Talk:Duchy of Pomerania-Stolp

Notability

This actually never was a separate duchy, but was always a part of the Duchy of Pomerania. At times, several brothers/cousins/uncles from the ducal house of Pomerania ruled this duchy in common, with each of them satisfied with a distinct share where they were de facto independent rulers in respect to the inner affairs of their respective share, and were all addressed as dukes. But these shares never had the status of a duchy, but were just shares of the same duchy. This practice is called Realteilung (="real sharing"). The CoA you introduced was not the one of this (nonexistant) duchy, but the one of Stolp City.

I therefore redirected the page to Duchy of Pomerania again. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this entity is notable. It may not be a real duchy, but it is notable: [1], [2], [3], particularly in Polish historiography: [4]. See also German works on Fürstentum Stolp and Herzogtum Stolp (I'd like to know what is a Fürstentum and how it differs from Herzogtum?). I would support including arguments on how this Duchy was not really a duchy in the article, perhaps even renaming it if we can find a better name. But I think the article is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But the issue is already covered in the Duchy of Pomerania article, and also in Pomerania during the Late Middle Ages, and the dukes are listed in List of Pomeranian duchies and dukes. Why create a content fork. I agree that this is notable, but it is already sufficiently covered.

FYI: Fürstentum = principality; Herzogtum = duchy.

The hits you provided are 6 for Fürstentum and 49 fur Herzogtum Stolp. They result from laziness/inaccuracy of the authors, compare to 494 hits for Pommern-Stolp, indicating that it was a part-duchy and not a separate one. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a content fork, it's a dedicated article. This is how this project grows. Again, I would ask you to expand this article, and if you can, include a discussion of why calling this a duchy/principality is an error. PS. If you strongly disagree, we can try WP:AFD to gather community consensus. But I hope we can reach an agreement without that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What about redirecting it to just created Partitions of the Duchy of Pomerania, and maybe expand that article with subsections on the part-duchies. I still think separate articles on each of the inner divisions would be nothing but content forks. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised we got the partition article before the History of the Duchy of Pomerania, but it seems fine, although one could dispute the notability of this concept as well ([5]) . Still, I think that the Duchy of Słupsk/Stolp article is notable, per the usage of this term in literature - all should be solved by the note discussing the problems with this term in article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NB: The reason for a "missing" History of the Duchy of Pomerania article is that the duchy itself is a historical entity and thus the article Duchy of Pomerania itself is the very "History of ..." article. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article out of the respective parts of the main article and moved it to Pomerania-Stolp. I still consider this a content fork though. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

part-duchy

What's a part-duchy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation of Teilherzogtum. I clarified this in the "Background section, I may need to add some more to make it comprehensive. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create an article on Teilherzogtum? I note there is no de:Teilherzogtum :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is probably no article in de.wiki because the term is self-explanatory in German. Google returns 688 hits for Teilherzogtum and 677 hits for Teilherzogtümer (plural form). I think it is better to explain the term in articles where it is used instead of creating an unexpandable stub which would be not much more than a dictionary entry. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note, that Teilherzogtum is also a Herzogtum. To Piotrus: in polish it means księstwo dzielnicowe. — User:Paelius 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame pl wiki is missing an article on pl:księstwo dzielnicowe as well :( On a related topic, I wonder what's the en equivalent of pl:księstwo udzielne? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Teilherzogtum means part of a Herzogtum, it is not a Herzogtum itself. The Herzog of a Teilherzogtum is however a real Herzog, not somehow a "part of a Herzog". The title is shared by all Herzogs of the Teilherzogtümer which are part of the Herzogtum. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

continued in Talk:Pomerania-Stolp#Fief of Poland? [cont.]

Fief of Poland?

I've asked on pl wiki for clarification on when and how it was the fief. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources: [6] [7] [8]radek (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

These sources do not confirm your assertion that P.-Stolp was a Polish fief. In the course of the Polish-Teutonic wars, the Pomeranian dukes at times allied with Poland as well as with the Teutonic knights, and as a consequence gained Lauenburg and Bütow from the knights (and for a short time Dobrin) as Polish fiefs. But not P.-Stolp, that was part of the Duchy of Pomerania, an Imperial fief. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, those sources directly say that the Dukes paid feudal homage to King of Poland for the fief - not "alliances" which was a different matter. If you're so sure, why so quick to resorting to underhanded tactics?radek (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Those sources" are a booksearch and two snippets not referring to P.-Stolp. "Underhanded tactics" is a somehow ridiculous PA for an EEML member to make. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are sources which directly refer to Stolp being made a Polish fief. And yes, you are engaging in underhanded tactics to win this argument - rather than discussing the issue, you find it more productive for your aims to try and get people who disagree with you sanctioned. Which says something about your insecurity on this topic. If you were sure about the sources you'd present them, or at least point out where the ones I listed were short. But you don't, instead you go for the standard personal attacks and the "EEML!" (which at this point is pretty equivalent to the Hitler Law violation). Sure, you can get people sanctioned, then you don't have to worry about sources, then you get to put whatever German Nationalist POV you want in here. But the sources still exist, and sooner or later someone else will find them and sooner or later they will show up and say something about it here. And then the charade will start again. And then you will have to try and get them sanctioned again because the sources will still be there. Etc. etc. etc.radek (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[9] "Podpisany w Pyzdrach akt lenny szedł jednak jeszcze dalej..." - "The act of vassalage signed in Pyzdry went even further..."

[10], pg. 159 " Domarat był świadkiem hołdu złożonego w Pyzdrach Jagielle przez księcia Warcislawa" - "Domorat was a witness to the homage paid to Jagiello in Pyzdry by Prince Warcislaw" (referring to feudal homage) etc

Quote the parts where it says "Pomerania-Stolp was a Polish fief". Skäpperöd (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting the parts where it says it was made a Polish fief.radek (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No you did not. You quoted the parts where Wartislaw (VII) swears he will follow the Polish king in his war with the Teutonic knights. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The quotes above specifically mention "fiefdom" (or vassalage) - pl:Lenno is translated as fiefdom. "Akt lenny" = act of [declaring] fiefdom, and "hołd" - tribute - has similar meaning in this context. Further refs:

• [11] (p.55-56): heading "Księstwo Słupskie lennem Korony Polskiej. Warcisław VII przyjmuje od Jagiełły lenno słupskie w r. 1390." - "Duchy of Słupsk a fiefdom of the Polish Crown. Warcisław VII receives the fiefdom of Słupsk from Jagiełło in 1390." and text "niemniej faktem jest, że księstwo słupskie było rzeczywistym lennem Polski" - "but it is a fact that Duchy of Słupsk was a real fiefdom of Poland" and "Bliskie stosunki książąt słupskich z Polską weszły w r.1390 w nową faze: przyjęły one mianowicie kształt regularnego stosunku feudalnego. W 1390 r. w Pyzdrach książe słupski Warcisław VII..." - "close relations of princes of Słupsk with Poland in 1390 entered a new phase: they took the form of a regular feudal relationship. In 1390 on Pyzdry Duke of Słupsk, Warcisław VII..."
• [12] (589): "1390: księstwo słupskie stało się formalnym lennem polskim, co znalazło m. in. wyraz w akcie pokoju toruńskiego 1466." - "1390: Duchy of Słupsk becomes a formal fiefdom of Poland, which was expressed in (for example) the act of the Treaty of Toruń (Thorn) in 1466."
• [13] (p.12) - "Księstwo słupskie było od r. 1390 lennem Polski, ale związek ten był bardzo luźny i okresami zanikał." - "Duchy of Słupsk was from 1390 a fiefdom of Poland, although the relation was rather loose and in periods, non-existent."
• The above also quotes the text of the treaty between Warcisław and Jagiełło. Here's the relevant part: ""My Warcisław (VII) z łaski Bożej ksiąze szczeciński, pomorski, kaszybski, władca Sławii i Rugii, stwierdzamy, że złożyliśmy i obecnie w akcie niniejszym składamy przysięge hołdowniczą oraz na wierność sławnemu sławnemu władcy i panu, panu Władysławowi, królowi oraz Królestwu i Koronie Polskiej; podobnie brat nasz Bogusław [VIII] zobowiązany jest uczynić, w podobny sposób trzeci nasz brat Barnim [V], jeżeli do świętego stanu nie zostanie przeznaczony, uczynić powinien i jest zobowiązany, za którego, my, Warcisław wyżej wymieniony, przyrzekamy, i brat nasz,... " - that's as much as I was able to piece from snippets, but I think it is clear: "We Warcisław (VII) due to grace of God prince of Szczecin, Pomerania, Kaszuby, ruler of Sławia and Rugia, declare, that we gave and in hereby act give an oath of vassalage and loyalty' to famous ruler and lord, Sir Władysław, king, and to the Kingdom and Crown of Poland; similarly our brother..." (the next part describes similar oaths to be made by his brothers).
• A dedicated publication exists, if offline: Nowakowski Andrzej: Księstwo słupskie lennem polskim w X1V-XV wieku. Przegląd Zachodnio-pomorski. 1988 R. 3 z. 4 (dr. 1990) s. 7-28, mapa. Zsfg. s. 300.

I hope that's enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that the Communist Polish literature of the 1960s with regard to the Recovered Territories is far from reliable. Especially if non-Communist sources describe that as an alliance, not as a subordination of a duchy.

Buchholz (1999), p.157, mentions that in the course of the alliance, Wartislaw VII paid homage to the Polish king for Polish Nakel and maybe additional territories which he received as reward for cutting off the Teutonic Order's supply route. Nakel was returned to Poland when Wartislaw died, Czacharowski (2001), p.148.

I see no reason to distrust the scholarship presented (and I very much doubt they would falsify the text of the vassal declaration I cite above). The sources do, however, indicate that the vassalage relationship was rather weak, and we can clarify that in the article. There is however no denial that for a time, such a relation existed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re "vassal declaration": Where does he say that Pomerania-Stolp is a Polish fief? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In multiple sources above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not refer to the Communist sources from the 1960s, but to Wartislaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I translated the oath for you (above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Wartislaw's oath does not specify the area. Wartislaw received the Nakel castellany and some additional Polish territories as reward for the alliance, not Pomerania-Stolp, which was an imperial fief. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Skap, the sources are from 1997 and 2008, and Piotrus' is from 1990, so they are not from "Communist Poland" as you would like to pretend and they specifically mention that Slupsk was a fief of Poland. In addition there is the actual text of the treat in which Warcislaw gives feudal homage to Jagiello. Please stop this massive and disruptive obscurantism and pretending not to see the obvious in the face of massive sources to the contrary.radek (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus' sources are not from 1997 and 2008, they are from the Communist era altogether. They prove that a few Communist era Polish sources interpreted the oath given in the course of the alliance as referring to Pomerania-Stolp, nothing more. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also like you to remind you, Skapperod, that the reliability of pre-1989 Polish sources has been extensively discussed on RS/N and other venues, and the conclusion was that in general, historical works from pre-1989 Poland can be considered reliable unless it can be pointed out specifically that there's something wrong with them. Unlike German Nazi era sources which cannot be used, however much some editors (not you, of course) might wish to use these. Since you are very well aware of these discussions, having participated in them, I would like to request that you don't pretend that they didn't exist.radek (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The RS/N discussion did not reach a consensus despite the combined efforts of members a certain network now under arbcom investigation (WP:EEML) showing up there en bloc. Both Piotrus and you are a part of this network, and references to discussions like that can safely be discarded. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Riiiiight, personal attacks and falsehoods in place of arguments. The RS/N discussion did in fact reach a consensus (you being the only dissenter, pretty much just like with the discussion on use of Nazi-era sources, except there you were on the other side) and actually I wasn't part of that discussion (at least not every single time you tried to forum shop it) - this was the opinion of completely uninvolved editors which you are now misrepresenting. So EEML or whatever (can you stop the ad hominen attacks and actually engage other editors in a real discussion?) is irrelevant. All the sources listed are reliable.radek (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: discussion continued below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a weak consensus to leave the article at its present title, but if someone comes up with a definitive analysis of sources then this discussion should be reopened. See also: Foreign names and anglicization. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pomerania-Stolp → Duchy of Słupsk — Duchy of Słupsk, a term commonly used in Polish historiography (and [14] on occasion in English one) is much more informative than the current name, based on German historiography, Pomerania-Stolp (which translates as Pomernaia-Słupsk). PS. I have no prejudice against the alt name of Duchy of Stolp if sufficient argument can be made for its usage (used in one publication [15]). PPS. See also the discussion at the top which discusses if the term duchy is appropriate. I acknowledge that there may be a German term that is more specific (Teilherzogtum?), as well as Polish (pl:księstwo dzielnicowe), but the best English translation is Duchy. My final argument: WP:NC - be as simple and preceise as possible. A reader looking at Pomerania-Stolp is likely to go "eh? what?", a reader looking at "Duchy of Słupsk (Stolp)" at least gets the idea of what kind of an entity we are talking about. PS. Nominator support, obviously :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. First, this was not a duchy, but a part of a duchy. Second:

• "Pomerania-Stolp" is used eg in the Cambridge history of Scandinavia (2003), University of British Columbia's Studies in medieval and renaissance history (1991), The Encyclopedia Americana (1993) and others [16] [17].
• "Duchy of Stolp" is used by one source only [18],
• "Duchy of Słupsk" returns 3 books translated from Polish [19].
• "Pommern-Stolp", the German original, yields 612 hits in a booksearch [20].

Skäpperöd (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What duchy was Pomerania-Stolp part of? In that feudal period, duchies fragmented and merged often, but Duchy of Słupsk/Stolp was a separate, notable entity (hence this very article). "Pommern-Stolp" may yield hundreds of hits - German hits. So does Polish "księstwo słupskie" ([21]). :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"księstwo słupskie" yields 187 hits, that is not the "many hundred" (621) you get for Pommern-Stolp.

"What duchy was Pomerania-Stolp part of?" The Duchy of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

""księstwo słupskie" yields 187 hits, that is not the "many hundred" (621) you get for Pommern-Stolp." - not suprising, considering that the Polish language uses declensions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• So does German. But the question is which is used in English, which borrows the nominative forms from both languages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am certainly not arguing for moving this article to księstwo słupskie :) As to what the English publications use - they tend not to mention the Duchy at all. "Pomerania Stolp" yields ~30 publications, but most are fake results (ex. "...served southern Pomerania. Stolp, the second largest Pomeranian town..."). I think Skäpperöd cited above all three works that seem relatively reliable and use that term; and I cited two or three that use the alternate term. As such, I'd prefer we stick with the English duchy or principality. Perhaps we could compromise on Duchy of Pomerania-Stolp, a term which is in fact used by two of Skäpperöd's work cited above? I don't particularly care about Stolp or Słupsk, but I care that Pomerania-Stolp is not a helpful title (that said if Duchy of Pomerania-Stolp and Duchy of Słupsk are used as often - 2 or 3 times - which would be better?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why isn't the present name a useful title? we use the same style for the Saxon Duchies (see Saxony-Anhalt). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting, I didn't know about it. Is there an appropriate naming convention we can use (something specific to the X-Y type of names that would indicate they are as acceptable as Duchy of X)? Regarding the example you cite, I see that the terms duchy of Saxony-Anhalt are state of Saxony-Anhalt also used ([22], [23]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Saxony-Anhalt was a component state of the (second) German Empire, and so of the Weimar Republic (when state is likely to be more common, since its government became elective); Pomerania-Stolp does not have this complication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pomerania-Wolgast /= Duchy of Pomerania

Pomerania-Wolgast is not a synonym for Duchy of Pomerania, but another internal partition of the latter. P.-Stolp was created from P.-Wolgast's easternmost parts, and is thus sometimes referred to as P.-Wolgast (Stolp), P.-(Wolgast)-Stolp or P.-Wolgast-Stolp. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I got confused by the redirect. Could you stub Pomerania-Wolgast into its own article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'Teilherzogtum'

I can very well add "referred to as Ksiestwo in Polish", "referred to as Ksiaze in Polish", "referred to as ziemia in Polish", "referred to as zamek in Polish", "referred to as wojna in Polish", "referred to as ojczyzna in Polish", "referred to as dom in Polish", "referred to xxx in Polish" and so on all over this article, and then "reference it" with the fact that these words (ksiestwo, ksiaze, ziemia, zamek, wojna, ojczyzna, dom, etc.) are used in ... Polish sources. Which would of course be disruptive, unless there are actually English language sources which use these terms. Same things holds for trying to force German terms into the article. This is the English Wikipedia - not Polish, not German. W/o common usage in English sources this just seems like more nationalist irredentist territorial marking.radek (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since P.-Stolp was a Teilherzogtum, which does not have a cognate in English, the German term should be used and linked. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the term Teilherzogtum doesn't seem to be used AT ALL in English language sources [24]. The article Teilherzogtum is completely unreferenced and probably a good candidate for an AfD itself, per NOTADICTIONARY, especially NOT A GERMAN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY FOR POLAND RELATED ARTICLES (yes by this point there probably should be a policy along these lines). Hence this is simple OR inserted here to "mark" the article/area as "German" w/o backing from English language sources. It's just nationalistic POV pushing.

Find an English source which actually uses the term in the sense that is given. Yes, I know, Wiki allows for non-English sources - but that's to source information, not to define non-English words. We don't have an article on おかしい猿, among many other articles we don't have. And we don't put that phrase into all kinds of articles simply to inform the reads that that's what the term is. Likewise ... sigh ... not a dictionary.

There are many terms in Polish which don't have a cognate in English. You don't see me throwing them in into every article I can find.radek (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, it is fine to have articles describing specific local features on en Wikipedia; often such features don't have a good translation into English, and the English sources use inconsistent and confusing terminology. However, if we were to use this terminology, it should be explained better than as it was here. "Duchy of Słupsk is referred as Teilherzogtum in German and księstwo dzielnicowe in Polish is not very helpful. I'd suggest by trying to expand article on Teilherzogtum. Currently it is not very informative, and its notability may be in doubt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things;

-you are confusing cognate with equivalent. -This is German related as well as Polish, it can be both. -partitioned duchy, is a better translation than part-duchy, and partition is used to describe such entities elsewhere. Teilherzogtum is not English, we shouldn't make people learn German to understand English wikipedia articles. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fief of Poland? [cont.]

This [25]

In particular this is really twisting what the sources say the latter concluded an alliance with Poland and received the Polish castellany of Naklo (Nakel) and probably some adjacent areas as a fief in return, declaring himself a vassal of Casimir III in Pyzdry.. The sources say Warcislaw made Pomerania-Stolp a fiefdom (lenno) of Poland. The sources don't say something anything about the fiefdom being Naklo or "adjecent areas", they say Slupsk/Stolp - hence, this is straight up OR, done apparently with an aim to minimize the connection with Poland in the interests of nationalist POV. The sources say Pomerania-Stolp.

Second, this is just POV pushing: A few Polish sources from the Communist era interpret Wartislaw's oath as Pomerania-Stolp becoming a Polish fief. No. The sources are from post and pre Communist era - if you want to you can call it Polish sources. Though I'm pretty sure non-Polish sources, including German ones say the same thing (is this gonna be another Nawratil episode where I have to hunt down German language sources using Babel fish, even though Skapperod is much better equipped to do so?). Furthermore, per discussion at RS/N there isn't anything wrong with pre-1989 Polish sources in general. You have to demonstrate that some particular source is questionable. You don't get to throw out the work of many historians based on their nationality and an a nationalistic IDON'TLIKE IT.radek (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling me nationalist and the like is a baseless PA. The only reason I will not take action against you at this point is that you are about to get sanctioned in the EEML case anyway. Please discontinue your PAs and stay civil. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The German and Polish sources saying that the vassalage referred to Naklo/Nakel are from 1999 and 2001, the Polish sources saying the vassalage was for P-Stolp are from the 1960s (two) and 1970 (one), when Poland was Communist. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, nothing wrong with pre 1989 Polish sources unless you can show a particular source is biased.radek (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"A few Polish sources from the Communist era"? Gimme a break. There are plenty of post 1990 for Słupsk fiefdom: [26], [27] ... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The above links are book search strings, not sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sure, here's one: [28]. "1390: ksiązę słupski został lennikiem Władysława Jagiełły" (1390: prince of Słupks became a vassal of Władysław Jagiełło). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That is out of question since the "prince" (actually a duke) held Polish fiefs, but it does not make P.-Stolp a Polish fief. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I don't recall the last time I saw such an amusing attempt at weaseling. Try disputing this ([29]): "1390 roku księstwo słupskie stało się lennem Władysława Jagiełły" ([in] 1390 the princedom of Słupsk became a fief of Władysław Jagiełło). Will you now question this because it doesn't mention Poland? :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have found the first acceptable source saying P-Stolp was a fief of Jagiello in this whole discussion. If you refrain from the offensive style with ":D" and "amusing attempt at weaseling", and say whose work Kosman based his argument on, then we finally have a basis for a content argument. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually all of the above sources are "acceptable" in the sense that they are reliable, per previous discussions at RS/N. The fact that YOUDON'TLIKE IT does not make them "unacceptable".radek (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How about you find a single source that contradicts him? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Different oppinions in Polish scholarship about Wartislaw's oath to Jagiello

Background: The primary source for the oath Wartislaw VII of Pomerania-Stolp gave to Jagiello of Poland and Lithuania in 1390 is a document reprinted in the Codex diplomaticus regni Poloniae, p.570. The document was signed in Pyzdry/Peisern and is a treaty about friendship, alliance and vassalage, but does not mention the territory the vassalage is for. Wartislaw VII was one of the dukes of Pomerania, who at this time had internally partitioned the duchy - an imperial fief - and ruled their non-heriditary shares in de-facto mutual autonomy. Wartislaw VII was allied with the Teutonic Knights in the contemporary Polish-Teutonic war, but turned to the Polish side after the knights had destroyed several residences of Pomeranian nobles, who had previously intercepted and robbed their supplies. With the alliance, just prior to the treaty, Wartislaw received Naklo/Nakel and probably other territories as Polish fiefs. Wartislaw then went on a pilgrimage in 1392. After his return, he made an agreement with the knights to punish the nobles responsible for attacks on the knights, which he did. When he was assassinated either in 1394 or in 1395, his brother took over and allied with the knights.

Polish historiography and the oath: In post-war Polish historiography, the oath is interpreted differently:

• Gòrski (1947), Labuda (1948), Fenrych (1961) say the oath was for all territory held by Wartislaw VII, including Pomerania-Stolp.
• Mitkowski (1946), Zientara (1969) say the oath was for the territory Waritislaw received from Jagiello (especially Naklo/Nakel)
• Mielcarz (1976) says the oath was binding only Wartislaw himself, as a person, to Jagiello.
• Gumowski (1951) says the document shows Wartislaw giving a general solemn promise of service.

The reference for the above is Branig, Hans (1997). Werner Buchholz (ed.). Geschichte Pommerns, Volume I, Vom Werden des neuzeitlichen Staates bis zum Verlust der staatlichen Selbständigkeit, 1300-1648. Böhlau. pp. 29–30. ISBN 3412071897. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear what you mean by "The reference for the above." Do you mean that Branig and Buchholz discuss Polish historiography, cite Górski and others, and discuss 1) biases of Polish historiography and 2) differences between Polish historiography and German one? If so, can you provide page numbers and Google Book links or direct quotations / translations, like we did above for the Polish sources? I think that the above analysis is quite valuable and should be included (and expanded with info from other sources we found) in the article. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to create a dedicated article on treaty of Pyzdry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion:

• After the territory of former P.-Stolp became Polish, some Polish historians said it had been a Polish fief based on an oath of Wartislaw VII that does not say so, other Polish historian disputed this assertion.
• Wartislaw's oath had no practical consequences.
• This controversy is limited to Poland, the assertion that Wartislaw's oath made P-Stolp a Polish fief is not made/followed by other historians.
• At the time the assertion was published, Poland was Communist and the state agenda was that the former eastern territories of Germany gained after the war were in fact old Polish lands that were now "recovered".
• One source, Kosman (1995), published this assertion after the fall of Communism. It needs to be established what source Kosman based his assertion on.

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because a historical work (not just an "assertion") was published in pre 1989 Poland does not make it part of "state agenda" or anything of the sort. Per RS/N you have to show that the works in question are biased.radek (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Polish and German sources of that time (and to a lesser extent, modern) are somewhat biased when it comes to Polish-German history. That said, I don't really see how this bias is relevant here. And indeed, in order for the bias to be discussed in the article, we need to show 1) that there sources are contradictory and 2) that contradiction is a result of bias, as stated in other reliable sources. Unless that takes place, such claims in the article are ORish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a single source that contradicts the claim of Słupsk being a Polish fief?

Multiple sources claim that Słupsk was a Polish fief, post 1989.

Please give gbooks links when citing literature.

If you are going to dispute Polish historiography, please don't assume German is any less biased. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Kosman is not "multiple post 1989 sources". Since even in Communist times the view that P-Stolp was a Polish fief in 1390 was disputed, this should rather make one think if the argument is not pretty weak speculation, and not remove all sources who offered other interpretations of the treaty. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Which source, specifically, disputes "the view that P-Stolp was a Polish fief in 1390"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OR

This edit [30] should be inserted into WP:OR as an idealized example of what constitutes Original Research. Do you have any sources which talk about "Post-communist histography" or any of the other stuff you've put in there?radek (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Communist regime collapsed in 1989/1990, that is not OR but an easily verifiable fact. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of ORing if not a straight up misrepresentation of sources. According to Skapperod:

In 1390 however, after Casimir III of Poland had promised to hand part of the heritage of Casimir IV, Wartislaw VII's stepbrother, over to Wartislaw, the latter concluded an alliance with Poland and received the Polish castellany of Naklo (Nakel) and probably some adjacent areas as a fief in return, declaring himself a vassal of Casimir III in Pyzdry.

...um, might want to check your dates. By 1390 Casimir III had been dead for 20 years. Hence Casimir could not have promised crap to Wartislaw in 1390 nor to give him Naklo nor any "probably some adjacent areas" nor take his vassalage.

Like the sources above say, the vassalage was given to Jagiello not Casimir. And it was for Stolp not for "Naklo and some adjacent areas".

Now, since Skapperod cited this to Bucholtz, either this is a blatant mistake in Bucholtz itself (which I doubt) or something else is going on.

Can we have the relevant part quoted and translated from German?radek (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed Casimir --> Jagiello. That it was for Stolp is the view of only a faction of Polish historians, evolved and even disputed in the Communist era. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to provide the relevant text from Buchholtz where he talks about Communism. You've been asked for this several times already. Using non English sources on Wikipedia is fine, but you are required to provide the original text with a translation per WP:V. This is particularly true in this particular case since you cited "Casimir" - which you now admit was clearly false - to Buchholtz. Radek

PS. The giving of Naklo in fief to Wartislaw was a separate incident which took place in 1393, not 1390. 1390 was Stolp then Naklo was added in 1393.radek (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, on which page(s) does Bucholtz discuss Naklo/Nakel specifically?radek (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I already gave the page above, it is 157. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And can you give the text? Radek

I don't see the need for a separate section on Polish historiography in this article. If you disagree, I suggest a WP:RFC. And I again propose that we discuss the historiography of the treaty in a dedicated article; it is too detailed for this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, is this version acceptable? All sources included. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fief of Poland? [cont. II]

The Pomeranian Griffin coat of arms is one out of 25 symbols of the Kingdom of Poland surrounding the Polish king in "Statuty Laskiego" from 1505. What does it stand for? It must be either Pomerania-Stolp or the Lauenburg-Butow territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.45.190 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant: it is not necessary part of Pomerania, not every Argent, a griffin Gules belongs to Pomerania. I do think Pomerania is most likely what it represents. There is however no black griffin representing Pomerellia. Heraldry was often used to reflect the vaguest and weakest of claims, including those deriving from remote ancestry, obscure treaties or ownership of small portions of land. Artists are also inaccurate with portrayal of arms. Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)