Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254

Here are some of the specific changes I disagree with:

• 1)

Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself.

• 2)

A quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence.

• 3)

Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy.

• 4)

A statement from Branner speculating on the long term consequences of CI finances. I feel that this statement adds little to the article, which is in danger of being too long with its quotations.

• 5)

A tabloid headline referring to China as "a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government". I feel that this violates NPOV, tells nothing to the reader, and feel that it's better to use the author's concluding statements about how Chinese should be taught "in terms of freedom and democracy"

• 6)

A paragraph detailing that the Dickinson State University not wanting a CI, noting that it's not where they want to focus right now. I feels that this is not really a criticism at all, since such institutions can be rejected for administration reasons at anytime. Also, the university mentioned is a comparatively minor educational institution which has been accused of being a diploma mill.

• 7)

A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all.

• 8)

A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements.

• 9)

The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations.

• 10)

Here is a paragraph about London School of Economics accepting donations from China, and associates it with the controversial Gaddafi donations. Again, I feel that this has little to do with CI, and more to do with LSE.

• 11)

Long paragraph regarding Visa requirements of CI employees. I feel that this is given undue weight.

• 12) Lastly, I feel that the article would serve better if it was renamed "Reception of Confucius Institutes" or something similar instead, since the current title emphasizes an undue weight on negatives, suffer from a repetition of similar statements, while not giving due weight to CI's side of the story. I also feel that this article is in danger of becoming a collection of random negative stories on CI pulled from Google news, and as such, does not satisfy WP:CRIT. Perhaps the article could be restyled after similar criticism articles on Microsoft and Apple, where the criticism is organized by a clear heading and opening statement, present all sides using very little direct quotes and more concise paraphrasing. --PCPP (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Lutici (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Volunteer Marek added information to articles and drew a map based on details from Michalek, A: Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne. These claims include:

• A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121)
• A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke.

I contest the accuracy of these claims, as these are errors stemming from an overview work which can not be supported by any secondary sources. There are secondary sources confirming a campaign of Boleslaw into the Müritz area in 1121 and others confirming a Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, which the overview work had just confused for above-named places. Michalek has published a series of overview books about crusades, West Slavs (where the contested details are from), South Slavs and East Slavs, so one would expect errors in detail rather than unreferenced novel theories about said details. I contest the inclusion of these errors in articles per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Volunteer Marek insists on keeping these claims in the resp. articles / map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Talk:Lutici#Attempts at removing well sourced material
• Talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages#1130
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"
• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67#Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (aborted due to ongoing RSN discussion, which was then closed w/o outside input)

How do you think we can help?

• Mediate the discussion that is running in circles for days
• Participate in solving the case(s) by commenting from a neutral, policy-based perspective

Opening comments by Volunteer Marek

Obviously I disagree with Skapperod's characterization of this dispute. Pretty much all the relevant info has been gone over at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne". The Map is based on a reliable source and backed up with two additional reliable sources. It does not claim that "Stralsund" existed at the time, merely that the Duke campaigned in the area - this is simply incorrect on Skapperod's part. Likewise, while the original phrasing of the related text may have suggested that "Stralsund" existed at the time, the text has been appropriately reworded.

The Rugen/Rugia issue is different. First, the Polish-Danish expedition against Wolin is placed by sources at either 1129 or 1130. Second, the source states that the expedition to Rugia took place after the Danes sailed to Pomeranian towns (Wolin). So there's no necessary contradiction here. However, it is true that different source put the Polish-Danish expedition to Rugen at different years (1121, 1123, 1126, or this one, 1130) - this is simply due to incomplete historical record. I'm open to phrasing this better to reflect this ambiguity in the sources. However, what I do object to is the contention (unsupported by sources) that such an expedition never took place.

Overall, Skapperod has failed to back up his claims with a single source, he's just been trying to create pretexts to question the info which *is* based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages discussion

Hi, I volunteer here at the DRN noticeboard. This doesn't mean I have any special powers or what I say is more important that anyone else. It simply means that I am impartial and will try mediate this dispute as best I can.

Now, after reading through the dispute on the RS noticeboard I find myself slightly confused to what the basis of the dispute actually is. There's a lot of claims by one party against the sourcing and inclusion of sourced information. Skäpperöd, are you able to provide a source that contradicts Marek's statements? Additionally, as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity. If this is, in fact, the case then I see no reason for that to be brought to this DRN discussion and would request that Skapperod strikes it from the dispute overview. If he feels that it is not resolved then he is welcome to keep it in but we will be tackling each item seperately to avoid confusion Cabe6403 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cabe6403, thank you for volunteering for this.

My point is that not all information that can be sourced must be included, it depends on how authorative the source is:

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, which is an integral part of WP:V, says that "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" are "red flags that should prompt extra caution."
• WP:PSTS policy, part of WP:NOR, says '"Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

The claims and map inserted by VM fail support by any secondary source: The claims regarding 1121 and the map drawn by VM are based solely on an identical map in a tertiary source by a non-expert for the region in question. The claims regarding 1130 are based solely on the same book (tertiary source) where the map is from, quote and pg nr. were not provided despite a respective request.

My stance is that per the above-cited policies, the material does not meet the criteria for inclusion, regardless of whether there are sources directly contradicting it or not. It is sufficient to note that there are no secondary sources at all supporting either VM's map or VM's edits linked above. I'd like to have an agreement here on this important point.

Regarding "as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity." This has made some progress regarding the wording but is not resolved, as the map is still in the articles, and so is the claim that Stralsund existed in 1121 (VM has just exchanged the word Stralsund for the Polish exonym Strzałów). The 1939 secondary source which was initially thought by VM to confirm the disputed information turned out to not confirm that, it actually says "the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" . That is not stating a route or capture, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121, it is clearly marked as speculation by the author. Apart from that 1939 book, no other secondary sources speculate about the campaign probably taking that route, even though the campaign is widely considered by secondary sources. So we have an UNDUE issue here, we still have a map lacking secondary sources, a map failing to support article text, and a slight falsification (VM's "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)" which implies that this place existed and was later transformed somehow, in contrast to "vicinity of today's Stralsund" per the source, which does not imply that this place existed back then).

Regarding the 1130 joint Polish-Danish expedition against Rügen claimed by VM, this is still completely unsettled, no secondary sources supporting that claim have been provided. I have in the above-linked discussions provided secondary sources for a joint Danish-Polish expedition against neighboring Wollin though and think the author just confused placenames, but I maintain that it has not to be proven that the information inserted by VM is false, but that it first needs to be substantiated that this information even meets the criteria for inclusion per above-cited policies before we engage in weeks of discussion. In the context of a mention of Boleslaw and the "Rugi" in 1135, there are some sources directly contradicting an 1130 capture of Rügen, e.g. the expert for Pomeranian history Lucht, Dietmar: Pommern und das Reich vom Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts bis zum Jahre 1181, in: Baltische Studien Ser. NF, vol. 70 (1984), pp. 7-21, here p. 14: "davon, daß der Polenherzog jemals nach Rügen gekommen ist, ist jedenfalls nichts überliefert"; also Barth, Reinhard et al.: Die Chronik der Kreuzzüge, Gütersloh/München 2003, p. 88: "Rügen, das er noch nicht unterworfen hatte." The key issue though, as above, is the lack of secondary sources supporting an 1130 Polish-Danish expedition to Rügen.

16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The claims regarding 1121 and the map drawn by VM are based solely on an identical map in a tertiary source by a non-expert for the region in question . No, this is simply not true.

First, the word "solely" is false. Three additional reliable secondary sources have been provided to back up the map, in addition to the reliable source the map is based on.

Second, not a single source has been provided by Skapperod to contradict the info found in map. Instead he's making exceptional claims that this is an exceptional claim. It's not.

Third, the author of the book is a military historian, the publishing house specializes in history books. I guess one could describe this as a "tertiary sources" but so what? Tertiary sources can be used on Misplaced Pages. And like I said, it's also backed up by secondary sources.

Fourth, if you really think that "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)" is a "slight falsification" then I'm fine with the wording "vicinity of today's Stralsund" (nota bene, a settlement called Strzalow probably DID exist at the time)

Fifth, I would prefer to have the map/text issue resolved before we move on to the Rugia/Rugen issue since that one's much more complicated. This one's here is pretty straightforward and I don't understand why Skapperod insists on wasting time on it.Volunteer Marek 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Three additional reliable secondary sources have been provided to back up the map - VM, can you provide these sources here for me. It would be helpful also if you could explicitly state which part(s) of the sources back up the map. Skapperod, likewise to you, are you able to provide a source contrary to VMs map. We will tackle the issue with the map before we move on so if both contributors could refrain from discussing the other topic until we have resolved the map I'd appreciate it. Cabe6403 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure.

The original source is Andrzej Michalek, "Slowianie Zachodnie. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne". , 2007, Bellona Publishing House, one of the most respected publishers in Poland when it comes to history books.

The other sources are:

"Bolesław III Krzywousty" by Karol Maleczynski. This is an older but reliable source by a prominent historian, widely cited in subsequent later works . For the relevant passage search for "Stralsund" and use google translate.

Atlas Historyczny Polski - Historical Atlas of Poland, 1989 (I believe there are more recent editions with the same material). This source has a map showing areas "conquered" (that's a bit of a strong word as there was very little actual fighting that took place, the Duke just marched through and obtained oaths of fealty) by Boleslaw Krzywousty, up to Stralsund/Strzalow and including Demmin and Kockow (I assume that Demmin and Kockow are not under dispute by Skapperod any longer)

The Polish Way: A Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, with a relevant excerpt available here (I hope linking to it does not violate copyright). Adam Zamoyski is a British/American historian of Polish descent. The relevant excerpt is "He (Boleslaw Krzywousty) recaptured the whole area up to and well beyond the Oder, as far as the Island of Rugen" - "as far as Island of Rugen" would include the area of Stralsund/Strzalow.

Volunteer Marek 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re Michalek - the very tertiary source (according to the[REDACTED] definition in the WP:PSTS policy) which is disputed here. Not a secondary source.
• Re Maleczynski, Karol: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Lwow 1939 (repr. Wroclaw 1975), p. 154 (Same as but not as messy). This is exactly the 1939 secondary source I referred to above. Maleczynski contradicts Michalek's map by saying that probably the 1121 campaign covered Demmin and the vicinity of today's Stralsund. So no implying that Stralsund was there in 1121, as the map suggests, and clearly marking the course of the campaign as mere speculation, not as a definite fact as the map suggests by its arrows. For the map to match that secondary source, it needs to have huge question marks all over the respective campaign arrows and "today's" added to Stralsund, and then there is no point in having that map. This secondary source I provide as the requested secondary source contradicting the map.
• Re Atlas Historyczny Polski - tertiary source, needs pg. nr. and evaluation if it is referring to the 1121 campaign or to the 1135 Hoftag of Merseburg
• Re Zamoyski, Adam: The Polish Way, London 1987 (online excerpt) - tertiary source, no mention of an 1121 campaign, no mention of Demmin, Gützkow, Stralsund. The Rügen sentence might refer to the Merseburg Hoftag of 1135.
• Skäpperöd (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Re Michalek - I don't know what a "very tertiary" source is. Tertiary sources though are fine though. Cambridge Medieval History series are a tertiary sources. You're stretching. What you've left out of WP:PSTS is "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.", which shows that tertiary sources are fine. They are used throughout Misplaced Pages.
  • Re Maleczynski - Maleczynski DOES NOT contradict Michalek. He just says "probably" - how is that a contradiction? That is a pretty insane definition of "contradicts". If I say "X went to the store to buy milk" and you reply "yeah, probably", did you just contradict me? Also the map doesn't have "Stralsund" in it anymore, just Strzalow. And I was the one that provided this source not you.
  • Re the other two - the main point is that they don't contradict and support the other two sources.
  • Now can you actually provide a source which really (not "pretend") contradicts the map and the sentence? I've been asking for this over and over and over again, and your refusal to provide such a source or sources is to a large extent what had stalled the discussion at WP:RSN.
  • Volunteer Marek 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 page 283. supports VM re Boleslaw “ he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” If there is doubting Thomas, I can make a PDF copy and have an administrator confirm. Please contact me by email and I can forward copy. Also I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization. I can also do a PDF of the map in question and have an administrator confirm. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• You can do a quick and dirty confirm on Amazon books of The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 page 283- do a search for Rugen and it pops up.“ he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” --Woogie10w (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The New Cambridge Medieval History is peer reviewed secondary source that that is reliable.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How does "reaching Rugen in 1123" support any of the claims regarding Demmin and Stralsund in 1121 or VM's map for the 1121 campaign or a joint Danish-Polish invasion of Rügen in 1130? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'd say that settles that, the sources Marek is using are suitable. Do both parties accept this and, if so, can we move onto the other issue at hand? Cabe6403 05:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC

Which one of the sources is suitable for what? Could you please be more clear on how which source is supporting which statement, or the map? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403 Re VM's sources, I can send you by E-mail (berndd11222@yahoo.com) a PDF of map in Polish Atlas and page in Zamoyski book. The New Cambridge Medieval History should ice the cake. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How is a sentence about 1123 supposed to 'ice the cake' about the disputed details of the 1121 and 1130 campaigns, and VM's map? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Per The New Cambridge Medieval History Page 283 " In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania."--Woogie10w (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Undisputed. Do you have any sources regarding the disputed details? Do you uphold your claim that the 1123 sentence has anything to do with the details in question here? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod, can you PLEASE present some source of your own? This discussion has been going on for two weeks now and you have failed to present a single source to support your claims. Without that I don't see how we can progress here.Volunteer Marek 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That there are no secondary sources about that is exactly my point. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

But there are, or at least is. Given above. Can you please stop denying the obvious.Volunteer Marek 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod's source Herrmann is available via interlibrary loan, it will take me weeks to obtain a copy. Skapperod please be nice and send PDF/MSword copies of relevant pages in Herrman to a 3rd party admin to verify. This is turning into root canal, give us a break we need to close this and move on. In any case I will request Herrmann via interlibrary loan.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what "Herrmann" source you're referring to.Volunteer Marek 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Herrmann, Joachim (1985). Die Slawen in Deutschland: Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neiße vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert--Woogie10w (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but I'm not sure how that source is relevant here or if Skapperod actually brought it up in this instance.Volunteer Marek 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you were supposed to present your sources first, before he responds.Volunteer Marek 14:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Per CMH4/2in 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania. which includes Demmin and what is today Straslund. Skäpperöd cited Herrmann as a source in the Lutici article , I will request to see this book and see what author actually wrote about Boleslaw's campaign--Woogie10w (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121 is not in the source (and I dispute that), and even if it was, the sentence could not be read as if there had been a military campaign in that specific area in 1121. Herrmann (as above) pp. 384-5 mentions the 1121/22 campaigns to Stettin/Sczcecin and the Müritz (for that referring to Ebo III/4, as most secondary sources do). No other destinations are mentioned for that campaign (since Ebo does not mention anything but the Müritz). Again, that Wartislaw became Boleslaw's vassal in 1121/22 and that Boleslaw in 1121 launched a campaign from the Oder to the Müritz and back is undisputed, the 1121 dispute is about the claim that this campaign led Boleslaw through Demmin and the area north of it. So far, the literature provided here does not make such a claim, except for Michalek, and we should await Cabe's response on how which source is supporting which statement, or the map, or none. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I just submitted a request at the New York Public Library for Das historische Pommern : Personen, Orte, Ereignisse / von Roderich Schmidt and Die Slawen in Deutschland : Joachim Herrmann. Both books should be available by Saturday. Lets see what German historians have said about Boleslaw's campaigns. Both of these German sources were cited in the Lutici article as support for the campaign in West-Pommern.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding. I was pulled offsite in work today so didn't have a chance to drop by. The way I understood the dispute was that Skapperod was primarily disputing the 'source' of the placenames and details on the map created by VM. Woogie10w then confirmed the reliability of these sources (I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization) and the details presented in VMs version of the map.

Skapperod, you are looking for explicit statement in a RS that 'the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121' am I correct? Cabe6403 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, whether Wartislaw had been in control of the area by 1121 or not is not relevant here. I am looking, for quite some time now, for secondary sources supporting the disputed information introduced by VM into two articles and referenced to Michalek, i.e. a 1121 campaign by Boleslaw in the area of Demmin/north of Demmin, VM's map (there, the arrows pointing at Demmin and Stralsund), and a 1130 joint Polish-Danish campaign against Rügen. Apart from the secondary/tertiary issue, I fail to see how the sources presented so far support these claims. You say that "Woogie10w then confirmed the details presented in VMs version of the map." I fail to see that either. Do you see, in any of the presented literature, a confirmation of either the 1121 campaign to Demmin/north of Demmin, or the respective arrows in VM's map, or a joint Danish-Polish campaign in 1130 to Rügen? Where? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The book (Michalek) on which the map is based on is a reliable source. The other sources which support what is in the Michalek's book are also reliable sources. The only thing you've done is claimed, strangely, that somehow because one sources (Maleczynski) says "probably" that "contradicts" the Michalek source. That is a patently ridiculous understanding of the word "contradicts". You have not presented ANY sources which contradict the map, or the fact that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of Demmin and future Stralsund. At a certain point you need to put some sources on the table rather than just obfuscating, otherwise the discussion becomes pointless.Volunteer Marek 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And we can discuss the issue of Rugia separately.Volunteer Marek 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How is This?

In 1121/22, Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area west of the Oder and took duke Wartislaw I of Luticia as a vassel, Boleslaw then controled the region up to Demmin (Dymin)-SourceSchmidt Das historische Pommern , later in 1123 Boleslaw III campaigned in the area of Rugen-Source NCMH4/2. The Polish domination of the region west of the Oder was short lived and Luticia reverted to German control after 1124 Source NCMH4/2 ----Woogie10w (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod, are you able to present any sources that contradict the map created by Marek? I'm also feeling that this is more of a WP:RSN issue. I'm willing to keep it here however if Skapperod is unable to produce a source and continues to question the reliability of sources provided then I will ask that that issue be taken back to the RSN and we move onto the second issue. Cabe6403 07:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe6403: This is not a RSN issue, and RSN has already failed to solve this. Please, as a neutral 3rd party could you reflect on the following to get the discussion focussed again:

• (1) Michalek is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades . It is not an expert source for Pomeranian history, and it does not qualify as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. Can you confirm this assessment?
• (2) Said book includes a map about the 1121 campaign of Boleslaw III from the Oder river to the Müritz lake . It does not detail the campaign in the text and does not give any sources for the map. The map is basically the same map as the one VM had drawn . On Michalek's and VM's maps, campaign arrows point at Demmin and Stralsund (Demmin, Stralsund and Müritz lake are depicted by their Polish exonyms Dymin, Strzalow and jez. Morzyckie respectively). Can you confirm this assessment?
• (3) Maleczynski, Karol: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Lwow 1939 (repr. Wroclaw 1975) qualifies as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. On p. 154 he says about the 1121 campaign: "Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin" and "Ekspansja polska i niemiecka zetknęłyby się w taki sposób ze sobą na przestrzeni górnego biegu Piany od Jeziora Morzyckiego ewentualnie po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu", i.e. in the West the Polish conquest most likely covered Gützkow (Kockow) and Demmin (Dymin); and German and Polish expansion met in the areas of Müritz lake (jez. Mor.), Peene river (Piana) and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund (emphasis added). Maleczynski does not say that the campaign targeted Demmin, he considers it "most likely," which contradicts the map presenting that as a definite fact. Maleczynski does not say that the campaign went from Demmin to Stralsund, as depicted on the map, he instead says that German and Polish expansion probably met in that area. Maleczynski does not claim that Stralsund existed in 1121, he is talking about the area of today's Stralsund, thus not supporting the "Strzalow" dot on that map. Can you confirm this assessment?
  • (3a) That Stralsund/Strzalow appears in an 1121 context is especially surprising as expert sources for local history say it was first mentioned in 1234, i.e. more than a century later - Niemeck (2002), p. 78: "Nahezu zeitgleich mit der Gründung des Klosters Neuenkamp findet sich erstmals in der Überlieferung die Siedlung Stralow, das spätere Stralsund erwähnt. Im Jahre 1234 ...;" Kroll & Papay (2007), p. 101: "Stralsund wurde vermutlich um 1230 gegründet und 1234 erstmals urkundlich erwähnt;" Schäfer, Igel & Schindler (2007), p. 213: "In den erhaltenen historischen Urkunden wird die Stadt Stralsund erstmals im Jahre 1234 erwähnt. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Stadtrechtsverleihung, die zeigt, dass Stralsund damals als Ort bereits bestand, wenn auch - wie zu vermuten - noch sehr jung war." Do you agree that a mention in 1121 is thus an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim?
• (4) None of the other sources brought up here, i.e. Atlas Historyczny Polski,The Polish Way and The New Cambridge Medieval History p. 283 support the claim that the 1121 campaign targeted Demmin and the Stralsund area. Can you confirm this assessment? If not, please cite how which source references which detail.
• (5) So all we got here about Boleslaw in/north of Demmin in 1121 is a map in a tertiary source not specialized in Pomeranian history and we do not have any secondary source or expert source to confirm this, despite week-long research. We only have one secondary source (Maleczynski) from 1939 speculating that there was a chance that Boleslaw targeted that area in 1121, and which does not claim that Stralsund/Strzalow existed back then. Do you agree with this assessment?Skäpperöd (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section of the Lutici article Lutici#Division and conversion of the Lutician areas there are two German language sources cited: 1-Herrmann, Joachim (1985). Die Slawen in Deutschland: and 2-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern. You quoted from both sources on your talk page yesterday. I ask Skäpperöd to please tell us what these two sources tell us about Boleslaw III’s campaign west of the Oder. Please cite the actual text, not your rendition of what the authors have written.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this on my talk page, where I have already provided full quotes. I want the 5 questions above settled first, and though I am primarily interested in the mediator's response, you are of course free to answer them, too. But please, do not add anything beyond that here before this is settled, we can use my talk page for matters unrelated to the question of whether there are any sources supporting the 1121 Demmin/Stralsund bit in Michalek's map. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion belongs here not on your talk page. The two German sources cited in the Lutici article are relevant to the issue Boleslaw III’s campaign west of the Oder. Deminin is in fact mentioned as part of the region he controlled. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Demmin is mentioned as part of the area Wartislaw controlled, and it is not mentioned as a target of an 1121 campaign. Full quotes and translation are here, let's continue there. I think we agree that there is nothing in there about a campaign by Boleslaw to Demmin/from Demmin to Stralsund in 1121, so this is not relevant to the discussion here. Let's first hear Cabe6403's assessment of the points I raised above. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, we're just repeating everything from RSN here.

• (1) Michalek is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. - it is an overview work but there's nothing wrong with that. And it has an extensive bibliography.
• (2) - I don't know what the problem is supposed to be here. You're basically saying that my map represents the source accurately (and no, it is not a copyvio as I made sure to make it aesthetically different)
• (3) - The text and map only state that Boleslaw campaigned in the Strzalow/Stralsund area. It makes no claim that a city or name "Stralsund" existed. Strzalow did exist before Stralsund, though, but that's really irrelevant. Our article on the subject, Stralsund, says At that time (circa 1168-VM), the Dänholm isle and fishing village, both at the site of the latter town, were named Strale / Stralow, Polabian for "arrow". Yes I know Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source but that does suggest that Strzalow existed before 1234. Anyway, like I said, that's actually irrelevant here. The wording states "in the area of future Stralsund", so that's taken care off.
• (4) - The other sources support the claim that Boleslaw controlled these areas, including Demmin and Kockow. They don't explicitly state "Boleslaw campaigned in these areas" but, given that we have OTHER sources for that, it shows that the information is broadly consistent across several sources.
• (5) - Again, saying "probably" is not just "speculation" (I guess that's a better way of putting it than claiming that the word "probably" "contradicts" the map - I'm happy to see you've backed off that ridiculous claim), it actually supports the source. The Malezynski source, while a bit old, is widely quoted and respected. I can provide a link to a book review from the 1970's which basically says it's still THE source on Boleslaw (gimme time to find link and get jstor access).

And again, Skapperod has not provided a single source to contradict the map or the text. Rather he's just been running the discussion in circles over and over again.Volunteer Marek 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Strzalow is just a Polish exonym for Stralsund. If you have a source that a place named "Strzalow did exist before Stralsund" please present it. For the rest, I am looking forward to see Cabe6403's assessment. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also essentially the name of the place before it became "Stralsund". But like I already said several times, that's irrelevant here.Volunteer Marek 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the first documented name of Stralsund was Stralow, which was used in the first mention of Stralsund in 1234. I have provided the respective sources in point (3a) of the list above waiting for Cabe's assessment. Please provide a source that some place named Strzalow existed before that, especially in 1121. That is relevant here as you put a place named Strzalow on your map for the 1121 campaign and claim it was targeted. How is that not contradicting the expert sources on Stralsund above who maintain that the place was first mentioned in 1234 (under the name "Stralow")? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Stralow" is just a medieval chronicler's rendering of "Strzalow". The distinction doesn't matter. This is an irrelevant and minor point whose only purpose seems to be to derail the discussion.Volunteer Marek 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Where did you take that "'Stralow' is just a medieval chronicler's rendering of 'Strzalow'" from? "Stralow" appears in the charter of 1234, as the first mention of Stralsund ever according to the sources I presented. You can view the document here. If you say it existed in 1121, you need sources of equal quality saying so or that information needs to be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And all that the map and text claim is that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow. It DOES NOT contradict "expert sources" (which ones? You haven't provided any, expert or not!). You're pretending that the map/text makes some extraordinary claim about a "Stralsund" existing in 1121 in order to get rid of the map as a whole, simply per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The map/text makes no such extraordinary claims, they're purely your inventions.Volunteer Marek 20:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is easily proven false.

First, re "It DOES NOT contradict "expert sources" (which ones? You haven't provided any, expert or not!)" - I have maintained from the beginning that no history of Stralsund sees its beginnings that early (i.e. in 1121 or before), and I have provided sources that it was first mentioned in 1234. If it was first mentioned in 1234, this excludes a mention in 1121.

Second, re "all that the map and text claim is that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow." That is also not true and one of the reasons for this discussion. If the map and the text were actually talking about "future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow" we would not have this part of the dispute. But this is what you actually wrote:

• The Pomerania during the HMA article, as of now states "1121 Expedition east of the Oder. Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund) and Müritz lake" That wording was added by you .
• The Lutici article, as of now states that Boleslaw in 1121 probably campaigned "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)". That wording was added by you .
• The map drawn by you and added to above articles, claims to be about Boleslaw's 1121 campaign and has a dot described as Strzalow with a campaign arrow pointing at it.

So your statement that I was "pretending that the map/text makes some extraordinary claim about a 'Stralsund' existing in 1121" is false, the text and the map are indeed claiming the existance of that place in 1121, and that claim was added by you. If you do not uphold that claim, fix the map and the wording accordingly to make it clear that there was no Stralsund/Strzalow/whatever in 1121, and we are done with that part of the dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen the sources cited in the Lutici article. They make it clear that Boleslaw led the crusade against the pagans and that Deminin was destroyed.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"crusade" - in 1121? source? ---- "Deminin was destroyed." - in 1121? by Boleslaw? source? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On pages 105-106 of Schmidt writes about Boleslaw’s mission to bring Christianity to Pommerania. Boleslaw had the support of the Church hierarchy as well as the German Emperor. I characterize this as a Crusade. On Page 386 of Herrmann there is mention of an account by Edo in June 1128 of the destruction in Demmin.

On Page 386 of Herrmann there is an important point-in 1135 Boleslaw agreed to pay tribute to the German Empire for his 12 year occupation Pommerania and Rugen. In other words Skapperod, Herrmann puts Boleslaw in Pommerania and Rugen from 1123-1135. Boleslaw led the Crusade against the Lutians with the support of the German Empire and the Church. The Pommeranian Duke Wladislaw was an alley of Boleslaw in his campaign.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood Herrmann, I have the book in front of me. Neither did Ebo report a destruction of Demmin in 1128 (per Herrmann or the original), nor did Herrman claim that Pomerania and Rügen were occupied by Boleslaw. I can provide you with translations/quotes from Herrmann on my talk page if you want, but let's focus on 1121 here. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Skäpperöd I don't need your translation - 1.Ebo reported the wartime environment in Demmin in 1128 2. Boleslaw agreed in 1135 to pay 12 years back tribute to the German Emperor for Pommerania and Rugen.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Skapperod I see your point re Edo in 1128, that was during Lothars campaign. However Schmidt mentions Demmin as an objective in Wladaslaw's campaign, Wladaslaw at that time was vassal of Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

VM's map is correct, he just needs to tweek the dates a bit 1122-1124, erase Straslund and add Rugen(per NCMH4-2). At this point we are spinning wheels. Lets move on.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Without access to these books it is hard for me to make a statement one way or another. However I will remind you that what I say is, by no means, binding. I am not given any additional authority over any participant in any dispute on the DRN. My judgement carries no more weight than others. That being said, Skapperod, your points:

1. You are claiming that the source is not a secondary source based on your opinion because " The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades". I do not see why this means the source is not reliable and viable. Additionally, another user with access to the book states there is an extensive bibliography.
2. Yes, the maps are similar. This is not an issue. Regarding whether its sourced or not, without the book I can't say. I'd imagine its referenced in the text and the map is synthesised from the information to hand by the book author. Sources can do that, it is us that cannot [[WP:SYNTH[[
3. The author does not say the settlement was mentioned by name in 1121, you say that point yourself. He never makes this claim, he is referencing the name of the area as it is known later in history. Therefore it is not an exceptional claim as there is no claim to begin with. I actually see no one claiming that the settlement existed in 1121, rather that events happened in the area. This is similar to referencing ancient history in, say Mesopotamia as taking place in today's Iraq - true but no claim that a country called Iraq existed thousands of years ago.
4. No, not without the sources. I rely on others who do have access and WP:AGF.
5. I do not agree with your assessment. First off, it's a loaded question due to your phrasing and as there are many variables to consider.

Now, can I ask, what do you consider a resolution of this? Is the adjustment that Woogie suggested suitable or do you maintain the map should be removed in its entirety? Cabe6403 21:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• re 1: You misread part of my statement, I wrote that Michalek "does not qualify as a secondary source per WP:PSTS." WP:PSTS the policy defining what in[REDACTED] is considered a secondary or tertiary source and how they are to be used in articles. It says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources " and Michalek does not do that. He is referencing not one primary source with regard to the 1121 campaign. In contrast, eg. Maleczynski does reference primary sources and provides his own thinking, thus being a secondary source per policy. WP:PSTS says about tertiary sources that they "are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." That is Michalek, a broad overview summarizing the West Slavs' history. Novel theses are not expected from tertiary sources.
• re 2: "I'd imagine its referenced in the text and the map is synthesised from the information to hand by the book author." No, the information in question here (Boleslaw's campaign in 1121) is only in Michalek's map. No reference, no in-text discussion. You can ask VM to confirm that if you do not want to go through the google books preview. But I think this is undisputed.
• re 3: Exactly. Maleczynski is very precise about that, and that is in line with the sources provided in (3a). But the exceptional claim I am talking about, i.e. that Stralsund (under whatever name) existed in 1121, is not in Maleczynski, but in Michalek's map and VM's reproduction of it , which depict such a place in 1121. If it was the case that, as in Maleczynski, Stralsund is mentioned as a future place, then this part of the dispute was settled. But VM claims that it existed in 1121 in the articles and the map .
• re 4: The sources are online and linked above, except for the atlas, but Woogie10w had offered above to send you a scan of the respective page per mail. Some are non-English, you can ask VM for the respective quotes and translation for Polish ones and you can ask me the same for German ones. Whether a source references that Boleslaw's campaign in 1121 targeted Demmin and (future) Stralsund is a yes-or-no question, either it is in there or not.
• re 5: Then please name the variables and we sort that out. Basically, whether something is in a given source or matches WP:PSTS is a yes-or-no-question which can be solved one by one.
• re "Now, can I ask, what do you consider a resolution of this? Is the adjustment that Woogie suggested suitable or do you maintain the map should be removed in its entirety?" --
  • I want it clearly marked in the text that whether Boleslaw's campaign to the Müritz in 1121 targeted Demmin and areas north of it is speculative.
  • I prefer to have Stralsund (under whatever name) not mentioned at all, and if, it needs to be unambiguous that it was not there in 1121.
  • I maintain, that per WP:UNDUE, a mention about Boleslaw's expedition to the Müritz possibly targeting Demmin/areas north of it, needs to be as short as possible, because it does not have sufficient coverage in secondary sources.
  • We can follow Woogie10w's proposal to remove Stralsund from VM's map.
  • The map has other issues, too, eg. presenting a speculation about a possible route (eg Demmin) as a given. That could be remedied by applying question marks to (a) Demmin and (b) the campaign arrow pointing from Demmin northwards.
• If we have agreed on that, we can move on to discussing another problem with the map, i.e. discuss how it can be properly shown that Stettin/Szczecin was taken in the winter of 1121/22, while the Müritz campaign was in 1121. If this is disputed, I will provide the respective sources. Right now, the map looks like Boleslaw first went to Stettin and then to the Müritz, while it obviously was the other way around.

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting extremely tiresome.

(1) Yes Michalek is a tertiary source. But there's no "novel theses" here. You've made that up.

(2) Boleslaw's campaign as a whole IS discussed in text of the book. Michalek does not name Stralsund explicitly in the text but generally states that Boleslaw arrived in the "land of the Chyzans". The Chyzans are the Kessinians, with their main fort at modern day Kessin, which is actually to the West of Stralsund. Hence, the text and the map are consistent with each other. The map just provides other details.

(3) If by "very precise" you mean he says "future Stralsund" sure. In Michael's map "Strzalow" is explicitly marked. For what it's worth - and like I keep saying, this is an irrelevant red herring pretext - Michalek has maps for later time periods where he includes both the name "Strzalow" and the later name "Stralsund". This suggest he is aware that Strzalow was not Stralsund yet. At any rate (3a) we actually don't know whether Strzalow as a settlement existed and (3b) it doesn't matter because the map just marks the location.

(4) I guess he *could* ask you for quotes and translation from sources you provided... oh wait. You didn't provide any sources

(5) I agree with Cabe6403 that your presentation of the dispute/issue/sources is highly misleading. Your phrasing does not reflect the sources. As pointed out over and over and over again, if a source says "probably" it is NOT contradicting the claim. And it's "speculation" in the same sense as ALL history is speculation, since we can't jump in a time machine and confirm events for certain. Bottom line is that if a source says "probably in the area of future Stralsund" then that supports the map. You're the only one who somehow tries to flip the logic on its head here and that's why this discussion has been getting silly.

As to what you want:

• I want... - The current wording is duke Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area, most likely took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin) and probably campaigned in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund). So the words "most likely" and "probably" are already in there! You already got what you want.
• I prefer... - sorry, not going to happen. Stralsund is mentioned in the Michalek source, in the Malezynski source and also in this source (add that one to the pile).

Quote: W rękach polskich ponownie znalazł się Szczecin, wyspy Wolin i Uznam a ponadto na lewym brzegu dolnej Odry szeroki pas ziem, ciągnący się prawdopodobnie na przestrzeni górnego biegu rzeki Piany, od jezior Morzyckich aż po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu.

Translation: Szczecin, the islands Wolin and Uznam, were once more in Polish hand, and whats more, on the left bank of the Oder a wide pass of land, stretching over the area from the upper flow of the Peene river, to the Murtiz lake, to the area of today's Stralsund.

So we got multiple reliable sources which talk about Stralsund. On the other hand we have an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor Skapperod who just doesn't like the mention of Stralsund in there for some reason. Sorry, we go with the sources.

• We can follow... - I don't know if that's actually Woogie's proposal, but no, we do not remove Stralsund from the map, just because some guy Skapperod thinks so. It's in the source. Other sources support its inclusion. Sources, sources, sources. If you can present a source which contradicts the map then please do so already!
• The map... - No, that'd be Original Research. You might want question marks in there but then find a source that has a map with question marks in it. This source doesn't. We stick with sources. The map stays as it is.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• 85 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marqaz (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Very minor but annoying dispute over a edit I made, adding a qualification (that is was the lowest number with this property where all squares were all non-trivial i.e. >1) to an observation (85 is the sum of two squares in two different ways). This was then undone by the other party initially without discussion. I reinstated as I considered it valid. We have since reverted back and forth, with some discussion on the talk page, with no progress. Various policies have been cited by both parties but with no consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none - have consider a topic forum or a third opinion listing, but for me (as a relatively new user) the issue is as much about the reasonableness of my actions, the appropriate policies to apply and the best way to resolve this sort of issue.

How do you think we can help?

A third party view on the merit of the disputed edit would be useful, but as indicated above views on the appropriate policies and conduct and in particular clear guidance on the appropriateness of deleting signed good faith edits without strong justification are probably more important to me.

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

Speaking as a mathematician, I particularly object to the term "non-trivial" for "greater than 1", and writing "greater than 1" makes it clear that the concept is not notable. Perhaps the fact (if accurate) that it's the 2nd number which is a member of a Pythagorean triplet in 4 ways could be included, but that still seems uninteresting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

85 (number) discussion

I have examined the facts in this case and made the following recommendation:

Hello, I am Solarra and I am here as part of the dispute resolution process. I have overlooked all of the edits and done considerable research on the subject including perusing results here and here and having looked at the facts, I have to side with Marqaz in this case. 85 is in fact the result of 9^2 + 2^2 = 7^2 + 6^2 and several universities have it displayed prominently in the "Special properties of numbers" sections of various math themed sites including the fact that this is the lowest integer to have this property. This page is dedicated to valid mathematical facts that are not commonly known, if you look here the number 4 lists it is the smallest squared prime for example. The fact should be included in the page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been much discussion as of here lately - has this dispute been resolved? Steven Zhang 02:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to say something else here within the next 24 hours, this dispute will be closed as "resolved." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Istanbul#RFC2: Istanbul Infobox Image (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cavann (talk · contribs)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created a RFC for the infobox image , but the RFC was removed. There was a RFC 5 months ago, but I did not participate in it. It's hard to reach a consensus when the debate is shut down.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:Istanbul#New_Collage_and_Cityscape_picture

How do you think we can help?

Clarify if a 5 month RFC, which I did not participate, stops all further discussion like User:Tariqabjotu suggests.

Opening comments by Tariqabjotu

Ugh. I don't have time for this rigmarole. There was an RfC opened in mid-November, closed in late-December. There was an earlier discussion about this point in August and September. It's been discussed. And recently. On the other hand, the complainant started a new thread on this issue just this past week (Talk:Istanbul#New_Collage_and_Cityscape_picture), and without allowing for it to run its course went directly to an RfC. And in the meantime had opened another RfC about an issue in which he refused to concede he was in the wrong.

That's not how the RfC process is supposed to work. RfCs are supposed be launched after lengthy discussion fails to lead to a conclusion. Despite the first issue being clearly resolved, editors on the page allowed his first RfC to proceed. But this new RfC is a continuation of his abuse of the process. The complainant should be advised to allow the current thread to run its course before considering further action.

For the record, these are not opening comments by me. These are my only comments on this issue, and I will not be commenting further on this matter. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Istanbul#RFC2: Istanbul Infobox_Image discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Byzantine Empire (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sowlos (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several editors (including myself) worked on improving the lead of Byzantine Empire. Some editors had some lingering concerns over potential inadequacies and omissions in the revision. This is — of course — perfectly alright. However, one editor became increasingly combative when I voiced disagreement to his suggestions.

Within 5 hours of making his suggestion he declared I was the only objector and modified the content that had received consensus support, prior. His changes have since been reverted, but he has chosen accusations and name calling over attempting to resolve the dispute.

I have worded my side in many different ways, but he continues to accuse me of saying nothing substantial and demand that I lay out my objections to his position.

This has become extremely frustrating and it's becoming increasingly hard to keep civil. I feel the discussion desperately needs neutral parties to join the discussion. Unfortunately, this and related articles can stir so much passion in some editors that most simply run for the hills rather than deal with this sort of headache. I'm worried he is simply making a fuss on the talk page until he beats his opposition into submission by ignoring what they say and inflaming the situation until he gets what he wants.

I really hope someone here can help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried engaging in discussion on the talk page, but it quickly devolved into circular nonsense smothering any meaningful discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I think neutral outsiders need to intervene in this interaction. I don't know what that would entail, but I am open to suggestions.

I strongly believe in achieving consensus and following it (even if it settles in a direction I disagree with), but there needs to be more than two people yelling at each other for that to happen.

Opening comments by Athenean

It's unfortunate that Sowlos' opening comment contains little more than personal attacks and bad faith assumptions ("I'm worried..."), but that is indicative of the type of individual I am dealing with. Regarding the dispute, Sowlos has lately been agitating to re-write the lead of Byzantine Empire in it's entirety, even though the article is already an FA. His re-write can be seen here . In my opinion, it goes too far in condensing the material. Specifically, I object to the describing the Macedonian renaissance as "something of a renaissance", it's lumping together with the Battle of Manzikert in one sentence (end of 3rd paragraph), the removal of the Komnenian restoration and it's replacement by a euphemism, and the removal of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 from the end of the lead. My suggestions can also be seen in detail here and here . I should mention that there never was any discussion or consensus for Sowlos' changes to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, thus my suggestions are in fact nothing more than the previous consensus version, with which the article had reached FA status. I have tried to engage Sowlos on the talkpage, repeatedly asking him what he objects to specifically , and all I get are patronizing lectures about what the lead is supposed to contain and copy-pasting of parts of WP:LEAD, obfuscation, and evasion (his "itemized objections" are nowhere to be found: He has never addressed my proposal to include the Komnenian restoration and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, he just keeps pretending not to notice it). So as far as trying to "making a fuss on the talk page until he beats his opposition into submission..." and all that, I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Athenean (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Byzantine Empire discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.