This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
First, the claim about Władysław being injured is new to me; I've read his biography, written his GA here, and I don't recall it. I'd like to see more reliable sources confirm this. Second, the tone of this article seems somewhat biased towards Russian version of the events; this article should be NPOVed with other sources. As the author of the article about the Smolensk War (again, I read at least one work dedicated to it) I don't recall that the Polish sources portray this battle as significant to the extent this single defeat led to the wars' end; through it was not without influence - but I think this article overstates the impact of this battle. Of course, Polish sources are as likely to be biased as Russian, so the truth is as usual somewhere in between, but for now I think this article is too biased toward the Russian POV. PS. The battle is discussed by Nagielski, p. 47–50, but I won't be able to look at his work till December. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Vladimir Volkov is Doctor of History Science. In my eyes he is a reliable source. Probably, it was not a serious injury and there is no reason to call that information dubious. If you can add more information by using Polish sources I would welcome it. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments2 people in discussion
@Historyk.ok please stop changing the result in the infobox until you've dicussed the issue here with reliable sources and gained consensus from other editors to do so. This is how things work on Wikipedia. I've left a standard notice about edit-warring on your user talk page, please read it and review the linked guidelines there. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I was logged out by accident, but why are you changing the result if it says that the Tatar and Cossack groups have been broken down, read about it before you change it Historyk.ok (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not changing anything, you are. Nothing in the article describes a Polish-Lithuanian victory. The Polish Wikipedia is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a reliable source: any change or addition in content needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources. And since the infobox is only a summary of the article, this would have to be explained in the article itself first. (My comment applies to your edits even if you were thinking of another article; reliable sources is a universal requirement.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
