Talk:Polish–Swedish War (1617–1618)

Source

@Gvssy You have manipulated the words of this historian well because he says that However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden. Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf. you took his sentence out of context, and he meant that it strengthened his position, not that he meant that the outcome of the 1617 war ended in victory like 1625, this is again interpreting the source and taking sentences out of context. In addition, you claim that this does not break the rules.

You claim you are not breaking the rules, but here you are also wrong because you are breaking this WP:SIGCOV "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. And before you say that WP:NOTE refers to the article it refers to the sources in the article btw.

Czekan pl (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "You have manipulated the words of this historian well because he says that However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden. Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf. you took his sentence out of context, and he meant that it strengthened his position, not that he meant that the outcome of the 1617 war ended in victory like 1625, this is again interpreting the source and taking sentences out of context. In addition, you claim that this does not break the rules."

If you pay attention to what he writes, you can clearly see that he says "the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629)" and then, of course, that each new offensive in Livonia strenghtened Gustavus Adolphus' position, if this is not clearly pointing to a Swedish victory in this war, I'm not sure what is. "this is again interpreting the source and taking sentences out of context" No it isn't. I'm actually using the context here, he mentions the "third and final phase" of the war, which was, according to him, 1617–1618. Then, he says that each new offensive consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf, He clearly differentiates these wars from eachother. Are you arguing that there was a continuous war from 1617 to 1629?

• "You claim you are not breaking the rules, but here you are also wrong because you are breaking this WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."

You are misinterpeting SIGCOV. It very clearly points to this being about articles, not sources themselves. As it says: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." By no metric is this talking about sources in particular, rather whether or not an article should be made in the first place. It even agrees with me here: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"

• "And before you say that WP:NOTE refers to the article it refers to the sources in the article btw."

No it doesn't. It refers to articles themselves, from the top of the guideline page: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Gvssy (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you haven't presented any sentence where this author talks about 1617-1618 only saying that the last phase ended in victory he doesn't say whether the 1617-1618 war ended in victory just a phase and that's something else altogether.

In addition, you manipulate terribly, taking sentences out of context, I already show you what you do.

you say it is about the article, yes it is about the article, but it is about the sources contained in it and remember this, in addition you again cut out of context the sentence but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material Manipulating that the rule says that you can use books not on topic

now let's see the real sentence and those of yours taken out of context Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention(extracted by you from the contesct), but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here it is told how a trivial mention works total manipulation, Once again I ask you to point out where the author talks about the victory of sweden in the war 1617-1618 and not in the post-war phase yet again this is something else. Czekan pl (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "I'm sorry but you haven't presented any sentence where this author talks about 1617-1618 only saying that the last phase ended in victory he doesn't say whether the 1617-1618 war ended in victory just a phase and that's something else altogether."

Yes I have, again, he talks about a "third and final phase" this being, as he calls it "1617-1629" then, he references this war in particular as being a part of that phase when he names the invasion of Livonia during this war, it is as simple as that. They are not very different concepts. Furthermore, he claims these invasions strengthened/consolidated the position of Gustavus Adolphus, pointing to a Swedish victory.

• "In addition, you manipulate terribly, taking sentences out of context, I already show you what you do. you say it is about the article, yes it is about the article, but it is about the sources contained in it and remember this, in addition you again cut out of context the sentence but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material Manipulating that the rule says that you can use books not on topic, now let's see the real sentence and those of yours taken out of context Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention(extracted by you from the contesct), but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here it is told how a trivial mention works total manipulation"

What manipulation? I'm presenting what is said in the guidelines themselves, such as SIGCOV, where even the nutshell says what I am claiming:

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article"

In short, SIGCOV and the Notability guideline altogether is meant for articles, not sources themselves. Proposing anything but this is silly, and shows a clear lack of comprehensive reading. When you mention "trivial mentions" that is not even the case for the source itself, but I digress, that is talking about how an article should not be made if the only sources confirming it are trivial mentions, it is really that simple.

• "Once again I ask you to point out where the author talks about the victory of sweden in the war 1617-1618 and not in the post-war phase yet again this is something else."

Already have, multiple times.. read the source, read the guidelines, and come back. Gvssy (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Result

@Setergh For some reason you believe that since you cannot find other sources corroborating that Sweden won, that this somehow means that it shouldn't say "Swedish victory" but this is not how Wikipedia works. No guideline says so, and thus it's nonsensical to propose it. Andrej Kotljarchuk is a respected historian, I do not see how his work should be disregarded on the basis of "other sources don't say the same thing". Gvssy (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If it was a Swedish victory, I'm rather certain that practically every source would mention it. Therefore, just because your source says it is a Swedish victory, doesn't mean it is.

Even the wiki page for this war clearly shows how this was most definitely not a Swedish victory. And sure Andrej Kotljarchuk is a respected historian, still doesn't mean only his word should be accounted for. Setergh (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You can be as certain as you want, but this doesn't change the fact that you are actively disregarding a historian for the crime of being the only one you can find that claims Sweden won the war. If this source, which, again, seems to be the only one discussing the victor of the war, claims the war to be a Swedish victory, the Wikipedia page should display "Swedish victory", this is common sense.

Furthermore, drawing your own conclusions from reading the article breaks WP:OR, as you are, as said, drawing your own conclusions, which is original research.

If you are upset that only Koltjarchuks opinion is included, give your own sources that either disagree or agree, otherwise, this entire thing boils down to completely disregarding historians only because you don't like what they said. It is not the fault of anyone that only Koltjarchuk speaks on the victory, it is the fault of a gap in historians discussing the war in the first place. Read up on the guidelines regrding sources and OR. Gvssy (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

He is the only one that says Swedish victory, the others tend to say that it was just a ceasefire. And I'm not just full-on disregarding his opinion, I just personally do not find it fair to only use his that claims it was a Swedish victory while the others just mention that it was a ceasefire. If none of the sides won, then I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that others will not mention the result as something such as "Inconclusive" when there was just a ceasefire.

Also, "the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629)". Even though he does mention this war strengthened Adolhpus' position, it doesn't mean it was a Swedish victory. You're taking what he said and trying to draw your own conclusion out of it ("Swedish victory"). Setergh (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A "ceasefire" is infact what ended the war, but that is not really a "result" in the sense of an outcome, nobody is denying the fact that the war ended in a ceasefire/truce.

I apologize if it doesn't seem fair, but those are the guidelines. Unless you can find reliable sources saying that this was infact not a Swedish victory, it shoudl be changed back to Swedish victory. Historiks simply not saying that Sweden won is not enough reasoning to ignore one historian (which is what you are doing, don't kid yourself.)

Furthermore, I am not sure what you are on about? The "third and final phase" is clearly shown to include (1617) i.e this war. It's not drawing my own conclusion when he literally says that the war ended in a Swedish victory. It would be drawing my own conclusion if he never actually said that Sweden won and instead, in a hypothetical scenario, only said that the war consolidated Adolphus' position. Gvssy (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not sure what you are on about? The "third and final phase" is clearly shown to include (1617) i.e this war. It's not drawing my own conclusion when he literally says that the war ended in a Swedish victory. It would be drawing my own conclusion if he never actually said that Sweden won and instead, in a hypothetical scenario, only said that the war consolidated Adolphus' position

Sure it includes it, but can I please have the full-on paragraph including the section dedicated to 1617? Setergh (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The book itself does not go into extreme depth about this war in particular, but it states:

"However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden. Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf." It very clearly mentions the war in both the start and end of the text, (the mention of the year 1617). No, before you say it, a source does not necessarily have to be in-depth to be cited for a result. I've had that debate before.

I will repeat myself that unless you can find sources that disagree with a Swedish victory (no, a "ceasefire" is not disagreeing that Sweden won) the result should be changed back. Because simply removing a source for the crime of being the only one you can find that says that Sweden one is not a valid reason, and never has been. Gvssy (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden."

Of course, as you can agree yourself, I can draw this out of the "Swedish victory" at it only accounts for that specific period, not this war specifically.

"Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf."

Yes, I do indeed agree that the 1617 part definitely references this war. Problem is, "No, before you say it, a source does not necessarily have to be in-depth to be cited for a result. I've had that debate before." this isn't a good rebuttal.

"consolidated the position" is quite niche. How much? This in no single way screams "Swedish victory". This could easily just be going on about how Sweden didn't get completely pushed back into its own land or something else such as gaining a city for two years. At most, this means that it wasn't a Swedish defeat, but this does not mean it was a Swedish victory either.

"I will repeat myself that unless you can find sources that disagree with a Swedish victory (no, a "ceasefire" is not disagreeing that Sweden won) the result should be changed back." Setergh (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Seperate message, for some reason things started bugging out on the old one.

"I will repeat myself that unless you can find sources that disagree with a Swedish victory (no, a "ceasefire" is not disagreeing that Sweden won) the result should be changed back."

You know very well what you're doing here. You're using the fact that because every source that mentions this war specifically (which is barely any) doesn't mention an exact result, it means that only your source should be accounted for. It's obvious that this isn't fair, especially considering that if it was a Swedish victory it'd be mentioned in at least most sources. Therefore, just because once again, you have one source that claims a Swedish victory, does not mean it should just instantly be the one accounted for.

"I will repeat myself that unless you can find sources that disagree with a Swedish victory (no, a "ceasefire" is not disagreeing that Sweden won) the result should be changed back. Because simply removing a source for the crime of being the only one you can find that says that Sweden one is not a valid reason, and never has been."

It is quite a valid reason. One source on a very niche war is not a good way of representing the result. Once again, the fact that most sources do not mention anything about a Swedish victory clearly points to the fact that it wasn't. And seriously, gaining a city for 2 years? Does that genuinely seem like some sort of full-on victory for you, especially when the Swedes were heavily pushed back after their early successes in the war?

Overall, the result should be left at Inconclusive. One source (your one) claims Swedish victory, every single other source does not have even the slightest mention of it. Setergh (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• "'However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden.' Of course, as you can agree yourself, I can draw this out of the "Swedish victory" at it only accounts for that specific period, not this war specifically. "Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf." Yes, I do indeed agree that the 1617 part definitely references this war. Problem is, "No, before you say it, a source does not necessarily have to be in-depth to be cited for a result. I've had that debate before."this isn't a good rebuttal. "consolidated the position" is quite niche. How much? This in no single way screams "Swedish victory". This could easily just be going on about how Sweden didn't get completely pushed back into its own land or something else such as gaining a city for two years. At most, this means that it wasn't a Swedish defeat, but this does not mean it was a Swedish victory either." "

No, again, it very clearly differentiates these wars, he very clearly says that this war ended in a Swedish victory, despite your own conclusions. He would not have explicitly named the war later on if he was claiming that there was a single period of war from 1617-1629, which it seems is what you are claiming. So no, it does not say that Sweden came out victorious from the "entire" period, that is nonsensical and just plainly ignoring the text itself.

For the second part, I was not making a rebuttal against anything? I was simply refuting a possible counterargument, which is quite common in debates. We cannot draw our own conclusions from the text either, as you have done with the text claimimg that the war consolidated Adolphus' position. Yes! It could be going on about that, but does it say that? No. So don't draw your own conclusions, that is blatant WP:OR. I'm not entirely sure what the last part is on about, however, as I have told you, reading the text and drawing your own conclusion is OR, and against Wikipedia guidelines, which, before you say it, is not what I am doing here.

• " 'I will repeat myself that unless you' can find sources that disagree with a Swedish victory (no, a "ceasefire" is not disagreeing that Sweden won) the result should be changed back.' You know very well what you're doing here. You're using the fact that because every source that mentions this war specifically (which is barely any) doesn't mention an exact result, it means that only your source should be accounted for. It's obvious that this isn't fair, especially considering that if it was a Swedish victory it'd be mentioned in at least most sources. Therefore, just because once again, you have one sourcethat claims a Swedish victory, does not mean it should just instantly be the one accounted for. 'I will repeat myself that unless you can find sources that disagree with a Swedish victory (no, a "ceasefire" is not disagreeing that Sweden won) the result should be changed back. Because simply removing a source for the crime of being the only one you can find that says that Sweden one is not a valid reason, and never has been. It is quite a valid reason. One source on a very niche war is not a good way of representing the result. Once again, the fact that most sources do not mention anything about a Swedish victory clearly points to the fact that it wasn't. And seriously, gaining a city for 2 years? Does that genuinely seem like some sort of full-on victory for you, especially when the Swedes were heavily pushed back after their early successes in the war Overall, the result should be left at Inconclusive. One source (your one) claims Swedish victory, every single other source does not have even the slightest mention of it."

I'm sorry but, what are you on about? Obviously, if this source is the only one talking about a specific result, that is the one that should be used? Why and how do you think a source that does not mention something should be cited for that something? I'll tell you, it's impossible, AND against guidelines (blatant lying) No, it definetly isn't fair that not many sources discuss the war in the first place, but is life really fair? No. Also, saying "it would be mentioned in more sources" is not a good argument. As you said yourself, this war is barely mentioned in modern sources, and any source in general, so why do you expect the little ones that exist to explicitly state exactly who won? You can't sit here complaining about something out of your control. Furthermore, I will ask you, why shouldn't the only source that discusses the result be included? Why do you want to ignore historians? Just because other historians have not said the exact same thing does not mean that historians that actually do can just be thrown aside like ragdolls.

No, just because other sources do not say that Sweden won does not mean that Sweden did not win, it's quite the opposite actually. If historians disagreed, they would most likely say that, but do they? No. Plus, one source is most certainly good enough to use for a result? Your arguments are, with all due respect, bad, and I don't even understand your point fully, it seems to be "Since only one source says this, we should disregard it completely!" which is unreasonable and illogical.

I'm not gonna answer your question about my thoughts on who won, because I am not a historian and I will not engage in blatant WP:OR on a talk page, since that is not what I adhere to. You can believe what you want, but in the end, it is the voices of historians who take precedent on Wikipedia, not you, not me, not anyone else.

No, the result should absolutely not be left as "Inconclusive" would you like to know why? Because no source says it was, and thus it's an unsourced claim. Quite ironic, no?

In summary, just because you cant find other sources talking about a Swedish victory, does not mean that historians that do say that should be completely disregarded. Thank you! Gvssy (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point, there's nothing further to mention, so I will just say a few last things.

"He would not have explicitly named the war later on if he was claiming that there was a single period of war from 1617-1629, which it seems is what you are claiming."

I did ask you to send me the paragraph where it mentions something like this, which you didn't, you only sent the first part of it.

"We cannot draw our own conclusions from the text either, as you have done with the text claimimg that the war consolidated Adolphus' position. Yes! It could be going on about that, but does it say that? No. So don't draw your own conclusions, that is blatant WP:OR."

Hypocritical, you have also drawn your own conclusion of this meaning it was a Swedish victory, which is also, WP:OR.

"No, the result should absolutely not be left as "Inconclusive" would you like to know why? Because no source says it was, and thus it's an unsourced claim. Quite ironic, no?"

I am indeed unable to full-on prove myself, as I have mentioned.

Therefore, yes, the only thing that can be drawn out of this is the result you have put, not what I have said. Perhaps someone else may someday come in with something supporting my claim, although for now, I am unable to prove anything. Setergh (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not at all commited OR, what are you talking about? I'm not going to go in-depth, but are you being serious? Can you respond to my arguments instead of.. whatever this is? If you're going to concede that you cannot prove your claim, then this discussion was useless, and I will revert your edit. I do have a question: Why do you go into an argument without evidence, and still argue for the claim—which you have no evidence for? It just wastes your and my time, and I don't really see the point.

As for the paragraph, I can send you the entire page, if that is necessary:

"The first phase of the war (1600-1611) was a military success for the Commonwealth. In 1605, in a decisive battle waged near Kirkholm/Salaspils, the Lithuanian army, led by Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, defeated King Karl IX. For this reason several panegyrics were published in Vilnius. They eulogized the triumphal victory of Lithuanian arms over Sweden, and predicted a quick reconquest of all Livonia. The author of the most well-known panegyric, Carolomachia, was Laurencyus Boye, a Catholic emigrant from Sweden. However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden. Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf. Unlike Sweden, Poland-Lithuania did not have a navy. In 1621, the port of Riga and half of the Daugava River waterway came under Swedish control. Thus, the GDL's economy was cut off from Riga and the Baltic. In 1625, Sweden transferred its military operations to the north of Lithuania. There the Swedes established their winter quarters. On September 7 1625, the Swedes captured the fortress of Biržai. Sweden's Lithuanian campaign caused political, economic and military chaos in the GDL, and gave rise to an acute crisis with Poland. Many Lithuanian nobles expressed opposition to the war, and, in their dietines, advocated a peaceful solution to the conflict. Since the Polish king Sigismung III Vasa did not recognize Gustav II Adolf Vasa as king of Sweden, correspondence between the two countries had to be carried out by senators. The Swedes consistently treated the Polish senators differently from the Lithuanians. The Lithuanian army was the main opposition force in Livonia. For this reason, nearly all the correspondence between Sweden and the Commonwealth was conducted via Lithuanian senators. Thus, Krzysztof II Radziwiłł was in direct correspondence with Jacob De la Gardie and King Gustav II Adolf. This relationship made a separate agreement possible." p. 71–72

You can find the PDF for free online, a simple google search of "In the Shadows of Poland and Russia" will get you there.

Unless you object with an extraordinary reason, I will be restoring the Swedish victory, as leaving it as it may be damaging. Gvssy (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)