Talk:Russian Pillage of 1719–1721

Military history: European / Nordic / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Sweden Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Embarrassment to Wikipedia[edit]

In Wikipedia you will find editors inflating the "success" of their "side" in wars fought centuries ago. Here we have an article claiming that "2,200 Russians were killed" in the Battle of Grengam. If you go to the actual article for the battle, it says 82 casualties. So which is true, 2,200 or 82? Given that the battle ended in something of a draw, and there were 400+ Swedes captured, I am inclined to believe the latter number.

Editors need to put aside their biases and try to be accurate about events that occured hundreds of years ago.

JS (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, the authors of articles have no agenda's; they simply quote the references they have. I prefer the "Assume Good faith"-principle.--Aciram (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I wish I could also make the same assumption, but as a veteran of a few editing "disagreements", I have unfortunately found that some editors who edit articles about wars have firmly chosen sides (almost as if they are fighting the wars all over again) at the expense of NPOV. JS (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]