Talk:Lendians

March 2007

I have reedited the article and included some information form the Polish Wikipedia. Yeti 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lendians and Lusatians

There is a possibility that the Lusatian Sorbs, known in their own language and in Polish as the Łużyczanie,adjective łużycki, are among their descendants. The term Łużyczanie/łużycki could very well have developed from Lugii.

Other derivetive names from the same region recorded in historical sources: (the latin/italin 'g' sound like 'dz' in other systems)

• Bavarian Geographer lendizi
• Widukind licicaviki
• Κωνσταντίνος Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητος litzike, linzike, lenzeninov or lenzaniniov
• Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Masudi landzaneh'
• Nestor: Волхомъ бо нашедшемъ на словЂни на дунайския, и сЂдшемъ в них и насилящемъ имъ, словЂни же ови пришедше сЂдоша на ВислЂ, и прозвашася ляхове, а от тЂхъ ляховъ прозвашася поляне, ляхове друзии лутичи, ини мазовшане, ини поморяне.
• Hungarian common word Lengyel

Can I edit anything without Piotr's surveillance?

Piotrus, please stop it. There is no need to improve my grammar. There is no need for two identical passages following each other. There is no proof that the land of the Lendians was ever controlled by Poland before 1018, although some Polish historians make much out of the Primary Chronicle's statement that Vladimir conquered the territory from the "Lachs" (in fact, the term may be interpreted to refer to the Lendians rather than the Poles of Mieszko). I assure you that Great Poland will not collapse because of my edits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Article after your edits is not perfect, and other users have the right to improve it further.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You failed to respond to my objections in any meaningful way and proceeded right to revert-warring. I'm not impressed, to say the least. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not impressed by your reverting of my style and clarification edits. Lead expansion is recommended by WP:LEAD, style changes by WP:NPOV, your own version states that "At one point in the 970s, the region seems to have been overrun by Mieszko I of Poland" so you are contradicting yourself above when you are saying that's inaccurate, and clarification of what happened in 1340 is again a positive contribution (I do agree with your removal of later history, it's not related). Therefore your reverts are not helpful, and your confusing arguments here are not helping.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your favourite explanation for explanation's sake, without any substance to buttress your opinion (if there is any). I still see no point in your edits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lędchy?!?

What is this? Is the author trying to suggest that Piech used to be "Pietrch", Stach -- "Stańsch" etc.? Nothing points to this; quite the opposite, all diminutives/augmentatives with "ch" instead of the last tematic consonant appear in very old texts without such fanciful "older" variants. Also, form "Lęsiech" should probably be "Lęszech" and Latinate "Lechia/Lęchia" attributed to the proto-language is plainly wrong. 89.231.112.123 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Silar

Silar, please stop adding ridiculous theories from medieval chronicles to the article [1]. Find a secondary source which supports this claims. Otherwise, keep it out.VolunteerMarek 17:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

East Lesser Poland in the 7th and 11th centuries?

Who is the author of fiction is: "...East Lesser Poland and Cherven Towns between the 7th and 11th centuries."?--109.110.74.103 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tribal area "controversy"

@E-960: the content of so-called "Controversies" section is directly related to the content and debate mentioned in "Tribal area" section. There's no point of making it a separate section and placing it to the bottom of section's order instead of sub-section. In the name of neutrality were also removed sourced statements and reliable sources. First sentence of the section is edited out of context found in sources. However, agree that the old revision needed some better wording and attribution. Also, according to editing policy, the topics related to history & science shouldn't be based on primary but secondary sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, the problem with that text and the section was that it was POV-ish, it automatically asserted that the Polish historians are wrong and Ukrainian/Russian right in their views, it used weasel words, and it used the Wikipedia voice. Yet, the major issue here is that despite the account of Netsor who said "Vladimir marched upon the Lyakhs and took their cities Peremyshl, Cherven and other towns..." the Ukrainian/Russian historians argue that it was not the "Lyakhs" but the "Horvate Belii" that really lived there. I'm not even sure why this article had an entire section called White Croats, that's not neutral — this is the article about Lendians, but we'll start talking about White Croats? Why not do the same in the White Croats section? --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Section title was related to the content of scholarship dispute, but didn't need a sub-section or could have been named differently, doesn't matter. How's that not neutral? Who "we"? Again, it's not up to us to question and assert whether the information in a historical primary source is right or wrong. Many historical documents have falsifications, errors etc., as editors we cite secondary or teritary reliable sources by reliable authors from relevant scientific field (historiography, archaeology, linguistics...). It wasn't POV-ish, that's exactly NPOV. The new edits are removing reliably sourced information mostly without any valid substantiation in edit summaries, pushing Polish POV and Polish-Ukrainian/Russian sources dichtonomy although some of them share viewpoint. That's not NPOV. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I merged them back. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You call that a merge?! This is WP:DISRUPTIVE, the new edits are multiple unconstructive reverts which made a total mess of viewpoints, context, references, duplicates and so on. I am making a bold partial revert to old revision which is an intermediate solution between yours and mine revision. Please don't edit articles on which content you're not well informed, especially if don't have a neutral approach and understanding of WP:NPOV. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Just one minute please, you say you are for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the article and you made the statement that you are an "experienced editor", yet you don't see an issue that the section was full of POV-ish statements like those:

• Polish historiography is still a hot topic based in nationalistic motivations - so only the Poles had nationalistic motivations in the past?
• Such approach and viewpoint [Polish perspective] are not well founded - I don't think you can get any more bias than this statement.
• Polish historiography actively periodically in new variations uses the same dispute of the localization of the Lendians to establish the legitimacy of Polish claims - this is the most one sided statement, as if Ukrainian/Russian side is not guilty of doing the same.

Also, I'm starting to see many of the statements are WP:SYNTHESIS. This entire text needs a thorough review its full of one sided WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. The text boiled down to basically saying one side said this and its all wrong the other side is write. --E-960 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem you understand what's a POV-statement and bias according to NPOV. I'm not bringing back first statement; second will be attributed and is not biased because it's legitimate criticism of Polish perspective in general and especially Fokt's claim about Lendians inhabiting whole Western Ukraine (as if that isn't POV-ish and biased...); third will be attributed and it's a fact being part of Polish-Ukrainian dispute mentioned by Magocsi and others. Sorry, but unconstructive removal of Ukrainian/Russian viewpoint only because you don't like it is pushing Polish side bias and viewpoint, that's nowhere near NPOV policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong, adding excessive amount of one-sided text is WP:UNDUE - "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements." In other words, if there are numerous statements which only criticises Polish point of view it automatically creates neutrality issues, also it implies that the Ukrainian/Russian point of view is all correct on this issue. To remedy this, the section only should say what the Polish POV is and what the Ukrainian/Russian POV is. --E-960 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, I went ahead and added tags, this section has serous balance and POV issues, and will need to be improved over time by reviewing all sources carefully and improving the text. --E-960 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop exaggerating. Current revision is the NPOV revision almost at its best and will go now find more Polish sources. That's what the reliable sources generally say like it or not. Are you Polish? If you understand Polish language please help find and cite more Polish sources, including their criticism of Ukrainian/Russian viewpoint.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Again I will ask you to read through what this means, and consider WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL. --E-960 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please note: WP:UNDUE - "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements." --E-960 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Now you made a major revert to the "stable revision" of 21st May which is inferior to last revision which had contribution from both me and you. I don't understand anymore what you want. I won't back off from my last revision as was an intermediate solution, very well sourced and with attributions. I know very well the editing policy and seems you should read them. Can you please stop WP:PLAYPOLICY and help start finding instead, possibly by listing here, the Polish and other sources? Strangely enough, that's needed to confirm the weight of "Polish viewpoint" you base your opinion on POV, UNDUE, BALANCE, IMPARTIAL. We don't have it now.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No it was not well sourced, it appears that it was mostly material from the same couple of non-English sources presented in the Wikipedia narrator voice, instead of saying "according to historian..." and attributing it to a specific historian. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You think that the last revision's "Tribal area" section was not well sourced, was in Wikipedian narrator's voice "instead of saying 'according to historian...' and attributing it to a specific historian"? Please check again and I want a simple answer, Yes or No.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me, some of the statements are confusing like this one "This conclusion is at variance with the Primary Chronicle" what conslusion? That WP:SYNTHESIS statement above is called a conclusin? or, "Polish historians proposed alternative readings of the text in question" ...no Polish historians cite Nestor it is the Ukrainian "academics" who say even though Nestor said Lyakhs we think it was the White Croats, based on our assessment of archeology. --E-960 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

These statements aren't even in the last revision I am talking about - again. I am asking you for the third time, please check again and give a simple answer, Yes or No.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, there were a number of academic articles in Polish in the past few years, noting that disputes with Ukrainian historians who are now throwing out historical accounts (like Nestor's) in favor of their POV in order to bolster nationalist claims. Yet, in this section it's only the Poles who are not neutral. Just like the promenantly featured Voitovych who claims that "if the lands were under control of Duchy of Poland then the Kievan Rus' conquest would have been an open call for war between principalities with inevitable long struggle" yet he ignores the fact that there was a long struggle and the region changed hands in 1018, 1031, 1069 and 1085. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand that we need these academic articles in Polish? You're constantly bringing them up in discussion without any proof. If they have something to say about Ukrainian nationalist claims even better, but please cite them, alongside Ukrainian viewpoint of Polish nationalist claims. As for Voitovych, does he ignore it, mentions Polish historians, or is your OR WP:SYNTH because the long struggle in 11th century doesn't need to have same context of 10th century? You know, context matters. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And let's not forget the Galicia–Volhynia Wars, where it just happened that Casimir III of Poland pushed east exactly in the direction of Przemyśl and areas south of the Bug river. --E-960 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

What events from 14th century have anything to do with 10th century context? Different or similar events don't need to have same context. What you're saying is OR and SYNTH and again you aren't citing any source. Please stop thwarting the consensus process with your original research. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This was just an example that Ukrainian/Russian point of view is not universal and it even contradicts some basic historical facts, yet this section leans heavily on those sources and the text keeps saying that Poles were motivated by nationalist views or were wrong. Blatant POV and undue-wight. Again, WP:UNDUE - "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements." --E-960 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Example of badly written and confusing text: "This conclusion is at variance with the Primary Chronicle, which implies that near region were settled the White Croats in 992." what conclusion where does it say this "implies that near region were settled the White Croats" You said you are an experianced editor, what that heck does that statment actually say and what conclusion does it refer to? This is just one example of what I'm talking about. --E-960 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For the fourth time, these statements aren't even in the last revision I am talking about.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The Tribal area section is one huge mess of bad grammar, undue weight, synthesis and statements not fully backed up by the sources. --E-960 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For the fifth time, the revision you're talking about is the one made by You and it's exactly as you described it because you done it so, while I am talking about the last revision which has none of that! You use now a straw man to thwart the consensus process OF THE LAST REVISION! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It will take time to review the actual sources what they say and what's written in the actual article, this is the first step in the clean-up, in some parts there is just one citation for 2-3 sentences, that suggests synthesis. --E-960 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I already reviewed them and if you're going to then it is this last revision and not the one you're now talking about. Incredible misunderstanding and lack of focus. Hopefully it will be better executed than this-example). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you editing old revision and not the last one both of us worked on? Why is the archaeological information removed? You are making a total mess and confusion. Please stop WP:BADFAITHNEG. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed the statements and sources in the Tribal area section. I removed unsourced sentances or ones that did not reflect what the source said, or used synthesis, The text is now verifiable and clear. --E-960 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

You are editing the wrong revision! Your revert to the so-called "stable" revision, which wasn't stable anyhow because it was heavily edited by both of us, wasn't substantiated by any means although you have been asked several times to do so. Now you repeated some of yours or mine edits which were already included in the last revision. Not to mention how some your edits & removal are invalid. I am making a bold revert to the last revision both of us worked on which will include more POV from Polish historiography. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, the text in the Tribal area now is sourced and verifiable (its the text before this debate started), also it present both Polish and Ukrainian view equally. So, it basically says what you wanted (minus the unsourced and badly written/incoherent sentences). --E-960 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

How's it verifiable when statements miss sources?! It doesn't present the view equally because isn't included and explained exact Polish and Ukrainian POV! How you dare saying that's basically what I wanted?! That's totally not what I wanted and am warning you about comment after comment on which there was no response from you! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I made a bold revert to last revision we both worked on, but also made further major edits taking into consideration your wording, but also original research & synthesis (instead of removing it, please fix one tag "by whom" because the claim is your OR so find a reliable source to cite), especially POV of Polish historiography and archaeology. Please have patience and understanding, don't make major edits and reverts until we get a third opinion in the next couple of days.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history and it appears that YOU ALONE, sine late last year, are responsible for all these questionable texts about White Croats and tribal area, which by the way are not backed up by what the sources cited specifically, thus misrepresenting sources. Your edits are a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Also, you are making the "Tribal area" section by far the longest, which is an issue in an of itself, creating WP:Undue Weight. Also, what looks like a joke actually, you included a statement "While the dispute on the existence and location of Lendians is marginal in Ukrainian historiography, in Polish historiography is still a hot topic based in nationalistic motivations." (unsourced), yet it appears that you are completely obsessed about the tribal area issue, and are hell bent and tilting the text to say that the Ukrainian POV is correct, to the point of removing a reference I added regarding Nestor the Chronicler and Primary Chronicle, which says that Lendians (Lyakhs) lived in Cherven Cites. I know... I know this historical source is a problem for you and the supporters of the White Croat theory, so ignoring it is the approach taken here to exclude this FACT. --E-960 (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need the "Tribal area" section that's so long, it's longer that all the rest of the article combined. Yet, I have to say this despite you arguing that "in Ukrainian historiography location of Lendians is a marginal issue" you are obsessed about it, and you're adding so much text about it. --E-960 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)