User talk:Peter558
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Peter558 has not edited Wikipedia since 24 June 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
[edit]
|
Thank you very much for this message, dear Piotrus! It is extremely useful!
Peter558 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your Poland-related contributions
[edit]
|
Hello and welcome Peter558! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community. |
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Panzer I
[edit]Before you make those changes, discuss them on the talk page. That article is a featured article, and the information in it is already referenced. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you please format the references the same way as the rest of them are formatted? And add those books to the bibliography? Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Wilhelm Henningsen
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Wilhelm Henningsen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Spiesr (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Our policies
[edit]Please take a few minutes and look at our policies: WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. I reverted you on Polish-Soviet War, as you replaced 2004 Rezmar, Karpus and Matvejev book with what appeared to be a 1934 book ([1]); modern scholarship is more reliable than old. You are more then welcome to discuss this on article's talk, and add information on the difference between old and modern sources to the article, but Karpus seems much more reliable. On Talk:Battle of the Bzura, you've mentioned that your numbers come from reliable printed sources, but in the article, you have referenced them to an unreliable website ([2]), I am afraid I have to revert you again. Feel free to restore your corrections, referenced properly to reliable printed sources; if you use printed sources, please add page numbers and ISBNs, and if possible, Google Print links (although I know that Google Print has very poor coverage of Polish publications, so if this is not possible, I'll understand). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piotr!
If it comes to casualty figures: Domen121 from Axis History Forum is me. That's why I referenced my figures to this website - to my own post. They come from reliable sources, I can assure you. But there are a lot of sources for these figures (practically different source for each of these figures). All of them (or at least almost all of them) can be found posted here - along pages of this thread:
http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&p=1371617
Domen123 from this forum is also me.
If it comes to information about German and Polish division - I did not reference them to this website (I only referenced casualty figures to it). They come from sources given previously by me. One of these sources is "The German Campaign in Poland (1939)" by Robert M. Kennedy. I know that this source is not a very reliable source, but if it comes to maps - it really is quite reliable. Another source is "ww2 day by day" website by Christoph Avender. And one more is Julia Tazbir, "Atlas historyczny. Od starożytności do współczesności", DEMART, Warszawa 2006, ISBN 83-89239-95-7.
If it comes to Robert Kennedy's book - I'm not shure if it has got its ISBN (it has got something called "Stock number" - it is
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Copernicus
[edit]Dear Peter558: Can you supply a citation for your quotation from Martin Luther ("Stupid Pole-astronomer") on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus? If you have a reliable source citation, that quotation would have a place in the article. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell, I have a source for this quotation, but I'm not sure if it can be considered as a fully reliable source because it is a second-hand source, not primary source (original one from the epoch). My source also - unfortunately - doesn't quote the original source. I couldn't find a primary source for this "Stupid Pole-astronomer" so far. I'll try to find what is the original source and then post it. Cheers!
Peter558 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
About you "estimated" casualties "The Deluge"
[edit]So I saw at the "Swedish deluge" talkpage that you estimated polish casualties: 8700 and swedish: 13000 it's obviously here you've only used polish sources? Sweden lost 30,000 men total in the war against poland and everyone knows most of the casualties is due to sickness (about 2/3).
A lot of Swedish sources estimate casualties at Warka: about 600 and at protski the force was made of 2/3 brandenburgs and 1/3 Swedes, so the swedish casualties there cant be 5,000 but more like 1,700.
And you gotta remember that many Swedish and german sources estimate casualties at Warsawa 1656 to about 3000-4000 dead and wounded poles.
Swedish sources also estimate numbers of poles killed at klecko to about 3000 dead and wounded poles.
And you forgot Sandomierz where about 3,000 poles died?
so according to swedish sources: 8,800 swedes dead in battle and about : 15,100 dead poles.
hmm. you see what nationalistic sources can do? so to be fair with eachother, they had about as much battle casualties each. Imonoz (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Well,
[edit]IIRC, I just summed up losses from major battles (from English wikipedia or Polish wikipedia in case if there was no article about that particular battle and / or no casualty data on English wikipedia). Apart from casualties in major battles you seem to forget about casualties in "hit and run" warfare, which were heavy for the Swedish side, especially in 1656 onward. Regarding Warszawa - correct, Polish losses at Warszawa might have been 3000 - 4000 dead AND wounded. We only know the number of dead reported after the battle - 600 dead infantry & about 1000 dead cavalry (including noble levies & Tatars). Add to this a few hundred dead camp followers, as well as those of the wounded who later died of their wounds (sometimes many days after the battle). Swedish-Brandenburgian losses in the battle of Warsaw were about 2 or 1,5 times lower than Polish. And also many of their wounded surely died of wounds later.
Regarding other estimates:
In most cases I would trust Swedish estimates regarding Swedish losses & Polish estimates regarding Polish losses (of course with some exceptions when it seems obvious that either Swedish or Polish figures on their own losses are biased - but in most cases you can trust in each side's own casualty counts, which can't be said about estimates of enemy losses).
Overclaiming / overestimating enemy casualties happens in every war. Lowering / underestimating own casualties is less common.
Peter558 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the battle of Klecko - according to Polish sources Poles lost 1000 soldiers (dead / injured / captured).
Sandomierz - what battle do you mean? I didn't know there was even a battle near Sandomierz. When was it fought?
Peter558 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW - your figure of 30,000 Swedish deaths (I see you provided reference for this number in the Wiki "Deluge" article) is interesting.
Can you quote some fragment of what the author of that books writes there - how did he establish that number of 30,000 dead?
Some documents of the Swedish army on their casualties - or some other methods? Parochial records?
Best regards and thanks for your comments, Peter558 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are right that it was my mistake with 5,000 Swedish losses at Prostki. 5,000 are combined Brandenburgian-Swedish losses.
Peter558 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Well, I don't see how I possibly forgot "hit-n-run" tactics, since that wasn't the subject. But either way, in Sweden, this kind of warfare casualties "hitnrun" is counted in "beyond battle casualties" and instead is put where "starvation-sickness-accidents" is.
At Warszawa* the Swedish-brandenburg dead was: 700 according to the book "Karl X Gustavs Krig".
Sandomierz: "22 Mars 1656" Polish commander "Stefan Czarniecki" Swedish commander "Charles X" the battle there was held when the Swedish main army was about to retreat, and cross the river when they got attacked.
I'm not sure where that source is mainly from "30,000 dead". This is a quote: "The war (The Deluge) had not payed off well for Sweden, as the king had hoped. It had required 30,000 dead Swedes and 4 new enemies (Russia not included) Brandenburg, Austria, Poland and Denmark"
My main question mark is though, the Battle of Chojnice 1656. How can Polish and Swedish sources be that different, are they even talking about the same battle?
Greetings Imonoz (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply to reply
[edit]Hi,
Some sources put Swedish-Brandenburgian casualties at Warszawa at 1300 dead soldiers. Add to this dead camp followers. So various sources estimate Swedish-Brandenburgian losses at Warszawa at between 700 and 1300 dead soldiers (average is 1000). But also some camp followers surely died (like on the Polish side).
The battle of Chojnice was in 1657 as far as I know. And what exactly is the difference that surprises you so much?
Now, when it comes to Sandomierz:
Your information regarding the battle of Sandomierz on 22 March 1656 is wrong. There was no such battle. The entire Swedish retreat / crossing the river thing lasted for many days (it was indeed in March - April 1656) but no any major pitched battle took place - only "hit and run" attacks by Czarniecki's units. And on 22 March Swedish army just beginned their withdrawal march (on that day they were still in the town of Jaroslav - very far away from Sandomierz). On 23 March there was a clash between Polish light cavalry and Swedish vanguard near Przeworsk (Poles were repulsed). In the evening on that day (23 March) Swedish forces reached Tryncza. On 24 March Charles tried to provoke the Poles to a frontal attack against his fortified camp but failed. Swedish artillery fired at Polish positions on that day, but without much effects. On 25 March Swedish army reached Lezajsk. They stayed in Lezajks until 27 March and on 27 March they started to march towards Sandomierz. On that day (27 March) at Rudnik (40 km from Tyncza) Polish units attacked and inflicted a severe defeat on the Swedish rearguard. On 28 March Swedish army reached Nisko (40 km from Sandomierz). Near Nisko Czarniecki's cavalry attacked and destroyed Swedish supply columns in the nearby forest and then attempted to organize a surprise attack against the Swedish camp but failed to surprise the Swedes and retreated. On 30 March Swedish army reached the outlet of the San river to Vistula river. But they didn't enter the city of Sandomierz, because it had been recaptured from the Swedish hands by Polish forces of Lubomirski, who besieged the Swedish garrison and re-captured the city. So the Swedish forces stayed in a fortified camp near Gorzyce, on the right bank of the Vistula. They attempted to cross a river but initially failed. In the meantime on the opposite bank of the San river came Lithuanian forces under Pawel Sapieha and from the south Swedish forces were surrounded by Czarniecki's units. At that time this Swedish army (it was under personal command of Charles X) decreased to just 5,000 men and was trapped in their camp near Gorzyce. However, in the end Swedish forces managed to cross the river and escape the trap on 5 April 1656 - not on 22 March, as you claimed above. And on 5 April Swedish forces confronted Lithuanian army of Pawel Sapieha, who tried to prevent them from crossing the river - not forces of Czarniecki.
So there was no "battle of Sandomierz" on 22 March and against Czarniecki. There was entire "campaign" in this area, which lasted from 22 March (Swedish forces starting their retreat and leaving Jaroslav) and ending on 5 April when Charles X managed to escape from the Polish-Lithuanian trap, fighting on that day (5 April) only against Lithuanian forces of Sapieha.
I don't have info what were casualties of both sides in that campaign. But it was mostly a campaign of "hit and run" warfare, no any major field battles really took places during that Swedish retreat. But there were "hit and run" attacks, many of which were successful and cost the Swedish army large amount of casualties (for example the destruction of their supply camps near Nisko and the severe defeat of their rearguard at Rudnik). Also many of Charles' soldiers (Lithuanians & Poles in Swedish service) deserted to Polish forces.
Maybe Polish losses in this entire period were indeed 3,000 - or something like this - as Swedish sources claim.
But surely 3,000 is not the number of Polish losses suffered on a single day (as you claimed - 22 March).
When on 5 April Charles escaped from the trap, he had just 5,000 men. Forces which trapped him, were 23,000. So it was still a great achievement to escape from forces 4 times of his own size (but remember that he had only 5,000 men because he suffered very heavy casualties in period prior to 5 April). But as I wrote - he confronted only part of forces which trapped him (the Lithuanian army under Piotr Sapieha - which was less than 1/3 of entire force of 23,000 which trapped him) while crossing that river.
My source is the book "Historical Battles: Przemysl 1656 - 1657" by Andrzej Borcz, Warsaw 2006, publishing house Bellona.
Cheers, Peter558 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. I might have read that wrong in the book "Karl X Gustavs Krig", there's some detailed text there from the Swedish perspective, I'll read that again, I think I misunderstood it somewhere. But anyways, the date 22 March is when it started, so it would rather be that I refered to it as a battle when it actually was a retreat of more days. Thanks for clearing that up. It's rather frustrating though, Sweden doesn't have much books and information about this war. Probably because it became to be a fiasco in the end. When Sweden was pretty much certain for victory. But I guess Polish morale of defending its nation was rather a lot bigger than Swedish morale fighting to gain lands.
Later in the war (since early 1656) morale was indeed big. But at the beginning in 1655 the Polish-Lithuanian will of fight against Charles X was very small. King John Casimir Vasa was considered as a very poor king who had just a series of failures since he became the king in 1648, and no successes. So many nobles didn't even consider the Swedish operation as a foreign invasion, rather as Charles X's personal attempt of gaining the Polish-Lithuanian throne. Huge part of Polish nobility and soldiers supported Charles more than John Casimir and wanted Charles to become the new king. Only later when Protestant Swedish soldiers started to plunder and loot Polish towns and Catholic churches, attitudes changed. When Swedish forces attacked the Catholic Jasna Gora monastery in Czestochowa, it added insult to injury. This was enough of insults and Jasna Gora became the symbol of "Catholic resistance" against "Protestant oppression". But also Swedish soldiers started to be perceived as a foreign invaders rather than foreign expedition to dethrone the inept Polish king John Casimir - as it was at the beginning of that war.
Peter558 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar attempt of gaining the Polish-Lithuanian throne was in 1587 - 1588 by Archduke Maximilan III Habsburg (it led to the battle of Byczyna). So the 1655 Swedish "invasion" of Poland was considered as another War of the Polish Succession by large part of Polish-Lithuanian nobility, many of whom supported Charles. For example large part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the Treaty of Kiejdany) or the Polish province of Greater Poland (the treaty of Ujscie) surrendered / betrayed to Charles X without any resistance. Initially entire regions & cities surrendered to Charles without a fight and greeted them as "liberators" from inept rules of John Casimir and from his (or considered as his by nobility) military failures in war against Russia and Cossacks.
Remember, that both Charles X and John Casimir Vasa were considered as "Swedes" (Vasa was originally a Swedish dynasty). So many Polish-Lithuanian nobles had nothing against "one Swede" replacing "another Swede" on the Polish throne. ;)
Peter558 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
battle of Chojnice 1657
[edit]OK - now I know what you mean by "huge differences".
I don't know where Englund took his "3000 Polish dead" for Chojnice from, but I've seen claims that Peter Englund made some unprofessional things - instead of researching some primary sources personally (this refers to some Polish sources - maybe he has problems with Polish language and that's why he didn't research them personally) he relied on what his "friends" told him that these sources contain.
And I've read a claim by a Polish historian who wrote that Englund's book contains references to some Polish sources, which in fact do not contain what Englund claims that they contain (which is another proof that Englund didn't research these sources personally).
So probably that's where Englund's number of 3000 comes from. And Polish sources say that this battle ended before it really started - main Polish forces withdrew from the battlefield. So Polish losses couldn't be high if the main battle really didn't take place.
Polish wikipedia describes the result of this battle as follows:
"Polish army withdrew before the arrival of the main Swedish forces."
English wikipedia says something a bit different:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Battle_of_Chojnice_%281656%29#cite_note-Englund-0
"Polish army withdrew after blooding Swedish vanguard".
And it also says the 2nd version of the result ("decisive Swedish victory") - according to Peter Englund.
It even says that Englund claims Polish losses to be 3500 killed (sic!).
Cheers, Peter558 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
So wiki article says that Englund claims that 3,500 Polish soldiers were burned alive while sleeping in neighbouring villages, by 950 Swedish soldiers who set those villages on fire when Poles were sleeping. Seems like one of those "Rambo stories" - rather unrealistic. Especially that nothing like this is confirmed by Polish sources (even if Englund claims so).
Cheers, Peter558 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting I must admit, it seems like "Karl X Gustavs krig" states almost the same as Englund. Is there any Polish books translated in English that are good from this war? It would be fun to read a book which doesn't claim from Sweden for once. I don't care much of whos got the most casualties of natiolistic views, I'm just trying to put things straight but this war is a mess in Swedish literature unfort :/ Imonoz (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There are some good Polish books about this war. I will check if some of them are available in English version. Regarding the battle of Chojnice - I have found this article written in English (but its from the Polish perspective) - "Chojnice AD 1657 - battle that confused Wikipedia editors :)" - maybe it can help:
http://dariocaballeros.blogspot.com/2010/12/chojnice-ad-1657-battle-that-confused.html
Peter558 (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
And here there is some discussion in Polish (and a letter written by Des Noyers, secretary of the Polish queen, from 8 January 1657 is quoted there - it is written in French and it contains some casualty figures) about this battle:
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=75535
Peter558 (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
January 2014
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Euromaidan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Львівське (говорити) 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
btw, if you want to help on an article about (rough title) "Prospects of a Ukrainian Civil War in 2014" then feel free to add content to my sandbox here. I've been collecting sources and planning on starting such an article for a while now, seems more relevant than ever this week. --Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 20
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcin Kromer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Poland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sintashta culture
[edit]Corded Ware migration to Asia? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Peter558. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Peter558. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)