Talk:Bolesław III Wrymouth

message: Where does the nickname Wrymouth come from?
:In the original Polish, "Krzywousty."  He apparently had a "wry" ("krzywo-", "crooked") "mouth" ("-usty").  logologist|Talk 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Wrymouth? 

message: Bolesław III Wrymouth
In 1135, Bolesław gave a tribute to Emperor Lothair II (Lothar von Supplinburg) and the emperor received from Boleslaw parts of Western Pomerania and Rügen as fiefs. (the emperor received from Boleslaw a fief ??? Very odd) An Observer 15.6.2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.253 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please check Wikipedia Boleslaw III Wrymouth 

message: Both were not included in Bogislaw's realm; Western Pomerania as it is used here is not the same as Western Pomerania as used in Poland, but refers to Hither Pomerania. That Rügen was given to Boleslaw as a fief in 1135 by the emperor who then did not even control it is already stated in the article, but should not be boosted as it was practically meaningless (neither the emperor nor Boleslaw asserted any control there, Rügen was only defeated in 1168 by the Danes). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than doing Original Research we go with what the sources say. If you have sources which describe the situation as you describe it then please use them and elaborate in the text. Also, if they are in German and offline, please provide a translation of the relevant text.radek (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rügen, Western Pomerania 

message: This is also untrue, and it is backed up here by good sources that the bishopric was put directly under the Holy See and not subordinate to Gniezno. The first source  is only a list of dioceses established since 1000 AD, and does not mention subordination of Wolin to Gniezno. The second source  actually says it "did not remain in the province of Gniezno for long", without going into further detail. Here a comparison to the other sources would be suitable, and not the establishment of this "fact" in the lead. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first source specifically refers to them as "Polish" bishoprics, hence they would obviously be subordinated to the archbishopric of Gniezno. The second source does state that the Kamien bishops acquired independence from Gniezno and were directly put under the Pope in 1188 - but originally, along with the other bishoprics, they were subordinate to Gniezno.radek (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read about it some time ago and I'm unable to provide the full bibliography now, but as far as I remember, the situation was following. When the see of Wolin was established, the archbishops of Gniezno considered it as their suffragan diocese and, as long as Poland retained the control over Pommern (until ca. 1181), they actually exercised metropolitan jurisdiction over it; additionally, bishops of Wolin (later of Kamień) participated in the Polish provincial councils (for the last time in 1180, see Paweł Jasienica, Polska Piastów, Warszawa 1979, p. 175). However, the metropolitan rights of Gniezno were never formally confirmed by the Holy See due to similar pretensions of the archbishops of Magdeburg. The quarrel between Gniezno and Magdeburg lasted over forty years and was finally resolved by the pope Clement III in 1188 by the privilege of exemtion for the see of Kamień. Before that date (or, more accurate, before 1181), it can be said that diocese of Wolin (Kamień) was actually subordinated to Gniezno, but only de facto, not de iure.CarlosPn (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: @Skäpperöd - I think that the accounts you've placed above generally do not contradict what I've written - certainly Gniezno never obtained the privilege of metropolitan jurisdiction over Pommern. But the links of this diocese with Polish ecclesiestical province and the participation of Pommernian bishops in the Polish provincial councils until 1180 are undeniable - these links resulted from the political situation of the Pommern (at the time a fief of Poland), were not formally sanctioned by the Holy See but existed. That's why I've written that this see belonged to the province of Gniezno only de facto, not de iure, and I think that this is the best description of the actually unsolved status of this diocese between 1140 and ca.1180 CarlosPn (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not an expert on the political history of Pommern of that time, maybe you're right that after death of Bolesław it can not longer be said abouyt its  dependence on Poland. But I can't agree with your statement that I've written that Pommern was part of Polish ecclesiestical province because it belonged to Polish secular province - I've written only that very strong religious links of Pommern and Poland (which I believe appeared from political links - but I've remarked I'm not an expert on political history, so maybe I'm wrong here), particularly participation of Pommern bishops in Polish provincial ecclesiestical councils justified the statement that it de facto belonged to the ecclesiestical province of Gniezno until ca. 1180. The term de facto concerns the situation not formally settled - and here I agree with you - diocese of Wolin-Kamień formally was never subordinated to Gniezno. Best regards CarlosPn (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Carlos' broad sources make it clear that officially the Kamien, Wolin and other bishoprics were subordinate to Gniezno as the text in the article read before Skapperod removed it based on OR. If needed a line can be added to indicate that the Kamien bishops' status was disputed and that they enjoyed a good deal of de facto autonomy until being declared independent in 1181. However the sentence still applies to the other bishoprics.radek (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Carlos presented one source, stating that the Pomeranian clergy met with the Gniezno clergy in 1180 (and I can confirm that with more recent sources) and not that the Pomeranian diocese was "officially" part of the Gniezno one. In addition, I presented three modern sources on Pomeranian history that say there was no such subordinance. Also, it was 1188 and not 1181. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The statement that Wolin formally was never subordinated to Gniezno is supported also by the work of Gerard Labuda, Marian Biskup, Historia dyplomacji polskiej, PWN 1980, vol. 3, p. 123 CarlosPn (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC
Ok, so the Polish bishopric at Wolin-Kamien was de jeure subordinated to Gniezno until 1188 (pardon the typo) but de facto enjoyed a good deal of autonomy. After 1188 the de facto status was made de jeure as well. I believe this still leaves the Lubusz bishopric. Why not write it in the article in this, neutral, way which reflects what the sources say, rather than try to present the situation in some other, pov, way (i.e. emphasize one aspect over another)?radek (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Please again review the sources, your above conclusion is not what they say. There was no subordination, there were mutual contacts with Gniezno (as there were with Magdeburg, remember that the see of the Pomeranian diocese was the Magdeburg off-set Grobe Abbey before it was moved to Cammin). Gniezno and Magdeburg both tried to establish a subordination, but neither one succeeded. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pomeranian bishopric subordinate to Gniezno? 

message: I hope nobody objects; I've changed the default sort order in the categories. It had been set to sort as Wrymouth, Bolesław III. At least in Category:House of Piast it makes more sense--and is more consistent with the bulk of the other entries--to have it sort as Bolesław. If anybody feels that it should be the other way in some other category, perhaps they could change it for that particular category, rather than across the board.  71.126.140.136 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change categories' sort orders 

message: Re  and . There is no reason what so ever to put in the German translation of the guy's name here. Was he German? No. Is this German Wikipedia? No. All he did is fight some Germans (and allied with others). 
As to the justification that he was the first to settle the German lands of Mecklenburg/Obodrite regions it's both incorrect and specious. It is specious because, well, so what? Even if it was true, that's simply not reason enough to put in the German translation of his name here. Should I go through and add in Polish name translations to all the Holy Emperors, border Dukes and other nobles simply because they sent some colonists into "Polish lands of Silesia and Pomerania"? And it is incorrect because the Mecklenburg/Obodrite region, at the time of Wrymouth was simply not "German lands". It was not inhabited by Germans. And the control over the lands was contested between local rulers, Wrymouth and German nobles - indeed, the fact you got the "Obodrite" in there pretty clearly indicates this.
Removing this as it simply does not belong in the article.Volunteer Marek 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Augustus II the Strong which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: - I was wondering whether this depiction of Boleslaus III in Chronica Polonorum would be appropriate enough for a placement in the article? Regards. Merangs (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Merangs, I would be cautious. It depicts him in 16th-century armour and what appears to be a beret. It might be appropriate in a legacy section with a caption to warn the reader, but there is no such section. That said, I do not think it can do much to improve any part of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion. I do agree. It is a real shame that such an important Piast figure like Boleslaus III does not have a depiction featured in the article. After all, not every country had its own Matthew Paris and Historia Anglorum. Merangs (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Depiction