Talk:Russo-Swedish War (1590–1595)

Untitled
"Three years elapsed before Sweden, in May 1595, agreed to sign the Treaty of Teusina (Tyavzino, Tyavzin, Täyssinä), which recognized Russian conquests and restored the borders predating the Livonian War."
 * This is plain wrong, Teusina borders are most significant territorial gains of Sweden ever. If author means compromise not in comparaison of Schisselburg borders of 1323, but in comparaison with some de-facto situation during war, it should be clearly indicated. Studio357 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

result of the war
I claim that there is no Swedish victory in this war, at least because one of the main goals of the war for Russia-to return Ingermanland was fulfilled and even exceeded in part Dushnilkin (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Claiming Sweden did not win on the basis of returning Ingria and Russia restoring some of its territories is usually considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Gvssy (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is it not allowed? The cancellation of the Pluss peace treaty is one of the main goals (there are in my sources) Dushnilkin (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it assumes something, if it is not directly stated in the sources it is usually entirely rejected. Gvssy (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is explicitly stated in my sources Dushnilkin (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sources claim that this is a victory for Sweden only based on the fact that the Swedes defended Narva and the exit to the Baltic, but given such territorial acquisitions for Russia, this is not a victory Dushnilkin (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are once again engaging in original research and assumptions. To my knowledge atleast, if one specific text is supported by more or better sources it is preferred. Which the Swedish victory is, supported by scholarly libraries like JSTOR. Gvssy (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Библиотеки не являются авторитетным заявляением, и я лишь говорю факты из источников, я ничего не предполагаю Dushnilkin (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean? JSTOR only publishes scholarly papers and books, therefore it's probably one of the most reliable places to find information. Gvssy (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many places that publish scientific data, but it still does not explain the authority. Dushnilkin (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean authority as in reliability? Gvssy (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For me, the credibility of the source should be checked, the author should indicate which primary sources he refers to, I have it Dushnilkin (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The JSTOR source is absolutely reliable for multiple reasons,
 * All of the authors come from credible universities, which are the Universities of Washington, Las Vegas, and Minnesota.
 * They cite their primary sources at the bottom, as you have asked for.
 * Comes from JSTOR, which is again a reliable library of scholarly work
 * Gvssy (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case, we both have sources that refer to primary sources, my work from recognized historians. Dushnilkin (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The work cited for the Swedish victory is also from historians, Ulf Sundberg has a PhD, likely the same with Edgar Kiser, Kriss A. Drass, and confirmed with William Brustein. Gvssy (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Works that confirm other data are available from Vitaly Pensky (Doctor of Historical Sciences, there is an article on Wikipedia you can check) Ruslan Skrynnikov (the same thing), There is also a story about the diplomatic success of the Russians Information in the book by Karamzin (one of the most educated people of the early 19th century) the book itself is authoritative and most consider it to be the primary source (the book was published in 1818) Dushnilkin (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't notice what language I was writing in. I suggest you go to another messenger, more convenient Dushnilkin (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case, my data is supported by old literature that is generally accepted Dushnilkin (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally accepted among who? Gvssy (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming a Russian victory, I am claiming an indecisive outcome of the war, but my sources say that the success of the Russians was only partial and that one of the main goals failed Dushnilkin (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the war was not indecisive, as is stated by the 5 citations. Gvssy (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you admit that the result is indecisive if I show you 6 sources? Dushnilkin (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably not, since these Russian authors are hard to reliably check if they are good or not. But yes show me 6 sources supporting indecisive Gvssy (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the same situation, it's hard for me to verify your information. In that case, give me time, I will try to find 6 sources about this war Dushnilkin (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean? You are easily able to find information on Ulf Sundberg, the first citation, the JSTOR link is easily accessible, the Routledge source has a link directly going to the text, the only somewhat hard to find one is the one from SO Rummet, where the information seems to have been removed however when I cited it, it stated that the war was a Swedish victory near the bottom of the page, SO Rummet is also only written by experts. Gvssy (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's hard to read, in which case my sources are as easy to verify as yours. Dushnilkin (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Gvssy (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can help, @TylerBurden. This is clearly not going anywhere and will just develop into an even bigger edit war. Some outside input could help. Gvssy (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Result
Let's discuss here instead @Dushnilkin. Gvssy (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Twenty-Five Years' War" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twenty-Five_Years%27_War&redirect=no Twenty-Five Years' War] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)