in a more narrow and specific sense. Perhaps he meant to say "the world's second national constitution that provided enumerated powers", or "the world's second national constitution that provided for a detailed system of checks and balances", or something. On page 16, he says that "The English constitutional structure was the precedent for Poland". Since he refrains from calling the English constitution a "constitution", perhaps Blaustein just means "codified constitution" when he says "constitution". Who knows?

Our problem is this: The May Constitution is not like Buzz Aldrin. There is absolutely no doubt, discussion or dispute whatsoever on which two men were the first to set foot on the moon. The situation with the US constitution seems more akin to that of Christopher Columbus. In one sense, he was (as he is often called) "the first European to cross the Atlantic", since out of the droves to complete the voyage in the century after him, they were all inspired by his original trip. But in another sense, he wasn't the first trans-Atlantic European. We now know, for example, that the settlers of L'Anse aux Meadows made the journey, but who else (Leif Ericson perhaps?) is subject to some debate. The point I'm trying to make is: When we include "The May Constitution was the second X constitution" in the article, we run into a genuine problem concerning what to put instead of "X". The various differences between the US constitution and preceding ones isn't something that can be neatly summed up in a series of short, unambiguous adjectives. "Modern", "democratic", "radical", "widely influential", etc. simply won't do the trick.

My suggestion is that we should follow the available sources very closely—being careful to avoid combining them in novel ways—and provide explicit in-line attribution when appropriate. Gabbe (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a bold edit to illustrate what I mean, and to keep the discussion going forward. What do you think? Gabbe (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think your solution is a reasonable one; I see no need to correct your edit :) PS. I really like the tweak of moving refs from the text to the bottom. Less code in text is good! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Key document

The descriptions of the Corsican Constitution of 1755 were downgraded from "constitution" to "key document" and "document bearing the name constitution". Why? Gabbe (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we are trying to provide a better wording, this has already been changed in this edit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ojczyzna"

The article's present note "a" claims that "'Ojczyzna' is in feminine form in the Polish language; therefore, it should be translated as 'Motherland,' and not as 'Fatherland.'"

This is questionable. The Polish "ojczyzna," derived from the root "ojciec" ("father"), is a Polonization of the Latin "patria," derived from "pater" ("father"). (Note that the Latin archetype likewise carries a feminine "-a" ending.) The feminine ending of "'ojczyzna'" arguably is less important than the root from which the word is formed, which is obviously masculine.

Thus, if anything, "ojczyzna" should be rendered as "fatherland."

However, a better, less metaphrastic English equivalent would be "Country," with a capital "C" to distinguish it from other senses of the word. That is what 18th-century English-speakers called their countries, and what 21st-century English-speakers call theirs. Nihil novi (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Best thing would be to provide a reliable reference for the translation. I agree that the current note is dubious. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The English translation of the Constitution of May 3, 1791, by Christopher Kasparek, reproduced in Wikisource, renders "ojczyzna" as "country," e.g., at the end of section II, "The Landed Nobility".
Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I am uneasy using this one as it still has a license problem (see talk). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is the "problem," and how can it be resolved? Nihil novi (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
A proof that the translator released the translation under a Wikipedia-compatible license needs to be either made public, or sent to an email specified at WP:OTRS ("contact us"). See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Country

The Polish word "ojczyzna" ("Country") should not be rendered as "Fatherland" in the Ignacy Potocki – Hugo Kołłątaj quotation that, in this article, now calls the Constitution of May 3, 1791, "the last will and testament of the expiring Fatherland."

No Englishman would raise a toast "To King and Fatherland!" No American would toast "My Fatherland, right or wrong!" Why make Poles say something this odd?

The quotation should, instead, read: "the last will and testament of the expiring Country." Nihil novi (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nihil novi. The phrase "expiring Fatherland" sounds very unnatural, while "gasnącej Ojczyzny" sounds quite natural, so we should look for its natural equivalent in English. Similarly, "język ojczysty" is equivalent to "mother tongue" in English rather than "father tongue" (because no native speaker would say "father tongue"). Translators must remember that literal translation is often wrong.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that this phrase seems to have never been translated the way you suggest ([10]). Fatherland at least yields one hit ([11]). I am not sure if we can use an OR translation, hmmm, how about you ask at WP:ORN? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is not a question of "original research" but of competent translation. Nihil novi (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an example from American literature may shed light on this question. There is a well-known 1863 short story by Edward Everett Hale, "The Man without a Country." The title would, I think, undoubtedly be rendered into Polish as "Człowiek bez ojczyzny." Back-translated, that Polish title gracefully yields back "The Man without a Country." The equivalence is, I think, clear. Nihil novi (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with you, and I respect your competence. I do wonder how "correct translation" fits with WP:V and WP:NOR. Perhaps you could ask on those talk pages. In the meantime, feel free to adjust this article however you see fit; I'll not replace Country with Fatherland, since I do think you are "right" (but remember, "verifiability, not truth"...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder, when you render Polish-language source material into English, does the resulting text constitute "original research" or now-English-language text requiring some kind of independent verification?
I am not trying to be facetious. I don't think that the author of a single publication that cites a quotation can be construed as having a copyright on his particular rendering. That brief quotation should be treated on the same rights as any other text that we might legitimately cite in English translation.
In any case, thank you for your willingness, as usual, to keep an open mind and entertain differing views. Nihil novi (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Quotations are allowed on Wikipedia, in a limited fashion (see WP:QUOTATION). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The path to GA

This article is not that far from a GA. I will see what can be done over the coming weeks and months, but interested editors could help speed this up. Only two sections need substantial work: "War in Defense of the Constitution" needs more references, and "Significance", the same, plus a slight rewrite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect

The statement in the concluding paragraph: "The defeat of Poland's liberals was but a temporary setback to the cause of democracy" -- seems to me untenable. To an outside observer setback to the cause of democracy in Poland was far from temporary but lasted more than a hundred and fifty years -- to the fall of the Soviet Union -- a very considerable period. There are numerous other infelicities in this article as well -- mostly having to do with unidiomatic English, with the result that the whole thing is very hard to understand.173.77.106.151 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As it was mostly an unreferenced paragraph, I am moving it to the talk, till such a time references can be found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article lacks

...a list of Lithuanian constitutions. Sarunas.a (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It also lacks a list of Polish constitution. That's because it is not a list of constitution, Lithuanian, Polish, or otherwise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
And if you're referring to the {{Constitutions of Poland}} template, you're of course allowed to create a Lithuanian equivalent and to incorporate it into this article. If you need help, please consult "Help:Template". Gabbe (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Second democratic constitution

83.31.158.136 (talk) made this edit, which I reverted, followed by the IP remaking the same edit. So, lets discuss here rather than edit-war. Which reliable sources explicitly call it the "world's second democratic constitution"? Please also see the previous discussion archived here, here, here, and here. Gabbe (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims moved from main

I am moving several unreferenced claims from main. Feel free to restore, if a reference is found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On the word konstytucja in Polish language:

Prior to the May 3rd Constitution, in Poland the term "constitution" (Polish: konstytucja) had denoted all the legislation, of whatever character, that had been passed at a Sejm. Only with the adoption of the May 3 Constitution did konstytucja assume its modern sense of a fundamental document of governance.

"Konstytucja—uchwały sejmowe zapadające za wspólną zgodą. Miały one różny charakter: dzisiejszych ustaw i aktów administracynych. Dotyczyły spraw ogólnopaństwowych, lokalnych i partykularnych. Ukazywały się z datą rozpoczęcia obrad.... Wydawane były w iminiu monarchy, pisane w jęz[yku] polski i z biegiem czasu ukazywały się drukiem. Uchwały podatkowe ogłaszano oddzielnie. Zbiór konstytucji wydał w XVIII w. --> S[tanisław] Konarski pod nazwą --> Volumina legum." ("Konstytucja: Sejm laws passed by common consent. They had various characters: of today's laws, and of administrative acts. They pertained to general-state, local and special matters. They appeared with the date of beginning of the session.... They were published in the name of the monarch, written in the Polish language, and in time appeared in print. Tax laws were published separately. A collection of constitutions was published in the 18th century by Stanisław Konarski under the title, Volumina legum [Volumes of Laws—the first collection of laws in Poland: Encyklopedia Polski, p. 301].") Encyklopedia Polski, pp. 306–7. Nihil novi (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a source and adding it to the article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Update. I decided to rewrite this claim, as neither the above source, nor anything else I could find, do suggest that the C3May was the time that the word konstytucja assumed its modern meaning in Polish language. In fact, the official name of C3May was Ustawa rządowa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comparison of Polish and American democracy, particularly the last sentence would be worth including back, if a source could be found:

By contrast to the great absolute monarchies, both countries were remarkably democratic. The kings of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were elected, and the Commonwealth's parliament (the Sejm) possessed extensive legislative authority. Under the May 3rd Constitution, Poland afforded political privileges to its townspeople and to its nobility (the szlachta), which formed some ten percent of the country's population. This percentage closely approximated the extent of political access in contemporary America, where effective suffrage was limited to male property owners.

The defeat of Poland's liberals was a setback to the cause of democracy in Poland. The destruction of the Polish state only slowed the expansion of democracy, by then already established in North America. Democratic movements soon began undermining the absolute monarchies of Europe. The May 3 Constitution was translated, in abridged form, into French, German and English. French revolutionaries toasted King Stanisław August and the Constitution—not only for their progressive character, but because the War in Defense of the Constitution and the Kościuszko Uprising tied up appreciable Russian and Prussian forces that could not therefore be used against Revolutionary France. Thomas Paine regarded the May 3 Constitution as a great breakthrough.

In the end, the conservatives managed to delay the ascent of democracy in Europe only for a century; after the First World War, most of the European absolute monarchies were replaced by democratic states, including the reborn, Second Polish Republic.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 16:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Will be reviewing in full shortly, but look very promising. I imagine you're heading onto to FA with this one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of the image licensing needs improving:
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
With regard to references:
  1. 51 is best removed as a tertiary and unneeded source.
    1. Fixed, as well as another to that source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are #60 and #74 to the same book, and in general, whilst others have page numbers? Can one be provided?
  1. Typo in a template fixed, should display page numbers now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Consider (not a req.) adding a translated title to references such as #98 and #99.
  1. Added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you also tidy the external links; nothing major. Bucki is used as a reference and may not be suitable. Nothing is particularly necessary, but it would be nice.
  1. Bucki is really kept only for a translation, as the printed source has a fuller quote (but in Polish). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
On prose:
  1. "confederations - legal rebellions" ~ should be a dash (m-dashes used elsewhere);
    1. I don't know how to fix dashes. They have always been an arcane mystery to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. "Józef Massalski,"~ semicolon would work better;
    1. done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. "The Enlightenment had gained great influence in certain Commonwealth circles during the reign" ~ I think if you dropped the first link in favour of the second, you could word it so as to be a lots less clumsy;
    1. Hmmm, ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. "eventually blot Poland from the map of Europe" ~ reword please to avoid the non-enyclopedic tone;
    1. Sounds good to me. Could you suggest a different wording? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Suggestion: "1770–71", "1761–1763" ~ inconsistent;
    1. Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Suggestion: "3 May", "May 3" ~ inconsistent;
    1. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. "What was left of the Commonwealth was merely a small buffer state with a puppet king and a Russian army." ~ reword or reference;
  8. "[57] [58]" ~ space
    1. Fixed, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. " — " ~ should be unspaced in various places;
  10. "May 3 constitution", "May 3rd constitution" ~ inconsistent;
    1. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. "130[ref]-132[ref] senators" ~ can't work out if that's a hyphen, if it is, should be endash;
  12. See if "Sejm" should be capitalised in some places it isn't;
    1. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. "Some feminists might prefer "motherland."" ~ remove
    1. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No neutrality or stability issues.
On hold for 7 days. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope I fixed all but the dash issues, which I just can't grok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, think I got all the dash issues. I changed "blot" to "remove" – this reduces the melodrama. For the record, "blot from the map of Europe" sounds a bit like a rhetorical flourish. If you accept "remove" then I'll pass. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I tried for a bit more flowery language with blot, but I accept that I might have overdone it there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_3_May_1791/Archive_1&oldid=1248850912"