Talk:Battle of Grengam

message: There are photos this marble plaques on WikiCommons: :Image:Memorial marble plaque 1 on Saint Pantaleon's Church (Saint Petersburg).jpg and :Image:Memorial marble plaque 2 on Saint Pantaleon's Church (Saint Petersburg).jpg. -- Sergey kudryavtsev —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.239.224.242 (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two marble plaques on church in St. Petersburg

message: 27 july is a old style date. A new style date is 7 august. -- 195.239.224.242 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle date

message: The Russian article sited clearly says that the Russians won (and while giving same swedish losses as the article, it claims that the Russians lost 82 killed, 203 wounded). Checking other wiki's, the Russian and Polish (!) wiki's claim Russian victory, the Swedish - Russian defeat. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Swedish victory?

message: With all due respect, the source which states 1000+ Russian deads are a project about Åland wrtitten by a Swedish proffessor in 1963. 
I would give my trust to the Russian navy and the Grand encyliopedia, which states total casualties are less than 300. --Nikitn (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I agree with you. I would not consider Matts Dreijer's: Ålands bebyggelse i Ord och Bild a reliable source on the battle. To me the figure of 1000 dead Russians sounds more like local recollections. What does he base his figure on? Did he count the graves - or even visit them? In 250 years a hundred real corpses can easily grow to a thousand in local legends. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: When a name has been transcribed from a Western language to Russian, one cannot transcribe once more to obtain the name in the Latin alphabet. Transcription is not a one-to-one mapping, and therefore the name will often be almost unrecognizable after such a process. This has happened in this case. The original Swedish name Gränhamn (later written as Granhamn) was first transcribed to Russian Гренгам. So far so good. To transcribe this once more to Grengam is wrong. Grengam is not a name to be found on any Western map. The correct thing to do is of course to use the name from which the Russian transcription was originally formed. Hence, the name of the battle should be "Battle of Gränhamn" or "Battle of Granhamn". The choice depends on which form is most appropriate, the historic or the modern form of the name. Alternatively, one may use the Swedish form, "Battle of Ledsund". Incidentally, Granhamn is not an island or a place. Hamn means harbor, and Granhamn (Gränhamn) was an anchorage where the sailing ships, sailing between Sweden and Finland, could find shelter, or where they could rest waiting for favorable wind. This page should be moved to a new page with one of the names suggested above. Aavat (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree on that. I would suggest "Battle of Ledsund". But sadly it's not just the name that is the problem with this article since it's not just the name that is clearly Russian. Feel free to rename and rewrite. Närking (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Restored to Battle of Grengam. The name "Battle of Granhamn" is a neologism and WP:OR. See Talk:Battle of Gangut#Name of the battle. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a section Name of the battle in accordance with the outcome of the discussion on Talk:Battle of Gangut#Name of the battle. --Aavat (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted you edits. None of the sources you provided supports either of the nonstandard names for the battle. I do not have printed English language version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia available, but the original Russian lannguage article on the battle Гренгам (Google translation) does not give a name for the battle. It is listed under the name of the island Гренгам/Granhamn, so using the Swedish language name for the island is only natural. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reintroduced the section Name of the battle, leaving out the part you did not agree on. I have also removed your reintroduced footnote 1, which said that Granhamn is located close to Stockholm. As you know, this is the wrong Granhamn. I have also corrected your following reverts: Granhamn is not an island, but an anchorage. Who would ever call an island a hamn? Look at footnote 7 before you remove it. Гренгам is not a transcription of Granhamn, but of Gränhamn. No Russian would transcribe Granhamn with Гренгам. I have also reintroduced the English translation in footnote 4. Why do you find it more natural to use a Russian text as reference instead of the translated English text? Surely, you must agree that most English readers prefer to read the English translation. -- Aavat (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this source. Someone should extract the  image of the 1650 map from the PDF-file and add it to the article. I am too lazy today. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, we now agree on most of the issues I raised; date, transcription and anchorage. (However, I think you should remove the link to Anchorage, Alaska.) With respect to the map from 1650, I have of course already made the pdf file, but I have still not been able to get a permit from Kungliga Biblioteket in Stockholm to use it in Wikipedia. But I am working on it. As you know, I still think the name is wrong, but I cannot do anything about it. However, the least one can do is to inform the readers that the way this name has been formed is not common practice. I have therefore added two sentences in the section Name of the battle. If the readers don't get this information, they might think that Grengam is a well accepted name. However, to the best of my knowledge, no encyclopedia is applying this name. As you have noticed, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not use a name for the battle. However as entry word in the English translation, it uses Granhamn and not Grengam. -- Aavat (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle name

message: Umm, I just noticed, the picture in the infobox was not updated, but changed - the "bringing" is the original one that shows the parade, but the new one is called "battle of Grengam" and depicts, well, the battle. I'll try to fix this now. --Illythr (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. --Illythr (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Thanks to User:Narking for scanning and uploading the image. There is something wrong with the description in the book, see :Commons:File talk:Ledsund-1720.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moved here from :Commons:File talk:Ledsund-1720.jpg#Identity of ships and fleets?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems that Gunnar Unger has mixed up the fleets. I see the Swedish fleet attacking in favorable winds from the left (south east?) and the Russian fleet with the galleys in anchor on the right. The ships marked with the letters (a to e) are clamed to be the Swedist capital ships. This cannot be true. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was first surprised too, but I guess it's correct. The Swedish frigates are chasing the Russian galleys and soon they will find themselves agrounded. The other ships to the left must be the rest of the Swedish fleet. Unfortunately the book doesn't give any names to those ships although they have letters on the drawing. I'm not sure where the picture comes from since the book doesn't say anything about it. Although my guess is that it might come from Herman Wrangel's book "Kriget i Östersjön 1719–21". The library here doesn't have that book but I will try to order it, although I guess it can take some time now during Christmas. But hopefully that book can give much more information. Närking (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem? The picture does seem to have taken liberty with the Russian galleys (put them way too close to the frigate and the Pommern; I like to imagine that the curvy stuff behind the galley fleet are not shore rocks, but wash from the galleys' movement as they are about to storm the baffled frigates :-) ), but aside from that, it seems to depict the descriptions more or less accurately - The frigates got carried away in chasing the galleys and went far ahead of the rest of the fleet with only the Pommern making it to the field of engagement. It also depicts a number of Russian galleys apart from the main fleet - which is in accordance with a (Swedish) account Krotov describes - about 20 galleys lingered behind at Grengam, while the main fleet lured the frigates into the strait, where two of them ran aground and were then attacked from two sides, further hampering their manoeuvring capability as well as cutting them off from the rest of the fleet. --Illythr (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Ledsund-1720 in Gunnar Unger's book

message: Gentlemen! I have added a new sub-chapter with the analysis of the aftermath accounts. What can you say/add to this? Thnax on advance! --Muravov (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a rule with regards to original research: WP:OR. While your research might be interesting wikipedia is not the place for it. You need to have actual sources backing up the statements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have made several references to the corresponding books and Wiki-articles. So the analysis is a compilation of what has been written and approved previusly in the Wikipedia. --Muravov (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the conclusions - i.e. the research - is your own. Please read the WP:OR. It doesn't matter if the information you based your analysis on is in wikipedia if the conclusion is not sourced. You can find more of that from WP:SYN. Technically even if the conclusion as such would be somewhere in wikipedia you really shouldn't use it unless you could verify that it is what the source really states - as wikipedia itself is not a reliable source WP:NOTSOURCE. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis