Talk:Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Result
@Olek Novy Regarding the result, the most reasonable conclusion to make from "highly favourable" is that it was a victory. I don't see how you don't agree but I think I have other sources explicitly stating victory for Sweden Gvssy (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the result of this article, because of the inconsistency, as some call it a Polish-Lithuanian victory and some call it a Swedish one, I propose the following result
 * result : Truce of Altmark Birczenin (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What reputable sources call this a Polish–Lithuanian Victory? Gvssy (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * what? you even read what I wrote, because I'm not talking about any source here, just the opinion of the majority. Birczenin (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The opinion of regular people has no merit to be included on a Wikipedia article, if it is not in a reputable source. That would be considered Original research (If I'm not mistaken) which is also against Wikipedia guidelines. Gvssy (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Opinion? Your statement is poorly phrased, I pointed out to you that the result should be a truce in the altmark, not trying to prove whether it is a Swedish or a Polish-Lithuanian victory, in short neither this result nor that one is appropriate. Birczenin (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that you said that was apparently the opinion of the majority. I will inform you that personal opinion, especially on Wikipedia, is not prioritized over what sources say. As is demonstrated in the beginning of the article, a scholarly consensus is that the war ended in a Swedish victory. This result is by no means "innapropriate" what are you talking about? Gvssy (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course you shouldn't be guided, but don't exaggerate, even though the article doesn't say who exactly won or suppose that after reading a wiki article you see that a side won but the source says otherwise, you can't take this into account, historians are there to show history, not everyone will agree with the outcome of a Swedish victory. Because Sweden did not exactly win Birczenin (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are yet to provide a reliable source that Sweden "did not exactly win" the war. I will remind you, once again, that Wikipedia operates off of reputable sources. The opinions of non-historians are not taken into account for historical articles, like this one. What sources disagree with a Swedish victory? You should provide evidence for your claims, instead of yammering. The article does also in fact very clearly say exactly who won, this being Sweden, which is also provided by 6 reliable and academic sources.
 * "Swedish victory" is by far the most appropriate result here, seeing the consensus of sources that agree. Gvssy (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You should teach "culture" because the word moan is very unpolite, I point out to you again that in the article there is no evidence presented that these were Swedish victories and an explanation why.
 * How can it be a victory as the Swedes did not win the Prussian Campaign, which de facto was the whole war Birczenin (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the reliable sources presented in the beginning. If you seriously believe that, for these sources to prove something, they need to thourougly explain it, you're mistaken. Clearly, it is a Swedish victory because of the land gain. In addition, "not winning" the Prussian campaign does not merit the war being Inconclusive / a Swedish defeat, that's not how one determiens the result of a war.
 * Also, I apologize if what I said hurt you, it wasn't my intention. I just wanted you to explain your argument, and provide reliable sources for it.
 * Ulf Sundberg actually explains the Swedish victory quite well in his book "Svenska krig 1521–1814", this being:
 * "De svenska krigsmålen var att få Sigismund att avsäga sig rätten till den svenska kronan samt att erövra polskt territorium. Vid stilleståndet i Altmark måste Polen ge upp ett antal viktiga hamnar under stilleståndsperioden och tillsvidare acceptera den svenska ockupationen i Livland. Även om Sigismund fortfarande vägrade att avsäga sig rätten till den svenska kronan och inte heller några av de territoriella vinsterna blev bestående, måste man säga att Sverige tills vidare hade uppnått stora delar av sina krigsmål och därmed tills vidare stod som segrare i denna konflikt." Gvssy (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You show a Swedish book and a Swedish perspective without taking the Polish one and the later re-contracted Truce in Sztumska Wieś, you show the Peace of Altmark, which should be the result, because someone will take, for example, the conflict militarily and it will not be a Swedish victory, you show a book that does not deal exactly with the Polish-Swedish wars Birczenin (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't engage in a genetic fallacy, please. The origin of a source does not change its reliability. If you wish to have a Polish source that corroborates a victory, check out "Uniwersytet Łódzki: Wojna polsko-szwedzka z lat 1626–1629 w pismach Stanisława Koniecpolskiego". On page 54, it says (translated to english):
 * "By agreeing to a 6-year ceasefire, he almost gave up hope of victory. It was a defeat for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as the Swedes kept their gains in Livonia up to the Ewikszta line. They returned the capital, Mitawa, to Frederick, Duke of Courland. They kept the coast from the mouth of Pasÿÿka to the Vistula, with Braniewo, Tolkmicko, Elblÿg and Mierzeja." Gvssy (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)