This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania 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.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
You've done it again, Gvssy. This is a great article! I did some copy editing (please, go through it if you have the time and revert anything I might've gotten wrong), and added a few "[Citation needed]" (where the paragraph's end was missing a citation) and "[clarification needed]" (on instances where the strength is reported as "X men/soldiers and X cavalry" - are these "men/soldiers" supposed to be infantry?). I would appreciate it if you could clarify here. I've also removed some instances where I thought the citations were unnecessary repetitions. If I'm allowed to come with a suggestion, it would be to move the vast majority of information on the Bornholm incident to its main article, which is in a rather poor state at the moment. But you do as you wish here. Thanks for the article! Imonoz (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes I will clarify alot of the information in the article and I will of course move the text of the bornholm incident from it to the main article. But again, thank you! Gvssy (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that go in-depth about this war have already been cited, so I recommend reading them if you are more interested in the war. As for what you said, I wouldn't consider the article "short" as it has over 30,00 bytes of text in it, which shouldn't be considered short. Gvssy (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czekan pl What exactly does Leszek say about the result? I do not think his opinion that the war was not an "unequivocal" victory for Sweden justifies the result section directing you to another section of the article instead of Swedish victory, or, I might be wrong, I don't have access to the book so I can't confirm whether or not he challenges a Swedish victory or simply says it wasnt unequivocal Gvssy (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Podhorodecki says that the war was ended by John's coming to power and that his coronation changed Swedish policy to one that was pro-Polish, where he made an alliance with Poland against Russia. He so defines the outcome of the Polish-Swedish War of 1563-1568, but notes that he dates the end of the war really to 1570. Similarly to this author, most sites call the outcome of this war this way( I reviewed which ones ). Czekan pl (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he just uses this term for the outcome of the war, I would give the outcome of the war not Disputed but Uncertain because the outcome is uncertain, Sundberg writes about the victory of Sweden while Leszek Podhorodecki who has produced an extensive work on the Polish-Swedish wars calls the wars this way as it is written in the article( I mean that he calls the outcome of the war about so A formal peace is never concluded. The war ends when John III becomes king of Sweden in 1568 This is a summary of his text created by me). A similar situation to Battle of Shklow. Only Sundberg calls it a victory for Sweden when I managed to spot that most sources call the result the same as Podhorodecki's. They both address different issues, so there is no uniformity about the analysis of what they wrote. Czekan pl (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the result is not uncertain. Leszek, like you said, says that the war ended by John III's coronation, and that Sweden did not achieve a "unequivocal" victory, this is not denying a Swedish victory by any means. Unless he directly says that the war was not a Swedish victory, I seriously doubt that the wars result should be put as disputed / uncertain. Gvssy (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what he calls the outcome of the war, but in my opinion we should keep the result ‘Uncertain’ It will be appropriate each side presents a different view of the outcome of the war Sundebrg points out that Sweden managed to defend its possessions, while Podhorodecki that there is no clear Swedish Victory, it is worth noting that in all wars I give the result except this one using this as the result. Now I notice that in addition he uses the status quo. Czekan pl (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your input, I really do, but I have to point that opinions are WP:OR and thus not meant to be included unless they are for certain things, this is not one of these things. Since Leszek does not claim that Sweden did "not" win the war, his opinion should not merit the result being "uncertain", since while he may say that there "is no clear Swedish victory" this is not denying one, while Sundberg very clearly states the opposite, in addition, status quo is meant to signify that everything remained how it was prior to an event, not that something ended inconclusively. Gvssy (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leszek calls this the outcome of the war, but Sundberg is also unsure of his opinion because he suggests that it would be logical not to say that it was Swedish, but nevertheless it is (authors often write sentences that are hard to interpret what they mean) the status quo also to call the outcome of, for example, the Swedish Deluge uses Feliks Koneczny. Sums up Podhorecki calls the outcome of the war That no peace was ever signed, and the war was ended by John's coronation as king of Sweden. And he uses also status quo to call result. Czekan pl (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Leszek calls this the outcome of the war, but Sundberg is also unsure of his opinion because he suggests that it would be logical not to say that it was Swedish, but nevertheless it is"
It is, again, WP:OR to insert your own opinion here: (but nevertheless it is), Sundberg simply says that it is rational to conclude a Swedish victory, and thus that is why he concluded such. He is not "unsure" of this, and nowhere is this indicated.
These types of wordings are probably meant to indicate that nothing changed as a result of the war, i.e no land changes. Which is the case here. The article for Status quo ante bellum even gives examples of such a result, all of which align with my view.
"Sums up Podhorecki calls the outcome of the war That no peace was ever signed, and the war was ended by John's coronation as king of Sweden. And he uses also status quo to call result"
It does not matter if no official peace treaty was signed, since that is not necessarily what determines the result of a war, the war ended de-facto with John III becoming king in 1568/1569. You summarized Leszek's writings as: "A formal peace is never concluded. The war ends when John III becomes king of Sweden in 1568" Which does not indicate that he disagrees with the Swedish victory, just that the war ended when John III became king, which is well established fact. Gvssy (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used such a statement because Sundberg does not say that I detta krig kan vi se en polsk ambition att erövra Sveriges besittningar i Baltikum. I och med att Sverige kommer att behålla dessa, bör det inte vara orimligt att utse Sverige till segrare i konflikten. He is not sure here because he says such words it should not be unreasonable.
In addition, I don't understand your sentence with the status quo because I can't understand anything
and referring to Leszek he calls the outcome of the war that way, in addition he does not mention any victory for Sweden, only such an outcome, suggesting something else. Czekan pl (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I used such a statement because Sundberg does not say that I detta krig kan vi se en polsk ambition att erövra Sveriges besittningar i Baltikum. I och med att Sverige kommer att behålla dessa, bör det inte vara orimligt att utse Sverige till segrare i konflikten. He is not sure here because he says such words it should not be unreasonable."
This doesn't mean that Sundberg is "unsure", he is simply pointing out that it is not unreasonable to point to Sweden as the victor, he also very clearly says that Sweden won with a simple "Segrare: Sverige". That should be more than enough evidence that he is not unsure, as you said.
"In addition, I don't understand your sentence with the status quo because I can't understand anything"
I apologize, I didn't mean for it to be confusing, a more simpler wording might be:
"These words mean that nothing changed because of the war, like no changes in land. This is what happened here. The article about ‘Status quo ante bellum’ gives examples of this, which match my view"
"and referring to Leszek he calls the outcome of the war that way, in addition he does not mention any victory for Sweden, only such an outcome, suggesting something else"
I disagree, besides, we cannot apply our own POV to what a historian may or may not have meant when they said X. As (I believe) I've said, unless Leszek gives a clear result for the war that is not simply status quo (deals with territorial and political changes for the most part), he should not be cited for an "outcome" section. Gvssy (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say that it is unreasonable is actually to insult the person who disagrees with that opinion by calling that person unreasonable, and no one is, because everyone can disagree.
What point of view and what he had in mind I do not understand, the last sentence, and why he should not be quoted, his work and book is devoted to all Polish-Swedish wars, the book is so far the best on Polish-Swedish wars because no one has made a better one and it discusses the topic in depth and has its analysis. Czekan pl (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"To say that it is unreasonable is actually to insult the person who disagrees with that opinion by calling that person unreasonable, and no one is, because everyone can disagree."
Whether or not you consider Ulf Sundberg calling it unreasonable to not conclude a Swedish victory is for yourself to hold as an opinion, perhaps an untruthful one. He is a historian, historians have opinions on historical topics. He is not "insulting" anyone by calling it unreasonable, he is giving his take, which is by all means a reasonable opinion. Sure, everyone can disagree, but in this case, you are disagreeing with a historian on a historical topic with no real evidence to back your side up.
"What point of view and what he had in mind I do not understand, the last sentence, and why he should not be quoted, his work and book is devoted to all Polish-Swedish wars, the book is so far the best on Polish-Swedish wars because no one has made a better one and it discusses the topic in depth and has its analysis."
I never said Leszek had a point of view, I said you used your own point of view to interpret his work. As per what you have said, he never claims that the war did not end in a victory for Sweden, simply that it ended in "Status quo" which is true, but that is a word describing economic and territorial changes as a result of a war, it is not the same as e.g "Swedish victory" or "Polish victory". I have never denied that his book is good, it certainly is. But I am saying that he does not actually disagree with a Swedish victory, and thus he should not be cited for an outcome. Gvssy (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry since the book can't be quoted because it doesn't oppose the Swedish Victory, Leszek doesn't mention any victory of sweden, I thought you would try other arguments and no serious ones were presented Czekan pl (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your response, if you don't have any refutations to my arguments, that's okay, but you don't have to insult them. Leszek can absolutely be cited, but not for the result of the war, since he, again, does not oppose a Swedish victory, or any victory. He simply says it ended in "status quo" which is absolutely correct, but as I have said, status quo deals with territorial and economic changes for the most part. Gvssy (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning I do not have a lot of time I am l busy in real life, however we should leave it as it is now because I have noticed that we will never come to a consensus on the outcome and other things, so I propose that others deal with this topic and I propose to you and myself that we deal with other topics have a nice day ;) Czekan pl (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will tag another editor, who might be able to provide some insight, considering that this will never be resolved without a third opinion. @Imonoz You aren't obligated to respond but I feel that it is necessary, hopefully this doesn't disturb. Gvssy (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the discussion above, as well as the section regarding the outcome, I lean towards a Swedish victory; I don't see how the lack of a "formal peace treaty" or a subsequent Swedish "alliance with Poland" would somehow neglect the fact that Sweden, fighting a defensive war, succeeded in holding on to its possessions in Livonia – which is Sundberg's argument for a Swedish victory. His work also forms the basis of this article. Podhorodecki seemingly doesn't give any clear statement regarding the result. Therefore, until more sources are provided that clearly disputes a Swedish victory, I will support having the result displayed as such. Imonoz (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
