Talk:Polish–Swedish War (1617–1618)

Source

@Gvssy You have manipulated the words of this historian well because he says that However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden. Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf. you took his sentence out of context, and he meant that it strengthened his position, not that he meant that the outcome of the 1617 war ended in victory like 1625, this is again interpreting the source and taking sentences out of context. In addition, you claim that this does not break the rules.

You claim you are not breaking the rules, but here you are also wrong because you are breaking this WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" 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. And before you say that WP:NOTE refers to the article it refers to the sources in the article btw.

Czekan pl (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "You have manipulated the words of this historian well because he says that However, the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629) brought victory to Sweden. Each new offensive in Livonia (1617, 1621, 1625) consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf. you took his sentence out of context, and he meant that it strengthened his position, not that he meant that the outcome of the 1617 war ended in victory like 1625, this is again interpreting the source and taking sentences out of context. In addition, you claim that this does not break the rules."

If you pay attention to what he writes, you can clearly see that he says "the third and the final phase of the war (1617-1629)" and then, of course, that each new offensive in Livonia strenghtened Gustavus Adolphus' position, if this is not clearly pointing to a Swedish victory in this war, I'm not sure what is. "this is again interpreting the source and taking sentences out of context" No it isn't. I'm actually using the context here, he mentions the "third and final phase" of the war, which was, according to him, 1617–1618. Then, he says that each new offensive consolidated the position of Gustav II Adolf, He clearly differentiates these wars from eachother. Are you arguing that there was a continuous war from 1617 to 1629?

• "You claim you are not breaking the rules, but here you are also wrong because you are breaking this WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."

You are misinterpeting SIGCOV. It very clearly points to this being about articles, not sources themselves. As it says: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." By no metric is this talking about sources in particular, rather whether or not an article should be made in the first place. It even agrees with me here: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"

• "And before you say that WP:NOTE refers to the article it refers to the sources in the article btw."

No it doesn't. It refers to articles themselves, from the top of the guideline page: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Gvssy (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you haven't presented any sentence where this author talks about 1617-1618 only saying that the last phase ended in victory he doesn't say whether the 1617-1618 war ended in victory just a phase and that's something else altogether.

In addition, you manipulate terribly, taking sentences out of context, I already show you what you do.

you say it is about the article, yes it is about the article, but it is about the sources contained in it and remember this, in addition you again cut out of context the sentence but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material Manipulating that the rule says that you can use books not on topic

now let's see the real sentence and those of yours taken out of context Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention(extracted by you from the contesct), but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here it is told how a trivial mention works total manipulation, Once again I ask you to point out where the author talks about the victory of sweden in the war 1617-1618 and not in the post-war phase yet again this is something else. Czekan pl (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "I'm sorry but you haven't presented any sentence where this author talks about 1617-1618 only saying that the last phase ended in victory he doesn't say whether the 1617-1618 war ended in victory just a phase and that's something else altogether."

Yes I have, again, he talks about a "third and final phase" this being, as he calls it "1617-1629" then, he references this war in particular as being a part of that phase when he names the invasion of Livonia during this war, it is as simple as that. They are not very different concepts. Furthermore, he claims these invasions strengthened/consolidated the position of Gustavus Adolphus, pointing to a Swedish victory.

• "In addition, you manipulate terribly, taking sentences out of context, I already show you what you do. you say it is about the article, yes it is about the article, but it is about the sources contained in it and remember this, in addition you again cut out of context the sentence but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material Manipulating that the rule says that you can use books not on topic, now let's see the real sentence and those of yours taken out of context Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention(extracted by you from the contesct), but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here it is told how a trivial mention works total manipulation"

What manipulation? I'm presenting what is said in the guidelines themselves, such as SIGCOV, where even the nutshell says what I am claiming:

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article"

In short, SIGCOV and the Notability guideline altogether is meant for articles, not sources themselves. Proposing anything but this is silly, and shows a clear lack of comprehensive reading. When you mention "trivial mentions" that is not even the case for the source itself, but I digress, that is talking about how an article should not be made if the only sources confirming it are trivial mentions, it is really that simple.

• "Once again I ask you to point out where the author talks about the victory of sweden in the war 1617-1618 and not in the post-war phase yet again this is something else."

Already have, multiple times.. read the source, read the guidelines, and come back. Gvssy (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)