Talk:Pomerania in the High Middle Ages/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ok, let's start slowly

Since Skapperod appears to completely revert any changes to the article without discussion, perhaps the best way to proceed forward is to take things step by step. Unfortunately this article is written from a completely biased POV, based on either outdated historical research or cherry picking and misrepresentation of modern sources (as documented above). To fix the whole thing and bring it inline with Wikipedia policies is quite a monumental task, given the initial status quo we have to work with. So for starters, let's focus on the lead:

1) Pomerania during the High Middle Ages covers the History of Pomerania in the 12th and 13th centuries. - no problem here, except I wish to emphasize the "12th and 13th centuries", i.e. 1100's and 1200's. This is important because a good bit of a POV pushing stems from the fact that this article tries to time-travel later developments, from the 1300's and 1400's to this period.

3) The early 12th century Obodrite, Polish, Saxon, and Danish conquests resulted in vassalage and Christianization of the formerly pagan and independent Pomeranian tribes.[1][2][3][4] Local dynasties ruled the Principality of Rügen (House of Wizlaw), the Duchy of Pomerania (House of Pomerania, "Griffins"), the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp (Ratiboride branch of the Griffins), and the duchies in Pomerelia (Samborides).[1]

4) The dukes of Pomerania expanded their realm into Circipania and Uckermark to the Southwest, and competed with the Kingdom of Poland and the Margraviate of Brandenburg for territory and formal overlordship over their duchies. Pomerania-Demmin lost most of its territory and was integrated into Pomerania-Stettin in the mid-13th century. When the Ratiborides died out in 1223, competition arose for the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp,[5] which changed hands numerous times. - this is also fine. Straight forward, factual, not much room to push pov. The only concern is the weird insistence on usage of German naming at a time when this area was very much Slavic.

5) Starting in the High Middle Ages, a large influx of German settlers and the introduction of German law, custom, and Low German language gradually turned most of the area into a German one (Ostsiedlung).

This is where we get into problems.

The first problem is that the Ostsiedlung, in Pomerania (in Brandenburg and Saxony it started earlier) BEGAN during this time. However, "a large influx of German settlers" did not BEGIN to even materialize until mid 1250's. Even by the END of the 13th century German presence in much of this area was insignificant, population wise. One thing that did happen though is that in the large towns, the newly arrived German colonists, although few in number, began taking over the political sphere of these towns.

The second problem is that "introduction of German law" or custom for that matter, was not equivalent and in many cases did not imply "Germanization" of the area. Many places adopted town charters based on those of Lubeck or other German cities regardless whether or not there were German settlers around. The French Constitution of 1791 was in good measure based on the Constitution of the United States. This somehow did not all of sudden turn the French into Americans.

6) The Wends, who during the Early Middle Ages had belonged to the Slavic Rani, Lutician and Pomeranian tribes, were assimilated by the German Pomeranians. - yes, sometime towards the end of this period and the beginning of the next one "Late Middle Ages". A little bit of anachronism but since this has to wind up in one article or the other, I guess it's understandable.

7) The Kashubians were pushed away from positions in administration by German colonists. - sure, though they weren't "Kashubians" at this point. Note that up until ... 1700 or so "Kashubia" referred to the area between Szczecin and Slawno, rather than "Gdansk Pomerania" as it does today (that was just "Gdansk Pomerania" or "Vistula Pomerania"). Because the designation of the area termed "Kashubia" shifted eastward over time, this sentence and other text in the article likewise tries to shift the phenomenon under discussion both geographically (eastward) and temporally (make it earlier).

8) The Germanisation was not complete and descendants of Slavic Pomeranians, dominated many rural areas in Pomerelia. - yes, except the Kashubians dominated "many rural" areas of not just Pomeralia but also of the area between Szczecin and Slawno, at least for another hundred years. This is a rhetorical trick. Admit that these "Kashubians" were still present in Gdansk area (which is undeniable) so that you can claim the area west of it for the Germans.

9) Most of the present-day towns were founded during the Ostsiedlung - classic POV pushing, based on equivocation. To "found" a town during this period (actual term to "locate" a town) actually meant the equivalent of urban development. In some cases towns were rebuild. In very very few cases completely new towns were actually build (like, I think, Greifswald). In many cases though the town layout was simply changed and new areas brought into urbanization. The common theme linking all of these "founded" towns was that the urban burghers were granted special privileges (in some cases just recognizing the existing status quo) - and at the end of the day that is what "to found a town" ... fund-a-mentally .... meant; to grant it's inhabitants special privileges.

The equivocation between "to found a town" and "to build a town" (by Germans) is based on outdated nationalist 19th century Prussian historiography, combined with some cherry picked quotes from modern sources. The fact that Skapperod even refuses to include a discussion of the issue in the article - as exemplified by his removal of Radvan - of what "founding" really meant is pretty illustrative of the fact that a POV is being pushed here. Hard.

This is a single sentence in the lede but it exemplifies one of the most serious POV problems with this article.

10) The conversion of Pomerania to Christianity was achieved primarily by the missionary efforts of Absalon and Otto von Bamberg, by the foundation of numerous monasteries, and through the Christian clergy and settlers. A Pomeranian diocese was set up in Wolin, the see was later moved to Cammin (Kammin, Kamień Pomorski). - this part's ok. It ignores the tremendous role played by Boleslaw III in the Christianization of Pomerania, because the dude/duke was Polish and the POV of the article is to minimize anything to do with Poland. I guess because this is the lede one could excuse this omission based on the need for summarizing of information. Problem is that the same POV is pushed in the text of the article itself.

These are just the POV problems in the lede of the article. I have not even began to address the POV problems in the main body of the article itself which is really composed of one POV statement stacked on top of another POV statement/claim, and also, skillfully intermixed with some decent, factual information. This makes cleaning up this article extremely difficult. However, until this is actually done, we should at least warn our readers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

re 5) - that is your theory, the sources do not say so.

re 9) - all towns were founded and built anew, that is sourced. Your association of the sources used in this article with "outdated nationalist 19th century Prussian historiography" is way out of line and has absolutely no basis at all in reality, which is also true for your countless allegations about motives and such.

re 10) - "warn our readers" - thanks for that one, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

re 5) - that is your theory, the sources do not say so. - Oh really? Which part is my theory:

"The first problem is that the Ostsiedlung, in Pomerania (in Brandenburg and Saxony it started earlier) BEGAN during this time." - I don't think this is controversial unless you're thinking of Ostsiedlung in Saxony or something (which is what it seems like). Piskorski and everyone else says this.

"However, "a large influx of German settlers" did not BEGIN to even materialize until mid 1250's." - Piskorski, Labuda both state this.

"Even by the END of the 13th century German presence in much of this area was insignificant, population wise." - that's also in Piskorski, Bielecki and Labuda. Probably in Buchholz too.

"One thing that did happen though is that in the large towns, the newly arrived German colonists, although few in number, began taking over the political sphere of these towns." - in Bielecki and Labuda.

Really, this is actually pretty standard stuff, straight from the sources.

Second part of "my theory":

"The second problem is that "introduction of German law" or custom for that matter, was not equivalent and in many cases did not imply "Germanization" of the area." - explicitly in Labuda, less directly in Piskorski, Radvan and many other works on this "foundation of towns". The only thing I guess I could clarify is that yes, "Germanization" did occur, but not at this magical moment when "German law" was introduced, but much later. See above for refs that Germanization didn't take hold until the XIV century (outside the scope of this article - an anachronism).

"Many places adopted town charters based on those of Lubeck or other German cities regardless whether or not there were German settlers around." - again, in Labuda and other sources.

"The French Constitution of 1791 was in good measure based on the Constitution of the United States. This somehow did not all of sudden turn the French into Americans." - I assume this is not under dispute.

Piskorski does not state that a large influx materialzed only in the mid-1250s, contrary to your claim.

• Piskorski (1999), p. 77: "Faktisch kamen die ersten fremden Kolonisten - vor allem Deutsche, aber auch Dänen - in den 70er Jahren des 12. Jahrhunderts; sie besiedelten den Süden, die Uckermark und das weitere Umland Stettins sowie das Flußgebiet der Peene. Der tatsächliche Umbruch in den Siedlungsprozessen trat aber erst zwischen 1220 und 1240 ein, als sich die Zahl deutscher Zuwanderer schnell erhöhte." "Eventually, the first foreign colonists - primarily Gemans, but also Danes - came in the 1170s; they settled the south, the Uckermark and the wider region of Stettin as well as the Peene river area. The actual radical change in the settlement process occurred only between 1220 and 1240, when the number of German immigrants rose fast." He then specifies on the same page that "around 1220, the mainland parts of the Rugian principality were affected to an extraordinary great extend" (besonders großem Ausmaß), that "between 1235 and 1240 the colonisation process in the Oder area intensified" (thereby pointing out the role of the Knights Templars in the Bahn area and the role of the Cistercians in the Pyritz and Lake Madü area), that "at the same time" the settlement intensified in Vorpommern (Cistercians in the Peene and Trebel area, nobles in other areas).

That is in line with the respective description by Benl in Buchholz et al. (1999), pp. 48ff.

Neither does Piskorski state an "insignificance" of German settlers at the end of the 13th century. Piskorski and Buchholz et al. both describe the settlement in Farther Pomerania in the second half of the 13th century. None of them give numbers, in Buchholz et al. it is even stated that exact numbers can't be determined for that period.

Regarding the unspecified assertion of "Slavdom-has-never-been-broken"-Bialecki that "newly arrived German colonists, although few in number, began taking over the political sphere of these towns" - this is only true for the pre-Ostsiedlung "towns".

Regarding the Germanization - you seem to confuse "occured" and "completed". Skäpperöd (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Piskorski does not state that a large influx materialzed only in the mid-1250s, contrary to your claim. - the quote you provide does not contradict what I wrote. The fact that Rugia may have been Germanized earlier is actually telling - as it is one of the westernmost parts under discussion here. And as I've tried to clarify in the article already - in parts which you either removed or tried to tuck away in some obscure corner, Germanization proceeded differently east of the Oder than West of it. Benl's descriptions are frankly weird though I'm not sure if that's because of the way you present him or of his work itself - I'm looking into it.

Regarding the unspecified assertion of "Slavdom-has-never-been-broken"-Bialecki - as you already know, this isn't Bialecki but a German historian, Wehrmann. What Bialecki actually says is that:

1. "By the end of the 12th century the general number of Germans in Western Pomerania was insignificant" - can't really be more to the point and succinct than that.
2. "Even some of the German historians noticed the fact that, among others Niessen stated that at the beginning of the 13th century, German presence in Western Pomerania was represented by a "few dozen clergy, a few merchants and artisans in Szczecin, a hundred or two peasants, and there were no knights what so ever". - a pretty clear picture.
3. "In the first years of the 30's of the 13th century, the number of lay Germans could have approached around 200-300 persons" - again, straight to the point. He cites another German historian, W. Sommerfeld and two well known Polish historians, W. Dziewulski and Z. Kaczmarczyk in this paragraph.

The quote from Wehrmann, as given by Bialecki is:

"Around 1300 Pomerania was in no measure a truly German land - the opposite is true, the Slavic population had a large numerical advantage, although its decline had begun... The Germanization of Pomerania however did not make the same inroads across the spread of the territory... The process took place a lot faster in the West than in the East... To the east, on the other side of the Parseta river, with support from neighboring Poland, there survived for a further few centuries: language, culture, and slavic customs which had probably originated in pagan times. It's very possible that Slavdom in this area was never broken."

Bialecki then goes on:

1. "The process of Germanization was faster on the west side of the Oder. Around 1300, in Wkrzanie land (that's your "Uckermark" - VM) Germans constituted around 50% of the population, but in the rural areas of Western Pomerania, German colonization achieved only 10% of the population. Colonization was mostly carried out, as can be seen, very decisively by the Slavic population.
2. Later on in the text: The knighthood of Western Pomerania in the 14th century, for a long time remained local, that is, (Slavic) Pomeranian. Some of the families, unwilling to succumb to the Germans (could be "Germanization" - VM) moved farther to the east (to Middle Pomerania), where they undertook intensive agricultural localization."
3. "The towns were Germanized faster, where foreigners, after assimilating the richer Slavic families, and after they took over the power in the towns' councils, began to push away the local (Slavic Pomeranian) populace into the wiekcs and special suburbs. The same thing happened in Szczecin. However, objectively speaking, in the 13th century, Slavs were not yet forbidden from settling in Szczecin or from acquiring burgher privileges. As a result the local population was quite willing to move into towns. Studies have shown that the Slavic lands supplied about 2/3 of the total population for both Pomerania and Mecklemburg area." - for this last claim Bialecki sources Deutches Stadebuch".

Only a little bit of this information has made it into the article, and the little that got put in, you tried to hide away in some dark corner of the article. Even a quick glance at the general picture - Germanization east of the Oder insignificant until 14th century, this "colonization" being to a large extent based on local Slavic population, etc. - shows how much at odds is the current POV of this article with how sources actually describe it. And I've already pointed out above how you were misrepresenting Piskorski by omitting passages not to your liking or changing key words. It's harder for me to verify Buchholz et al but who knows. And then there's further sources.

Regarding the Germanization - you seem to confuse "occured" and "completed" - lol, no it's not me who's confusing the two, it's the article's current POV. In fact in regards to east of the Oder areas it confuses "began" with "completed".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement, that the indroduction of German law not necessarily meant that Germanization had been completed, can be accepted as being true in general. An example is provided by the town of Lemberg, where Magdeburg rights had been adopted in the 14th century without that there had been any intention to Germanize the town. A critical bench mark for the influx of colonists into Pomerania probably is given by the end of the terrible campaigns undertaken by Boleslaw III in the name of "Christianization". The Pomeranian tribes were reluctant in this respect since they did not want to be ruled by their Polish neighbours (nor did they want be ruled by any other of their neighbours). Many settlements had been destroyed and many people been killed. It is told that their unburried remainings could be found even years after Boleslaw III had undertaken his "Christianization campaigns". In order to fill up again the gap beaten into the population, the Pomeranian dukes were forced to call for colonists. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that laying it all on Boleslaw is only partially correct - Albert, other German dukes and the Danes were basically doing the same thing in the area (and when they got the chance Pomeranians were doing the same to others) - broadly you're right. The period saw lots of warfare and that was probably at least partly was prompted the "colonization" and urban development. However, a lot of these colonists were Slavs (2/3 of them, according to the source above), either from the south (Poland), displaced Wends and the like from the West, or from further east. There was also a good bit of "rural-urban" migration and movement of Pomeranians themselves. German migration had its origins in late 12th century, didn't become significant until second half of 13th century and didn't "complete" the Germanization of the area until well into the 14th century (which is outside the scope of this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Others did the same - true. Also Slavs from outside arrived - most likely true too. But can we be sure that after the devastations and massacres carried out by Boleslaw III (apart from, e.g., blackmailing the town of Stettin to accept Christianity, after the town of Damm had been burned down) the Pomeranians invited Poles as colonists? - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I just hope all your claims do not come from outdated XIX century publications from the nationalist German Empire you have been adding to several articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I myself do not "claim" anything but rather ask questions or try to clarify them. I also do not cite from "outdated XIX century publications from the nationalist German Empire" but from books which are still valid and in use today. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "mid-1250s" - VM, you said that "'a large influx of German settlers' did not BEGIN to even materialize until mid 1250's" and that "the quote you provide does not contradict what I wrote." The Piskorski quote provided above clearly confirms that a large influx did start earlier - 1220s for the Rugian principality, 1230s for the western and southern areas of the duchy. For the second half of the 13th century, Piskorski (1999: 79) says that "relatively late, colonization by Germans and German law occurred in the areas east of the Dievenow/Dvina and in the Pomeranian lakeland," adding that here and there German towns and villages existed earlier. He emphasizes the role of Cammin bishop Herrmann von der Gleichen and lists his achievements

"he recruited peasants, burghers and most notably knights like the Counts of Eberstein, who received the Naugard area, and the von Behr family, who colonized the Daber area. When he died in 1289, German law towns and villages were distributed widely [recht weit verbreitet] in the Greifenberg, Treptow, Kolberg, Körlin and Köslin area"

as well as the role of German, Slavic and probably Scandinavian (Knut family) nobles in the area "east of the [Oder] lagoon and the Ihna [Ina]", emphasizing the role of the von Borcke family in the Rega area and the Swantus, Wusseken and Karnitz families in the Cammin area.

There is no mention of "mid-1250s" at all, and VMs assertion that a large influx of settlers did not materialize before that date is true only for the eastern part of the duchy. The source claimed do back that statement does evidently not do so. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Bialecki's numbers - Bialecki (1991) based his numbers on old literature as evident from his footnotes and confirmed by VM's statements above:

• Sommerfeld (1896)
• Wehrmann (1904)
• Deutsches Städtebuch I (1938)
• Zdzislaw Kaczmarczyk (1945)
• Dziewulski (1946)

These old numbers are given too much prominence already, they are certainly not a valid basis for a factual article especially since they are not in line with newer publications. New literature free of national(ist) bias is available on the subject, e.g. Buchholz et al. (1999), where Benl on p. 62 says that from the sources,

"it is impossible to determine an exact numerical proportion [of Slavs and Germans] for the whole area [Duchy of Pomerania]"

and Piskorski et al. (1999), who on p. 91 says that

"we know the starting point of the ethnic processes and their result. Unfortunately, science can not tell much about their causes and their exact course."

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That there exists a different assesment published later, doesn't mean other research gets to be removed at hand. It is obvious that your own personal dislike for this research is not shared by scholars, so besides WP:IDONTLIKE IT there is no argument whatsover for their removal.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you make exceptions and that you do not add v. Sommerfeld's important book republished as an unabridged facsimile still in 2005 to your category of "outdated XIX century publications from the nationalist German Empire" (see discussion above). As a matter of fact, research in Germany during the 19th century had been at a fairly high standard in most areas and quite a number of books from that era are still useful today. Concerning the book by Wehrmann of 1904, it should be noted, however, that in 1919/1921 he published a second edition. The latter edition has been republished as an unabridged facsimile in Augsburg in 1992 (ISBN 3-89350-112-6). Quotations from the first edition should preferably be compared with corresponding statements found in the second edition, before they are used here in an article, I feel. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

false edit summaries

Edits like these [1] (and at other Pomerania pages) contain misleading edit summaries.

First of all, if an article has POV problems in it, then obviously these POV problems don't go away on their own - they have to be fixed. Hence, POV problems don't go "stale". It's not like if an article has some pov in it, but that pov is of sufficient vintage it ceases to be pov nonsense.

Second, no effort has been made at all to address many of the problems which have been described and outlined in excruciating details in many of the discussions above. Instead, all that's happened is blanket reverts, without discussion, and tag removal.

Overall this appears to be part of some strategy of "I will ignore what you say, wait a little bit, then wholesale revert you and remove all tags". Needless to say, that's not how Wikipedia works, and that kind of approach is plain disruptive and bad faithed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring other viewpoints

The article is very selective and tries to push a POV that urban settlements and development were result of Ostsiedlung.This is not shared by all historians.Additionally it is based heavily on German publications, while Polish ones(which are important because it was also a Polish region and connects to Polish history) are under-represented.Hence I added the proper tag.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Massive

[2] - let me see this "Massive" in the source. The word itself looks POV.Volunteer Marek 06:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit turned the statement into one that contradicts what the reference says. There, pp. 43, 47 f., the 12th cty German settlement is detailed, so it is false to state that German settlement started in the 13th cty. The same information can be found in other dedicated literature, eg. Lucht (1996): Pommern ..., p. 28; Piskorski (2007): Slawen und Deutsche in Pommern im Mittelalter, in Grenzräume ..., pp. 73-91, here p. 77.

So a qualifier is needed, whether that is "massive" or "large-scale" or "broad" I don't care. The reference given uses, p. 48: "große Umgestaltungsbewegung," "Sog," "völlige Umwandlung," p. 49: "Dichte der deutschen Siedlung," "zahlenmäßige Überlegenheit" etc. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Which one of these, if any, refers to years before 1250? Volunteer Marek 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you asking for? The 12th cty German settlement? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1130

VM introduced a claim that in 1130, a "joint Polish-Danish invasion of Rügen% took place, and that "the Rani accepted Polish suzerainty but Polish control didn't last." Reference is Słowianie Zachodni. Monarchie wczesnofeudalne by Andrzej Michałek, p. 102. [3]

If this is really in the reference, that claim is an obvious error by Michalek and must be removed. The primary source for this is Saxo Grammaticus XIV, where the joint Danish and Polish operation of 1130 is recorded, but in the source it is not directed at Rügen, but at Wollin (Julin), and it is Wartislaw, not a Rugian prince, who was (again) subdued. References supporting this are

• Saxo (quoted), Filipowiak (referenced), Goldmann&Wermusch (authors) here here self-corr Skäpperöd (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oskar Eggert: Geschichte Pommerns vol. 1, p. 54
• Bengt Büttner: Die Pfarreien der Insel Rügen. Von der Christianisierung bis zur Reformation, p. 27

The reference given by VM is a general overview about West Slavs not citing a reference for this claim, by an author who wrote similar overviews about the East [4] and South Slavs [5]. This is thus just an error. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Danish fleet did stop in Pomeranian ports before sailing to Rugen, with Polish troops. I think you're just simply referring to something else.Volunteer Marek 22:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And it's pretty well established that Boleslaw obtained an oath of fealty from the Rugians, which he then had to in turn give for the island to the Emperor, by 1135. Not exactly clear as to what you are objecting too.Volunteer Marek 22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your sources? That is far from well established, except for the 1135 bit. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[6] for example. For the sources you listed above, I don't see the first one as relevant, while the other two I don't have access too.Volunteer Marek 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference linked by you is (Ingrao, Szabo, eds., p. 22) is directly contradicting your claim. It says:

"But Boleslaw came into conflict with the Danish king and with the German lords, whose protection the Pomeranian prince Wartislav sought. In 1135 Boleslaw had to take the island of Rügen and Pomerania as fiefs from Emperor Lothar, thus acknowledging the imperial authority over Slavonic lands that had not yet been conquered." (emphasis added)

Where in that source do you find anything supporting a joint Danish-Polish expedition to Rügen and an oath of its inhabitants to the Polish duke? It rather says that Rügen had not yet been conquered.

Regarding the first reference I linked above, I linked the wrong page, I have corrected that now. It has the respective quotes from Saxo and Filipowiak. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement "had not yet been conquered" is obviously referring to the Emperor. Why would Boleslaw have to swear an oath for Rugia if Rugia wasn't his fief (although only nominally as he did not exercise any de facto control)?

When do your sources place the Danish-Polish landing on Rugia then? What year? Volunteer Marek 18:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And can you actually provide text of English translation of relevant text for those Wikipedians who don't speak German and don't have easy access to these sources? From what I can tell of the one you linked, there's nothing in there about Rugia, nor is there anything that contradicts the information here.Volunteer Marek 19:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There just was no Danish-Polish landing on Rügen in 1130, or at any other year; the Danish-Polish campaign in question was directed at Wollin, per multiple sources, and Rügen remained independent ("not yet conquered"). Only in 1136 a Danish campaign succeeded to subdue Arkona, for the first time. A short summary of the refences cited above and similar ones is that had Wartislaw again (he had done so already in 1127) turned away from Boleslaw, who in turn formed an alliance with Niels which was sealed by the engagement of their children Magnus and Richeza and a joint campaign against Wollin which forced Wartislaw to accept Boleslaw's suzerainity again, but after Niels and Magnus were killed (1134) the alliance was moot and Boleslaw had to accept the suzerainity of the emperor in 1135 to keep the suzerainity over Wartislaw, and the emperor also included in the fief the yet unconquered Rügen to secure it for the Reich. When the Danes heard of that, they preemptively seized Rügen for themselves in 1136, but were unable to secure it and the Rani regained independence until they were permanently subdued in 1168/9.

If you have any references supporting a joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 do present them, or if you agree that Michalek confused it with the Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, do say so. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There just was no Danish-Polish landing on Rügen in 1130, or at any other year - but this is then just your opinion, the sources you're throwing out ad-hoc above don't support your claim. Bolewslaw taking Rugen is in plenty of sources.

Having said that, it's true that various sources give different dates for when Boleslaw "conquered" (I don't think much fighting took place) Rugen. Some put it at 1121 at the end of this campaign while this particular one puts it at 1130 (and that doesn't contradict the expedition to Wolin, since the Danish fleet had to pick up Polish forces on the coast anyway). I'd be fine with changing the relevant text to "between 1121 and 1130".

By the way, above you emphasize the "had not yet been conquered" part. The whole sentence is In 1135 Boleslaw had to take the island of Rügen and Pomerania as fiefs from Emperor Lothar, thus acknowledging the imperial authority over Slavonic lands that had not yet been conquered. Are you really claiming that this implies that Boleslaw hadn't conquered either Rugen or Pomerania yet? He obviously did conquer Pomerania. Hence the sentence is obviously referring to the fact that these lands (Rugen and Pomerania) had not yet been conquered by the emperor.Volunteer Marek 21:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So you do not have any secondary source saying that in 1130, there was a joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course I do.Volunteer Marek 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And these sources are ...? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Michalek, of course.Volunteer Marek 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, do you have any secondary sources which directly contradict this source? Not your original research, but actual secondary sources. And actually, there are sources out there which give a different date for the Danish-Polish expedition, which is why I said we can change it to "between 1121 and 1130" above.Volunteer Marek 00:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I forwarded the Michalek dispute to DRN to have the discussion centralized and mediated in an appropriate venue. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Note - please note that the relevant discussion on this issue is here [7], at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Additional sources for the material above are [http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-historyczny-Polski-Polish-Edition/dp/8370000169 here] and here. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the issue with Rugen/Rugia is more complicated as different sources give different dates. The fact that the island was - briefly - under Polish suzerainty however, is not contested by any sources.Volunteer Marek 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

B-class review failed

This article is pretty close, but 1) few (very few, but still) paras are unreferenced and 2) there are ongoing neutrality disputes. Feel free to ping me for a re-review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead

The lead needs to be more introductory. It just jumps right into to talking about conquests. It should first establish what Pomerania was during this period? Such as a unified state, or a cultural region etc. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

More confusing and unclear text

Re: Germans were placed under a different law than Slavs. While those were unfree (except for the nobles), did not own the soil they cultivated, and were to serve the nobility, the opposite was true for the Germans.

The first sentence is generally true for later parts of 13th century or as a description of a general development that occurred during this time. However, I don't think the next sentence is accurate. Slavic non-nobles were generally reduced in their economic status and sometimes excluded from political franchise as city councils came to be dominated by German colonists. But I don't think they were enserfed, at least not yet (many of them actually moved to east Pomerania, hence, in the 14th century you get the semi-paradoxical phenomenon of Szczecin-Pomerania becoming Germanized, while the Pomerania between Gdansk and Szcecin actually becomes even more Slavic as the influx of Slavic migrants/"refugess" from Szczecin area offsets and undoes the earlier inroads of German settlement around Slupsk, Slawno, Gdanks etc. At the same time there was some expropriation going on at this time where Slavic farmers were dispossed of their land.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you think is unclear or confusing. Trafditional law(s) for Slavs, German law for Germans. That meant e.g. hereditary possession and personal freedom for the Germans, privileges which the nobility denied the Slavs - the simple reason for this is that the Germans had to be recruited, i.e. offered something to make them move in and meliorate the land, while the Slavs were already there. I have not yet heard of your theory of a Slavic west-to-east migration - that is true for part of the nobility, but not for the general public afaik. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, and appears to be written by someone with a poor grasp of the English language. First, of all key words are missing. It is also a run-on and redundant. It also implies that nobles were unfree in the middle part, and the final part suggest that the German nobles served the German serfs! This can't be correct. I think this is trying to say that all people were serfs, except the nobles. Then it proceeds to define serf, which is unnecessary, and finally that Germans were not serfs. If the Germans were colonists, they probably weren't serfs, especially if they were involved in founding towns. Also, there is the idea that people were either in bondage or nobles, which just isn't true. There is a long range of classes in-between the groups. If most of the German colonists were burgers, then they got their status as such, not from being German. The way medieval town law worked, was extra rights were given to the citizens, but not every resident was a citizen. Still a resident of a city was usually more free than that of someone in the country. So probably the majority of the Germans were middle class when they arrived, and stayed middle class. The Slavs continued to be in whatever condition they were in before the Germans arrived. Anyway, the sentence needs to be changed.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

POV and other problems

• Extensive overlinking
• Pretending that no towns existed until the Ostiedlung
• Pretending that the granting of privileges to towns, which privileges were modeled after those granted to the German cities of Lubeck and Margedburg, constituted the "founding" of newly existent towns by Germans.
• Pretending that the Ostiedlung had significant impact in the east-of-Oder part of Pomerania as early as 12th century. Even in west-of-Oder Pomerania German settlements were about only 50% of the population. Szczecin and eastward significant migration did not take place until the 14th century and comprehensive Germanization did not take place until the 16th. Some of this is done by inserting irrelevant details about how Ostiedlung happened and how the German settlements were organized - but this is mostly anachronistic time travel, about a hundred or two hundred years off.
• Total disrespect for the Danzig/Gdansk vote. Yes, these areas weren't part of "Poland". But they weren't part of "Germany" either. Still, they were Slavic-Pomeranian, which is where the names of these places come from and at this point in their history they were still Slavic and the process of Germanization had only begun. Slowly.

To start with. Makes a historian beat his head against the nearest wall. Why can't the story of Ostiedlung - and it is an important and a very very significant story - be told without recourse to these cheap tricks and some kind of present day irredentism? Volunteer Marek  06:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please inform yourself how towns were founded during the Ostsiedlung - in general, and in Pomerania specifically. Towns were founded anew, an area was surveyed, divided into parcels and handed out to the settlers. When which town was founded on whose behalf is detailed in the article. The Gdanzig vote is not applicable for the medieval Pomeranian duchy. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Gdanzig vote is not applicable for the medieval Pomeranian duchy. Really?-where is it stated, or is this your personal opinion? If so, than I suggest to remove Germanised names before full Germanization happened. Cheers.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Gdanzig vote indicating that it refers to the medieval Pomeranian duchy. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gdansk vote covers issues of joint Polish and German history-are saying that as Germany was formed in 1871 German names are irrelevant here? If so I see no reason to continue placing them here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And really Skapperod-you are starting to contradict yourself-you yourself entered the Gdanks notice for this page previously[8], and yet now you claim it doesn't apply here[9]. In any case we are talking here about periods of Polish rule so Polish names apply.Since at the time the towns weren't part of any German state nor had any significiant German settlement(for another century or so), there is absolutely no reason for German names here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Skapp: I'm quite informed on the subject already, thank you very much. Neighborhoods in already existing town were "founded" and yes, some smaller villages which later grew were actually "founded". Additionally the only list of towns that could have been founded anew involves places west of the Oder. The text however tries to insinuate that places like Szczecin or Kolobrzeg or other long-existing towns were newly "founded". Volunteer Marek  19:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not "neighborhoods" that were founded, why do you think that? Stettin is a special case in that the gard was pretty large and in part first included in the new town (northeastern corner of the town) before the duke turned over his castle a few years later. Kolberg was founded way north of the gard, which later became a village. The Oder was no divide in this regard. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you agree with respect to Szczecin. But no, it was not the special case it was typical. All the major places mentioned existed before they received official city rights. In some cases close-by German neighborhoods were founded.

Yes, the Oder divided - which you would expect it would given that it's a natural boundary. This is stressed in sources. Volunteer Marek  19:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree to the neighborhood theory you developed with regard to Stettin, and I never said so. And even if founded in the vicinity of a gard, the towns were not neighborhoods of the gards. They were new-built towns. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why gards and not towns? There were fully fledged towns already, building up new suburbs where some Germanic settlement was located doesn't make those towns new or German.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In modern English, the foundation is equated with the incorporation of the town or city. Thus referring to the founding date as the day the settlement was given a charter, is correct. This is because a city or a town is a corporation, a legal entity that is created on the founding day. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It is correct as long as you're explicit about the fact that "to found a town" means giving a particular place a legal charter. And sure, towns and cities and such can be legal entities. But in colloquial English a town is "a place where people live that is larger than a village but smaller than a city" [10], no legal status necessary. Your average reader when they see the statement that "town X was founded in year Y" will think that means the town was build, constructed, originated in that year. But here what we have is already existing places simply receiving a particular legal status. Volunteer Marek  21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your point is valid. Some sort of clarification would be appropriate. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Major Revisions

My philosophy on wikipedia editing is that it should be collaborative, few editors seem to understand this. Anyway, I find the only way to get people involved is to make major changes, but I don't want to be imposing my vision of this article on my own, furthermore, I am not capable of doing so. However, I think I have made some major steps towards cleaning it up. First, I feel we must start by making it smaller. This not only makes it easier to deal with, but is necessary, as there was a lot of details that really don't belong here. This is an overview of a 200 year period, after all. I have split off big sections and created new articles. Danish Campaigns in Pomerania and Ostsiedlung in Pomerania, the monastery list was already in another article on Christianity in Pomerania. (in fact Pomeranian articles are plagued with the same words content being copied) I also, want to re-arrange the categories in the article in a more topical way, I have already done so with some. We really don't need one sentence categories. If you have any questions please ask, if you wish add part of it back, please discuss it, and not revert the whole edit. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PoV

Can someone summarize the PoV problems in the article currently?

Well, I think you sort of have to read the talk page, that's about as good of a detailed summary as you're going to get. If you want the bare bone basics it has to do with how the article describes the process of Germanization, the Ostsiedlung (and even how that is defined), agricultural development and the "founding" of towns. And also with the dispute over whether a good chunk of the info really belongs in this article or in the one on Pomerania during the Late Middle Ages.

I was involved in the original dispute and would be happy to revisit it or try to NPOV the article but it has been some time and I'd have to round up all the relevant sources again. Volunteer Marek  01:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be some problems with the article aside from NPOV problems. It does however seem to be a lot of focus on the Germanization that occurred during this period, and I know this can be a controversial subject. I imagine sources during this period may be scarce, especially concerning small rural settlements(which describes most of the world at this time). Let us then focus on the Ostsiedlung, German settlement section. What are the changes you suggest? I should warn you that I comprehend neither German nor Polish, but if you have a good English language source, I would be happy to read it. Also, I ask that you assume good faith, and not make ad hominem attacks on historians Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

For starters the whole gigantic "Rural settlements" section is a mess. By itself, it clocks in at something around 16k I think, or at about 1/6th of the article. It is longer than most Wikipedia articles (even considering just non-stub ones). It is simply WP:UNDUE. Regardless of any particular POV concerns within it, as a whole it needs to be drastically trimmed.

The overall issue is that while the Ostsiedlung began during the time period covered by this article it 1) wasn't as extensive (at this time) as the article tries to make it out to be and 2) it wasn't "completed" or even significant until the Late Middle Ages, which is a different time period and a different article. Basically, developments from 14th-16th centuries are being moved back in time to the 12th and 13th.

In regard to sources, most of them, the dedicated ones, are going to be either Polish or German. One historian that I don't think anyone involved in the dispute had a problem with is Jan Maria Piskorski, a specialist in the topic of Pomerania. Unfortunately most of his works have not been translated into English. It is however possible to find a couple articles and essays in Enghlish by him on the internet or in general volumes. For example [11].

More generally the issues haven't involved that much controversy about the sources or ad hominem attacks on historians (at least not with regard to this article). Some minor disagreements but not the center of controversy. Rather, the disputes were/are about how sources were presented, translated, cherry-picked, summarized etc.

 Volunteer Marek  19:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be trimmed, should we split it to a new article, or just delete half of it? Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. The additional problem is that the UNDUE is sort of a meta-issue in regard to the section as a whole (and some of the ones following it) but there are also lots of POV problems within the section itself. It might be true though that it would be easier to deal with the POV issues within the section if it was split off into its own article and here we would just have a summary paragraph. The question then is what should the split-off article be called and what exactly should it cover. Rural developments in Pomerania in the High Middle Ages? Some thing about the Ostsiedlung?  Volunteer Marek  21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite what Volunteer Marek says in his last edit summary, deleting large chunks of text without any explanation in the summary, especially (but not only) when it includes citations, is not okay here. Tinynanorobots, please explain any deletion in your edit summary. Someone has worked to create the material. If it is worthless, then please say why that is in your edit summary. If it has some value but does not belong here, then please move it to another article or else consider creating a new one to put it into. Moonraker (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from blaming my actions, which I have done on my own accord, on another editor. I am sorry, I thought the deletion of lists was self evident. On second thought, they perhaps may belong in their own article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the remaining text, it is cited, and although to me it appears incorrect, I don't feel I can change it. I wish I was capable of checking the sources, but I am not. It does seem to certain, and use a lot of absolutes, in an era, where I think there is few sources available. Statements like "Germans formed the majority in the towns" seems suspicious, as I don't believe there is census data from that period, ethnic nor otherwise. Additionally, the terminology is confusing. There is that huge explanation of Gard. Perhaps it is best just to name them German and Slavic settlements. According to the sources I found, a so called German town refers to town with German law, with evidence of Slavic residents and later settlements being founded by Germanized Slavs. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Undue Weight Resolved

I hope I resolved the undue weight problem, and perhaps the POV issue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit certainly goes some way into solving the problem. This has come up several times before so let's get it done once and for all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing a whole section solves no problem and is not a matter of WP:UNDUE, it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You might shorten some aspects/details, but deletion of such an amount of well sourced content isn't really helpful. I also think it's not a very good way of editing to return to a page after the discussion had ended half a year ago. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)