Talk:Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

This new article is a synthesis of two different topics. It is also a content fork of the now out-of-process "deleted" article Peace of Bautzen (true it was unsourced, but the proper thing to do in such a case is to source the original article).

Bottom line is that there is no sources I am aware of - certainly not the ones used in the article - which treat the treaties which culminated in the Peace of Bautzen (1002, 1013, 1018) together with those which culminated in the Peace of Merseburg (1031, 1033). Of course some sources MENTION both, in the same way that a general source on the history of United States will mention both the

1. The two sets of treaties involved different individuals, ended different conflicts and had a different focus. The first treaties (henceforth, Bautzen 1018) ended the German-Polish war between Henry and Boleslaw. Their locus was the struggle for control of Lusatia, Misnia and Bohemia. The second treaties (henceforth Merseburg 1033) ended the intra Polish civil war complicated by Ruthenian and German intervention and were signed between Conrad and Mieszko; different folks. Their locus of conflict was Polish succession.
2. The fact that this article is a synthesis is readily apparent in the lede, where the first two paragraphs focus exclusively on Bautzen 1018, and then the third paragraph is tacked on with "Another dimension was added"; the glue that synthesizes the two separate parts of the article together.
3. The fact that this article is a synthesis is readily apparent in how sources are used. Sources [1] through [12] are used to exclusively source Bautzen 1018 and its run ups. Then we get a whole new set of sources [13], [14] and [15] for the Merseburg part (1031 and 1033). As far as I can tell the sources used for Bautzen 1018 don't mention either Bautzen 1031 or Merseburg 1033 anywhere near where they talk about Bautzen 1018 and vice versa.
4. A google books search for "Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg" yields zero hits [1]. They're just simply not known under these names, particularly since they're not discussed together in sources.
5. On the other hand, a search for "Treaty of Bautzen" yields 36 hits [2]. "Peace of Bautzen" 1018 - what the "deleted" article was under - yields [3] 74 results. "Peace of Budziszyn" 1018 also gets a respectable [4] 17 hits. "Peace of Merseburg" 1033 doesn't seem to have all that much coverage in English language sources (probably because it was overshadowed by the "Pagan revolt" that occurred around the time) [5] and neither does "Treaty of Merseburg" 1033 [6]. However, apparently there are German language sources which should be sufficient for a stand alone article.
6. While of course Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself, I do think that it is instructive that every single interwiki link of the article (including to German wikipedia) links to a version of "Peace of Bautzen" Pau de Bautzen, Frieden von Bautzen, Měr wót Budyšyna, Traité de Bautzen, Pokój w Budziszynie, Будишинский мир, Будишинський мир.

The treaties covered by this article all concern the same dispute, and were concluded within a period of only 29 years, between the same parties (emperor, Piasts, though in every party there was a succession in the 1020s). I therefore favor one comprehensive article instead of five stubs. This is not a synthesis, as no thesis is made at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War I and World War II also ended "within a period of only" 26 years, but that doesn't mean that we have a single article on

talk) 05:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you quote where they explicitly link 1018 to 1033? Can you show where they state something like "all these treaties were all about the same dispute"? Again - need majority here.

talk) 06:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you seriously disputing that all these treaties were about the same dispute? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously asking you to provide sources to support the SYNTHESIS you've made here - per Wikipedia content guidelines. Can you show where the sources state that all these were about the same dispute or even discuss Bautzen, 1018, and Merseburg, 1033, together?

talk) 06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article. - which ones? Where? Quote? Don't just assert, show.

talk) 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Beier, Brigitte (2007). Die Chronik der Deutschen. p. 77.
• Schymalla, Joachim; et al., eds. (1993). Geschichte Sachsen-Anhalts. Das Mittelalter. p. 92. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor-first= (help)
• Hagenau, Gerda (1994). Polnisches Theater und Drama. p. 44.

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really have something against English language sources don't you?

talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Uh, a source on Polish Theater and Drama? Is that meant to be serious?

talk) 08:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Beier source, the "Chronicle of the Germans", appears to be a quick general survey of history. Can you indicate where precisely it links the two events? As far as I can tell it's just going through history year by year so it mentions both Henry and Conrad. Words like "Bautzen", "Merseburg", "Lusatia", "Meissen", "Mieszko" do not even appear on the page in relation to 1033.

talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I won't reproduce the article here, everyone may read through it by themselves. - yes, they can read the "synthesized" article which gives a false impression not supported by sources. The point is that readers deserve two articles, neither of which violates WP:SYNTH.

talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Schmidt, Eberhard (1973). Die Mark Brandenburg unter den Askaniern. p. 20.
• Treichel, Peter (2009). 800 Jahre Pommern und seine Nachbarn. p. 45.
• Walther, Hans; et al. (2004). Namenkunde und geschichtliche Landeskunde. p. 351. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Biewer, Ludwig; et al. (1981). Preußen und Berlin. p. 54. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Gross, Reiner (2007). Geschichte Sachsens (3 ed.). p. 16.
• Hartmann, Hans-Günther (1987). Historische Stadtansichten von Bautzen.
• Czok, Karl (1989). Geschichte Sachsens. p. 89.
• Wróbel, Piotr; et al. (1996). Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. p. 317. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Bahlcke, Joachim (2001). Geschichte der Oberlausitz (2 ed.). p. 57.

Skäpperöd (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also additional problems with the article as is. I'll leave the details for later, but briefly;

1. There are some glaring errors of omission. For example,
   German-Polish War 1002-1018 doesn't get a mention (needs an article too). Death of Margrave Gero
   , an important development, is not there. Siege of Niemcza is presented... strangely, to say the least (again, see Thietmar on the subject). No mention of the "pagan reaction". Etc.
2. Some of the language is clearly POV. Polish dukes "invade" and "occupy" or "conquer". German rulers "protect" ( determined to protect the Bohemian duchy from Polish claims - why not write that "Boleslaw was determined to protect his fellow Slavs from German aggression"?)or "lead campaigns" or "refuse to accept" "conquests" by others. Etc. There's a confusion between recognizing Henry as Holy Roman Emperor and "pledging allegiance"; this is unclear at best.
3. Some controversial claims are presented as fact, probably due to the fact that the article is skewed in that it relies on almost exclusively German sources. For example, whether Boleslaw received Milsko and Lusatia in 1018 as imperial fiefs or did he hold on to them independently of the empire is uncertain. Thietmar, for example, does not give terms under which Boleslaw held these territories (except for saying that from a German POV, the terms of the peace were "shameful") and the subsequent opinions of historians on the matter are essentially speculation (which of course should be included, sourced and attributed). Schneidmüller apparently believes they were held as 'imperial fiefs'. Jasiennica says they were held without obligation. Cambridge Medieval History says that if there was an obligation it was on "purely nominal terms of vassalage" [8].

Ok I meant to save the details, so that's enough for now.

The article also has a horrible over-linking problem with everything being wiki linked multiple times. Please see MOS:Overlinking and underlinking

• ad 1a: Thietmar is not mentioned because he is not the only contemporary source. Instead, I used modern high quality sources, primarily of the Kohlhammer and Beck series. I would not mind adding an overview of contemporary sources, including Thietmar, to the article.
• ad 1b: German-Polish war is POV.
• ad 2: If someone invades another realm, this should be stated. Where is the problem?
• ad 3: If there are sources saying something different, the should be added with due weight. The sources used however have a high authority, they are standard books in German historiography. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• re 1a: Of course I'm not saying that Thietmar should be used as a source FOR the article, since he's a primary source. Rather since he is the one contemporary person who wrote most about the conflict, and since he is the one from whom most of our knowledge of the events comes from, he definitely needs to be mentioned. I've already added a bit. More is needed.
• re 1b: How is it referred to in the sources? That all that really matters here (of course I'm quite aware that many German nobles and knight supported the Polish duke in this one)
• re 2: Consistently stating that one party "invades" while the other party "protects" or some such is POV. Once or twice is fine. Doing it throughout the article is not.
• re 3: Done. Not questioning the reliability of sources here, but rather the one sided selection of sources, which can also lead to POV problems.
  talk) 06:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why should I "discuss first" (which I have already done above - no response from Skapp) [9]? Skapperod was the one who deleted the original article on Peace of Bautzen without discussion. Is that how it works? One editor deletes an article without discussion and then when this is questioned insists that everyone else must discuss first, even though he himself never thought fit to do so in the first place?

I did not delete the Peace of Bautzen article, neither was that the original article since the scope of this one is more extensive. I redirected an unsourced stub to this article, since this article covers the topic of the stub too and is referenced with high quality sources. This is not tendentious editing, but improving the encyclopedia. I have reverted your destruction of this article, since I feel that is something that should be discussed first. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you effectively deleted that article by making it into a redirect. The reason why "scope of this one is more extensive" is simply because you synthesized it with other historical phenomenon. I have not destroyed anything - rather moved the text to appropriate articles. You on the other hand, DID destroy an article by turning it into a redirect without any discussion what so ever.

talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirecting an unsourced stub to an article covering its subject also, and which is sourced to high quality references, is by no means "destruction" or "tendentious editing". Skäpperöd (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article as a compound article about the five treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg, because

• they are all concerned with the same subject (investment with the Lusatian marches of the HRE and legal relation between the emperor and the Piasts)
• they were all concluded within a short period (1002-1033) between the same parties (emperor and Piasts, though each party had a succession in the 1020s)
• each mentioned treaty is the background for the respective following treaty (except for the last one, naturally), so separate articles would need to overlap extensively
• as of now, each treaty section on its own would only be a stub-size article, while the compound article is at about 17 kB

When I finished writing this article, I redirected an unsourced stub, tagged as such since 2009 and concerned with one of these treaties (Bautzen 1018) here [10].

• the part of this article covering Merseburg (1002), Merseburg (1013) and Bautzen (1018) he moved to Peace of Bautzen
• the part of this article covering Merseburg (1031) and Bautzen (1033), he moved to Treaty of Merseburg

I disagree with this split. Both articles are concerned with treaties of Merseburg and Bautzen, and the arguments above point to keeping all five treaties in one article. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note:The instructions for making a RfC request explicitly state "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." [11]. The above statement by Skapperod included with the RfC is neither brief nor neutral.

Please see comment on individual points below: [12]. No one wants to split this into five articles - this is pure

talk) 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Skapperod has not provided a single source which treats the treaties of Bautzen 1018 and Merseburg 1033 together. There is some logic to keeping the treaties of 1002, 1013 and 1018 together as they involved the same persons; Boleslaw and Henry. There might be some sense in keeping the treaties of 1031 and 1033 together as well, since they involved the same persons; Conrad, Mieszko and Yaroslav. Indeed, some of the sources do that. However, there is no reason what so ever to synthesize the early treaties which ended one conflict (German-Polish War of 1002-1018) in 1018 with the latter treaties which concerned another conflict (Polish civil war over succession) in 1033. No sources conflate these two separate events. No sources treat these events together. This is pure WP:SYNTH. I've asked repeatedly for Skapperod to provide sources or to indicate where the present sources explicitly connect the two events and so far he has refused to do so. This is as if the articles on

American War of Independence and the War of 1812 were combined into a single article on The Wars of American Independence and of 1812. Or as if the Treaty of Schönbrunn and the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814) were combined into a single article on The Treaties of Schonbrunn and Fontainebleau

. No sources do this. The ones currently in the article do not.

Please see my detailed comment above: [13]. Please note that there Skapperod claims "The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article." but when asked to point out which sources actually do this and where, he has so far not been able to indicate this.

The article should be split into two articles (the suggestion by Skapperod that I want to split it into 5 different stubs is just a classic

talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have provided additional sources here, but maintain that the sources provided for reference in the article qualify, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Above Skapperod makes a claim: The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article. and I ask - which ones? Where? Quote? Don't just assert, show. Since he's unwilling to answer the question let me go through them one by one (the sources are in German which makes any claims about them difficult to verify for non-German speakers). Here are the sources currently used in the article:

• Berger, pg. 225 (minor source in the article) [14]google translate - as can be easily verified this source is only about the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw. It only goes up to 1018
• Bernhardt, pg. 41 (minor source in the article) [15] - only source which mentions 1018 and 1032 in a somewhat connected way, mostly because it is a very general outline of the involved history.
• Boshof, pg. 72(minor source in the article) - source unavailable online. However, the source is used to only cite portions about the latter conflict between Mieszko and Conrad.
• Herbers & Neuhaus, pg. 56 (one of the major sources in the article) [16] Only deals with the struggle between Boleslaw and Henry. Does not deal with the latter events of 1032/33.
• Keller, pg. 96 (minor source in the article) - source unavailable online. However, the only mentions of Merseburg appear to be in reference to Thietmar of Merseburg or are about pre-1018 events (this is also evident from how this source is used in the article) [17]. The only "Mieszko" which appears in the source [18] is a different, earlier Mieszko I than the one synthesized into this article. Again, no connection between 1018 and 1033.
• Knefelkamp, pg. 125, 137 (major source in the article) - this source is basically a year by year chronology [19]. On page 125 it talks about the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw, without mentioning anything that happened in 1033 or mentioning Mieszko II or Conrad. 12 pages later it talks about the other events. Does not connect the two separate events as is being done in this article.
• Röckelein, pg. 113 (minor source in the article) - deals exclusively with the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw [20]. Does not mention Mieszko, Conrad or the events of 1032/33.
• Schneidmüller, pg. 110 (major source in the article) - deals exclusively with the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw [21]. Merseburg is mentioned but only in connection to events in 1002 and 1013, NOT in connection to 1032/33.
• Schwarz, pg. 24 ("medium" source in the article) - deals exclusively with the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw and only concerns events up to 1018 [22]. Again, no connection to later events.

Since most of the sources are in German, I will provide a quote here from the English Cambridge source (see article) for convenience. It does not explicitely mention every treaty, but relates them as follows:

"The feud between Boleslav and Henry and its resultant hostilities found a compromise solution finally in 1018, but enmity continued throughout Henry's reign and not truly until 1032 did Conrad II re-establish German hegemony over Poland.[117: Reuter (1991a) 257-64 and (1991b) discusses relations between Henry II, Duke Boleslaw Chrobry and their respective retainers and relatives as an extended feud.]" Bernhardt, John W (1993). Itinerant Kingship... Cambridge University Press. p. 41.

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's about all you got (please note I've already indicated this above). But this is no different than the fact that pretty much any work on World War II will also mention World War I and say something about how the

Versailles Treaty

might have led to World War II.

Your statement "Since most of the sources are in German" seems to imply that there is actually something in those German sources linking the two events, it's just that you don't feel like quoting it. There isn't.

Also, please keep in mind that in order to link these two disparate events together you need to show that the majority of sources treat them together. So far you got a single, sort of iffy connection (there's always an exception to the rule). The overwhelming majority of sources treat them as separate events. Wikipedia follows sources.

talk) 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Herbers&Neuhaus do also mention the Conrad II-Mieszko II continuation of the Henry II-Boleslaw I feud, on page 67. Sources dealing with Ottonians or Salians exclusively will naturally not mention the events together, as Henry II was an Ottonian and Conrad II a Salien. They do however certify that the dispute is Lusatian investment and emperor-Piast legal relation, if seperately for each treaty. Three other sources covering all the "feud" on one page have been provided above. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herbers&Neuhaus do also mention the Conrad II-Mieszko II continuation of the Henry II-Boleslaw I feud, on page 67. - 1) page 67 is not used as a source for this article, 2) the fact that a source mentions both is meaningless unless it connects both in a direct way and discusses them together (as this article tries to do) - lots of sources mention both WWI and WWII but that's not enough for World Wars I and II, 3) pg. 67 of H&N talks about Conrad and Mieszko but does not even mention Boleslaw, Henry, Bautzen or 1018. Hence the claim that this source makes one event a "continuation of the Henry II-Boleslaw I feud" is simply false. Again, this is just two different events which are in the same historical book simply because in history some things happened after other things and other things happened before other things.

Sources dealing with Ottonians or Salians exclusively will naturally not mention the events together - thanks for admitting that the two topics are dealt with separately. Since on Wikipedia we follow sources rather than synthesize them, we don't really care why the sources do what they do, as long as they're reliable. If the fact that the two different events concerned two different dynasties is the reason for why sources don't connect events - maybe it is, though you're doing bit of a mind reading of historians here - then so be it.

talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Three other sources covering all the "feud" on one page have been provided above - yes, some book on "Polish Theater and Drama"?!?!!!? I'm still puzzled about that one. Another source - non-academic - which appears to simply mention both Henry and Conrad but does not connect them. And another offline source impossible to verify. All three of course in German rather than English.

talk) 09:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And you'd figure that if this wasn't a complete SYNTH, then there'd be at least one source which uses something like the title of the article. But alas, a google books search for "Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg" yields zero hits [23]. They're just simply not known under these names, particularly since they're not discussed together in sources.

I do not see a synthesis, user Skapperod has a valid argument. I say this based upon the fact that the two treaties are mentioned together in the same paragraph on page 526 of the The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 3. Both treaties are discussed in the context of the Polono-German wars at that time. BTW the New Cambridge Medieval History is a good read, well worth the price.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another instance where a history book is going through events chronologically so it mentions one thing after another - that's different than connecting them. Out of the nine sources used in the article only one makes a connection, and a weak one at that.

talk) 17:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Or consider another analogy. The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-century Political Thought mentions the treaties of

talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

These events were interconnected, a good analogy would be the Napoleonic Wars--Woogie10w (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that (Napoleonic Wars) would indeed be a good analogy. And so we have Peace of Pressburg, Treaties of Tilsit, Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814), Treaty of Paris (1815) and Congress of Vienna rather than a Treaties of Pressburg, Tilsit, Fontainebleau, Paris and Vienna article. I've made this point above already. Note also that at least in terms of Napoleonic Wars, one side - Napoleon - provides a common link between these treaties. Not so here, where the first treaties and the later treaties were concluded between completely different individuals on both sides.

Basically, there is many many sources which treat Bautzen, 1018, separately from the later treaties and hence

talk) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Cambridge History of Poland states on P 27 that the Mersberg Treaty of 1013 was "found to be only a truce" and then they narrate the events that led to the Bautzen treaty of 1018 concluding the war. In any case our knowledge of these events is rather limited, splitting the treaties into two separate articles is like splitting hairs.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ay Woogie, I think you're missing the point. Yes, the Mersberg Treaty of 1013 should be in the same article as the Treaty of Bautzen of 1018. I have no objection to that what so ever, and in fact I suggested it above. Same war, same people, same issue, sources treat them together. The problem is with putting the treaty of Mersberg of 1033 together with Bautzen 1018. Different war, different people, different issues, sources treat them separately.

talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"Different issues"? Per the sources I used, they are all concerned with the investment of Lusatia and the relation between the emperor and the Piasts. And the "different people" were holding the same offices / acting in the same position, there was just a succession in the 1020s. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different issues, the first set of treaties were over control of Lusatia and Bohemia. The second set of treaties were about Polish succession. And no, these different people did not hold same offices. In fact, even during the 1002-1018 period they did not hold the same offices. Henry began his conflict with Boleslaw as just a German noble, then he was King of Germany and then HRE. But all that's beside the point. Sources still have not been provided which would justify the synthesis of this article.

talk) 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And no, the sources you used do not show that "they are all concerned" the same thing. I've asked you to provide a source which states that these treaties were all about the same dispute five or six times already and each time you have ducked the issue and refused to provide such a source.

talk) 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment (as requested) I think, from this discussion, that
  talk) 19:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What argument exactly do you find convincing, and are you satisfied with moving Merseburg 1002, Merseburg 1013 and Bautzen 1018 to "Peace of Bautzen" and Bautzen 1031 and Merseburg 1033 to "Treaty of Merseburg"? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperod, you asked for an outside comment, you got it. Accept it and stop trying to start arguments with everyone and let's move on so that the two seperate articles can be renominated for DYK.

talk) 04:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems pretty clear to me; it's a short comment because there isn't much to say. The sources, as discussed, don't support your assertion that these five treaties all constitute a single subject. Splitting into five different articles is a bit excessive, since the first three are clearly related, as are the latter two, but there does not seem to be either any a priori connection between the two groups, nor does the discussion of the historiography presented so far show any such connection. Ergo, I agree with

talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I left you one notice on your talk page to make you aware of my follow-up question here [24]. I did not require you to answer within "three minutes" or even at all, that was a courtesy note only.

I alos maintain that your assumption that the connection is not made in historiography is wrong, as shown by the additional sources I provided in the various sections here, you might have missed them because the page is now very crowded. I post them below for convenience.

See also this comment. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping a comment on my talk page claiming that you don't understand my position comes of as baiting, or playing intentionally naive to bait me into an argument rather than a "courtesy", whether you intended it that way or not. You are aware, as are all seasoned editors, that edited pages by default end up on a user's watchlist, meaning I was already notified when you responded that the discussion was continuing. If I had gone, say, three days without further comment, a courtesy note might be warranted. In this case, it just seemed like badgering, and your response, I'm afraid, has not really made me change my mind.

I'm aware that you disagree, this is obvious from the discussion. I also followed the discussion of the sources already; it's not that I'm missing something, I just don't agree with you. The article as it is reads with a somewhat reasonable flow until the Bautzen 1031 section, at which point the inclusion very much requires a particular cast or way of thinking to link the subjects, which otherwise do not seem to belong together. This particularity is the heart of

WP:SYNTH

, and may make for an interesting essay in a history journal, but does not sit well with what we want at wikipedia. I hope to avoid having to belabor this, since it was stated already by another editor (radek), and thought that by referencing his statements it would be clear what I meant. Is it clear now?

Right now, the biggest problem I'm having is wondering why this is such a big deal. The biggest arguments, in general, for merging two articles are lack of individual notability or insufficient content. Obviously, all these treaties are sufficiently notable, and it does not seem that, when split into two articles as suggested by radek, that they would be of insufficient length. If there is any serious question at all of their actual connection, that would be enough for me to support having them as separate articles. In this case, the fact that these articles cover subjects dealing with different wars and different actual participants, albeit involving the same parcel of land, creates the necessary serious question. Keep in mind that the articles can still reference each other (using see also sections or embedded wikilinks), and there's no reason why one or both can't include a brief discussion describing how one led to the other. The examples of Alsace-Lorraine and the World Wars seem particularly relevant and informative.

talk) 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Edited pages do not by default end up on one's watchlist if one is using standard settings, such as I do. I was not aware that one even has that option. That clarifies the misunderstanding why you felt baited by my note, at least for me, and I hope for you too.

Thank you for outlining your take on the issue at hand. If this article was split, what titles would you choose? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about German-Polish struggles over control of

• Note - Novickas is not an uninvolved outside editor here as he has been involved in many conflicts related to Eastern European topics in which he has consistently taken an anti-Polish stance and always supported Skapperod.
  talk) 23:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Second. This article is about German-Polish struggles over control of Lusatia between 1002 and 1033, is that correct? - no that is not correct. Or at least that's not how it is dealt with in sources. It is how Skapperod SYNTHESIZED different sources to portray the issue.

Third. discussed together in the sources that Skapperod has shown - he hasn't shown anything of the kind. At best he provided some sources which mention both 1018 treaties and events of 1033 in the same way that some books mention both World War I and World War II.

talk) 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Fourth, I guess we could have a "grand daddy" article on

talk) 23:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

When I finished writing this article, I redirected an unsourced stub, tagged as such since 2009 and concerned with one of these treaties (Bautzen 1018) here [26]. "

• Re 1:they are all concerned with the same subject - no they are not. This is precisely the POV that the SYNTH tries to advance. No sources have been provided to show that they are.
• Re 2:they were all concluded within a short period - so what? The period between WWI and WWII was even shorter but that doesn't mean we have an article on World Wars I and II rather than two articles on the two separate wars. Same issue here.
• Re 3a:each mentioned treaty is the background for the respective following treaty - so what? In history, one event is always a background for another event. World War I and II again. What matters is whether sources connect these events and discuss them as a whole.
• Re 3b:so separate articles would need to overlap extensively - no they wouldn't (especially since they treaties concerned different issues). Please see Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg as evidence that this is completely false (hopefully Skapp's not going to delete these again)
• Re 4b:as of now, each treaty section on its own would only be a stub-size article - no they wouldn't. Maybe they would if the article was split into five (six actually, I don't know why Poznan is being forgotten here) articles. But that's a pure
  talk) 09:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Here [27].

German language source unavailable online [28]. It's not even possible to do an internal search of the source [29].

2. Biewer, Ludwig et al (1981). Preußen und Berlin. p. 54.

German language source unavailable online [30]. An internal search for "Bautzen" indicates no hits inside the book [31]. An internal search for "Merseburg" has three hits [32] one of which is page 53, close to page 54 indicated by Skapperod (although it appears to reference the year 968 rather than either 1013 or 1033). The only hit of an internal search for "Boleslaw" is to a footnote [33] on page 75. There are no internal hits for "Mieszko" [34]. There are no relevant internal hits for "Conrad" [35]. Hence the relevance of the source is unclear.

3. Gross, Reiner (2007). Geschichte Sachsens (3 ed.). p. 16.

German language source unavailable online [36]. The source does appear to mention "Bautzen" 1018 on page 16 [37]. There are no internal hits for "Merseburg" anywhere near page 16 [38]. "Boleslaw" is mentioned on page 16 as well [39], but the only reference to "Mieszko" appears to be that he participated in the 1015 campaign [40] (as indeed he did). There are no internal hits for "Conrad" anywhere near page 16 [41]. Hence, the source appears to discuss "Bautzen 1018" as a stand alone subject.

4. Hartmann, Hans-Günther (1987). Historische Stadtansichten von Bautzen

German language source unavailable online [42]. It is not possible to even do an internal search of the source.

5. Czok, Karl (1989). Geschichte Sachsens. p. 89

German language source unavailable online [43]. There is no hits to "Bautzen" on page 89 [44]. There do appear to be some hits for "Merseburg" [45] on pages 83, 84 and 94, which I guess are "close" to page 89 indicated by Skapperod. There does appear to be internal hits for both "Boleslaw" and "Mieszko" on page 89 [46]. Ok, so we have a possibility of a source which supports the SYNTHESIS here.

6. Walther, Hans et al (2004). Namenkunde und geschichtliche Landeskunde. p. 351.

German language source the relevant portion of which is not available online [47]

Sources proposed by Skapperod on which assistance of somebody fluent in German is needed

Note: these sources are available online, hence can be verified.

1. Treichel, Peter (2009). 800 Jahre Pommern und seine Nachbarn. p. 45 [48].

Source appears to cover the reign of

Mieszko II

. There is a mention of "Peace of Bautzen 1018" in the chapter on Boleslaw. Then the chapter on Mieszko states that he "followed" Boleslaw. In the chapter on Mieszko, the source mentions "Merseburg". It appears that this is a source which deals with the two different events "in proximity" though it does not appear to treat them together (and you'd figure that two different chapters are enough to imply two different Wikipedia articles).

2. Bahlcke, Joachim (2001). Geschichte der Oberlausitz (2 ed.). p. 57. [49]

Source appears to discuss exclusively Boleslaw and Bautzen 1018 on pages 57. On page 58 it skips ahead to the year 1071. I guess the part being referenced is the sentence with "doch erst seit 1031 blieben die Landschaften Lusizi und Milzeni und damit auch die Burg Bautzen dann endgultig beim Deutchen Reich" which basically says that "only in 1031 did Lusatia and Milsko pass to the German Reich". This appears to be a source which focuses exclusively on Peace of Bautzen 1018 as a stand alone subject, though it mentions later developments.

Response

First of all, of course each treaty is a different subject. That is common sense and undisputed. The question is not whether the treaties are the same subject, which they are not, but if they can reasonably be grouped together in one article or not.

An "in depth" analysis of sources such as "Die Salier" (The Salians) or "Die Ottonen" (The Ottonians) or the like will of course not result in a grouping of all five of the treaties. That does not require an analysis at all, but is based simply on the fact that Henry II was the last of the Ottonians, while Conrad II was the first of the Salian dynasty. So a biography of Henry II does not cover events that happened when Conrad II was emperor and vice versa. Naturally. They will however give a detailed account on what happened during the reign of the respective emperors with respect to Lusatia nad the Piasts, which makes them excellent sources for the respective parts of the article. Most of the sources used in the article are of this kind. These sources however confirm that each of the treaties is about the investment with the Lusatian marches, and the legal relation between the emperor and the Piasts.

Sources confirming that the five treaties which are the subject of this article are part of the same dispute will be overviews, thus not that good for sourcing details in the article. Such is the nature of the additional sources I provided in the "Synthesis" section above. Eg Czok's "History of Saxony" reads, after mentioning the pre-1018 events: "In the Peace of Bautzen both Lusatias remained with Boleslaw as imperial fiefs, and fell back to the empire in 1031/1033". Or the "Historical cityscape of Bautzen" reads "In 1002 the Poles under duke Boleslaw Chrobry subdue Milzenerland, until after subsequent campaigns the peace of Bautzen was concluded, where the Lusatian area as an imperial fief falls to Boleslaw. Only in 1031, Conrad II defeats the Polish duke..."

The other sources listed are in the same vein. They hardly mention all treaties, and less so in detail, but they confirm that they are part of the same dispute / chain of events, and that the grouping of these treaties in one article is not a synthesis. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what these sources - which are still far fewer then the ones which treat Bautzen 1018 independently - do, is mention later developments in the same way that a source on the Treaty of Versailles may state that it was one of the causes of World War II. They do not analyze the two events together - that's pure SYNTHESIS of this article. All that these sources imply for the respective Wikipedia articles is that the article on Peace of Bautzen mention that Lusatia was later lost by Poland; a sentence or two will suffice, no need to synthesize.

I know that you have enough knowledge of the history to know that

talk) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Skäpperöd that this is not an issue of WP:SYNTH, and we do not absolutely have to follow sources when deciding on a question of unifying or splitting articles. On balance, and without ignoring other comments - I appreciate that there is a certain theme running through all the treaties - I found radek's recent table particularly convincing as an argument for splitting the article into two, and that on balance would be my preferred solution. I hope that this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 weeks+ since the last comment from the RfC. About a month+ since the other outside RfC solicited comment. The RfC itself has been recently closed. Both outside commentators agreed that the article should be split. Hence, I am going to turn this back into a disambig page. I am going to do my best to incorporate any kind of improvements that have been made, by bot or person, to this article that have not also been duplicated on the two other respective articles (