Talk:Battle of Poltava

message: I notice alot of Russian constantly is on wikipedia and twist information and make it false, lock this page after making some corrections or be more aware of changes thats made.
Please don't make me laugh, mate. --Nikitn (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frans G. Bengtsson was a good novelist but he was not a historian. The same with Herman Lindqvist. He is a good journalist but not a professional historian. But Peter Englund is an excellent historian as well as writer whose book (which is not his doctoral thesis) about Poltava is a good source for this article. But there are also many other articles by other historians in different publications, especially related to details. And there are also new books coming this year. Närking (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Message to Wikipedia

message: Could someone say some more about Mazepa and his Cossacks, specifically why there were so few of them, and what happened to them during and after the battle?  All they get is a brief mention early on in the article.
TonySever 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mazepa and his Cossacks

message: Many sources say that the swedes had very little firepowder, since it had been destroyed by many reasons on the way there, so the most muskets were useless.
:Yes, that's true that Swedes suffered a lot, there was of shortage of food and fourage. Alexandre Koriakine 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From one point it is correct, but many can assume it's the same battle: swedes were defeated and directly pursued, prisoners taken. So better to write both numbers with explanations. Alexandre Koriakine 13:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much false information

message: Why did it turn the tide of the war?
:It destroyed the Swedish army, which contained all of that nation's best fighting men. Sweden, with a fraction of the population that Russia had, couldn't just raise and train a new army the way Peter did after Narva. Plus, the defeat forced Charles XII to escape to Ottoman territory, where he remained for five years. In his absence, Peter and his Polish allies not only undid all of Charles' previous victories, but invaded Sweden's prewar holdings. In the four years he had left to live, Charles was unable to reverse the tide, and Sweden made peace after he died. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: I know that Russians mostly see the battle of Poltava as one 14-days battle were the surrender at Perevolochna but in Wikipedia there are already a page for Perevolochna, therefore I will restore the page to only show the casaulties in the actual battle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtehprwn (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We both know that you are a vandal and that your numbers are those pulled directly from your behind to fit your own agenda so who are you kidding? Shipseggsbasket (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: Surrender at Perevolochna should merge with this article because:
Only 59 google results of "Surrender at Perevolochna"
The reason is because they are considered part of the same battle. The surrender 3 days later is considered a direct consequence of the Battle. The "Surrender at Perevolochna" that was created is a fiction, the surrender was part of the Battle of Poltava, as evidenced by the mere 59 Google hits for "Surrender at Perevolochna".--Berkunt (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrender at Perevolochna should merge with this article

message: The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a project by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies in Alberta, Canada. It's correct the encyclopedia is about Ukraine, but to add figures from there and call them Ukrainian sources is certainly not true. The mainstream view among historians are the figures I and others have put in the article. Then there are Russian imperial and Soviet figures that are clearly exaggerated. Several editors think they don't need to be in the infobox but as a compromise I have put them there to show the Russian/Soviet figures. This was a battle between Sweden and Russia so it can be interesting to see how the Russian side views it. That's why they can be there. But to call the Russian imperial view Ukrainian is simply not correct. And as I said what can be interesting here is the Russian view, not a Polish, German, Italian and Ukrainian view (if there were any). Närking (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think such a broad attribution will be fair here, as the disgreement exists in Russian sources as well. For example, the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Russia gives 6900 as the number of Swedish dead, whereas the Russian Great School Encyclopedia says that "it's over 9000" (c). It seems that the lower estimate is more widespread, especially if we include all the "Swedes lost 10000 in dead and wounded" accounts. --Illythr (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why most editors didn't think it's needed it the infobox, but as a compromise I thought it could be there even though I personally don't think it's needed either. But as an example of the old exaggerated Russian imperial figures (like after the battle of Lesnaya they claimed they had killed 16,000 Swedes although there were only 12,000 Swedes present) it could be mentioned in a note for example.  Närking (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if this number is to be kept (I don't know if it's an exaggerated Imperial number, or some alternative counting method, like, including the (executed) Mazepa's Cossacks), it should be marked somehow dofferently - as, clearly, not all Russian sources give the larger figure. For that purpose, it would be nice to find someone who knows how that figure came into being in the first place.--Illythr (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we all know how that figure came there at the first place. But if there should be another figure in the infobox it would be good if you could find a good reference to the Russian imperial view here. I trust you are much better in finding that than I am. That could in fact be interesting to have there. Otherwise I don't think it's needed with another figure there. But I'm not going to take it away from the article since I don't want my userpage to be vandalised again. Närking (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do? How? I don't... It's hard to find out whose view it is/was, because, as you can see in the two authoritative Russian sources above, both numbers seem to be in use in modern Russia. Need a real historian for that... --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just meant how it ended up here in the article. But it would be interesting to know what Iunakov, N. ‘Severnaia voina: Kampaniia 1708–1709 gg.,’ Trudy Imperatorskago Russkago voenno-istoricheskago obshchestva, vols 2 and 4 (Saint Petersburg 1909) says about it. It's one of the sources "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" mentions in its bibliography. But hopefully we will also get more books on the subject next year when it's 300 years since the battle. At least I know of one Swedish/Ukrainian book that will be published next year and I would guess there might be Russian ones too. But until then I think we should make the best of this article since I'm sure many will read it during the next year. Närking (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Ukraine wasn't party to that conflict. There are two different estimates, one of which is used in most sources, the other - in some Russian and Ukrainian ones. The Ukrainian Encyclopaedia uses the larger estimate. Might as well write "according to some Russian sources" or something. --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strength and casualties

message: What exactly is this? Vallack - what's that?
Peter558 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Vallacker och volloscher is just Swedish synonyms for vlachs, although I would say most of the men in those help troops were usually Polish or Lithuanian. Närking (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vallack hussars?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Poltava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907081022/http://www.euronet.nl:80/users/sota/haggman.html to http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/haggman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Poltava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050225001544/http://battles.h1.ru/poltava.shtml to http://battles.h1.ru/poltava.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/haggman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should the Cossack Hetmanate be on both sides, or just some sort of stub to show division within the hetmanate. 
Additionally should Kalmyks be listed as official belligerents as I can't tell if they were present in an official capacity or just as the military tribute levied by the Russian Empire upon the Khanate, if in this tributary relation I think they should they be listed with a dash next to them, like various ottoman subjects are shown when present at key ottoman battles like Vienna 1683, or the subsets of the Aztec empire on their battle pages. As if listed without the dash, should we amend all Russian battles to list any subject tartars that provided aid as an official belligerent too.
Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cossack Hetmanate on both sides of the Battle Box and Kalmyks on the Russian side Comment 

message: Per MOS:MIL we don't use qualifying terms such as "decisive" (ie decisive victory). Incidentally, the term decisive is only mentioned in the lead and without verification. It is also a term with nuance, in that there are various reasons why a battle might be considered decisive.  Nor is the result parameter a place for multiple dot points per the template documentation and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - to the latter, we don't try to write the article in the infobox.  The place for such detail contained in the dot point is in the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result parameter 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: For Charles XII's 1708-1709 winter quarters, Jonathaniguess on 7 November 2021 decided the winter quarters were in Belarus. Jonathaniguess on 8 November 2021 decided the winter quarters were in Little Russia (present-day Ukraine). 158.248.115.147 on 28 January 2022 decided the winter quarters were in Former Rus (present-day Ukraine). JdelaF on 23 September 2022 decided, just as a shortening of a redirect, that the word users should see is Ruthenia. Unless someone has sourced statements re exactly where Charles stayed, I intend to remove "in Ruthenia". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I removed "in Ruthenia". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter quarters