Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lutici


 * Case closed as unsuccessful. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 01:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, nice to meet you Skäpperöd and Volunteer Marek &mdash; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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: . 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 (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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 . 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 and  - 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 , 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 &mdash; so, to back up, here are the relevant questions and my take on them so far:

Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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?)


 * 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 &#124; 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 . 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 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.
 * 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &mdash; is this correct? Feezo (send a signal &#124; 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 &#124; 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&mdash;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 &#124; 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&mdash;maybe change "in 1121" to "(1121–c. 1123)"? Feezo (send a signal &#124; 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: 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)
 * 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
 * and
 * "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.


 * 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 &#124; 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)
 * Skäpperöd, if the map is relabeled with the ending date Maleczynski gives for Stralsund, and includes a footnote to the effect that Demmin/Stralsund is speculative, then isn't it still an illustration of what Maleczynski says "probably" happened? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 23:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Skäpperöd, if the map is relabeled with the ending date Maleczynski gives for Stralsund" - Maleczynski states that in 1121, Lothair's and Boleslaw's Müritz expansion probably met in the area of today's Stralsund, so he does not argue that Stralsund was captured by either party (or even existed), and he does not confuse the 1123 campaign and the 1121 campaign to the Müritz (which only happens on this talk page, not in literature), so I am not sure what you mean by modifying the ending date for Stralsund? Also, I might have misunderstood what you meant by "footnote," are you proposing a visible in-map-footnote or a rather invisible footnote in the ref tag of the caption? Modifying the map in a way that it illustrates what Maleczynski says would be fine with me (and more important, with policy). Skäpperöd (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The map doesn't "argue that Stralsund was captured by either party (or even existed)" either - there's no "captured" in the map at all. The map says pretty much what Maleczynski says and vice versa. Please stop pretending otherwise.
 * Likewise to say that Maleczynski "does not confuse the 1123 campaign and the 1121 campaign" is inaccurate. There were not two campaigns and no source says there were. There's uncertainty about the timing of the end of the expedition into Lutician territory and the capture of Rugen. Nobody - except you - is confusing anything, and even you seem to be trying to obfuscate and confuse the issue on purpose. There is some disagreement in the sources, but even that is about an issue which we're supposed to discuss once the question of the map is settled; the capture of Rugen. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The map doesn't "argue that Stralsund was captured by either party (or even existed)" either - there's no "captured" in the map at all." That is what I said all the time, and the dispute started when you, based on that map, claimed the opposite   . I am glad that you changed your mind about that. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re 1121/1123: Above, I provided secondary sources discussing the 1123 campaign and its interpretation in scholary literature. From those, it is evident that the view that the 1123 campaign targeted Rügen is held only by a faction of Polish scholars, while others argue for the destination being Wollin, or Stettin, or places outside Pomerania, or that the destination will remain unknown. This excludes everyone except the faction of Polish scholars arguing for Rügen as the 1123 destination from even considering that the Müritz campaign had something to do with the 1123 campaign. But even from that faction, not a single source has been provided claiming that the Müritz and Rügen were targeted by the same campaign, so there is not even a case for that being a minority view atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:51, 29 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)
 * re "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."
 * I maintain that it does make a difference if someone went to the store, or if someone probably went to the store. In the first case, that someone went to the store. In the second case, that someone might have gone to the store, or to any other place, or stayed where they were. I have indicated my willingness to go by Maleczynski, but I want him to be reflected and cited accurately. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure
At this point, I'd like to re-emphasize that we need some kind of structure for this case. Due to the time zone differences, everytime I tune in, the discussion has moved to some other issue without the issues discussed previously being settled: If we could strike/clarify as many points as possible from that list right now, that would be great. If we can't or if I overlooked something that needs to be added, I think we need some structure other than the one large thread above to solve them (subsections?). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) We discussed the authority of Michalek for the Pomeranian affairs. Discussion shifted away from this key issue when it came to the point that Michalek does not have any academic credentials and was some kind of a contract writer and illustrator focussing on the medieval Levant.
 * (2) We discussed whether "area of today's Stralsund" would be more appropriate than "capture of Stralsund," and I think we decided it is, but that wasn't made explicit somewhere.
 * (3) We discussed whether a campaign to Rügen would necessarily imply a campaign in the Stralsund area. I argued that this is not the case, as all one needs to go to Rügen is access to the sea, anywhere. I would appreciate if there was agreement on that somewhere, as some of the references given by VM allegedly supporting the disputed statement/map do not mention Demmin or Stralsund at all, just Rügen. Are these references still considered relevant to the 1121 dispute, or not?
 * (4) We discussed VM's claim that "if the campaign began in 1121 but lasted until 1123 then Jablonka supports the map." I argued that this is not the case, as it is not possible to start in Stettin in 1122 (per Jablonka), arrive in Demmin in 1123 (per Jablonka) and from there go to the Müritz to arrive there in 1121. Is that still an open question that needs further discussion?
 * (5) We discussed whether Boleslaw's 1121 campaign to the Müritz and Boleslaw's 1123 campaign can be considered one campaign and whether we should change the date in the map/text accordingly. I provided secondary sources discussing the 1123 campaign and its interpretation in scholary literature. From those, it is evident that the view that the 1123 campaign targeted Rügen is held only by a faction of Polish scholars, while others argue for the destination being Wollin, or Stettin, or places outside Pomerania, even the Levant, or that the destination will remain unknown. This excludes everyone except the faction of Polish scholars arguing for Rügen as the 1123 destination from even considering that the Müritz campaign had something to do with the 1123 campaign. But even from that faction, not a single source has been provided claiming that the Müritz and Rügen were targeted by the same campaign, so there is not even a case for that being a minority view atm. Is it still being considered to advance that view in the map or in the text?
 * (6) I understood from some more recent posts that the option is being considered for the disputed statements/part of the map, to drop Michalek and instead attribute Maleczynski, which I would support as a compromise. But I am unsure whether I understood that correctly, or if it is merely being considered to add a ref tag to Michalek explaining what Maleczynski thought, which I would not support.
 * (7) Is it intended to discuss the links brought up by VM here in more detail (example), or is that a largely void issue per (2) and (3) above and we focus on Maleczynski. Is it intended that we compare scholary literature on Pomerania/Luticians and see how the Müritz campaign is described there, to establish WP:DUE weight.


 * Ok, look, at this point, on one side we have several reliable sources. Not all of them state the exactly the same thing but they all state roughly the same thing. On the other side we have ... nothing. Well, we have your continuous objections and semantic games. Unless you bring some sources to the table or walk away and stop beating a dead horse, I don't see this discussion progressing. Volunteer Marek 14:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just claiming to "have several reliable sources" is not sufficient, the references need to actually support the inserted claim. By your own admission, Michalek's map you used as a reference for your disputed edits    did not back them up. Then we got all the discussions in the list above, and to come to terms, I would appreciate it if you and Feezo just said where in the above list you think that we have established something, and where you think discussion needs to continue, and how we can get these discussions focussed, structure-wise. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Freakin' a.
 * Just claiming to "have several reliable sources" is not sufficient - no, but listing them and quoting them is. Which has been done. So quit trying to ... manipulate the information and statement.
 * the references need to actually support the inserted claim. - they do.
 * By your own admission  - what? Huh?
 * Michalek's map you used as a reference for your disputed edits [16] [17] [18] [19] did not back them up - what? Huh? You not only seem incapable of reading and understanding reliable sources but you also seem incapable of reading and understanding other people's comments. Wait. Scratch that. I know you're perfectly capable of reading and understanding. It's just that what you read doesn't occur with your POV so you twist, falsify, flip, and misrepresent what sources or other people say. You've had problems with this in the past. This is nothing but a classic textbook case of Civil POV pushing by an editor who is not able to come up with even a SINGLE source to support his argument.
 * If I sound frustrated, then that's because I am. This is getting pointless. Volunteer Marek 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue (1)

 * Right, so, VM initially claimed that Stralsund was conquered by Boleslaw&mdash;a claim he has since modified to "campaigned in that general area".
 * The authoritative (secondary) source for this is Maleczynski. We know nothing useful about Michalek. He may be merely an armchair historian who had a book (not a paper) published. Or perhaps none of his papers or credentials have made it online. But absent any evidence of his qualifications, his map is only useful if it accurately summarizes the secondary sources.
 * Given the conflicting and speculative accounts of the history of this region, any map will probably be an oversimplification. While the conflicting sources may be acknowledged in running text, it is significantly harder to deal with possible inaccuracies in a map. This is demonstrated by VM's initial assertion that Boleslaw captured Stralsund&mdash;which is unquestionably implied by the map&mdash;whatever Michalek says in his inline text.
 * On the other hand, if we modify the map, it will no longer be a faithful representation of the Michalek source, but our own interpretation. The conservative course of action (that is, the one best supported by content guidelines) would be to omit the map and describe the events purely inline. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mediation case issues
 * Skäpperöd, Volunteer Marek &mdash; mediation is only a useful course of action while there is the possibility for agreement and common ground. I am seeing increasing accusations of bad faith in this discussion. Although I would like to continue to work with both of you, the personal remarks must stop. This includes publicly speculating about the motives of the other party. You are colleagues in this matter. If you do not feel that the other party deserves your respect (which is your right) then we will have to close this mediation and pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I very strongly disagree. Michalek is most certainly a reliable source. And that is the standard for inclusion. To be more specific:
 * The book itself and the Polish Wikipedia article describes Michalek as a professional historian with an expertise in military history. This establishes him as a reliable source even though you "can't find stuff on the internet" about him. Polish academics do not have the same kind of net presence as English-speaking ones.
 * Neither a Wikipedia article nor what Michalek writes about himself do anything to establish credibility. Can you find any evidence&mdash;anywhere&mdash;that Michalek was ever associated with a university? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but what a reputable publisher writes about him does. That's the next bullet point right below ↓↓↓. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The publisher is a reputable publisher which specializes in military history. It publishes a prestigious historical journal and awards a prestigious historical award in history. This can be easily verified.
 * WP:RS clearly states: Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. So, yes, it would be nice to have an academic journal with the same map in it. But the fact that we don't have it, does not mean we exclude the map. In particular, let me quote this part again: You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. That very clearly covers Michalek.
 * Maleczynski pretty much says the same thing as the map, unless one really wants to play semantic games over the words "most likely". So we do have a secondary source which is in close agreement with the map.
 * There are other sources which, while not as specific as Maleczynski, also pretty much are in agreement with the map.
 * If somewhere at some point Skapperod actually presented a source, ANY SOURCE, which contradicts the information in the map, that'd be one thing. But he hasn't.
 * Now, here's the part I don't get - how is modifying a map from a reliable source "our own interpretation" but removing the map from a reliable source, entirely, because some guy on Wikipedia (who hasn't bothered providing any sources of his own) doesn't like it somehow NOT "our own interpretation". It's the same thing, except taken to an extreme. If modifying the map in a way which doesn't agree with the source is a *bad thing*, then removing it entirely is even worse.
 * The contention is that the source is not reliable due to the paucity of information about the author and conflicts with reliable secondary sources. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the contention is that the source is not reliable then that's a.... pretty wrong contention, per the part of WP:RS I've quoted above. And then, this DOES belong at WP:RSN not here. Again, it's actually sufficient that Bellonna Publishing House is a "respected publishing house", which it very very clearly is.
 * Additionally the claim that it "conflicts with reliable secondary sources" is strange. Which ones? I've been asking for these but haven't seen a single one yet. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it is NOT implied by the map that Boleslaw "captured Stralsund". What the map says is "Direction of Boleslaw's march and attacks". So all that is implied is that Boleslaw marched there (honestly, after the battle at Szczecin/Stettin there weren't any explicit battles. Boleslaw marched his forces through as a show of strength to convince the local ruler and nobles to swear fealty to him and to claim the area before the German emperor got there). Volunteer Marek 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stralsund is labeled and circled on the map. Why else would there be a "concentration of forces" at that particular point? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because there was a concentration of forces there? That does not mean a battle took place. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * VM, based solely on Michalek's map (you have already verified that there is no respective inline text in Michalek ), you have on several occasions entered the claim that in 1121 Boleslaw captured Stralsund (and Demmin) into the articles    . There is just no point in arguing now that "it is NOT implied by the map that Boleslaw 'captured Stralsund'" when you had repeatedly read the map that way yourself. Also consider that Feezo has indicated, too, that the map implies a capture. That the map is so prone to be misread is a strong argument against keeping it. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I did. I originally wrote "captured Stralsund" but as soon as it was pointed out that this wasn't implied the map I changed the wording to "campaigned", which was. The map implies no capture. Actually even if it did, that would be very very minor. I was trying to be accommodating and respect others opinion. As always when this concerns dealing with you, that comes back to bite me on my ass. You somehow manage to take the most good faithed edits and try and use them against people. It's really disgraceful. Volunteer  Marek 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One possibility I see is, in the interest of compromise, explicitly stating in the caption that the map is based on Michalek - attributing the source. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Above, it has been established that the map is prone to mislead the reader. Also, it could not be established that Michalek has any credentials/reputation/authority/expertise in the subject of interest. In addition, since we have already established that Michalek counts as a tertiary source (VM agreed here), we have to obide the WP:PSTS policy, which is also summarized as another reliability condition in the WP:RS guideline at WP:RS reading "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Tertiary sources [...] may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." WP:PSTS says the same thing in more detail, and also explicitly says that "articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." We have not even started to look at WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Based on these arguments against an inclusion, I do not consider your proposal as a compromise at this point - raising the visibility of the attribution to Michalek would not alleviate any of these concerns. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Above, it has been established that the map is prone to mislead the reader' - bullshit. Nothing like that has been established. Please stop twisting words and trying to manipulate the conversation. Volunteer Marek 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You were misled yourself, Feezo agreed on the map making such a (wrong) implication, I take that as "established." Skäpperöd (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to see sources which contradict the map, or there's no point in any further discussion. I'm sick of this stalling, game playing, word twisting and time wasting. Volunteer Marek 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

<-- So far in this discussion I have:
 * Offered numerous sources in addition to the Michalek source, which IS reliable, to support the map.
 * I've offered and looked for ways to compromise and accommodate other views.

On the other hand
 * Skapperod has not offered a single source, despite repeated requests to support his position or which would contradict the map in anyway
 * Skapperod has rejected any compromise, and has not offered any himself. In fact, every time I've offered a compromise Skapperod has apparently taken that as some kind of admission of weakness and tried to exploit my assumption of good faith to get his way, all the way.

That ain't mediation. That's a waste of time. Volunteer Marek 13:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Offered numerous sources in addition to the Michalek source, which IS reliable, to support the map." - You have linked several sources, some are reliable, none supports the map. I have asked above if we need to go through the links one by one or if previous discussion has been sufficient to exclude them as supporting the map. I felt this had been sufficiently discussed, you failed to provide quotes directly supporting the disputed statement(s), as is required. If you think that you are able to provide such quotes, we can continue the discussion. But I advise against re-opening the discussions about how references talking about 1123 or Rügen etc, i.e. about some other issue than the disputed one, allegedly support something they don't state. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Re @Feezo: "The authoritative (secondary) source for this is Maleczynski." Yes, Maleczynski (1939) is the only secondary source provided so far discussing whether Boleslaw's 1121 Müritz campaign targeted the area in question. He relies on Ebo as the primary source for the Müritz, and marks his thoughts on Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund as speculative (a) by saying 'possibly' and (b) by not adding a primary source to these thoughts whereas everything attributable to primary sources is accordingly referenced. Other secondary sources discussing Boleslaw's 1121 Müritz campaign do not speculate whether it targeted that area. Unfortunately, neither of the recently published larger Pomeranian history books, i.e. Buchholz (ed.): Pommern, Berlin 1999 (in German) and Piskorski (ed.): Pomorze Zachodnie poprzez wieki / Pommern im Wandel der Zeit, Stettin/Szczecin 1999 (in Polish and German) mention the Müritz campaign (but do mention the 1121/2 capture of Stettin on p. 25 and p. 36, respectively). Buchholz however references Brüske: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Lutizenbundes... [Studies of the Lutician federation's history...] (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen vol. 3), Münster/Cologne 1955. Brüske says on p. 94: "In the same year [1121, Sk.], Boleslaw penetrated deep into Lutician territory. He advanced towards Müritz lake and devastated the area so thoroughly that it was nearly devoid of humans, as reported by Ebo." There is no discussion about the course of the campaign. Similarily, Schultze: Die Mark Brandenburg, vol. 1, Berlin 1961, p. 59 says "An advance of the Polish duke into Lutician territory up to lake Müritz in 1121 only caused a depopulation and long-lasting devastation," with a footnote attached referencing Ebo - no discussion about the course of the campaign. Eggert, Geschichte Pommerns, vol. 1, Hamburg 1974, p. 41 says that Boleslaw "in 1121 advanced into Lutician territory up to lake Müritz and devastated the so heavily, that they were almost devoid of humans even seven years later" (primary source is again Ebo). Herrmann et al.: Die Slawen in Deutschland, Berlin 1985, p. 385 also refernce Ebo for the Müritz campaign but do not discuss the course of the campaign. Richter, Das Dorf Nieden, in: Heimatkalender des Kreises Prenzlau 8/1933, p. 128, proposed that the Nedam which according to Herbord II.5 (primary source) was destroyed by Boleslaw in 1121 was the stronghold near Nieden, an Uckermark village (there are also other readings of that name though). Enders (1985) in her Historisches Ortslexikon, vol. 8/2, which is about the medieval places in the Uckermark, on p. 710 says likewise and relates the destruction of Nieden to Boleslaw's 1121 Müritz campaign, which has been referenced recently by Kirsch: Slawen und Deutsche in der Uckermark... (Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Europa, vol. 21), Stuttgart 2004, p. 75, saying with reference to Enders that "it was proposed that Boleslaw on his way to the Müritz destroyed the Ukranian stronghold Nieden on the Ucker river in the north of the later Uckermark." This sample of secondary, expert sources might illustrate my point that while the 1121 Müritz campaign is discussed in scholary literature, based on Ebo, there are rarely any comments as to the course of that campaign, and no comments at all about Demmin/Stralsund except for Maleczynski. We can include Maleczynski, but we must attribute that and mark it as speculative. Likewise, as I proposed earlier, we should say something (short) about the Nieden theory. But we need to make sure that we do not present this as a given, or as a scholary consensus (which obviously does not exist outside the Ebo-based agreement that Boleslaw led a devastating raid into Lutician territory reaching the Müritz in 1121. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What these sources show is simply that Muriz lake should be included in the map. That's not what we are disputing. Michalek, Maleczynski, Jablonka are all reliable sources. The other reliable sources state the same thing except in more general terms ("up to Rugen") etc. You still haven't provided a source which would contradict the map. Or Maleczynski. Volunteer Marek 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to contradict Maleczynski, my compromise proposal was to quote and attribute him even if his thoughts about Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund stem from 1939 and have not made it into the scholary discourse, which simply did and does not take place. That's what the expert literature sample above is intended to show, the absensence of a discussion about the possible course of the Müritz campaign, with the possible exception of Nieden. Most historians, as spelled out in the quotes above, just rely on Ebo and do not speculate about what Boleslaw might have done or not done in addition and what we do not have primary sources for. Michalek is not part of the scholary community, neither in the field of medieval Pomeranian history nor in any wider field at all, and he will never be seriously discussed. Michalek's reliability has not even been established according to the much lower wikipedia standards, and I don't see Jablonka passing that treshold either (who is talking about the 1123 campaign allegedly leading to Rügen anyway and thus out of scope for the 1121 Müritz campaign's course). Maleczynski is a reliable secondary source though, he was an academic, his works were and are still cited, so we can include his views on the subject despite the absence of reception. I think that this is a very fair compromise. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your "proposed compromise" was that you agreed grudgingly to the use of one reliable source - how is that a compromise? That's Wikipedia policy. And then you insist on rejecting another reliable source, based on your own IDONTLIKEIT. That's against Wikipedia policy. Again, this isn't compromise, it's displaying a serious problem with ownership of an article. Michalek is clearly a reliable source per above, and Maleczynski's book on Boleslaw is regarded as a key work. All you've done is assemble some sources which do not specifically mention Dymin or Stralsund. Fine. No one's ever claimed that every single source out there does. But that is NOT the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. The threshold is that a particular piece info can be verified with A reliable source, which here, it obviously can. Volunteer Marek 20:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

End of discussion
It's apparent that the above discussion has run out of road.

Volunteer Marek, Skäpperöd, I think the logical next course of action is to hold an RfC. Either of you could start this process&mdash;unlike mediation, it doesn't depend on the participation of any particular individuals. However, it is in all our interests to work together to determine its parameters and ensure that both sides receive a fair hearing. I therefore suggest that the RfC be made part of the mediation. If it is, my role will be that of a neutral coordinator &mdash; I will not attempt to influence the results.

I've run this sort of mediation-turned-RfC before, in which the RfC was closed by an agreed upon third party. If either of you would like to go this route, then let me know. Otherwise, I will close the mediation. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the previous meditation-turned-Rfc? Volunteer Marek 21:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests for mediation/The Beatles. This was a much larger case, with over a dozen participants and multiple user conduct issues. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Preparing a Medcom-hosted RfC
I think that before we can have an RfC, we will have to prepare questions to ask there.

Presentation of Boleslaw's 1121 Müritz campaign in the articles' inline text
Discussion has led to some progress here. The initial question about the introduction of a capture of Demmin and Stralsund in the inline text based on Michalek has been solved: Thus, there is no need for an RfC to ask whether the capture-wording is ok or not, rather, there should be a (short) list of proposals for what wording we use instead. We could use the following format:
 * VM has verified that there is no respective inline text in Michalek
 * VM has agreed that the "capture of Demmin/Stralsund"-wording is not supported by Michalek's map, which was used as the reference for that claim.

Q: How shall we present Boleslaw's 1121 Müritz campaign in the articles' inline text?
 * [h2] Presentation of Boleslaw's 1121 Müritz campaign in the articles' inline text
 * [h3] Proposal A
 * [h3] Proposal B
 * [h3] (Proposal C if any)
 * [h3] General Discussion

Thoughts? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Michalek's view that a joint Danish-Polish expedition subdued Rügen in 1130
I think before we can decide on RfC-questions here, we should first settle the verification issue, since the requested quotations have not yet been provided. The disputed sentence introduced by VM reads VM, can you please provide the respective quotation from Michalek? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "1130 - Joint Polish-Danish invasion of Rügen. The Rani accepted Polish suzerainty but Polish control didn't last," with reference to p. 102 in Michalek

Inclusion of Michalek's map
Questions to ask here include Since all these questions likewise apply to the 1130 dispute, pending positive verification, is it preferred to discuss them separately? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliability of Michalek
 * Compliance with WP:PSTS - good or bad summary of secondary sources
 * Is Michalek's view authorative or does it fail WP:UNDUE

Like I said before, I don't see a point in continuing this until you manage to provide some sources which contradict the map. I also very much resent and object to you twisting my words and statements in your write up of this RfC. An obvious "question to ask here include" would be "why hasn't Skapperod presented any sources but just keeps endlessly arguing in circles". You're turning this into a farce. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the "discussion has" NOT "led to progress". Your two bullet points "VM verified" "VM agreed" are trivial. In particular the second one is just a rhetorical trick aimed at misleading the reader. All that happened is that I made an edit(s) (these are your diffs) which I later revised for the sake of precision and in order to avoid misunderstanding. But you're acting as if you've proven something. You didn't. Anyway, Maleczynski does support the capture of Demmin ("Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin"). Furthermore, these are not substantial issues. The issue at hand is that you haven't provided a single source (I need a keyboard macro for that phrase by now) which would contradict the information I've provided.

Furthermore the section on Michalek's map especially "Questions to ask here include" is an obvious attempt at controlling the conversation. If there are questions about whether Michalek is a reliable source or not, then we should relist that question at WP:RSN not start an RfC (which is likely to be as unproductive as this discussion). THAT is the proper venue. According to Wikipedia policy, if a source is reliable then that justifies inclusion of information which accurately reflects it (where's the "VM's map accurately reflects the source" bullet point above?). That's WP:VERIFY. We can talk WP:UNDUE - another IDONTLIKEIT red herring - but you don't get to veto reliably sourced text based on your whimsy. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(note: I'm copying the comment by Feezo below from my talk page. Let's keep the discussion in one place).

If you want your position to be represented in the RfC, I suggest that you work with Skäpperöd to come up with wording that you both agree on. What exactly do you "very much resent and object to"? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 20:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I object to Skapperod mischarecterizing the dispute and my position in it. And to him manipulating the wording of the proposed RfC - which I haven't agreed to - to skew the reader to his POV.
 * The subject of this discussion should be ... well, it should be a source or sources that Skapperod presented to support his position. But he hasn't presented any. Hence the subject of discussion should be WHY he hasn't been able to present any sources. Right now it looks like an attempt to allow him to invent even more irrelevant excuses to exclude a well sourced map. Then of course I have to defend against these excuses and get drawn into completely irrelevant topics of discussion (for example, whether there were two campaigns, in 1121 and 1123, or just one, which is ridiculous - he's basically relying on your ignorance of this chunk of history to get away with it). That's what makes this a waste of time.
 * Bottom line is that pretty much in every single SUCCESSFUL instance of dispute resolution process I've ever been involved in, one side brought sources, and other side brought sources. Discussion followed and it was figured out how to balance these. But here one side, me, has sources, and the other side, is just making up bullshit excuses per IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Take it back to WP:RSN
Here is my proposal: if the issue is the reliability of Michalek, then let's go back to WP:RSN and ask for input there again. That's what happens with most discussions that don't get outside attention on the first go - they get relisted. Just to make sure we don't scare off any commentators with lengthy discussion and polemics, how about this time both myself and Skapperod limit ourselves to a single statement, limited in length (by words, diffs, etc) and then sit back and let others talk it out. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)