marbackrhodan

SKYHOTEL Merseburg. Merseburg, Germany

❤️ Click here: Single merseburg

A single parachute cord around his neck and a group of people standing around. Internet gunst der suche nach dem passenden partner an meiner. 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. Hunter himself, along with Chaplain James Duvall, had stood at the end of the runway early that morning and waved to each crew as the group’s 37 Fortresses took to the air starting at 7:51 a.

Howell, William Bryan, John Leyen, Robert Gaynor, Ralph Glancy and Brooks Atchison were all summarily listed as “found dead” and buried at Truegleben. Wir hatten ein Best Western-Hotel zu Beginn des Jahres schon in Venedig kennen gelernt und waren wieder begeistert. Lebens hintergrund und familie in den ferien mehrmals pro woche für single party capitol würzburg einige. Thematically there are two sets of treaties here; 1002, 1013 and 1018 and 1031, 1033 and two different events, two different sets of people Boleslaw, Henry and Conrad, Mieszko, Yaroslav and two different wars.

Standard Room - Werden, sondern dauer unterstützung nicht mit freunden zu abendessen oder bier partnervermittlung katholische partnersuche. Reserve your very own comfort either with king-size bed, two single beds twin or an extra large queen-size bed.

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. 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. 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. They're just simply not known under these names, particularly since they're not discussed together in sources. However, apparently there are German language sources which should be sufficient for a stand alone article. I therefore favor one comprehensive article instead of five stubs. This is not a synthesis, as no thesis is made at all. Please present sources which treat the treaties of Bautzen 1018 and Merseburg single merseburg together. The synthesis is obvious and part of it you are repeating in the statement above: all concern the same dispute. Bottomline: please provide sources in fact what is required is that the majority of sources treat them together, not just one or two - though even that hasn't been provided. Otherwise two different articles are needed. Wikipedia is not a venue to present novel ideas about history. Can you quote where they explicitly link 1018 to 1033. Again - need majority here. Can you show where the sources state that all these were about the same dispute or even discuss Bautzen, 1018, and Merseburg, 1033, together. Is that meant to be serious. 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. Die Mark Brandenburg unter den Askaniern. Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. Geschichte der Oberlausitz 2 ed. For example,the chief chronicler of the time from whom we get most of the information on the Chrobry-Henry conflict is not even mentioned in the article. Or the friendship between German Emperor Otto and Boleslaw, an important piece of background, is omitted. There is no discussion on any kinds of military and political background which would contextualize why the treaties that were signed were actually signed. Death of Margravean important development, is not there. Siege of Niemcza is presented. 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. Schneidmüller apparently believes they were held as 'imperial fiefs'. Jasiennica says they were held without obligation. Ok I meant to save the details, so that's enough for now. Instead, I used modern high quality sources, primarily single merseburg the Kohlhammer and Beck series. I would not mind adding an overview of contemporary sources, including Thietmar, to the article. Single merseburg sources used however have a high authority, they are standard books in German historiography. 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. Once or twice is fine. Doing it throughout the article is not. 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 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. I have not destroyed anything - rather moved the text to appropriate articles. Both articles are concerned with treaties of Merseburg and Bautzen, and the arguments above point to keeping all five treaties in one article. The above statement by Skapperod included with the RfC is neither brief nor neutral. No one wants to split this into five articles - this is pure. The article does need to be split into two however. 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. I've asked repeatedly for Skapperod to provide sources single merseburg 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 and were combined into a single article on. Or as if the and the were combined into a single article on. Or as if the and the were combined into a single article on. The ones currently in the article do not. Please see my detailed comment above:. 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 ; andas has already been done. Since he's unwilling to answer the question let me go through them one by one the sources single merseburg in German which makes any claims about them difficult to verify for non-German speakers. However, the source is used to only cite portions about the latter conflict between Mieszko and Conrad. However, the only mentions of Merseburg appear to be in reference to or are about pre-1018 events this is also evident from how this source is used in the article. Again, no connection between 1018 and 1033. Does not connect the two separate events as is being done in this article. Again, no connection to later events. 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. They do however certify that the dispute is Lusatian investment and emperor-Piast legal relation, if seperately for each treaty. 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. 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 single merseburg German rather than English. But this of course simply does not establish that they concerned the same events. They're just simply not known under these names, particularly since they're not discussed together in sources. 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. Both treaties are discussed in the context of the Polono-German wars at that time. Out of the nine sources used in the article only one makes a connection, single merseburg a weak one at that. The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-century Political Thought mentions the treaties of and together in the same paragraph, on pg. Indeed, it mentions them together and connects them in the same sentence. Yet, Wikipedia has separate single merseburg on Augsburg and Westphalia, rather than a single article - because there is enough sources which deal with each one separately. And so we have,and rather than a 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 deserves an article of its own. In any case our knowledge of these events is rather limited, splitting the treaties into two separate articles is like splitting hairs. 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. Per the sources I used, they are all concerned with the investment of Lusatia and the relation between the emperor and the Piasts. 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. But single merseburg that's beside the point. Sources still have not been provided which would justify the synthesis of this article. I've asked you to provide a source which single merseburg 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. In my opinion, it would be best to split the article in two as suggested. 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 single merseburg 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 withfor the reasons he provided. Also, the fact that I didn't respond within, apparently, three minutes should not require messages on my user talk page to get my attention. I have other things in my life to attend to; I have not forsaken the discussion, just be patient. I left you one notice on your talk page to make you aware of my follow-up question here. 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. Die Mark Brandenburg unter den Askaniern. Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. Geschichte der Oberlausitz 2 ed. 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 ofand 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 radekand thought that by referencing his statements it would be clear what I meant. Right now, the biggest problem I'm having is wondering why this is such a big deal. single merseburg 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 single merseburg 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 wikilinksand 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. 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. This article is about German-Polish struggles over control of between 1002 and 1033, is that correct. As described here 'The Germans regained the region, only to lose it to the Poles in 1002. Lusatia was incorporated into Poland in 1018 but returned to German rule in 1033, absorbed by the states of Meissen and Brandenberg'. An overview of this kind looks appropriate here - same political entities and territory. And this article's existence as a summary of German-Polish conflicts 1002-1033 does not rule out the existence of sub-articles with Main article:X links here, where appropriate, along with summaries. I for one would like to see more overview articles here, with background, they make history more comprehensible. Maybe a renaming would help. You have single merseburg shown any interest in the topic s of this article in the past. What we need here is outside, uninvolved opinion - which we got above - rather than the usual partisans showing up and mindlessly supporting one another. The irony here of course is that it is German sources and German historians which treat the two events as separate subjects. This article is about German-Polish struggles over control of between 1002 and 1033, is that correct. Or at least that's not how it is dealt with in sources. No sources have been provided to show that they are. In history, one event is always a background for another event. What matters is whether sources connect these events and discuss them as a whole. 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 as no one wants to do that. Thematically there are two sets of treaties here; 1002, 1013 and 1018 and 1031, 1033 and two different events, two different sets of people Boleslaw, Henry and Conrad, Mieszko, Yaroslav and two different wars. Two single merseburg are sufficient and they would not be stubs. Please see and as evidence that this is completely false hopefully Skapp's not going to delete these again. Veröffentlichungen zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur. Cambridge Medieval History, Shorter: Volume 1, The Later Roman Empire to the Twelfth Century. Ksiega krolow i ksiazat Polskich. Der Single merseburg in Quedlinburg 973. Von den historischen Wurzeln zum Neuen Europa. Die deutschen Herrscher des Mittelalters. Historische Portraits von Heinrich I. Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany, c. The entry of the Slavs into Christendom: an introduction to the medieval history of the Slavs. Domus Bolezlai: values and social identity in dynastic traditions of medieval Poland c. The Cambridge History of Poland. A history of Polish Christianity. The New Cambridge Medieval History: single merseburg. Cambridge University Press - Peace of Bautzen 1018 is discussed in detail on pages 262-3. Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. The book actually only mentions Peace of Bautzen 1018. Die Mark Brandenburg unter den Askaniern. German language source unavailable online. It's not even possible to do an internal search of the source. Biewer, Ludwig et al 1981. German language source unavailable online. Hence the relevance of the source is unclear. German language source unavailable online. Historische Stadtansichten von Bautzen German language source unavailable online. It is not possible to even do an internal search of the source. Walther, Hans et al 2004. Source appears to cover the reign of on page 44 and 45, and then, chronologically, it single merseburg on single merseburg the reign of. Geschichte der Oberlausitz 2 ed. Source appears to discuss exclusively Boleslaw and Bautzen 1018 on pages 57. On page 58 it skips ahead to the year 1071. This appears to be a source which focuses exclusively on Peace of Bautzen 1018 as a stand alone subject, though it mentions later developments. 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. 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. 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. Single merseburg know that you have enough knowledge of the history to know that is the major one here - that is the one that is discussed the most in sources, and that is the one which, along with defined Boleslaw's reign and which ended the struggles between Boleslaw and Henry. It deserves an article of its own - that's how sources do it and on Wikipedia we follow sources. The conclusion of theof 1870 and involved territorial changes in regard to this territory disputed between France and Germany. It certainly not enough to synthesize these disparate subjects into one whole and no single merseburg do that, as no sources do that in regard to the topics of this article. As a result we have articles on theand rather than a single article on and indeed if the articles on the 1871 and 1919 treaties were synthesized into a single article I'm single merseburg there'd be a very justifiable outcry. Both of you make relevant points. I hope that you can put this issue behind you and employ your talents more usefully. 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. 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 .

Die Zeit mit ihm Carina Sendo aus Merseburg
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the and see a list of open tasks. Lade herunter, um erfahren, wie sie anfangen und beschäftigen. Sich familien, flucht vorne an und trinken und nett unterhalten und ganz nebenbei. The hotel's Seeterrasse restaurant serves a variety of German meals. Five already had aborted for a variety of reasons, and the remaining took the “target of opportunity” route.