Talk:Battle of the Neva (1708)

Result
Since there is a "war of edits", I suggest starting the discussion here. Russian succeeded in defending St. Petersburg, and the Swedes were able to push back the Russians and repel several counterattacks, but they were soon forced back. I think it is wrong to indicate the "Swedish Victory" in the end, because the main goal – the defense of St. Petersburg was fulfilled by the Russians. The Swedes could not finally gain a foothold, and they could not take St. Petersburg either. ) Dushnilkin (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits will be reverted until a conclusion is reached through discussion; you can't just come and completely change a result of a battle after 10+ years without consensus, and then have the audacity to demand a discussion to revert it – that's not how things work on Wikipedia. Less so when the sources you're using does not even support your claim.
 * First off, you say Dorrell "mentions that the battle was the beginning of the Russian invasion of Finland" and you're citing page 121. I have this book, this is what Dorrell says on that page:
 * "As part of the Swedish plan for the Russian campaign the, mainly Finnish, army of General Lybecker in Finland was required to launch a campaign in Ingermanland. Ingermanland, the area around St. Petersburg, was very important to the Russians and it was hoped that this could be exploited. The intention of this was to pin the large Russian army in the area in place and possibly force more Russian forces to be sent to the area. Possibly, it was thought, Lybecker's army could even capture St. Petersburg which would be a major blow to the Russian cause. It was a good idea as the peace negotiations with the Russians had shown how important the Russians considered this area. Indeed it was important in the long term as the naval base there would doom Sweden to lose power. The plan exploited the importance of this area by seeking to weaken the decisive main Russian army. Yet the Finnish army was not a good instrument for carrying out such plan. The Finnish army was about 14,000 strong but with a large number of reserves, ex prisoner of war and other 2nd line units. It did not have a siege train or even many heavier guns which would be needed in a siege of St. Petersburg. Finally the army's commander had little higher level military experience and as events would show littler military aptitude at the level either. In addition to this the Finns faced a numerically stronger army of 24,500 Russians and in general the quality of the units in this.."
 * So it's rather clear that your editing is disingenuous.
 * Secondly, neither of the sources you've added argues the point that the Swedes were prevented from crossing the Neva; История военного дела: исследования и источники explicitly says that the Swedes crossed the Neva and the Russian force retreated, while Апраксин Федор Матвеевич mentions fighting near Koporye (Апраксин, со своей стороны, выбрал тактику мелких укусов шведской армии и делал вылазки небольшими отрядами в районе Копорья.) – Koporye is situated deep within Russian-controlled Ingria, so the Swedes must have crossed the Neva, contrary to your point.
 * Thirdly, you say: "I think it is wrong to indicate the "Swedish Victory" in the end, because the main goal – the defense of St. Petersburg was fulfilled by the Russians"; the Swedes managed to cross the Neva, which was the objective with the engagement that was fought, just as the objective for the Russians had been to prevent them from doing so. This is an article about a river crossing and its battle, not a complete campaign – if you want to create an article about the campaign of Ingria in 1708, go ahead; but again, its outcome is irrelevant to the result of this battle.
 * Since neither of your sources mention a Russian victory at Neva, and because you haven't reached consensus, your attempts to alter the result of this battle will be reverted until you do. Imonoz (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * “So, the Swedish attempt to inflict damage on the Russians on the Neva banks ended ingloriously. Apraksin's victory allowed Peter I to take additional infantry and dragoon regiments from the banks of the Neva and attach them to the army that stood in the way of Charles XII, who invaded Russia from the west.”
 * A quote from a source who allegedly claims about the fighting not on the Neva, but near Koporye.
 * Obviously, you have not even read the quoted source, it mentions only the Battle of the Neva, and the Swedes crossed the Neva, but this is a local and temporary success, as if you are specifically considering the battle in such a small way Dushnilkin (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, why did you delete the loss data? It only takes into account the battle when trying to force the Neva, so I don't see any point in deleting this data. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources explicitly says the Swedes were prevented from crossing the river; one of them even contradicts such claim, as already told, saying the Russians retreated and the Swedes crossed. But I think you've come to realize this by now. As for the crossing itself, it had the effect of allowing the Swedes into Russian-controlled Ingria, to "pin the large Russian army in the area" as Dorrell puts it, which was the objective; for this reason, it can't be considered a victory for the retreating Russians, since there would have been no way for the Swedish army to capture St. Petersburg without crossing the river in the first place. You're welcome to add any data of casualties, but if you also change the outcome, which first requires a discussion for a consensus to be reached, it will all be reverted. Also, using sources that doesn't even support your claim, and then lying about it, is strictly against Wikipedia policy. Keep doing that and you will be blocked. Imonoz (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already replied that the Swedes crossed, this is my mistake. However, wouldn't it be better for you to consider the actions as a major battle, rather than a small crossing, limiting myself to describing only local skirmishes between the sides? I propose to redo the article and include in the description not only the battle on August 29 during the crossing, but also further actions of the parties. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added dorrell because he claimed that the battle influenced the invasion of Finland, I mixed up the pages, but this data was indicated before my edits. What I made a mistake was adding a source about losses, I did not get acquainted with the content and added it according to the estimates of the second sources who claimed that the Swedes were overturned during the crossing, this is really my mistake Dushnilkin (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any skirmishes on the side, and I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean. When armies attempt to cross rivers, they use deception to hide the actual point of crossing for the enemy; so it's likely that minor skirmishes occurred at other places along the Neva as the Swedes would try to pin Russian forces elsewhere. If you're talking about all the engagements in the Ingrian campaign of 1708 to its outcome, I've already suggested that you create an article about that – this article, however, is about the battle which led to the Swedish crossing of the Neva. Imonoz (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to suggest adding to the article, including data on events after the crossing, I meant it, for example, there is not even a mention of the battles in September 1708 on Wikipedia, and I thought it would be nice to add it here Dushnilkin (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right that the article needs an update; I've now split it into three sections and added the later engagements at Koporye and Kolkanpää to make things more clear (to avoid future misunderstandings). I've added all the pages to two of the sources (Dorrell and From). I've also reduced the information in the infobox and instead added it to the article itself; this is a matter of taste (I personally like it better this way), but if you want a more detailed infobox feel free to re-add the information. Imonoz (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE may be relevant here, the generally accepted standard is that content included in the infobox should be present in the article itself. Essentially it's meant to be a summary of article content, similar to the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)