Talk:Sack of Wiślica

Grandchildren of Stephen II

Dear @SebbeKg, the next sentence is not quite clear to me: "This Pannonian, seeking refuge in Poland, fabricated stories about persecution by King Béla II of Hungary, who demanded unjustified punishment for those who supported the grandchildren of Stephen II of Hungary." Stephen II had no issue, that is why, he was succeeded by his cousin, Béla II in 1131. Does Długosz say anything more about this fabricated thing? Norden1990 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Norden1990 Sorry for my mistake Jan Dlugosz meant the descendants of Stephen I and I inattentively marked Stephen II. My mistake but thanks for pointing it out.

Here is the entire mention of these fabrications which were made by this Panonian: ''So this Panonian, having fled to Poland to Prince Boleslaw, lies that he suffered many wrongs from King Bela of Hungary for having strenuously supported his grandsons, sons of the once deceased King Stephen, that Bela finally deprived him of all the property he had in Hungary and would have sentenced him to death had he not fled earlier.'' SebbeKg (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Norden1990, You must also keep in mind that this Panonian was a mere liar hired by the Ruthenian prince Volodymyrko, so he was probably not even related to the Hungarian monarch and only won the trust of the Polish king through efficient manipulation. SebbeKg (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Historiography

While Benyskiewicz's critique of primary sources is certainly reliable and arguably most in-depth, it is worth noting previous sources (modern) generally did not question this account, and it is repeated in many other sources. Ex. from the same year as Benyskiewicz (link, seems to be a graduate student publishing in minor Polish historical journal/magazine). See also Google Books query here (for numerous mentions, if in passing, about the Wiślica's destruction in 1135 by Ruthenians (Połowcy - Cumans - are often mentioned as culprits)). What seems to be the case is that past historians did not question Kadłubek's account, and only now, in 2020, Benyskiewicz made his argument that almost everything is doubtful (outside the very fact of Wiślica destruction c. 1135, which Benyskiewicz agrees likely happened - his point is that we can't really be sure about anything else connected to this). In either case, I believe it is better to explain this in the article rather than blank it. I've added historiography section at the top based on the RS cited (Benyskiewicz's article). @Nederlandse Leeuw @Marcelus _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus Fair enough. But that still leaves us on very shaky grounds. By your own admission, Wiślica destruction c. 1135... likely happened [but] we can't really be sure about anything else connected to this, and the RS we found (Krzysztof Benyskiewicz 2020) pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers. If that is all we can know for sure about this event, then the rest of this article will remain more or less in the realm of source analysis and speculation.

Renaming the article, removing the infobox

For one, I would say the article should be renamed Sack of Wiślica or Sack of Wiślica (1135), as we don't know whether the "Ruthenians" did it (more likely indeed the Cumans/Polovtsi/Połowcy), nor whether it was a "raid", and it's probably a huge exaggeration to mention "Poland" in the title when only 1 border town somewhere in Sandomierz was involved. (SebbeKg, as well as many of the later chroniclers he cited, had a tendency of reframing even small, local events into "national" terms that are out of place in the 11th and 12th centuries). I think we should remove the entire "infobox military conflict" as well, because nothing for certain can be put in that thing that isn't in some way misleading readers into think that we can say anything reliable about this event other than "Wiślica" and "1135".

Kievan Chronicle account

E.g. it is not at all likely that Yaropolk II of Kiev was involved in the sack. As I summarised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136), the Kievan Chronicle narrates that There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm. If it be of any help, I could quote the full entries of the years 1135 and 1136 here, as they might give us some clues to work with. I'll turn it into a bulletlist for now:

• In 1135, Yuri Dolgorukiy (prince of Rostov and Suzdal), asked his brother (both sons of Vladimir II Monomakh) Yaropolk II of Kiev to exchange his possession of Rostov-Suzdal for the Principality of Pereyaslavl. (It's unclear who was the Prince of Pereyaslavl at the time, but by that time, that title had acquired the associated status of being the heir apparent to Kiev, i.e. the "crown prince of Kiev"). The entries for 1133 and 1134 indicate that there was already a conflict going on for this position in previous years.
• Vsevolod Olgovich, prince of Chernigov, objected to this exchange.
• Yaropolk and his brothers Yuri and Andrey (apparently Andrew I, prince of Volhynia 1119–1135) campaigned against Vsevolod, occupying villages near the city of Chernigov (in which Yaropolk himself participated) before returning to Kiev.
• Vsevolod enlisted the aid of the Polovci (Polovtsi/Połowcy/Cumans) and conquered villages and cites in the dominion of Perejaslavl', and slaughtering the people; they came as far as up to Kiev. (...) They could not cross over [the river Dnipro] because it was impossible to cross over due to the ice floes. Yaropolk's forces couldn't cross the river either, and so both sides retreated and made peace. There was some more fighting around Turov, Belarus, but that's it. A compromise was reached in the winter (presumably December 1135 - February 1136), making Andrey Prince of Pereyaslavl (which explains why he is listed as reigning there from 1135–1141, and stopped being Prince of Volhynia in 1135).

Which Polovtsi, and where did they come from?

We're left wondering how the Polovtsi ended up on the western side of the river Dnipro if they were unable to cross in late 1135, let alone how they ended up so far west that they reached Wiślica. Also, the Polovtsi fought against Yaropolk of Kiev, and that Andrey who was the prince of Volhynia and would become the prince of Pereyaslavl', not with them. Presumably then, these were different Polovtsi than those who allegedly sacked Wiślica in 1135? It is known that the Polovtsi often acted as mercenaries and could easily be hired (which the Olgovichi of Chernigov often did, also in this conflict), or be bribed to switch sides for the right price. But we would at least expect the Kievan Chronicle to report it if prince Yaropolk of Kiev hired their services, conducted a raid somewhere in the west, and then later in the year the Polovtsi suddenly turned on him after Vsevolod Olgovich of Chernigov bribed them. Since there is no such mention, it is rather unbelievable. And without the order or approval of prince Yaropolk of Kiev, it's unlikely the Polovtsi could have raided that far across Kievan Rus' all on their own without internal help, let alone without any mention. (I mean, they couldn't even cross a river because there was a bit of ice).

Why would Volodymyrko Volodarovych of Halych be involved in a Volhynian raid?

Finally, it seems to make no sense of Volodymyrko Volodarovych (Vladimir Volodarovich, a grandson of Rostislav of Tmutarakan) to be involved; he would not become the Prince of Halych until 1141, and appears to have never been the Prince of Volhynia at all. Why would he lead Volhynian and Polovtsi forces in a raid against Wiślica in 1135, and the "Polish" allegedly retaliate in 1136 against Volhynia if Volodymyrko was never prince of Volhynia, and wouldn't become prince of Halych until 1141? Perhaps there has been a mixup. The capital city of the Principality of Volhynia at the time was Volodimer' (in Church Slavonic; Ukrainian: Volodymyr; Russian: Vladimir; Polish: Włodzimierz), which corresponds to Volodymyrko Volodarovych's first name, even though he did not possess that city and never sat on its throne. But it's easy to see how later Polish chroniclers could have assumed that prince Volodimer' was from the city of Volodimer'. He wasn't. He was a member of the Rostislavichi of Tmutarakan clan, while the princes of Volhynia at the time were members of the Monomakhovichi clan (as outlined above). NLeeuw (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Keeping it short - renaming to Sack of Wiślica or such is a good idea; sources seem to focus on the town. The article claims the Polish name of this "raid" is "Najazd Rusinów na Polskę" but my search could not find any instances of usage of this term in this context. The question is whether the story by Kadłubek is notable. Its debunking by Benyskiewicz is an in-depth, reliable source, but as I said, everything else I see is more of a mention-in-passing (although I did not do an extensive query of sources). Still, I think this event is notable, so a name change and slight rewrite of lead would be all I think we need. While Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTWRONGS, the current version is helpful in dispelling what can be seen as a 1000-year old fake news (hoax) by Kadłubek. (Well, of course, we can ask who cares about this stuff in English - who will read this article and find it useful - but that's a different issue :P). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say, but why should we keep this as a stand-alone article? That seems WP:UNDUE attention to an event about which almost nothing can be known for certain. Given WP:RIGHTWRONGS, is it Wikipedia's job to debunk 1000-year old fake news (hoax) by Kadłubek in a stand-alone article? As you say, everything else I see is more of a mention-in-passing, which seems to fail WP:SIGCOV, so there is a good case for WP:NOPAGE. If we want to give it a bit more attention than the one sentence I devoted to it in Wiślica#History, I think there is still more than enough room in that section for it. NLeeuw (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw As I said, I haven't done a proper BEFORE (nobody seems to have done). We have one in-depth academic article about this, and many (dozen+) mentions in passing in RS, some of which may be more than in passing - checking would require going to Polish libraries and accessing full pages, since Google Books often provide just snippets. The notability of this is borderline already with a good chance better sources may be found. You could argue that it should be the author's responsibility to provide such sources, fine, but I don't think our time is well spent trying to get this quite likely notable topic redirected. Feel free to AfD this again and I'll say the same things there (and maybe someone will find better sources, but I doubt it... at best, you may make we spend my time looking for them, since it does not seem that there is any other Polish speaker who cares, and the author was blocked before being given a chance to fix his articles, which, sigh, I already commented on their page was not the best outcome - but that's OT, except realistically, now we will either loose content that is reasonably well written and likely notable, or I will have to rescue it despite being quite busy with many other stuff in life and on Wiki). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's just start with renaming as agreed, and removing the OR Infobox. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There, that's better. You know, we could also draftify this text and move it to your userspace for now, so that you'll have the time and space to improve the text whenever it is convenient for you. I do want to give you that opportunity. :)

But keeping this and other questionable materials of SebbeKg in the mainspace, just because it might be valuable at some point in the future if someone with the required knowledge, skills and interest (you or someone else) comes along to improve it according to our editing standards, does not seem to be a very responsible approach. now we will either loose content that is reasonably well written and likely notable is a WP:LOSE argument to avoid. It recommends draftifying material that might be valuable, but is not ready for the mainspace. How about that? NLeeuw (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the article is good for mainspace as it is now. It's a C-class article. I'd rather move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That "C class" is an automated rating created by User:MilHistBot, which cannot distinguish between modern literature and modern translations of primary sources, such as modern Polish translations of the medieval Latin chronicles of Kadłubek and Długosz. They are still WP:PRIMARY sources even if all properly formatted with an ISBN and everything.

The article currently has:

• 1 actually strongly reliable source: Benyskiewicz 2020
• 16 direct references to Długosz > WP:PRIMARY
• 8 direct references to Kadłubek > WP:PRIMARY
• 2 refs to the municipal website wislica.pl, which has only 1 sentence about the event.
• 2 refs to KWORUM, which appears to be a WP:USERGENERATED website. (Author Marian Kałuski is quite WP:POV in the comments section: Russia and Russians will never be friends of Poland and Poles. (...) in the event of a more serious Russian-American conflict, the son of a bitch Putin will not hesitate to drop a few bombs on Poland. Are we supposed to take this random dude on the Internet seriously?)
• 2 refs to mnki.pl/wislica, which mention the event in passing in 3 sentences, adding that even Hungarians were allegedly involved.
• 1 ref to a half sentence in the local version of the Wyborcza.
• 1 ref to Dawne Kieleckie, a WP:SELFPUB blog by a retired architect who writes amateur history in his spare time.

• Full disclosure: one of the first Wikipedia articles I ever wrote was almost entirely based on 1 website, which turned out to be a WP:SELFPUB blog by a retired dentist who wrote amateur history in his spare time. I was quite embarrassed that I hadn't checked the reliability of the source, and agreed that the article should be deleted.

Incidentally, I found out that our Andrey, prince of Volodimer' in Volhynia, was historically known as Andrey the Good: uk:Андрій Добрий pl:Andrzej Włodzimierzowic be:Андрэй Уладзіміравіч Добры ru:Андрей Владимирович Добрый. None of these mentions anything about a 1135 sack of Wiślica; all they say is that he transferred to Pereyaslavl' in 1135. NLeeuw (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Would you like to weigh in here? You were involved in the March 2024 AfD on this article and did some subsequent edits. I'd like to hear your perspective, also on the quality of sources used, and whether it might be best to draftify this article (and other SebbeKg articles) for now? NLeeuw (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

PS. English language source that seems to discuss this at some extent, but snippet view again: [1] ("...Wislica in 1135 .. Citing this mention , Lanckoronska writes that " Wislica , conquered and sacked by the Rus ' in 1135 , never regained its former splendor . " Skirmishes among the Rus ' princes in 113515 excluded any possibility of a...") _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right that the sources in this article, before I've added Benyskiewicz, are weak. But like I said, BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable. Feel free to tag the article with {{sources exist}} and we can wait for someone who cares to go to library in Poland and expand this with additional sources one day. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I could look for more sources, but I don't have time (...) Feel free to tag the article with {{sources exist}} and we can wait for someone who cares to go to library in Poland and expand this with additional sources one day.

I'm afraid the Template:Sources exist itself says we shouldn't use it that way: Do not use this template to tell others to improve articles. If you have one or more sources, but no time to actually integrate them into an article, consider instead using {{Refideas}}, which is much less likely to be seen as drive-by tagging then when you use this template. Template:Refideas is to be put on the talk page, not the article itself. But I think that's not a viable option, because it means the article stays in the mainspace for now, and I don't think it's ready yet. NLeeuw (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Then AfD it. I already said that I believe this discussion here is a waste of time the topic seems notable and I'll say this (again) at AfD if needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@@Nederlandse Leeuw:There is really nothing to comment on. This whole article is basically one big WP:OR based almost solely on WP:PRIMARY sources. That's why I removed all the OR in my previous edit ([2]). I don't really understand why it was reverted. Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Moreover, quoting Kadłubek's account without any historical commentary is questionable to say the least. In addition, Wiślica at the time consisted of two settlements, of which the smaller one was probably destroyed. Generally speaking, the whole story can be closed in 2-3 sentences and placed in the article Wiślica. There is no material here for a separate article. Defnitely at least drafify it. Marcelus (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Created an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack of Wiślica. I tagged both of you there; I hope we could find a way to settle the matter over there with the advice of other editors. Good day. :) NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)