Talk:List of wars between Poland and Sweden

1617

Any info on the conflict in 1617 would be appreciated - I am not sure if there even was any major conflict. Also, information on truces ending the early 1600 conflicts (signed where, by whom, for how long, with what provisions) and commanders (especially Swedish ones) would be welcomed, as the info I have so far is rather sparce. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rajtar

Any idea what's the correct English name for raitar/rajtar cavalry? See [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Placenames

Thanks, Piotrus, for writing up a long and nice article. Perhaps the use of placenames can be made a bit more consistent by using the following convention: first time usage of the name - Current Name (Historical Swedish Name, Historical Polish Name) and thereafter every time just the current name, which in English language for Estonia and Latvia would correspond to the name in Estonian, or Latvian, respectively. Historical Swedish-language names for places in Estonia and Latvia tend to be identical with the (for various reasons the most widely known and used) German-language names. What say you? Cheers, --212.209.42.132 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the suggestion. We are actually discussing a very similar policy at the Wikipedia:Eastern_European_Wikipedians'_notice_board - feel free to contribute there, we would be happy to expand this to other regions. I'd basically recommend using the English name first and throughout the article, and in the first use add all other names in perenthesis, in alphabetical order of their nations (for example: Estonian: xx, Finnish: yy, German: pp, Polish: zz, Swedish: mm). It would be good to mention which language spelling is which (i.e. keep the Polish, Swedish, etc. adjective before their names). What do you think of that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that the English name should come first, and any alternative names in parenthesis should show what language they are in. However, to keep having more than two name forms wihin parenthesis seems a bit too much. The good news is that the current English name for places in Estonia is always spelled the same way as the current Estonian name (and as far as I know, the same is true for Latvia/n, if we do not count diacritical marks) - so no need to state the same name twice. Current local name is current English name. Historically most often used English-language place name in earlier sources would, as a rule, be the historical German-language name (local dominant language in Livonia during the Polish-Swedish War as well). In most English-language articles about the history of Estonia and Latvia it is thus standard convention to use no more than two names: the current local-language (=English) name and the historical German-language name, or vice versa.

As a Pole, you (I guess) would argue that since the article is about "Polish-Swedish" war, we should also include everywhere the names of places in Polish and Swedish as well. In Estonia and Latvia the current Swedish-language names are the same as in local language, and historical Swedish-language names are identical with the historical German-language names. So, for example, we could use Pärnu (German, Swedish: Pernau, Polish: Parnawa).

However, note that in order to be consistent, either all mentioned place names (including those in Sweden-proper, Poland-proper, Germany, Russia etc.) should on first instance have alternative spellings both in Polish and Swedish in the brackets. If you think that this is too much, then we could agree to limit the mentioning of Polish and Swedish names to those places which were at some time controlled either militarily or administratively by Poland or Sweden, respectively. (Note that in that case, for example, Tallinn (German, Swedish: Reval) was never controlled by Poland:) Cheers, --212.209.42.132 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, we have room for all the larger variant. Btw, please consider registering. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

List of battles for the warbox

Warbox to do: Karkhus, Wenden, Wolmar, Tallin, Dorpat, Biały Kamień, Kircholm, Parnawa, Salis, Kockenhausen, Mitawa --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments.

"After the battle, Koniepolski saw the need to reform the army and strengthen the firepower of infantry and artillery to match the Swedish units. The Swedes, on the other hand, learned arts of cavalry attacks, charges and melee combat from the Poles."

Are you implying that Gustav II Adolourf learned his modern battle tactics from Koniepolski rather then the opposite? Gustavus Adolphus is considered to be the father of modern warfare and was the one that introduced modern tactics during the 30 years war. You forget mentioning that sweden during the polish war was in war against both Denmark and Russia which i belive is of great importance. Im not an expert in history. But i have been told in school that Gustav II Adolf was the first to introduce modern warfare, then again i might have missunderstood your article or my history lessons. Otherwise this is a good article even though the author sometimes get a bit carried away.

I'll try to find some sources, but IIRC some (Polish?) sources do state that while GA was definetly better on 'modern' tactics (infantry, artillery, logistics, etc.), the one place Polish tactics were better was the cavarly (charge) tactics, and it was something GA learned from Poles. Again, I'll try to verify this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As a disambiguation page?

I'd say it's better as such (now we have separate pages for each of the wars, it makes sense not to have to be editing two large identical accounts of each war, but to have a precis here with a {{Main| link to each separate page), but I invite discussion. Certainly, if that way is to work, this and all the separate pages need substantial editing, and better introductions in the separate pages to link them all together. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it as an article. Main template help, but it is a notable topic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalistic text

The text provided in this article looks very nationalistic and is full of non-sourced facts, which makes everything look like the poles always had a disadvantage and won, which absolutely was not the case, also, the texts are also provided in the specific articles about the war, I will therefore delete the text here, discuss with me if you think I'm wrong.Björnebacke (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Being bold is one thing, removing a lot of text needs a wider consensus on talk. Please contact editors of Swedish and Polish noticeboards for a wider discussion, inviting them to post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I at least took the freedom correcting some facts and adding some. Björnebacke (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you take the time to cite you references? Since you complain about lack of refs, I'd expect any revisions coming from you to be well referenced. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no great contribution of Polish in these wars. Polians don't wanted any war. Only Grand duchy of Lithuania did fight in all of these wars. This article MUST be renamed after Lithuanian- Swedish wars. I can't stand when all fame is given only to Poland. Poland, poland poland... —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Volungevičius (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point to this article?

Every section in this article has links to main articles elsewhere. I notice no work has been done on it since around 2008. The English is pretty poor and it is tinged with POV.1812ahill (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Move

This should be moved to List of wars between Poland and Sweden instead, just like all other lists. I will move it if not contested. Gvssy (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Polish-Swedish war 1635

@Gvssy Since you don't understand the politics of wikipedia and the encyclopaedic nature of the article in question, I'll explain everything here in a nutshell. The fact is that no one really entered the war officially, but the subject deserves an encyclopedia as much as this battle Battle of Skoczów (The battle never happened, and neither did this war (Polish-Swedish war 1635), and it has an article). In addition, you should take into account that all the quoted sources refer to it as a war. Your reverts are not in accordance with the rules, with WP:BATTLEGROUND, you need to discuss, not make up your own conjectures which you do in many conversations, changing the meaning of sentences etc. I think your issue should land and administration. And referring to your edit here [1], the site calls this conflict 1635, War with Poland. The Second Polish War. You're welcome, please read with understanding. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You fight unrelenting wars with editors like here for example [2].

And touching on another topic, all the sources you have given do not relate in depth to the topic, which means you are breaking the rules of WP:SIGCOV, on top of that it is WP:GNG which is the General notability guideline, which means general rules, I don't care that notability deals with articles, it says it has to relate to the topic then it has to relate to the topic, end of story. You can't undermine these rules. In addition, do not change the meaning of the sentences I will emphasize to you the important thing that matters in Significant coverage. In addition, note the word Triviality, they mean irrelevance, triviality, triviality, a term meaning a thing of little importance, uninteresting. 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 book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

Here's a very great example of how it should work in addition. in this article almost all the sources contain a trivial mention that there was such an event and nothing more, the only ones whose opinion should be taken are Leszek Podhorodecki and Michael Fredholm von Essen. I forgot to add IsacssonClas-Göran also. Bad choice of sources adding a book even dedicated to the culture of Lutheranism, seriously? This is the kind of source you think should have something to do with it, because it just happens to be an outdated source not in line with the principles of WP:AGE MATTERS. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that before translating any sources, pay attention to the language and what is written because also in the article of Deluge appears this book Historya wyzwolonéj Rzeczypospolitéj wpadającej pod jarzmo domowe. It is you who fail to point out that the author quotes the opinion of MPs and, in addition, writes it in Old Polish, note that nowhere does he say that the treaty was favourable to Sweden. I can list more examples it is a substantive well constructed response that gives you charges for poor source selection and total disregard for what is written in the sources Czekan pl (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• "@Gvssy Since you don't understand the politics of wikipedia and the encyclopaedic nature of the article in question, I'll explain everything here in a nutshell. The fact is that no one really entered the war officially, but the subject deserves an encyclopedia as much as this battle Battle of Skoczów (The battle never happened, and neither did this war (Polish-Swedish war 1635), and it has an article). In addition, you should take into account that all the quoted sources refer to it as a war. Your reverts are not in accordance with the rules, with WP:BATTLEGROUND, you need to discuss, not make up your own conjectures which you do in many conversations, changing the meaning of sentences etc. I think your issue should land and administration. And referring to your edit here [1], the site calls this conflict 1635, War with Poland. The Second Polish War. You're welcome, please read with understanding. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You fight unrelenting wars with editors like here for example [2"

Okay, good, so you admit that the war never happened, which means that it has no place on an article about wars. You bring up the "Battle of Skoczów" but this battle clearly happened? The article itself describes clashes between Polish and Czechoslovakian troops, so I'm not sure what this comparison is supposed to show. I am taking into account the sources, it sadly seems that, atleast from what I can tell, you didn't read the source yourself. The source, which is a website owned by Hans Högman, which I'm not entirely sure is reliable in the first place, clearly states that this was infact, not a war, nor a conflict of any kind. In fact, this is the only source that even describes it as such, unless Leszek also calls it such, which I would love to hear what is argument is for it being a war.

• "Your reverts are not in accordance with the rules, with WP:BATTLEGROUND, you need to discuss, not make up your own conjectures which you do in many conversations, changing the meaning of sentences etc. I think your issue should land and administration."

WP:BATTLEGROUND seems to deal with taking small disputes, like this one, as if it were a battle, which I am not. I am simply pointing out that this war has clearly never happened, as you yourself admit, yet you still want it here? For what? Because a mediocre, perhaps even unreliable source calls it a war? If so, that's by all means a bad reason. You cannot expect a war, as I have already explained, that never happened, to be included in a list of wars that did happen. I am not sure what you mean with me "changing the meaning of sentences" perhaps you could elaborate? Instead of just accusing me of things.

• "And referring to your edit here [1], the site calls this conflict 1635, War with Poland. The Second Polish War. You're welcome, please read with understanding. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You fight unrelenting wars with editors like here for example [2]."

I am quite aware that the website calls it a war. But what you have failed to understand is that it very blatantly contradicts itself. Directly from the website: "The armistice in Altmark 1629 was for six year (that is until 1635). At this time Sweden was involved in the 30-years war and couldn’t afford a second war in Poland. New negotiations were held with Poland. To improve the Swedish position in the talks, Sweden had an army force of 20,000 soldiers moved to Prussia in June 1635." In no way shape or form is this describing a war, it even says itself that Sweden could not afford another war with Poland, i.e that Sweden could not afford to start a new war with Poland. According to Paul Lockhart 1 this was far from a war, it was simply a renewal of the truce signed in 1629, nothing more.

You would expect a website making such an extraordinary claim, such as there being a Polish-Swedish War in 1635 to support it with actual evidence, but does it? No. Not once. Also, I am not sure what you mean about me fighting "unrelenting" wars with other editors. If pointing out the obvious and reverting the edits of vandals counts as fighting a war, then so be it.

• "And touching on another topic, all the sources you have given do not relate in depth to the topic, which means you are breaking the rules of WP:SIGCOV, on top of that it is WP:GNG which is the General notability guideline, which means general rules, I don't care that notability deals with articles, it says it has to relate to the topic then it has to relate to the topic, end of story. You can't undermine these rules. In addition, do not change the meaning of the sentences I will emphasize to you the important thing that matters in Significant coverage. In addition, note the word Triviality, they mean irrelevance, triviality, triviality, a term meaning a thing of little importance, uninteresting. 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."

What sources?? I have not made any claims so far. If you are referring to old topics we have discussed, okay? They have no relevance here. If you really want me to repeat myself, I will, gladly so. SIGCOV, Notability, and GNG do not talk about sources themselves. As I have explained, they are talking about articles. I do not care if you "do not care" that notability deals with articles, because that's simply how it is. If you don't like it, perhaps don't expect that these rules will bend around for you. Yes, notability says that a source has to relate with a specific topic, you are right, but again, that is talking about an article as a whole, not a small part of it. All-in-all, I'm not sure what your point is here.

• "Here's a very great example of how it should work in addition. in this article almost all the sources contain a trivial mention that there was such an event and nothing more, the only ones whose opinion should be taken are Leszek Podhorodecki and Michael Fredholm von Essen. I forgot to add IsacssonClas-Göran also. Bad choice of sources adding a book even dedicated to the culture of Lutheranism, seriously? This is the kind of source you think should have something to do with it, because it just happens to be an outdated source not in line with the principles of WP:AGE MATTERS. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that before translating any sources, pay attention to the language and what is written because also in the article of Deluge appears this book Historya wyzwolonéj Rzeczypospolitéj wpadającej pod jarzmo domowe. It is you who fail to point out that the author quotes the opinion of MPs and, in addition, writes it in Old Polish, note that nowhere does he say that the treaty was favourable to Sweden. I can list more examples it is a substantive well constructed response that gives you charges for poor source selection and total disregard for what is written in the sources"

Maybe you are posting this on the wrong talk page, but Michael Fredholm von Essen is never cited here. He is, on the Deluge article! But this is not the talk page for the deluge article, is it? Why are you bringing up topics that hold no relevance here? I am not going to engage with you on a topic that has no relevance to our current conversation. Sorry! Bring it up on the deluge talk page instead, if the sources concern you that much. Gvssy (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)