Talk:Siemomysł, Duke of Pomerania

Name
The name used in en.wiki should be Zemuzil, because Zemuzil is the spelling used in the only record existing for this duke, whereas Siemomysl is only used in Polish literature as an adapted Polish spelling. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Zemuzil is the latinization of Siemomysł. See section on pl wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First, this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zemuzil,_Duke_of_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=376052514 is not true. Rymar mentions the name Zemuzil in connection with the Annals (as do pretty much all sources which discuss this guy) but he CALLS him Siemomysl. The section of his book devoted exclusively to the duke is under a heading "Siemomysl (Siemysl)", not under a heading of Zemuzil. In fact Rymar discusses the name in that section and outlines the various positions historians and linguists have taken on it, pretty much either Siemomysl or Siemysl. Second, I don´t think it´s true that he is known as "Siemomysl" only in "Polish historiography" - the guy was slavic, so obviously he had a slavic name, and Zemuzil ain´t slavic. So he´s Siemomysl or Siemysl in any kind of historiography that studied him; Polish, German, Fijian, whatever. Why does this guy´s real name, obviously slavic, have to be qualified here? Third, it´s true that the only record of his name is under Zemuzil ... actually that´s not true either, according to Rymar there´s another record, more recently discovered, that calls him Siemomysl and ít´s the same person ... but anyway, that is not a good enough reason to have the article title under that name. We´re talking 11th century here were everything was written in Latin so not surprising that his name got latinized. Bu the name was Siemomysl and that is what he is called in sources (btw, if you´re thinking of slapping up a google books search, don´t bother - as I´ve already said, any sources which discusses him will mention the Annals and Zemuzil, but that doesn´t mean that´s what the sources call him). I´m gonna get the precise info from Rymar here later and move back to the proper name shortly. Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)
 * "Rymar mentions the name Zemuzil in connection with the Annals (as do pretty much all sources which discuss this guy)"
 * Yes, unsurprisingly.
 * "but he CALLS him Siemomysl"
 * Rymar, in a Polish language book, outlines that some (Polish) historians think that Zemuzil is a variant of Siemomysl or Siemosil, spelled in modern Polish Siemomysł or Siemosił. While it is ok for a Polish book to use the Polish equivalent of the Pomeranian name (Polish authors often Polonize names from other languages), this is not relevant for en.wiki.
 * "the guy was slavic, so obviously he had a slavic name, and Zemuzil ain´t slavic"
 * You are mistaken, Zemuzil is of course Slavic. I am surprised that you think it is German.
 * "So he´s Siemomysl or Siemysl in any kind of historiography that studied him; Polish, German, Fijian, whatever"
 * 9 hits for "siemomysl+1046" (all Polish except for one English source that reads "Zemuzil (Siemomysl?)"
 * 195 hits for "zemuzil+1046" (all languages, mostly German and Polish, no Fijian hit though), including Cambridge Medieval History
 * "Third, it´s true that the only record of his name is under Zemuzil ... actually that´s not true either, according to Rymar there´s another record, more recently discovered, that calls him Siemomysl and ít´s the same person"
 * What record would that be, and who connects that record to Zemuzil?
 * "We´re talking 11th century here were everything was written in Latin so not surprising that his name got latinized"
 * I don't see how Zemuzil is Latinized. It appears in a Latin record, but has no Latin features and is not a Latin equivalent either. The author wrote down the name as he knew it, in the contemporary alphabet. Since English is using the same alphabet, why should the spelling be changed to modern Polish? That alphabet didn't even exist back then, Zemuzil was not a Pole, and the alternative "true names" are speculative anyway.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rymar, in a Polish language book, outlines that some (Polish) historians think that Zemuzil is a variant of Siemomysl or Siemosil, spelled in modern Polish Siemomysł or Siemosił. While it is ok for a Polish book to use the Polish equivalent of the Pomeranian name (Polish authors often Polonize names from other languages), this is not relevant for en.wiki. - Yes, but the point is that this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zemuzil,_Duke_of_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=376052514 is misleading - Rymar uses ´Siemomysl (Siemesil)´. And no, he doesn´t ouline that that some Polish historians think that ¨Zemuzil is a VARIANT of...¨. He says that according to numerous historians, Zemuzil IS Siemomysl or possibly Siemesil. radek (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Zemuzil, Siemomysl and Siemesil are of course all variants of the same name, of which Zemuzil is the only recorded one, the other two are speculative. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Zemuzil is how a non Slavic speaking person wrote down a Slavic name Siemesil.radek (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If that was so, then why did you move the article to "Siemomysł"? It is speculation, and as such it is mentioned in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, Zemuzil is of course Slavic. - that of course is not true, as you yourself acknowledge by saying ´´Zemuzil is not German, but Latin´´. But hey, I made a mistake by calling it German (due to the likely language of the chronicler), now you´re making a mistake with the Latin, we can call it even as long as you don´t pretend that "Zemuzil" is Slavic. Is there any other record of somebody Slavic named "Zemuzil" anywhere? Is there a linguist who calls it slavic? radek (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When in an e/s I wrote Latin, that was a mistaken, Slavic Pomeranian is what I wanted to write. Of course it is Slavic, as I outlined above. There is no Latin name Zemuzil, and the duke was clearly a Slav. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No you were right the first time. Do you have a single source, prefereably from a linguist or a Slavicist that says that Zemuzil is Slavic? In fact Rymar explicitly states that a consultation with Slavicists led them to give the name as Siemysl and Siemomysl. The Slavicists obviously translated the non'Slavic ´name´(if it can be called that) Zemuzil into what it was. If Zemuzil had been Slavic to begin with, there would´ve been no need for this. Zemuzil is simply not slavic - show me a source which says that it is a "Slavic Pomeranian" word?radek (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more Slavic languages than Polish, and even a contemporary Polish chronicle could not possibly have spelled a Slavic Pomeranian name using the modern Polish alphabet. Are you suggesting that the Slavic Pomeranian had Latin or Polish names? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What record would that be, and who connects that record to Zemuzil - A document from 1040 of Henry III where he bestows some villages on the abby in Zytyce (Naumburg) and it is mentioned that previously these villages were temporarily held by a Duke named ´Sememizl´, who according to Rymar (and some other historians) is the same person as this Zemuzil. radek (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the document, it is MGH DD H III Nr. 60. No Siemomysl in there, as you assumed in your previous post, but a Sememizl, as you correctly state above. Zytyce is not Naumburg, but a hist. Polish exonym for Zeitz, which previously was the see of the same diocese. The document is about Henry III granting five villages near Naumburg to the Naumburg cathedral, and mentions Sememizl as the previous vassal for these villages. Nothing else about Sememizl, no connection to Pomerania or Zemuzil except for the similar sounding name, more so, there are hundreds of kilometers between Zemuzil (Pomerania) and Sememizl (Thuringia), and en route Zemuzil would have crossed an anarchic Poland where Henry III's forces were trying to re-instate duke Casimir (who according to the 1046 document was Zemuzil's adversary) against the will of the Bohemian duke and local warlords. Not completely impossible though, and if some historians make that connection, their thesis should be mentioned in the article, I will add a line accordingly. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That´s some great OR, good luck with the publication. Unfortunetly it´s still just your OR and there is a source which explicitly states otherwise.radek (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is frivolous to accuse me of OR for stating some easily verifiable facts. For the distance between Pomerania and Thuringia, any map will do, for the fact that Poland is en route, any map will do, for the anarchic state Poland was in at that time, any book about Polish history will do. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since English is using the same alphabet, why should the spelling be changed to modern Polish? - you mean the same alphabet that ¨Siemomysl¨ or ¨Siemesil¨ is in? Also, can you explain to me why on Wikipedia the spelling of Munster was changed to modern German (Münster), the spelling of Francis changed to modern French (François) or the spelling of Alingsas changed to modern Swedish (Alingsås)? Why is this objection ever only made with regard to funky Polish letters but never with regard to funky Western European letters? Where does this double standard come from? radek (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You compare apples and oranges. The examples you refer to are the indigeneous, common, well established spellings. Not so Siemomysł, which is modern Polish for a medieval Pomeranian (from which no written records exist and which could only in part be re-constructed from names). No double standard. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is not modern Polish for a medieval Pomeranian, it´s what the guy´s name was (according to historians), though it was written down in mangled Latin as Zemuzil by somebody who most likely was unfamiliar with Slavic languages. The claim that it is ¨modern¨(Polish or whatever) is particularly silly since there were other people with the name Siemomysl. This is just more of yuor OR - you haven´t provided a single source to back up any of this.radek (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course Siemomysł and Siemesił are modern Polish variants, eg the modern Polish letter "ł" was unknown at that time. Where are those "other" Siemomysłs in Pomerania? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Zemuzil was not a Pole - not in the sense that he was Duke of Poland or anything (though probably its vassal) but he was most likely related to the Polish Piast dynasty, which makes him pretty close, especially for a time when nationality wasn´t as rigidly defined as today. radek (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A relation to the Piasts is speculative - Zemuzil is only recorded once and the record does not make that connection, moreover, from the record it seems that Zemuzil and the Piasts were foos. And regarding the vassalage - wasn't he was Henry III's vassal, just as Casimir and Bretislav? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, "speculative" in the sense that the whole discipline of history is "speculative". The connection between him and the Piasts is what secondary sources say. You are engaging in original research based on a single primary sources. Let the historians have their say. And so what if they were foes? What does that prove? I thought that somebody with an interest in history such as yourself would´ve been keenly aware that infighting among family members was quite common - in fact it was more of a rule than an exception (Chrobry? Krzywousty? just to mention the Polish rulers who fought with their kin, not even getting to the German ones) Finally, again, somebody with an interest in history should be aware that the feudal system was multi layered. Zemuzil was most likely the Polish Duke´s vassal who in turn held some land as vassal from the emperor. So what? I´m pretty sure you know darned well that the Pomeranian dukes did not become DIRECT vassals of the emperor until some time later since we´ve argued about this before in relation to Krzywousty.radek (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Piast connection is not "what secondary sources say", but what a limited amount of Polish historians speculate. Krzywousty was not even born in 1046. If the speculation that Sememizl is Zemuzil was true, that would make him a "direct vassal", and the 1046 document at least strongly points in that direction, too, since duke Zemuzil is mentioned along with Henry's other vassals, duke Casimir and duke Bretislav. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the alternative "true names" are speculative anyway - the entire discipline of History (as opposed to simple Archivism) is speculative in that sense. The ´true names´ are what prominent historians say the guy´s name was, and really, the only dispute here is whether it was ¨Siemomysl¨ or ¨Siemosil¨ (with most recent work saying that they´re both true in that Siemosil is just short for Siemomysl in the same way that Bob is short for Robert) - so best include both variants.radek (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * see above Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * see above. Stop the OR please.radek (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I regard your continued OR allegations as personal attacks. I provided book search results above that Zemuzil is the most used form in secondary sources of all languages, including Cambridge Medieval History. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(indent) I don't care how you regard them, they are not personal attacks but criticisms of your editing practice. There's a difference, particularly since OR is exactly what you are doing. Nobody is disputing that sources use "Zemuzil" extensively - it is how he was recorded by a non-Slavic chronicler writing in Latin. That's not at issue, as already explained above. Here are examples of your OR:

1. ''It is frivolous to accuse me of OR for stating some easily verifiable facts. For the distance between Pomerania and Thuringia, any map will do, for the fact that Poland is en route, any map will do, for the anarchic state Poland was in at that time, any book about Polish history will do. '' - nobody's disputing the geographic location of Pomerania and Zytyce. What is OR however is your contention that this geography somehow "proves" that the two names did not refer to the same person. You have a source which says that? No? Then it's just your OR. I got a source which says they were probably the same person.

2. The Piast connection is not "what secondary sources say", but what a limited amount of Polish historians speculate. - so apparently now Polish historians don't count as secondary sources? Only German ones do? And anything written by Polish historians is "speculation", but if it's written by German historians, it's what? Fact? Gimme a break.

3. ''If the speculation that Sememizl is Zemuzil was true, that would make him a "direct vassal", and the 1046 document at least strongly points in that direction, too, since duke Zemuzil is mentioned along with Henry's other vassals, duke Casimir and duke Bretislav. '' - again, pure OR, you're very clearly interpreting a primary source rather than reporting what secondary sources say. And secondary source says they were very likely the same dude.

4. That the names Siemysl and Siemomysl are limited to Polish historiography. Not true and pure speculation on your part. Show me a source which says "in Polish historiography only Zemuzil is known as Siemysl or Siemomysl" or something close to that. Actually even that wouldn't be enough since it still would be just one source. German sources/historiography uses these names too.

5. That Zemuzil is a "Slavic" word. This one doesn't even pass the DUCK test. It doesn't look Slavic, it doesn't sound Slavic, there isn't any other Slavic person of that name anywhere before him. Do you have a source that says that "Zemuzil" is a Slavic word, rather than the way that a non-Slavic chronicler writing in Latin wrote down the word Siemysl or Siemomysl? No? Then it's OR. I have a source which says that according to prominent Slavicists, the Slavic name of the person was Siemysl or Siemomysl.

You have a bad habit of pretending that any criticisms of your actions on Wikipedia amount to a personal attack. They don't. If you're doing OR then pointing that out is just well deserved criticism, nothing else. There's no special guideline on wikipedia that says "thou shall not point out that Skapperod is doing OR" (or other editing practice in breach of policy).radek (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Zemuzil's original name
1. To speak about Polish and Pomeranian in 11th centuries as if they were two clearly distinct languages contradicts what we know about slavic linguistic history. Back then there would be no distinct national languages, but rather a western slavic dialect continuum from southern Bohemia to the Baltic. Poles, Bohemians, Moravians and Pomeranians would use similar set of Slavic names and pronounce them without much difference - at least not a difference audible for a non-Slavic chronicler.

2. For a word to be Slavic it needs to have a demonstrable slavic etymology. To find one for "Zemuzil" the easiest way is to assume that it is a misshaped bipatrite name formed along typical Slavic patterns and with typical Slavic roots. The most obvious candidate fo the original seems to be Semysl/Semomysl. This particular name happens to be assosiated with Polish history, but there is nothing particularly Polish about it, it uses common Slavic roots and could as well appear in any other 11th century slavic dialect - sounding less or more the same.

3. ''Siemomysl or Siemosil, spelled in modern Polish Siemomysł or Siemosił. While it is ok for a Polish book to use the Polish equivalent of the Pomeranian name (Polish authors often Polonize names from other languages)''

As explained above, from linguistic point of view it makes no sense to differenciate between Polish and Pomeranian that early, what we have there is western Slavic dialect continuum. Also, as explained above, "Zemuzil" is not an original form of any kind, but a clumsy mediaeval latin rendering of a spoken word which must have sounded somehow along "S'emomysl". So what above mentioned authors are doing is rendering early Slavic in modern Polish, not "Polonizing a foreign name". You could as well use Czech or Kashubian spelling, or some form of Slavic linguistic transcription for this purpose and it is still going to look more like "Semomysl" than "Zemuzil".

4. The above arguments are meant to combat the assumption that the "Siemomysł" form is some kind of free invention. On the contrary - it is perfectly valid linguistic reconstruction. Strictly Polish spelling may be indeed unjustified in English wikipedia, but some internationalized slavic transcription ("S'emomysl") should do just fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.132.150 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Bolesław I the Brave
There is a selection from the book Saga of the Kashub People in Poland, Canada, U.S.A. by Fr. Aloysius J. Rekowski (ISBN 1-895292-95-6) which states: Around the year 1000 the East Pomeranian Prince or Duke reigning in Danzig (Gdansk) married the daughter of the Polish King Boleslaw and was baptized.

I'd like to see if anyone is able to back that up. Fr. Rekowski has been known to base his works off of an (out-of-print?) book called Ziemia Gromadzi Prochy (The Land Gathers Dust) by Józef Kisielewski, made in 1939. -- Z blewski  |talk   21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I remember right, this is a myth originating in the Hungarian "Gesta". I'll need to look it up though. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Move
Maybe we should move this to Zemuzil, as there is no other Zemuzil on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All other dukes of Pomerania have the epitaph "..., Duke of Pomerania" in the article title. What do the nobility naming guides say? For consistency, I'd say either move all or none. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

author format
Just wondering if the "Author (date)" format is appropriate for Wikipedia articles. It's how usually history papers are referenced but I haven't come across it done this way here. I believe the author name is sufficient (and not always necessary).radek (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

first record?
On this sentence "Stabenow further says that the 1046 entry constitutes the first written record of the Slavic Pomeranians" - can we get the exact text from the source with a translation? The Bavarian Geographer obviously mentions several Slavic Pomeranian tribes and it predates 1046 by about two centuries. I'm guessing that what this is supposed to mean is that it is the first written record which uses the word "Pomeranian" (or its latinization) to refer to some of these tribes - so is that it? If so it should be made clearer.radek (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reiterating the question.radek (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

much improvement
While there was some disputes on this article, I'd like to invite Skapperod and anyone else who cares to compare the present version of the article with what was there before. I think we can all agree that the article has improved tremendously; before we had a sketchy stub and now we have a full article that actually covers the various issues involved. Hell, I'll take credit for initiating this improvement drive, but I'm game enough to give Skapperod credit for doing his part. And looking at the dispute I am quite willing to partially withdraw my charges of original research - in the sense that most of the original research by Skapperod was done on the talk page but little of it was placed into the article itself. Sometimes disagreements can lead to better articles when editors are willing to go do some research and get reliable sources. Thanks.radek (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)