Talk:War of the Galician Succession (1205–1245)

About the table

Maybe we'll create a table where we'll include the main battles and campaigns of the war? It obviously won't be superfluous. @Polish Piast Dushnilkin (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not a good idea better to create another article on this topic, you could expand the campaignbox Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As you wish Dushnilkin (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll move the article to mainspace because this Draft will be checked for a long time? Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it, please add the tags. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have submitted the article to good and added sources. Now wait for someone to check it out Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

B-class review

@Piotrus You would check this article if it meets the conditions for B class and in terms of content if the text is well written for readers who do not understand the topic? Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Polish Piast Seems fine. Note the disambig from Metropolis of Kiev (I recommend enabling the gadget in Preferences to highlight them in orange). Then ask for B-class review at WP:MILHIST (WPPOLAND no longer does it - I was the only one who did it few years back and stopped due to nobody caring to help out, or ask - your request is the first one in many years...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues

I'd like to compliment Polish Piast and Dushnilkin again on writing this article. It's a good effort on an important period of Eastern European military history. Nevertheless, I am concerned about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the English names bolded in the lead section yield results when you Google them. Can these names be found in the sources cited? This is the main reason why I hesitated to write this article myself. You can find sources for individual facts, but maybe not an overarching 1205–1245 narrative. The equivalent ruwiki and ukwiki articles have the same issues. They can cite sources for individual events, but not for names given to this conflict, nor the overarching periodisation.

Of course, it makes sense to regard this as the narrative of Danylo Romanovych rising to power after the fall of his father in 1205, but we should be aware that this is only one perspective of many. Nevertheless, it is also the perspective taken by the main primary source of the events, the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC), and therefore not without merit, but also not without its problems. If there are actual sources calling this "the forty year's war" or something, then the matter could be resolved fairly quickly, but I haven't seen such sources. That is why I held back from writing this article myself for several years. I hope its existence now can be justified vis-a-vis WP:SYNTH. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:List of wars of succession#Conventions for the list of wars of succession. I've been writing a lot about wars of succession since about 2018, striving to establish a comprehensive overview of all wars of succession in recorded history. But this has come with countless problems, ranging from semantic to historiographic issues and definitely WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS and WP:V. For starters, the terminology of "war of succession" and such originated in Europe and therefore Europe dominates in historiography, but I strive to include other continents as well. However, we need to satisfy WP:LISTCRITERIA, i.e., show that a conflict was actually a war of succession and not something else. The phrase "war of succession" doesn't have to be in the name, but the way the conflict is described in RS must meet commonly used definitions. It's also not necessary for a conflict regularly discussed in RS to have a WP:COMMONNAME, but the article title we choose to give it must be picked very carefully so as to avoid WP:OR. This is why I have developed the Talk:List of wars of succession#Conventions for the list of wars of succession, as an extension of all existing policies, guidelines, conventions and good practices, specifically for writing about wars of succession that appear to lack a commonly used name or periodisation. This article is a prime example of that. If we follow these conventions, we can often write articles such as this one, but we need to get the basics right first:

1. Was this an actual war of succession according to RS?
2. How long did it last according to RS?
3. What do we call this conflict, in accordance with RS and conventions?

As I mentioned above and in an edit summary, I've been thinking about writing an article about exactly this purported war of succession in Galicia and Volhynia between 1205 and 1245, as it was already framed on ruwiki and ukwiki for the past several years. But exactly because I could not answer these questions properly on the basis of RS that I could find, I decided not to write this article yet. As interesting as the ukwiki and especially ruwiki article (which has GA status) are, I regarded, and still regard, those as essentially WP:SYNTHed articles, combining loose facts based on RS to build an overarching narrative not found in those RS.

I'm afraid that this enwiki article now suffers from the very same issues. Although GA status is too early now, I do not want this article to fail altogether. I would like to work with the creators and others to improve it so that it does comply to all our enwiki standards. We need to get the answers to those basic questions right first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally I will start with an introduction English literature is very poor from what I checked. And Polish and Ukrainian is very rich in these events. I will start with the name of the war in itself qualifies for the War of Succession so Foryt calls it at the end of the story of the Battle of Yaroslavl. Could you explain why the tritium of the article should not be based on these foundations? in addition in ru wiki there is a separate heading about the name for this war and the battles that were fought as historians call it. In fact, the article needs to be checked because I may have added it too quickly on GA, but in terms of the spelling of the rulers and such small details which someone will correct themselves. And rest assured the article will not fall down because in terms of grammar etc. it is ok. It just needs to be discussed properly. I recommend to look at Russian sources, not only English because you did not get the results due to the fact that the English literature as I said at the beginning is poor and there is almost nothing.

To sum up your concerns also the historiography defines the period from 1205-1245 so does the Foryt using even the 3rd name of the Struggle for the legacy of the Duke of Roman. You should do a vote on this already. And after solving all these problems also with photos. I think we could report this to GA Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to reading Polish, Ukrainian and Russian sources, starting with the ones you and Dushnilkin cited in this article. But that will take some time, and I've got other commitments on enwiki and in real life, so I can't promise to be able to read all those sources quickly and properly. (If they're open-access and digitised so that I can use machine translations on them, that would certainly help. My knowledge of these three languages is still rather elementary.) NLeeuw (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I've read a summary of Foryt 2021, and it looks pretty good. If you could cite the specific pages, perhaps quote the relevant sentence(s) and translate them to English in a footnote, that could answers most or all of my concerns. You may well be right that English-language literature on the 1205–1245 period has so far failed to identify a unified "war of succession" narrative that we would need to avoid original research, but that Slavic RS could provide those. NLeeuw (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The last, seventh chapter concerns the direct aftermath of the titular battle, and thus forty years of unprecedented political turmoil in the lands of Galicia and Volhynia.

Czytaj więcej: https://histmag.org/Artur-Foryt-Zawichost-1205-recenzja-i-ocena-22544

Looks good. It's certainly not something I've read in English RS before (only in some non-RS YouTube videos that centre on Danylo Romanovych's life, and treat it all as one single, united war "to retrieve his father's throne" for that reason). NLeeuw (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've re-read the chapter 6 "Roman Mstislavich and His Family" in Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023. At no point do they specifically identify a 1205 to 1245 period, in which a constant or intermittent war of succession was fought. The closest they get to such a framing is Daniil's life was a difficult one beset by conflict, especially in his attempt to regain and hold on to his throne. But unfortunately it's quite a stretch to use this in support of the naming and periodisation used here. Earlier in the chapter, they stress that neither Galicia or Volhynia was the personal hereditary property of Daniil and Vasylko, that their mother's attempt to establish a regency for them there was not successful, they were driven to flight in exile at the Hungarian royal court, which eventually ceased supporting her claims when Leszek and Bela partitioned Galicia and Volhynia between them in 1214. Maybe it would be better to regard the 1205 to 1245 period as one of a series of conflicts rather than a unified war of succession that puts the Romanovichi front and centre? This is just a preliminary impression, I'm open to a lot of ideas. NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:War of the Galician Succession (1205–1245)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Polish Piast (talk · contribs) 17:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

According to WP:GAFAIL 3: "An article may fail without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: ... It has ... cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ... large numbers of "citation needed" [tags]..." Nederlandse Leeuw raised possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues at the article's talk page. Although I am not convinced that the article represents original synthesis, I think their concerns are valid and are to be addressed before the GAN. Further issues:

• references 18, 29 and 55 are to be fixed. Borsoka (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:Даниил Галицкий на памятнике 1000-летия России.jpg: source is unclear at Commons; copyright status is unclear.
• File:Печать Романа II Великого.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Даниил Галицкий.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Seal of Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Мстислав Удатный выгоняет венгерского королевича из Галича.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:KOnrad.jpg: US PD tag is needed at Commons.
• File:Konrad I Mazowiecki seal 1218.PNG: US PD tag is needed.
• File:Facial Chronicle - b.06, p.417 - Mikhail of Chernigov enthroned.png: the source is unclear at Commons.
• File:Ростислав Михайлович.png: copyright status is unclear.
• A map is needed to provide our readers with a geographical context. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh wow. I think it is way too early to consider this article for GA status, as much as I appreciate the efforts taken in writing it. It has barely been vetted by the community yet. The few edits I, Setergh and Norden1990 made and issues I raised were only a start. There are other issues of secondary concern that I would like to raise at a later stage, but first I think we should address the concerns around naming and periodisation, which involve possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (as Borsoka pointed out above). We just need more time, probably a lot of small fixes and perhaps a few big ones, with constructive feedback where needed. I certainly can't do that on my own, we'll need probably about 10 people who examine this article thoroughly before GA comes into view. But never say never; it's ambitious but it could probably be done. NLeeuw (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)