Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lutici

Hello, nice to meet you Skäpperöd and Volunteer Marek — I'm Feezo. I've taken a brief look at the background, and will be ready to start the next step (focused discussion) by tomorrow night. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Feezo.Volunteer Marek 22:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Scope of the dispute

Would it be correct to say that the first primary issue is confined to this addition and File:Wrymouth expedition pomerania lutici.png? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure.Volunteer Marek 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Or not quite. The original map was this one: [1]. The way I understood Skapperod's initial complaint was that the name "Stralsund" did not exist in 1121. Which is true enough, the actual name was not recorded until 1234. I had included the name "Stralsund" just as a geographical marker/for sake of informativeness (without it a person looking at the map might not realize that this was the area of later Stralsund). As I've mentioned in the other threads (DR I think, thought it might have been RSN), the name "Stralsund" is actually not included in the original source, although the author does include it in the same book for later periods - which suggests that he is aware that this wasn't "Stralsund" yet.

Basically, on the one hand you want to include "Stralsund" for the sake of clarity, but on the other, it is true that this name did not exist yet in the period that the map covers.Volunteer Marek 22:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@Feezo: Yes, and [2] (same 1121 issue, another article; Oder-->Müritz part of that statement is not disputed). @VM, no comment yet, as this is purely about the scope of part one, right? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the root question is: was a city at the site of modern Stralsund captured by Boleslaw in 1121? Volunteer Marek, can you confirm what the source says about this? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether Boleslaw campaigned in the area of modern Stralsund.Volunteer Marek 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But unless the source describes the capture of a city at the present location of Stralsund, the edit would have to be modified to "...as well as capturing Demmin (Dymin) and Stralsund (Strzałów)." The map could still include the city as a point of reference, perhaps labeled as (modern Stralsund) and without the red circle. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The circle is in the original map. You can see part of it in gbook preview [3].Volunteer Marek 02:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying - but the inline text does not mention the capture of Stralsund/Strzałów? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not in that particular source. Hold on, I seem to be having some internet problems. Give me a minute here.Volunteer Marek 03:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This source states "He (Boleslaw) recaptured the whole area up to and well beyond the Oder, as far as the Island of Rugen". That doesn't mention Stralsund explicitly but "as far as the Island of Rugen" would cover Stralsund.

This source states (my translation, search for "Stralsund") "Polish and German expansion met with each other in this way in the area of upper Peene, from the Muritz Lake, to probably the area of today's Stralsund". What was going on was that Boleslaw was marching across Pomerania from the East, while the Holy Roman Emperor, Lothair was marching in from the West. The same source also says "In the west, the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Gutzkow and Demmin, which, for unknown reasons St. Otto did not visit during his 1124 mission, although from other source we know that the inhabitants of the first of these places allied themselves with Poland in 1121".

This source says (my translation) "In the next year, this time through Demmin, Wolgast, Griefswald, and Stralsund, Boleslaw's knights reached the island of Rugen "crossing the sea""

This source says (my translation): "it was then that Boleslaw Krzywousty took all of Oder-Pomerania, as far as Rugen".

This source states (my translation) "under Boleslaw Krzywousy's rule when we (Poland) reached past Wolin, Szczecin and Stralsund and even established ourselves on Rugen"

Volunteer Marek 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But with the possible exception of Jabłonka, none of those would seem to support the statement that Boleslaw captured Stralsund. So wouldn't it be more accurate to either not mention it, or use something like the wording "area of today's Stralsund", per your translation, for the inline text? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Jabłonka is explicitly talking about 1123: The sentence before the one cited is about 1122, the cited sentence starts with "In the next year" (and ends with a quote from the Traski annals' entry for 1123). So leaving aside other problems with that reference, it is certainly not within the scope of the 1121 campaign. I hesitate to reply to the other links since, per below, I still think that this is about scope, not content yet. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the 1123 applies to the capture of Rugen, the other part of the sentence just describes how he got there. Some authors put the capture of the island at the end of the campaign which began in 1121 (although some authors give 1122 not 1123, that part is uncertain), that's what Jablonka's doing. It was a long campaign which spanned a pretty big area. So it is certainly within the scope.Volunteer Marek 14:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Jabłonka is unambiguously not talking about the 1121 campaign in question, the whole sentence is about 1123. The sentence reads, by your own translation: "In the next year, this time through Demmin, Wolgast, Griefswald, and Stralsund, Boleslaw's knights reached the island of Rugen "crossing the sea"." Your translation is nearly word-by-word, so no, there is no chance of Jabłonka talking about a range of years here or talking about taking the listed places in a different year as Rügen, as you say. I don't want to open yet another dispute here, so let's please stick to the 1121 campaign and just drop Jabłonka. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What you seem to be suggesting is that there were two expeditions by Boleslaw to the Lutici lands, one in 1121 and another in 1123. That doesn't make sense (nor does any source I know of talk about two expeditions). Rather it's just the same campaign Jabłonka is just giving an end date for it. I don't see why we should "drop" him.Volunteer Marek 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"area of today's Stralsund" is fine with me.Volunteer Marek 04:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A technical note: I edit from GMT+2, so in most cases I won't be able to respond immediately.
@Feezo: Yes, was a city at the site of modern Stralsund captured by Boleslaw in 1121 is part of the question.
I'd like to add a procedural remark before VM's links are discussed. Part of the problem in the previous discussions was that the (alleged) references were not properly identified, and it is hard to respond to something named "here" or "this link" when there are multiple such links presented. It takes only a few short responses and nobody can identify anymore what link is being talked about and what actual reference is behind that link. I thus propose that whenever we are referring to a source here, we name it Author (YEAR): p. NR and pipe links where possible. Is that ok with everybody? Skäpperöd (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re [4] and [5] - fine, I am glad that an agreement has been reached here. That reduces the scope of this part of the dispute to the question of whether we can state that Boleslaw in 1121 campaigned in that area (Demmin-->area of today's Stralsund) or not. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That reduces the scope of this part of the dispute to the question of whether we can state that Boleslaw in 1121 campaigned in that area (Demmin-->area of today's Stralsund) or not. - I thought that's what we just settled.Volunteer Marek 05:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand Feezo correctly, what we are doing right now is settling the scope of the 1121 dispute, not the dispute itself (which would be the next step). I understood Feezo's and VM's comments as an agreement that the first part of the dispute is not anymore about whether Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow was captured by Boleslaw in 1121, but rather about whether Boleslaw in 1121 campaigned in the "area of today's Stralsund." Is that correct? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, since we started discussing the actual text and sources [6] [7] [8], it looks like we were considering the actual dispute not just its scope.Volunteer Marek 14:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I am awaiting Feezo's statement as to whether we are discussing the scope of the medcom part one, or the actual dispute already? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

While this section began as limited to the scope, I considered it to have transitioned into discussing the issue. I apologize for not making this clear — so, to back up, here are the relevant questions and my take on them so far:

• Do we include the current version of the map, which appears to be a faithful reproduction of the information in Michałek 2007?
  • (This is looking like the answer will be "yes", in light of the snippet link showing the original map.)
• Do we mention inline that Boleslaw's forces occupied the area of today's Stralsund?
  • (Since the facts are verified by the additional sources, the issue would seem to be whether this gives undue weight to this part of the campaign. In other words, is it historically significant that Boleslaw's forces campaigned in that area? If so, can we convey why?)

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As to including the map. I never disputed that the map is faithful reproduction of the map in Michałek 2007. I maintain however that

• Michalek is a tertiary source (consensus about that has been reached between VM and me in the DRN thread)
• Michalek is not an expert on Pomeranian history.
• WP:PSTS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL policies need to be followed. The claim that Boleslaw was in the Demmin area and north of it in 1121, or captured places there, should be supported by secondary sources.
• Not a single secondary source could be provided claiming that Boleslaw in 1121 captured or targeted Demmin and Stralsund, or that area. One secondary source, Maleczynski (1939), says he probably did. All other sources provided here fail to mention Boleslaw, in that area, in 1121.
• Thus, the map is not depicting what secondary sources say. It is not illustrating what expert sources say (none of which make such a claim). It is just mirroring a non-expert tertiary source's singular illustration and thus unfit for inclusion.

Related, as to whether we mention inline that Boleslaw's forces occupied the area of today's Stralsund:

• Not one secondary source says that Boleslaw in 1121 captured or targeted Demmin and Stralsund, or that area. We got Michalek's map, and we got Maleczynski (1939) who says that Boleslaw's and Lothair's expansion probably met in that area.
• "Since this is verified by the additional sources" - it is not, that is the core of the dispute. VM linked some literature and claims that these links confirm his claims, but neither actually does. Neither one. We can go through the refs one by one to establish that.

Skäpperöd (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Michalek is a reliable source. The fact that it is a tertiary source rather than a journal article or something is beside the point. Wikipedia policy does not prohibit nor even discourage use of tertiary sources. It would take me literally one minute to find dozens articles that make use of tertiary sources. Encyclopedias, books, atlases, overview articles etc. They're all over the place and Skapperod has never before had a problem with any of them. In fact I'd be willing to bet that he used some tertiary sources himself at some point. So this just seems like a complete red herring and a feeble excuse to mask the true reason for objection, which is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  • Michalek is a historian with expertise in military history. This is military history we're talking about here. The publisher of the work, Bellona Publishers is a very respected publisher of historical works in Poland. It also publishes one of the longest running Polish historical journals and awards the most prestigious Polish prize for new academic historical research.
  • The claim that there's anything "exceptional" here is also a red herring. The claim that Boleslaw was in the Demmin area and north of it IS supported by other reliable sources.
  • The map depicts faithfully what a reliable source says. There are other sources which give information which supports or is consistent with the map.
  • There are a couple secondary sources which support the map.
  • It has been verified with additional sources. You're just playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
  • Finally, throughout these voluminous discussions Skapperod has not bother/not been able to provide even a single source which would directly or indirectly contradict the info in the map. This is why the discussion has been unproductive so far. On one side you have multiple published reliable sources, on the other you have Skapperod just repeating "I dispute that, I dispute that, I dispute that..." ad nauseum without bothering to back any of it up.Volunteer Marek 18:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are fine and useful as long as they accurately summarize what secondary sources say on a given issue, per WP:PSTS policy, but that is not the case here. That some sources, while passing the general reliability criteria of wikipedia, are not very reliable in every detail is also not a secret. Neither are we obliged to include everything that was ever published if the claims are surprising and not covered by multiple mainstream sources, that is what we have the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy for. I find it pretty surprising if no expert on Pomeranian history makes the claim that Boleslaw in 1121 campaigned in the Demmin/Stralsund area, in fact no-one except Michalek, a non-expert, makes such a claim. And he does not even reference it or spell it out, it is solely in an illustration in his book.

I think both of us have, again, made their viewpoint clear. @Feezo, are you willing to go through the references provided by VM, together with VM and me, and look for whether any of them references Boleslaw in the Demmin/Stralsund area in 1121? VM says yes, I say no. We are going in circles for weeks now about this. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are fine and useful as long as they accurately summarize what secondary sources say on a given issue, per WP:PSTS policy, but that is not the case here. - this is more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There are other sources which support this reliable source, already listed above. And Michalek IS an expert, i.e. a professional historian with expertise in military history - next thing you'll start claiming that only people born in Stralsund are allowed as experts or something.

There is no surprising claim here. There is no exceptional claim here. If these were exceptional claims then YOU would have been able to present a source which contradicts the map, as well as the four or five other sources given. But you haven't been able to do that despite numerous requests.

At the end of the day, what you are demanding is that we throw out the reliable source policy and info based on reliable sources simply because you, personally, happen not to like it. You really need more than that.Volunteer Marek 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a key part of the dispute is whether Michalek is a reliable source. VM, I can find very little information about him, other than that he wrote this book. Can you obtain any information to support your assertion of his credibility (e.g., education, current or past academic positions, publications, etc.) I do not speak Polish, so my ability to personally analyze these sources is limited. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That was my initial feeling as well which is why I originally brought it to WP:RSN [9]. Unfortunately no outside editors weighted in. I can only repeat what I said there. What matters for reliability is the author and the publisher:

Michalek is clearly a reliable source. He's a historian with a specialty in military history. His specialties were middle ages and the military history of the east. There's a short bio article on Polish Wikipedia pl:Andrzej_Michałek.

Bellona Publishing House, which published the book, is likewise a reliable publisher. It has published famous historians such as Henryk Samsonowicz and Lech Wyszczelski. It also publishes Mówią Wieki, one of the oldest historical journals (albeit with a somewhat popularizing slant - it's still professional historians that contribute though) in Poland. Bellona also awards the annual KLIO award, which, within Poland, is called "the Nobel prize for history". Michalek co-shared the award for editorial work in 2003 [10].

So both the author and the publisher are reliable and I don't think there's much room here to argue about - which is why Skapperod keeps resorting to this repetitive "I dispute I dispute I dispute" tactic without ever providing sources of his own. Honestly, I think the map issue should just be settled - it's fine - and we move on to stuff (like wording of the Stralsund passage or the capture of Rugia) where there actually might be some legitimate reason for disagreement.Volunteer Marek 00:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to contradict you VM, but winning a literary award and getting a book published don't really establish academic credentials. Can you at least tell me what his degree is in and where it was obtained? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, winning an award for history and getting a book (actually a number of books) published by a reputable publisher does establish credentials.Volunteer Marek 01:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Per pl:Andrzej_Michałek and his publication list, he has published nowhere besides Bellona, i.e. no university presses at all, and his focus is the Levant. It looks like he never worked at any university, nor published any scientific paper. There are absolutely no credentials for Pomeranian history. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't draw that conclusion as there's nothing to indicate that list is exhaustive, rather just a list that whoever made the article was aware of.Volunteer Marek 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my conclusion too. Winning an award from a publishing company and writing books do not make you an academic in the English-speaking world. I am not aware that this is any different in Poland. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Part of it is that his name is so generic - it basically means "Andrew Michael" - so searching for it yields a whole bunch of irrelevant hits that make it hard to wade through.

However, like I said, regardless of this, the book is clearly a reliable source.Volunteer Marek 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, let me point out one more time - if the information in the map is incorrect then it shouldn't be hard to find a source which contradicts it (say, by an "expert in Pomeranian history" of Skapperod's choosing). But rather what we have here is several other sources which SUPPORT the info in the map (Maleczynski, Jablonka others) and one Wikipedia editor's (Skapperod) opinion. Unless sources which contradict the map are presented I see absolutely no justification for trying to remove the map.Volunteer Marek 17:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

VM, I'm looking at the sources you provided above, and although Rügen would include the "area of today's Stralsund", its conquest wasn't part of Boleslaw's campaign in 1121 — is this correct? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure if I understand your question. The Maleczynski source and the Jablonka source directly mention Stralsund as being part of ... the "conquest" - at least in terms of campaigning in the area or controlling the area. The other sources indirectly imply it.Volunteer Marek 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking because on the main case page, Rügen's conquest is described as being in 1130. So the above passage from Jabłonka 2007, for instance, ("In the next year, this time through Demmin...") does not refer to Boleslaw's 1121 campaign. Is that right? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. This is moving into the other part of the dispute which is about the capture of Rugen. This is a lot more uncertain. Generally, sources put this at some time between 1121 and 1130. Some sources, like Jablonka above, put it at the end of the campaign which started in 1121 (in Jablonka, Boleslaw got to Rugen by 1123). Other sources say different things. They do tend to agree that it happened sometime during this period. So the uncertainty is whether Rugen was captured at the end of the campaign which began in 1121 or in a separate later expedition.Volunteer Marek 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks—see, I'm trying to corroborate the Michałek map using the other sources you list. But if Rügen wasn't conquered until after 1121, then its proximity to Stralsund can't be used to support the map. So we're back to looking for a source that either a) confirms or b) contradicts Michałek's assertion that Boleslaw campaigned in the Stralsund region in 1121. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If the campaign began in 1121 but lasted until 1123 then Jablonka supports the map (in fact, that's exactly what he appears to be saying). Likewise Maleczynski is referring to the campaign of 1121, which mentions Stralsund explicitly. As far as the other sources go, basically in the 1120's (up to 1130) "Boleslaw captured the area up to Rugen". This includes the area of Stralsund. Rugen - an island, rather than mainland like rest of the captured territory - itself might have been captured in a later expedition. But that's Rugen, not Stralsund. If it would help to clarify things I guess I could somehow relabel the map to indicate that 1121 was the beginning of the campaign not necessarily it's entirety (for example, IIRC some other sources give 1122 as the end, or even the year that Szczecin was captured) Volunteer Marek 01:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "If the campaign began in 1121 but lasted until 1123 then Jablonka supports the map" - not at all! Look at your map. It has an arrow from Stettin/Szczecin to Demmin, and from Demmin it has one arrow to the Müritz and one to Stralsund. Even if Michalek and Jablonka were both decent sources, they would be mutually exclusive based on the simple fact that without a time machine, noone can go to Demmin in 1123, as Jablonka claims, and from there go to the Müritz lake and arrive there in 1121, as Michalek says (and which is supported by other sources and not under dispute here). Skäpperöd (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an idea—maybe change "in 1121" to "(1121–c. 1123)"? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with changing it simply to "began in 1121" and leaving the end date open. We know it started in 1121. There's a lot more uncertainty about how long it lasted.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Although, with that "c." (I missed that on a quick first reading, thought you just said 1123 by itself) that could work too.Volunteer Marek 02:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to intervene here. First, it is not at all necessary to cross the Stralsund area to go to Rügen. Second, and most importantly: The 1121 campaign and the 1123 campaign are not the same, and to say so in the article violates WP:SYNTH:

• There are secondary sources reporting that in 1121 Boleslaw led a campaign from the lower Oder to the Müritz lake (this ultimatively goes back to the record of Ebo III.4 as primary source). This was so far undisputed.
• There are secondary sources discussing Boleslaw's 1123 campaign, which is recorded in the Annals of Traska (primary source is in MPH II p. 832 [858].) These annals report that in 1123, "Boleslaw was crossing the sea and conquered castles." In secondary literature, this has been interpreted quite differently, and that Boleslaw's 1123 destination was Rügen is just one of the interpretations (which besides Rügen as a target include the Levant, Denmark, Stettin/Szczecin, Wollin, Öland as the 1123 targets). Assessments of the 1123 campaign's destination are e.g. in
  • Gladysz, Mikolaj (2012). The Forgotten Crusaders. Poland and the Crusader Movement in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Leiden. pp. 36-38 and fn 96, 97, 102.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) and
  • Blomkvist, Nils (2005). The Discovery of the Baltic. The Reception of a Catholic World-System in the European North (a.d. 1075–1225). The Northern World. Vol. 15. Leiden. pp. 330–332.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link): "In Polish research many suggestions have been made, from a mere crossing over Stettiner Bucht, to an assault on Rügen. Tyc [...] states that the objective of Boleslaus' navigation remains unknown," referring to Tyc, Teodor (1997). Z średniowiecznych dziejów Wielkopolski i Pomorza: wybór prac. Zebrał i posłowiem opatrzył Jan M Piskorski. Poznań. pp. 206ff.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).

So we can not, per WP:SYNTH, synthesize a three-year campaign from the 1121 Müritz campaign and the 1123 campaign with the possible destination of Rügen. Neither can we establish, against WP:OR, that a (speculative) Rügen campaign necessarily involves campaigning in the Demmin/Stralsund areas, as any access to the sea would be sufficient as starting point. Neither can we conclude, per WP:OR, that any mention of Rügen in the context of Boleslaw necessarily refers to 1121 (no secondary source claiming that), or 1123 (discussed in the references above), as it may as well refer to the events of 1135 (or whatever). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, we don't know exactly when Boleslaw captured Rugen. But, as the source you give yourself points out, the idea that the 1123 "crossing the sea" involved an expedition to the Holy Land is pretty... tenuous (leave Pomerania in 1122, get back to conquer Ruthenia in 1124 - that would've set a record for speed of travel in medieval times. With existing transportation technology and logistics, it simply wasn't possible).

More generally, *we* are not synthesizing the 1121 campaign with the 1123 campaign. *Some* sources are, for example Jablonka (and in more general terms some of the other sources). Now, it's true that not *all* sources do that. Rugen might have been captured separately, or even at a later date. That looks like what Michalek believes which is probably why there's no arrow to Rugen on the map. This is also why I'd prefer the caption "campaign began in 1121" rather than "campaign from 1121 - c. 1123". Hence putting the 1121 campaign with the possible 1123 capture of Rugen wouldn't be exactly WP:OR though it would requrie a more detailed discussion of the sources (i.e. being clear about the fact that it's just one view).

But we're not discussing the Rugen issue yet. If your concern is to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR then the answer is simple: leave the map as it is since it faithfully reflects a reliable source, and is supported by info found in Maleczynski. Then we can move on to wording about Dymin etc. and then Rugen.Volunteer Marek 17:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

re "*we* are not synthesizing the 1121 campaign with the 1123 campaign. *Some* sources are, for example Jablonka" - Jablonka does not even mention the Müritz. Which sources are you referring to? What are your thoughts about the contradiction I pointed out above, i.e. that Boleslaw would need to travel backward in time if he first takes some places in 1123 and then goes to the Müritz from there - in 1121? Also, have you found any academic credentials for Michalek (I did not)?

@Feezo, I think we need some kind of structure for this thread to avoid going in circles. I would also like to hear what you think about my comments above.

Skäpperöd (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

He states that in 1122 Wartislaw became a vassal of Boleslaw in Szczecin/Stettin. So it's the same campaign. Began in 1121 (some sources say Winter), Szczecin captured in end of 1121-early 1122 and then on to the Lutici lands.Volunteer Marek 20:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But that way he could not possibly have reached the Müritz by 1121. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, would it allay your concerns about synthesis if we retitled the map "Boleslaw the Wrymouth's campaigns to Szczecin and against the Lutici (1121–c. 1123)"? Maleczyński appears to be an excellent source, and his credibility easily established (bibliography), so I think he should be our primary reference for this. Since he says "probably the area of today's Stralsund", it might be appropriate to include a footnote that this detail is speculative. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already proposed in the DRN thread to just quote and attribute Maleczynski (1939) for the Demmin/Stralsund bit, and I stand by that proposal. It read

• ... [sentence about Boleslaw's campaign from the Oder to the Müritz in 1121].^{[fn for sec. sources and Ebo]} Maleczynski (1939) says that Boleslaw thereby "most likely took Demmin/Dymin and Gützkow/Kockow" and, with reference to the contemporary campaign of Lothair of Süpplingenburg, "German and Polish expansion met at Müritz lake and the upper Peene river, and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund/Strzalow."^{[fn for Maleczynski with original quote in Polish]}

That solution is however only for in-text. Maleczynski is not supporting the map as long as there are no question marks on Demmin and the arrow going northwards from it. Also, Maleczynski is not arguing that any of this happened in 1123. I am not comfortable with hiding the expert in a footnote while prominently presenting the the view of an amateur which has no support in secondary sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. That was the point in the DRN discussion which looked like we where gonna get somewhere, but then you started claiming that because Maleczynski says "most-likely" or "probably" it somehow "contradicts" the map. That was, and is, a ridiculous contention. If I say "he went to the store to get milk", and you say "yeah, probably", you are not contradicting me, you are supporting me.

And you were just warning against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yet here you want to put question marks and arbitrarily remove arrows from the map, based on nothing (please, where are YOUR sources??? I'm getting tired of asking repeatedly, just to watch you come up with yet another sneaky way of dodging that question) but your own personal feelings. Sorry, no. The fact is that Maleczynski supports the map in Michalek. The professional and the "amateur" (I like how you sneaked that in as if it was an established fact, despite the fact that he is described as a professional historian) agree with each other. Maleczynski IS the secondary source that supports Michalek. So the claim that "has no support in secondary sources" is blatantly false and since you keep repeating it, even as it's pointed out again and again that it's not true, that pretty much suggests that you are not engaging this discussion in good faith. Which is why I was wary of wasting my time on it to begin with.Volunteer Marek 22:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)