Talk:Polish–Swedish War (1600–1611)

Old talk

How was this a Swedish victory when Poland annaxed more territory

No one says that this war was a Swedish victory.
This article should be rewritten in a more neutral language. The constant praise of Polish military successes in ornate language is annoying:
Chodkiewicz, despite inadequate supplies and little support from the Commonwealth Sejm (parliament) and King Sigismund III Vasa, brilliantly distinguished himself, capturing fortress after fortress and repulsing the duke of Södermanland ...
... often winning against superior odds, like at Weissenstein where he had only 2300 men and defeated a 6,000 man Swedish force; Chodkiewicz wrote in his memoirs this was a decisive battle and one of his greatest victories, with Polish-Lithuanian losses 81 dead, 100 wounded and Swedish losses approaching half of their army ...
... the Swedes were repeatedly defeated again and again in the open field. First the Poles attacked Swedish cavalry, after which they usually attacked demoralised Swedish infantry which was unable to retreat at all, and usually annihilated whole formations of this infantry.
The Swedish formations broke completely, the King himself fleeing, barely escaping back to his flotilla off the coast. Thus Chodkiewicz with barely 4000 hussars defeated a Swedish army of 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry; for which feat he received letters of congratulation from the pope, all the Catholic potentates of Europe, and even from the sultan of Turkey and the shah of Persia.

Wikipedia should not be the place for hagiographic appraisal of history. --87.123.124.58 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Reading the text of this makes one think the Commonwealth could have depopulated Sweden by just winning field battles. If that were true, they would never have had to shift most of the military to the North from Moldova, and they would not have had to settle for a truce, and a rather unfavorable one considering the weight differences. Nowhere does it mention how crucial sieges were. Nowhere does it talk about how the Commonwealth levies and militia were discredited by their defeats, et cetera. While the Commonwealth deserves praise for its' field victories, this is too much.75.36.164.4 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Result

This war was a Polish defensive war (Sweden was an invader, Poland defended its territory). Considering that Poland didn't lost any territories during that war (which was the aim of Swedish invasion forces), I think we can agree that this war can be called a Polish victory.

Peter558 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter558, this war (1600-1611) was more complicated than that. It followed the War against Sigismund just earlier. Sigismund demanded the Swedish crown and Charles IX then attacked Poland because he wanted the initiative before Sigismund would invade Sweden with a force. So clearly speaking, as Charles did this for "defensive aspects" this wars prior goal was not to gain any territory but to hold the forces of Sigismund not to attack Swedish main land. In Sweden it's regarded as inconclusive. I think we should better go with a status quo ante bellum or inconclusive here. Imonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the outcome of the war should be inconclusive. But I disagree with the fact that Poland wanted to attack Sweden. Jürgen von Farensbach proposed the king in 1599 attack on Finland but the Polish nobles did not agree to this. In general, Polish nobles did not agree to a second trip to Sweden (nobility was busy Moldavian Magnate Wars). Without the consent of the nobles, the king could not do anything.Kcdlp (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't studied this in detail, so there's a great chance you're right here. However, this is what Charles IX believed (that an attack from Poland would soon or later appear) therefore he launched the attack on the Polish-Lithuanian so that the war would be wadged there, and desired to hold pressure. It's not unrealisticly thinking that Poland would actually later invade Sweden when the war with Moldavia to be over, if not Sweden had layed pressure on its land. Imonoz (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The nobles did not see the interest in the war with Sweden (as opposed to the war with Moscow and Moldova). First trip to Sweden was as because Sigismund promised Poland incorporation of Estonia and nobles gave money for a trip. Sigismund III Vasa had a lot of opposition in Poland (Jan Zamoyski was the main oppositionist, after his death broke out Zebrzydowski Rebellion). Without the support of the magnates Sigismund could not start the war.Kcdlp (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about political aspects here, Sigismund demanded the throne whether he had support or not, Charles couldn't possible see into the future, therefore, the attack. Imonoz (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Result

@Gvssy The result is absurd to me, even though Poland and Lithuania won the war completely, the result is disputable, in addition the book of these 3 historians is not even about the Polish-Swedish wars but about something else at all, it should not be taken into account, because it is also cheating the WP:RS Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the cited article for the war being a draw is not directly about the Polish–Swedish Wars, you are correct on that, however, it does deal with the results of wars, like this one. In addition, unless you can find another guideline proving me wrong, scholarly articles like that one do not "cheat" WP:RS. The source cited absolutely fulfills RS, considering it's both published by the University Press of Florida and it is a part of the Journal of Political & Military Sociology. Gvssy (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the publishing house is publishing, only the truthfulness and reliability of the work(WP:SOURCEDEF).In addition, it doesn't deal with the analysis of the results, only with ‘There is currently little theoretical consensus about the relationship between revolt and war’, i.e. a totally different thing, so such an opinion of these historians will not be honest. Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, again, publishing house do certainly matter, for example, if a book is self-published, it is certainly not reliable, but if it is published by the University Press of Florida, like the cited source, it is.

You can call these historians dishonest if you wish, but that is your own opinion, and it has no place on a regular Wikipedia article, we can not pick and choose which sources to include and which sources to not include.

This article on JSTOR was published by a journal centered on Military history, so it fulfills RS regarding this topic. Gvssy (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What own publishing house doesn't have something like that,and did I call them not honest? Please don't be fooled, you haven't even read WP:SOURCEDEF (where ‘The piece of work itself (the article, book)’ is also allowed in addition I'll give you an example of this, that is if it was in a book about economics that Sweden won then you would take the opinion of a person who doesn't know the subject well and says so, well not really.

In summary, you are using sources from people who have almost no idea about the Polish-Swedish wars and are dealing with completely different topics. Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you accused them of being dishonest when you said "so such an opinion of these historians will not be honest" as for your mention of WP:SOURCEDEF, I'm not sure what you mean. A book is not always reliable.

Obviously, if I had a book about the Swedish economy, and it started talking about a war involving Sweden and its result, I would not automatically insert it into an article. I would, however, include it if it spoke about the economic consequences of this war, so I dont really understand your point. In addition, the article cited is not an economic book, so the example is weak at best, it deals with wars and revolts, and this is a war, thus it has authority to speak on its result.

I would also like to ask, will you not argue that the source claiming a Polish–Lithuanian victory should also be disregarded, as it does not revolve centrally around the Polish–Swedish Wars? Of course not! Because it's a historical and academic work, just like the JSTOR article.

To accuse these huistorians of "having almost no idea about the Polish–Swedish Wars" you need evidence, until I see some, it just seems like a weak opinion that you came up with in order to invalidate actual scholarship. Gvssy (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't cheat because this book is about how to distinguish between rebellion and war in short, in addition this source deals with the history of the Commonwealth and you still don't understand what you are reading apparently.

In addition I have alleged that using a source that in no way even discusses the history of Sweden and Poland is very hopeless, and you have manipulated that I am supposedly invalidating, again I ask what has this source of Polish-Swedish Wars or even Sweden and Poland.

In addition, you are answering questions that I did not ask you as here

Of course, if I had a book about the Swedish economy and it started talking about the war involving Sweden and its outcome, I would not automatically insert it in the article. However, I would have inserted it if it talked about the economic consequences of the war, so I don't really understand what you mean. Also, the article quoted is not an economics book so the example is weak at best, it is about wars and rebellions and this is a war so it has the authority to make statements about the outcome.

I was giving an example it wasn't a question even that shows how I will call it you are insulting the discussant by bypassing his argument Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my point, the source deals with wars. The source very clearly states that this war was a draw, and I have yet to see any convincing argument for invalidating it except: "It doesn't centrally revolve around these wars" which is a silly argument. Plus, I did not frame that as answering a question at all, I was showing my point.

You gave a weak point about an economic book, I answered your concerns, it is as simple as that. Plus, you are trying to invalidate it as a reliable source, don't try to scoot around that.

Also, please answer my question:

"I would also like to ask, will you not argue that the source claiming a Polish–Lithuanian victory should also be disregarded, as it does not revolve centrally around the Polish–Swedish Wars?" Gvssy (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that the result is determined by a person who is not well acquainted with the subject and looks from different perspectives without analysing absolutely nothing, the book is devoted to the things that distinguished a rebellion from a war in those times, in addition to the fact that it is enough to think logically that Sweden did not succeed in anything, it failed by not conquering Inflants and compromised itself

I gave you an example of whether you would take such a person into account in determining the outcome, well I don't think so as he is an expert in economics and not a historian, you are trying to put similar things together with the difference that these gentlemen are historians which is a smokescreen for the fact that they themselves, like the gentleman from Economics, will not know the course of the war.

In addition, I have addressed this argument here in addition this source deals with the history of the Commonwealth

And even this historian abbreviates all phases of the Polish-Swedish Conflicts(1600—1629) and gives arguments Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"I am saying that the result is determined by a person who is not well acquainted with the subject and looks from different perspectives without analysing absolutely nothing" You still are yet to prove that neither of the authors are "well aquainted" on the subject. As previously said, this article was published by the University Press of Florida and is a part of the Journal of Political & Military Sociology, thus, it fulfills RS.

"the book is devoted to the things that distinguished a rebellion from a war in those times" As I've already pointed out, and you also have, it deals with wars, and thus has clear authority to speak on the results of these wars. The paper looks if an ongoing rebellion has any relation to a wars result. I'm presuming the last pages with the wars and their results are there to demonstrate their findings.

"in addition to the fact that it is enough to think logically that Sweden did not succeed in anything" Your own research and opinion goes against WP:OR and WP:NPOV, you cannot do your own research and then completely disregard the opinions of scholars becauss you believe it's "illogical" for the war to be anything but a Polish–Lithuanian victory. I also believe that Sweden lost the war, but it doesn't mean that I'm disregarding what the sources say, because that goes against guidelines.

"I gave you an example of whether you would take such a person into account in determining the outcome, well I don't think so as he is an expert in economics and not a historian" Yes, and as I've already said, it is a weak example to make, because economists can also be cited for the result of a war, just not its military outcome. I would obviously not cite, for example, a non-historian, for the result of a war, which is not the case here. The authors are very clearly historians, and there is no way around it.

"In addition, I have adressed this source deals with the history of the Commonwealth" No it doesn't, and I'm not sure where you got that from. As the title of the book suggests, it mainly goes over events in Lithuania during the Second Northern War, not the "History of the Commonwealth". There are at most 2-4 chapters in the book that talk in-depth about Poland itself, the rest of the book centres around, for example, the Radziwill faction.

"And even this historian abbreviates all phases of the Polish-Swedish Conflicts(1600—1629) and gives arguments" Maybe, his argument is basically: "The Battle of Kircholm was a decisive victory against Sweden, so the war was a 'military success' (presumably military victory) against Sweden." Which I don't necessarily disagree with, and even if I did I would have no authority to want to remove it solely because of my opinion.

Hopefully these answer your arguments, have a good day! Gvssy (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Fatal in the hands answer probably written on the knee without complete thought and analysis

First of all the book is not about the Polish-Swedish wars or Poland and Sweden itself, and the distinction between rebellion and war in modern times, you are defending yourself relentlessly with things that are not necessary, what does the publisher have to do with it, the book is not about this topic.

Secondly I am not breaking WP:ORG in any way because everything I wrote is based on the article

Thirdly you yourself don't understand and don't want to understand I am talking about the Outcome of a non-economic war and here you are even wrong because even a person according to WP:SOURCEDEF can be quoted as long as they are credible

Another one is the History of the Commonwealth of Poland, it was Lithuania united by a union with Poland, the author shortens the history of Lithuania and Poland anyway   

In addition, do not take sentences out of context, how you do it. Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Fatal in the hands answer probably written on the knee without complete thought and analysis" What?

"First of all the book is not about the Polish-Swedish wars or Poland and Sweden itself, and the distinction between rebellion and war in modern times, you are defending yourself relentlessly with things that are not necessary, what does the publisher have to do with it, the book is not about this topic." I will repeat myself again, a source does not have to have its main central point around either Poland or Sweden, or even the Polish–Swedish Wars to have authority. As I have also said, the article deals with how concurrent rebellions affect the results of a war, their conclusion, from what I read, is that it doesn't affect it by much. The end tables are a clear demonstration of this. As for "what the publisher has to do with it" I can very easily explain, if a history book/article is self-published, that usually disqualifies it from WP:RS, however, in the example article cited for the war being a draw, it is published first by a scholarly publisher, and then it is a part of an academic journal dealing with military history, it's that simple.

"Secondly I am not breaking WP:OR in any way because everything I wrote is based on the article" Yes you are? You are claiming that "in addition to the fact that it is enough to think logically that Sweden did not succeed in anything, it failed by not conquering Inflants and compromised itself" which is original research and a POV. Neither the JSTOR article or Kotljarchuk claim this, it's simply an opinion of yours

"Thirdly you yourself don't understand and don't want to understand I am talking about the Outcome of a non-economic war and here you are even wrong because even a person according to WP:SOURCEDEF can be quoted as long as they are credible" And my point is that economists can be cited for the result of a war, this war certainly had a drastic effect on the economy of both nations, there is no such thing as a "non-economic" war. In addition, I'm not sure what your point with WP:SOURCEDEF is? That an economist can be cited for military history as long as he's "credible"? Sure, but it would also require that they're considered an expert in the subject, which rarely any are.

"Another one is the History of the Commonwealth of Poland, it was Lithuania united by a union with Poland, the author shortens the history of Lithuania and Poland anyway" As I've already said "As the title of the book suggests, it mainly goes over events in Lithuania during the Second Northern War, not the "History of the Commonwealth" I am not claiming that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not united with Poland at the time, that would be silly, I am saying that the book goes over the events in Lithuania.

"In addition, do not take sentences out of context, how you do it." Which sentences have I taken out of context? Gvssy (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is difficult because of how nicely you respond to the first sequence of sentences by omitting the next one, which makes the discussion illogical and unstable.

You can even publish the article yourself on academemia.eu. Of course, you should use the work of a historian, the authors of the book are not concerned with the results only with distinguishing war from rebellion between 1400-1700

The second one does not include WP:OR, what I said above you don't read to the end of the sentences I still added ‘I wrote is based on the article’

Great I'll take a book on botany and paste it into this article this will also be correct, rather not, in addition I'm not asking you about the economic outcome only about wars. Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"The discussion is difficult because of how nicely you respond to the first sequence of sentences by omitting the next one, which makes the discussion illogical and unstable" Anything I do not respond to already has no merit to be responded to. I am not sure what "you are trying to put similar things together with the difference that these gentlemen are historians which is a smokescreen for the fact that they themselves, like the gentleman from Economics, will not know the course of the war." is supposed to mean, but it certainly had no relevance to my argument. If a discussion like this is difficult, I'm sorry but maybe you should not debate in the first place.

"You can even publish the article yourself on academemia.eu. Of course, you should use the work of a historian, the authors of the book are not concerned with the results only with distinguishing war from rebellion between 1400-1700" Sure, I can publish anything I want on academia.edu, although the guidelines, as far as I can see, state:

"Accepted article types

We accept submissions from multiple points in the research lifecycle:

• Thought-provoking hypotheses that don't yet have the data to confirm or refute them
• Commentary on the field as a whole
• Traditional short reports"

Besides, when have I ever mentioned Academia.edu? Academia.edu is not a self-publishing website, if that is what you meant.

"The second one does not include WP:OR, what I said above you don't read to the end of the sentences I still added ‘I wrote is based on the article’" I'm sorry but you must not have read my entire response, I quite literally said "Neither the JSTOR article or Kotljarchuk claim this, it's simply an opinion of yours" I cannot have a constructive argument/debate with you if you refuse to actually respond to what I am saying.

"Great I'll take a book on botany and paste it into this article this will also be correct, rather not, in addition I'm not asking you about the economic outcome only about wars." Bad comparison, economics has a place in the result of a war, Botany does not. I am simply saying, that your old example was bad, because you attempted to say that "it was in a book about economics that Sweden won then you would take the opinion of a person who doesn't know the subject well and says so, well not really." in an attempt to refute me, and my entire point is just that, as I said, an economist does have the authority to speak on the result of a war. Gvssy (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You are constantly using a smokescreen of answering questions that were not asked or sentences that have not been written, I did not ask you at all about the rules of academemia.eu, in general these rules say what works can be made public, not the rules, this reinforces my belief that you write these answers with the speed of a machine gun without reading the sentences completely and making up answers to things that were not said

I am not sure what "you are trying to put similar things together with the difference that these gentlemen are historians which is a smokescreen for the fact that they themselves, like the gentleman from Economics, will not know the course of the war." is supposed to mean, but it certainly had no relevance to my argument. If a discussion like this is difficult, I'm sorry but maybe you should not debate in the first place. Here you are responding to no one knows what you are ignoring the arguments and discriminating against my attention and my criticism for carrying on in a lukewarm selection of sources. In addition, you use my sentence, which shows that you are responding, once again, to sentences that did not even appear.

Another in the series of I'm sorry but you must not have read my entire response, I quite literally said ‘Neither the JSTOR article or Kotljarchuk claim this, it's simply an opinion of yours’ I cannot have a constructive argument/debate with you if you refuse to actually respond to what I am saying. After all, I wrote you literally many times that I wrote these sentences based on the article but you are making up your own conjecture on the conversation about War against Sigismund

By responding to the last paragraph you yourself admit that this is your point of thinking(and my entire point is just that,) , this is not a place to think but wikipedia, thus you are breaking WP:OR Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"You are constantly using a smokescreen of answering questions that were not asked or sentences that have not been written, I did not ask you at all about the rules of academemia.eu, in general these rules say what works can be made public, not the rules, this reinforces my belief that you write these answers with the speed of a machine gun without reading the sentences completely and making up answers to things that were not said" No, you did not ask me about "the rules of academia.edu" but I sent them to respond to what you yourself said: You can even publish the article yourself on academemia.eu" if this is not you claiming that it is a self-published website, I dont know what it is, anyhow, I don't think academia.edu has any relavance to the debate.

"Here you are responding to no one knows what you are ignoring the arguments and discriminating against my attention and my criticism for carrying on in a lukewarm selection of sources. In addition, you use my sentence, which shows that you are responding, once again, to sentences that did not even appear." I have not seen any arguments made by you, if you have been trying to get one across, I apologize, but I have trouble understanding what you are saying. As I also said, I did not know what it was supposed to mean. I recommend explaining it to me instead of ranting, it would help the debate progress more smoothly.

"Another in the series of "I'm sorry but you must not have read my entire response, I quite literally said ‘Neither the JSTOR article or Kotljarchuk claim this, it's simply an opinion of yours’ I cannot have a constructive argument/debate with you if you refuse to actually respond to what I am saying." After all, I wrote you literally many times that I wrote these sentences based on the article but you are making up your own conjecture on the conversation about War against Sigismund" Conversations on other talk pages have no relavance here, discuss it there instead, as for "I wrote these sentences based on the article" that is literally what Original research is. You're interpreting the source how you like. Plus, we cannot disregard a source just because you decide another one indirectly says that it is illogical that Sweden gained anything.

"By responding to the last paragraph you yourself admit that this is your point of thinking(and my entire point is just that,) , this is not a place to think but wikipedia, thus you are breaking WP:OR" It is not WP:OR to correctly point out that an economist certainly has the authority to speak on the result of a war. I am not sure why this is even a part of the debate, it's both silly to say otherwise and it has no relavance. Gvssy (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the rules do not include publication rules, only works that can be published, in addition nowhere did I say that it is a self-published website (I don't understand what you meant with ‘if this is not you claiming that it is a self-published website’ I took it as a mental shortcut accusing me of this thing) In addition you apparently understood your mistake and write ‘I don't think academia.edu has any relavance to the debate’. Why don't you admit your mistake?

After all, I explained that choosing a source that does not even deal with Poland or Sweden itself would not be honest, Then for the article about the Gotland War of 1288 you will also take any source that mentions in one sentence the event and the outcome without argumentation?

They just matter that you yourself are breaking these rules and don't understand them and you are pointing it out to me by writing that I am breaking WP:ORG. it literally is the original study. You interpret the source as you wish. ‘That is literally what Original research is. You're interpreting the source how you like. Plus, we cannot disregard a source just because you decide another one indirectly says that it is illogical that Sweden gained anything.’ Please stop manipulating the sentence because nowhere do I interpret the source how I want to just wrote these sentences even based on what it says in the article here on wikipedia Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"

First of all, the rules do not include publication rules, only works that can be published, in addition nowhere did I say that it is a self-published website (I don't understand what you meant with ‘if this is not you claiming that it is a self-published website’ I took it as a mental shortcut accusing me of this thing) In addition you apparently understood your mistake and write ‘I don't think

academia

.edu has any relavance to the debate’. Why don't you admit your mistake?

" I'll remind you that you yourself brought up Academia.edu. "

You can even publish the article yourself on academemia.eu" not me.

I was answering the "You can publish the article yourself" part, because that insinuates that academia.edu is self-published, which it really isn't.

"

After all, I explained that choosing a source that does not even deal with Poland or Sweden itself would not be honest, Then for the article about the Gotland War of 1288 you will also take any source that mentions in one sentence the event and the outcome without argumentation?

" If I find an article or a book that is both reputable and written by a historian, yes, I would absolutely cite it for an article, such as the

War in Gotland (1288)

. I have already done this. What guideline claims that an article/book needs to centrally revolve around a single topic to discuss that topic?

"

They just matter that you yourself are breaking these rules and don't understand them and you are pointing it out to me by writing that I am breaking WP:ORG. it literally is the original study. You interpret the source as you wish. ‘That is literally what Original research is. You're interpreting the source how you like. Plus, we cannot disregard a source just because you decide another one indirectly says that it is illogical that Sweden gained anything.’ Please stop manipulating the sentence because nowhere do I interpret the source how I want to just wrote these sentences even based on what it says in the article here on wikipedia

" But you

are

interpreting the source, why are you lying? As I have said, "

I wrote these sentences based on the article

" is

WP:OR

. You admitted to making a decision by interpreting a source, and not simply listening to the source itself. If you were seriously talking about "writing the sentences" based on the Wikipedia article itself, that still is WP:OR, and what you claimed is not even written in the article. There is a single mention of "Fail" and "success" respectively, from what I can see, no part in the article says that "

in addition to the fact that it is enough to think logically that Sweden did not succeed in anything, it failed by not conquering Inflants and compromised itself

".

Gvssy (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I gave you the example of Academia.edu, and I did not bring up the topic on the contrary you started the topic despite me explaining that I gave it as an example that you can self-publish papers and I added that it has to be a historian, everything is checked there you just have to get the paper right and that's it.

In the article of the Warsaw Uprising, if you had also given the same book for the result with the difference of analysis between 1900-2000 would it also be suitable? Well no, because the books of the Uprising are well researched and analysed, and such a book says it in one sentence. No guidelines say so, but you should use books that are post-authored because they are made by a person who knows the subject well and can summarise the result, etc.

‘I wrote these sentences based on the article’ in addition I meant [1] and it was a mental shortcut. In addition, you yourself write such similar explanations [2] Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"In the article of the Warsaw Uprising, if you had also given the same book for the result with the difference of analysis between 1900-2000 would it also be suitable? Well no, because the books of the Uprising are well researched and analysed, and such a book says it in one sentence. No guidelines say so, but you should use books that are post-authored because they are made by a person who knows the subject well and can summarise the result, etc."

If I had cited the JSTOR article for the result of the Warsaw Uprising, and it said, for example, that the Poles somehow won it, yes that would be suitable, that would show that historians are divided on it, and thus the result of the uprising is disputed, although I probably wouldn't cite it anyway, since the consensus among other historians is so massive that it's virtually undisputed, unlike this war. To answer "No guidelines say so, but you should use books that are post-authored because they are made by a person who knows the subject well and can summarise the result, etc" then that's just your opinion, and, sadly, I am not bound by it. Until a guideline comes along and says "The books you cite have to be about the specific subject" I will not adhere to it.

"I wrote these sentences based on the article’ in addition I meant [1] and it was a mental shortcut. In addition, you yourself write such similar explanations [2]"

The difference there is that, like I explained, this article never says "in addition to the fact that it is enough to think logically that Sweden did not succeed in anything, it failed by not conquering Inflants and compromised itself" while the Battle of Nevel article very clearly states the strength numbers. Gvssy (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And so what if you quote it there is better lite on the subject just as there is on the Polish-Swedish War 1600-1611, then why do it here as you know by reading the article, the reader based on this article that Sweden lost almost all the battles and gained nothing.

Then don't apply, your edits will be undone, in addition the book is about western europe not even eastern, so this opinion should not be taken into account, why don't you quote Sundberg here or even Leszek Podhorecki, both have researched the Polish-Swedish wars the best, and with the result they are completely ignored.

Yes this article also states clearly that Sweden lost. Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• And so what if you quote it there is better lite on the subject just as there is on the Polish-Swedish War 1600-1611, then why do it here as you know by reading the article, the reader based on this article that Sweden lost almost all the battles and gained nothing."

Good, so you just admitted that it is WP:OR that you commited. I'm sorry, but just because the article says that Sweden lost almost all of the battles, does not mean that the article is saying "in addition to the fact that it is enough to think logically that Sweden did not succeed in anything, it failed by not conquering Inflants and compromised itself"

• "Then don't apply, your edits will be undone, in addition the book is about western europe not even eastern, so this opinion should not be taken into account, why don't you quote Sundberg here or even Leszek Podhorecki, both have researched the Polish-Swedish wars the best, and with the result they are completely ignored."

Yes, the study is about western european countries, do you know what country happens to be western? I'll give you some time to think... IT'S SWEDEN! You cannot be being serious. If you are seriously wondering what Ulf Sundberg has to say about the result, I will tell you: Nothing. On p.304 of "Sveriges krig 1448–1630" he says, quite simply that the "local commanders" went into a truce in 1611 that was to be in effect until June of 1612, plus, I do not have access to Leszek Podhorecki's book, if you want to cite him, do it, that is literally what Wikipedia is for, to make information more readily available.

• "Yes this article also states clearly that Sweden lost."

No it doesn't, this contradicts your own words: "the reader based on this article that Sweden lost almost all the battles and gained nothing". If the article "states clearly" that Sweden lost, it would say "The war ended in defeat for Sweden", which it doesn't. Stop pushing your POV and original research. Gvssy (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to respond to your arguments, but you are violating the principle of ‘Significant coverage’ which clearly states that you should select sources that describe the topic in depth, here is the WP:SIGCOV link

This is just the tip of the iceberg because according to the {{Notability}}template removal rules, sources must include as stated in the rule ‘Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic’ Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• "I don't want to respond to your arguments, but you are violating the principle of ‘Significant coverage’ which clearly states that you should select sources that describe the topic in depth, here is the WP:SIGCOV link"

Alright, so there's no point in debating then? Why would you start a talk page debate if you don't want to actually engage in one? Quite silly, as for "but you are violating the principle of ‘Significant coverage’ " This would then disqualify almost any source describing a victory, will you now argue that all of the sources that say different results on the Deluge article should be ommited? No, because that's silly. Also, if I am reading it correctly, SIGCOV applies to the article itself and not a source that describes it's outcome.

• "This is just the tip of the iceberg because according to the {{Notability}}template removal rules, sources must include as stated in the rule ‘Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic"

I can find no mention of this rule in WP:Notability, seemingly the quote doesn't even exist, although maybe you mispelled it, hopefully you can clear it up if you decide to respond. Gvssy (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic: You can cite numerous reliable, secondary, independent sources and it will not help establish notability if they do not treat the topic substantively – think generally two paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue. Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic and, if good sources are present in the mix, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess a topic's demonstration of notability.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The article must contain sources which deal with the subject, not sources which mention the outcome of the war without arguing why, or a book which is not devoted to the subject, but to Western Europe, which disqualifies the source.

Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This entire thing seems to be WP:OR (you are interpreting the guidelines as I can find no text saying this) and so I will respond to the main concern, but I would still like you to respond to my arguments, if you don't, this entire thing is pointless.

• "The article must contain sources which deal with the subject, not sources which mention the outcome of the war without arguing why, or a book which is not devoted to the subject, but to Western Europe, which disqualifies the source."

I'm sorry but, you yourself confirmed my point, "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In addition, like I said, WP:Notability seems to be concerned with articles themselves, not sources. As seen from the beginning of the article: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". This also seems to apply to SIGCOV, as, from what I can tell, this is concerned with whether or not sources go into detail about, in this case, the war itself, not the result that one source describes.

• "Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic"

Is this meant to be a response to my point about the Deluge? If so, I'm not sure if 5 inline citation necessarily qualifies as citation overkill, the guideline article itself never sets a limit for how many citations a specific sentence can have, although 5 certainly does not make it look untidy, I would also assume that this is an exception, since all of the sources cited in the outcome section there are reputable.

If you're talking about this article, I don't know what you mean, there is no clutter here.

• "Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing."

This is assuming that the JSTOR source is somehow bad, which it isn't, as I've explained, the JSTOR article was written by historians, and published by academia, if that isn't reliable, I don't know what is. Gvssy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because (It does not fulfill any of the speedy deletion criteria. In fact, this speedy deletion goes against WP:NOTCSD) --Gvssy (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Gvssy Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)