Talk:Battle of Vyborg Bay (1790)

message: The articles is written solely from the Swedish point of view, extolling the Swedish courage, ignoring their heavy losses and Chichagov's genius, disfuguring the names of Russian ships and eventually presenting one of the worst defeats in the history of Swedish navy as its victory. Should be rewritten. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute the above statement.  The source "Vyborg and Rochensalm" is a section of the book "The History of Russian Navy", available online.  The other two print books cited are also from a historical, not a Swedish, perspective.  I acknowledge the likely bias of the first mentioned sources, however, I included only those statements which were not contradicted or counterindicated by the other sources.  Also, if you can find objective, reliable sources which would add relevant details to support the contentions you have made above, you are more than welcome to do so.  I acknowledge that there were no books available to me presenting the Russian perspective other than "The History of Russian Navy", and this stub article, like all stub articles, is open for further expansion.  robertjohnsonrj 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Swedes forced their way out and saved their navy and King, although with very heavy losses. I would not call this as one of their "worst defeats". In fact, I would not call this as a Russian victory, as Russians let their prize slip and lost a change to finish the war by one decisive victory. I think it is NPOV to call the result as indecisive, even if the Swedes were seriously beaten. 130.234.5.137 16:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by your recent contributions, I conclude that your aim here is to propagate historical revisionism. Please be aware that original research and Russophobia will not be tolerated. Happy edits, Ghirla -трёп- 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an absurd and offensive accusation. I love Russia, but I do not appreciate national-chauvinism anywhere - not even in Russia. I have nothing to do with revisionism. I just want to state that there exists two different interpretations of this battle. 
130.234.5.137 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: I suspect that "af" in his name is similar to the German "von", so would the proper way to refer to him would be "af Puke"? Even if using the "af" is optional, I'd like to encourage using it because referring to the count as "Puke" is inadvertently humorous: it is a slang term in American English for vomit. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Count Johan af Puke

message: Regarding the statement recently added to the article, it should be noted that of the Swedish capital ship losses (8 ships) of the battle (ie. not the pursuit of the Swedish high seas fleet to Sveaborg) none were result of Russian action. 
One ship of the line (Enigheten) was lit up and exploded due 'friendly fire' - ie. by fireship Postiljonen - and four other ships of the line plus three frigates (in addition to several galleys and few transports) were grounded (and later captured) due to the poor visibility resulting from the explosion of Enigheten. Only the capture of the two badly damaged Swedish ships of the line the Russian high seas fleet was able to caught up before Swedish high seas fleet reached safety of Sveaborg can be attributed to Russian action. Just stating that pressing the point that Russian fleets performance would somehow been good in the battle is highly misleading, Swedish breakout succeeded with main cause of losses being accidents rather than enemy action. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losses in the battle 

message: Hi, everybody. As follows from the discussion above the outcome of the battle is somewhat contentious. In most language projects it is formulated as follows: 
Russian tactical victory, Swedish strategic victory. The Swedish navy managed to break out, but with heavy losses
Victoire tactique russe. Victoire stratégique suédoise
Taktisk rysk seger. Strategisk svensk seger då svenska skärgårdsflottan och örlogsflottan undkom
Taktischer Sieg Russlands. Strategischer Sieg Schwedens
But in the Russian one  it is only Russian tactical victory (тактическая победа русского флота).
  
My attempt to correct the Russian article was reverted with rather 
 emotional comments. So my question is: are there any courses, supporting the opinion of Swedish strategic victory? Thanks in advance for the answer. SlotJam (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on the outcome