Talk:Battle of Dirschau

Outcome

Oskar Halecki, W: F. Reddaway, J. H. Penson. The Cambridge History of Poland. CUP Archive. p. 473. ISBN 978-1-00-128802-4. Retrieved 17 July 2012.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) claims this battle was a minor Swedish victory, but he even gets the dates wrong. All other sources I find call the battle a Polish victory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read several sources claiming this to be one minor Swedish victory, I've also read several claiming this one to be a Polish victory. However the majority of the sources I know of claim this one to be "inconclusive". I recommend we change the result to = inconclusive, which is what most of the historians agree with.Imonoz (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Cambridge History says it was a Polish victory: "(Koniecpolski) defeated the Swedes at Tczew, where Gustavus Adolphus himself was wounded".VolunteerMarek 00:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added this for that reason. Imonoz, could you cite your sources? I am certainly willing to consider other options, but first, we have to know who states what. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of this battle at Wiki have always (almost) been inconclusive, for years that is. Historians are claiming different result outcomes. We're not here to pick eithers side but being neutral and we're not neutral if we go with either Polish or Swedish victory here since that's what is being claimed. What the historians go with, we go with, simple as that. And yes I'll try to find the sources, I'll send back.Imonoz (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, unless we cite reliable sources. As things stand, we have two references calling this a Polish victory. This website does not look very reliable. The authors are so-so, but if they are the only source, it seems potentially WP:FRINGE to me. Now, the battle was inconclusive from a tactical view, as no army was defeated, but from the strategic view, as Podhorecki makes the argument, it was a Polish victory - they achieved much more than the Swedes, considering their goals. I don't mind changing the outlook to inconclusive, if reliable sources can be cited for that. For now we have only two sources, Podhorecki and [1], both of which call it a Polish history (ok, the second calls it a Swedish defeat, if anybody wants to mince the words). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked about this at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_a_fringe_claim.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And so it seems "Robert I Frost" - "The Northern Wars" claim it to be a Swedish vicotry. Don't you think he is reliable? The result should be either "inconclusive" or "Swedish tactical victory, Polish strategical victory" Anyone agrees? And also, the "Polish cavalry was the best in Europe at the time" is not a fact, it's a claim of something most of the nations said about their own cavalry at the time. From a neutral point of view you we avoid this, that's why I removed it.Imonoz (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for your information, the Swedish book "Vägen till stormakt: Vasaättens krig" claim this battle to have been a "Great Swedish victory". So come up with your thoughts and let's settle this. We have some four options to choose from: "inconclusive, indecisive, disputed, both sides claim victory or Swedish tactical victory, Polish strategic victory". I think we can agree on that it wasn't either a Swedish or a Polish victory.Imonoz (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the result to "Inconclusive: Swedish tactical victory[1] Polish–Lithuanian strategic victory[2]" tell me what you think.Imonoz (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "Swedish tactical victory PL strategic victory" works pretty well.

As to the "Polish cavalry was the best in Europe at the time" , that's not actually any Polish author saying that, it's the British historian Michael Roberts.VolunteerMarek 21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Move request

{{movenotice|Battle of Dirschau}} Battle of Dirschau outnumbers "Battle of Tczew" 71 [2] to 7 [3] at google books. Dirschau is also the proper name in accordance to the Gdansk vote.HerkusMonte (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, that's not 71 but 23, since, as you well know (since you pointed it out to me once) you always have to go to the last page to get an accurate number of hits. And of those, a number appear to be the exact same source published multiple times, since ... 1795.VolunteerMarek 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this. Imonoz (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Herkus went and moved the page without waiting for this RM to finish or even get under way. Regardless of the merits of the relative titles, this kind of action is not exactly collegial or in accordance with policy (not so say, disruptive).VolunteerMarek 01:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Agreed, moving articles before discussion is finished is not recommended. As for me, I see no reason for the move due to reasons already outlined above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no reasons "outlined above", it's still 23 to 7, thus Battle of Dirschau is clearly the appropriate english title. Marek didn't oppose the move, he just noted a mistake in counting the google books results (note: I'm not aware of any occasion when I "pointed it out" to Marek). It's a completely uncontroversial move and there's no reason to exaggerate in formalism (see WP:GAMING). HerkusMonte (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned this is just gaming the google results by ignoring a source that was repeated several times, please stop moving pages to controversial germanised names, especially since there is no consensus for this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support the move. Clearly common name in English language publications. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 15:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism

This article seems overall nationalistic with claims that doesn't belong to "the battle of Dirschau" and other one sided information. Anyone agrees? Since it's a new one this is very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imonoz (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific, and please try to avoid judgmental terms like nationalistic, which on Wikipedia is a pretty serious and rather uncivil accusation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well.. That's why I brought it up isn't it? It seems this battle perspective are written from one point of view and mainly from Polish sources, it wouldn't surprise me if it is mainly pasted from Polish wikipedia. "this was particularly notable, as it marked the first time that the Swedish cavalry was able to take on the Polish cavalry, renowned at the time as the "best cavalry in Europe", this for example? In Swedish eyes this is not true as they countered Polish cavalry before, and renowned at the time for the best cavalry? From Polish eyes that is? As they didn't encounter every cavalry unit in the world this statement is really dumb. Almost every nation had nationalistic point of views and said that stuff, why would we go with Polands statement?It's fine you have it on your own little PL:wikipedia but not on the mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imonoz (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you removed my source I added for the result? You said "This is not very reliable" Ofcourse it is, it's even more reliable than your Polish source since everyone can take part of it. There's plenty of these sources stating the same thing. However are you to ignorant to understand that? In that case if you're not looking from a neutral point of view you should get off wikipedia.

As both sides claims victory and also most historians claim it to be "indecisive" there's where we have to go, us on wikipedia don't judge for ourselves which side to pick, as I said "we're being neutral" so I'll change that back.Imonoz (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is reliably sourced, and you can easily see to which source (Podhorecki, primarily). Your source is not very reliable; it is a self-published website. The author has some reliability, but whereas books are usually peer reviewed, websites are not, therefore your website is not a very good source to argue against the book I cite. If you disagree with this, we can take this to WP:RSN. Also, I will ask you for the second time to be civil and respectful. Your combative tone is not helping this discussion, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

July or August

Which is correct? Did the battle took place in July as the article says or in August which both the Swedish and the Polish wikipedia claim?Imonoz (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

Confirmed as B-class for WPPOLAND, per previous milhist assessment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)