Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Borodino/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Fresh proposal re the infobox

I fear I must start by observing that inevitably Zine will at some point reply to this with another iteration of "15 sources!" Please if possible can editors comment on this proposal and not chase down that entirely predictable subthread?

It seems clear that the answer to the RFC is "no"; there is no consensus in favour of "French pyrrhic victory". There is no consensus remotely in favour of any particular wording proposed (including leaving it blank), so it's a matter of finding something most of us can live with. I'd hoped "Russians retreat" was that, but clearly it ain't.

I'm not fond of these "X tactical victory, Y strategic victory, Z consolation prize" outcomes but it's something that keeps coming up. How about:

French tactical victory, leading to strategic disaster.

and inserting something like auntieruth's suggestions into the first paragraph? "Leading to" because the ensuing catastrophe was a consequence of the French victory, but that lets us avoid phrases like "Russian strategic victory" - which I think is a good idea because it's hard to say that the Russian strategy really had this result in mind. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That would work for me. It really didn't matter who won what or where when you lose thousands of troops every week. I think where the historians come down on this is that anything that kept the French in place... ergo pyrrhic... and no I don't want to dance the troll road again.Tirronan (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Or we could just follow the sources. Here's another I stumbled across just now: "Napoleon grandly called his victory the Battle of the Moskowa, but it had been a pyrrhic one" Adam Zamoyski writing in Andrew Roberts (ed.), What Might Have Been?: Leading Historians on Twelve 'What Ifs' of History, Hachette UK, 2010. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Just every once and awhile I have to take myself behind the woodshed and get to where I finally landed. I've read the definitions of Pyrric victory up to and including the Pyrric war. When one is at the wrong end of a logistics war anything that allows that army to stay is a tragic lost for said army. So when Napoleon won Borodino he came to believe that He'd won "THE Battle" and moved on to Moscow as a direct result of the Battle. Similar result was reached by a pair of battles by King Pyrrus. The sourcing is correct as well. So I am left with the result Pyrric Victory Strategic defeat. Per the classical war, it matters not what resource you are shorted, Pyrrus didn't have the Manpower to contest with Rome and it doomed him. Napoleon was short of everything and it doomed him. Therefore my decision. As to why it took me so long to arrive at this decision? I hate rewarding Trolls and their behavior. Let us do what is right for the article and move on. Pyrric Victory is a more flexible definition than we are allowing for. I want everyone to keep in mind that if you are passionate about this article then let's get this over with an move on to bring this article up to fA status. Something I will not do when we are fighting over the results box. Tirronan (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see why the weight of fifteen sources isn't enough to just write "French Pyrrhic victory", especially since nobody has linked a source that said otherwise. If we really cannot accept "French Pyrrhic victory", then my second choice would be Djmaschek's "French victory" (cited) and "French pyrrhic victory" (also cited). Banedon (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I have produced such a source (first one to hand, no less). And, because, it's not what "pyrrhic victory" means. As a corresponding example, I wouldn't use "refute" to mean "deny" in a Wikipedia article, no matter how many newspapers would say that the subject of the article "refuted" an allegation which in fact they had denied. It's a misnomer; and Zine's beloved "15 sources" are in a similar situation.
No-one's going to get their preferred wording; can you live with my suggestion above? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the book by Alan Forrest above, I've analyzed why I'm unconvinced that the source does not agree with at least 'French victory'. Besides, one source is clearly inferior to fifteen. If RS use the word 'pyrrhic victory' even if it's not what 'pyrrhic victory' means by the dictionary definition, that's still good enough for me to write 'pyrrhic victory' into the article. It is not Wikipedia's role to tell RS authors, 'hey, you got the meaning of this word wrong!' (and if that's what anyone wants to do, they're welcome to write to the authors themselves and get them to issue an erratum). They've already used it; we faithfully reproduce what they've written. I can live with your suggestion above, but only barely; it is like the absolute last choice. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It does agree with "French victory", but (to go around again) what is in the infobox should ideally not be misleading. "French victory" does rather elide the fact that dislodging the Russians at Borodino led directly to catastrophe. That's what gives us these "French tactical, Russian strategic" formulations.
And really, the absolute last? You'd rather (say) leave it blank, or use any other proposal on this talk page, such as "Russians retreat"?
"Pyrrhic victory" is all over the Aftermath section, so it has been written into the article; I'm just trying to avoid someone looking at the infobox and being misled into thinking the French losses were the cause of ultimate defeat because they have the misfortune to know what the expression actually means. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, so you'd rather have someone glance at the infobox and see "disaster"? Under your formulation, it looks more like a Russian victory than a French victory. Hitler's decision to invade the CCCP undoubtedly led to "strategic disaster", as did Imperial Japan's decision to attack the US. But this shouldn't prevent us from listing the Battle of Kiev or Pearl Harbor as German and Japanese victories respectively. You're trying to worm the campaign result (which wasn't decided until months later) into the battle result. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
"trying to worm the campaign result (which wasn't decided until months later) into the battle result" is exactly what using the P-word in the infobox would be doing. On this basis all the early Nazi and Japanese victories should be labeled pyrrhic, as it all led to strategic disaster. It makes the term so general as to be devalued and pointless. It saddens me when people want to shoehorn the entire contents of an article into an infobox instead of just letting people read the article. I still prefer leaving the parameter blank but I support Pinkbeast's proposal as the best compromise.Charles (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just absurd. Pearl Harbor and Kiev were not extremely costly victories for the Germans and Japanese. Borodino has been called a pyrrhic or "costly" or "hard-won" victory for hundreds of years by historians and scholars. For the millionth time: why are you wrong, and they right? Why does your opinion trump the sources? Because, from what you've written above, it seems you'd prefer "French victory" to "French pyrrhic victory". If that's the case, why would you lend any support at all to Pinkbeast's convoluted formulation? Why not simply write "French victory" or "French tactical victory"? I fail to see any reasoning - not to mention sources - you've presented to support your position. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me qualify that: it's the absolute last that I can accept. I strongly disagree with "Russians retreat". I also disagree with "French tactical victory, leading to strategic disaster", albeit less so. I'm also going to directly quote WP:RS here, because it's totally relevant. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." If RS uses "Pyrrhic victory", that is what we should write. Banedon (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That is what we have wrote in the Aftermath section. But that's not quite the same thing as saying that we must quote the exact same phrase that RSes do and put it into the infobox even if it is misleading - indeed, with longer excerpts, we actually can't do that for copyvio reasons. It's equally the case that RSes agree that Borodino was a French tactical victory and that it led to a strategic disaster, is it not?
Addendum - the other thing about "strategic disaster" is it's a nice place to hang the link to the Aftermath section, following the idea (as suggested by the infobox documentation) that that's a good thing to do with non-obvious results.
Thank you for being willing to consider wordings you don't like but can live with. (It's not my preference, either, obviously). Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You say "Pyrrhic victory" is misleading. No RS says that. It's just your opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant, unless it is supported by RS. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Which it is. Fowler's Modern English Usage (the 1999 revision by Robert Allen, the original being now prone to anachronisms): "pyrrhic: used of a victory won at too great cost to be of use to the victor." This is (of course) what sources cited on pyrrhic victory say. So, part 1, it is not just my opinion that the expression means what I think it does.
Part 2, RS on the battle do not in general attribute the strategic outcome to Napoleon's losses, large as they were - unsurprising when the Russian losses were larger and came from a smaller outcome. They attribute it to the Russian army remaining a force in being, the Russians' unwillingness to surrender after the capture of Moscow, Napoleon's poor supply situation (which, cold-bloodedly, was improved by having fewer mouths to feed), etc.
RS do not, therefore, say it was "a victory won at too great cost to be of use to the victor" and that is what the expression "pyrrhic victory" means. Therefore someone who reads it in the infobox and knows what it means will be misled.
But, more to the point, you are never going to agree to any wording you don't like; could you please give it a rest and let editors who are willing to compromise discuss this proposal? Pinkbeast (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe RS do not say Borodino was a victory won at too great a cost to be of use to the victor, but they do use the expression Pyrrhic victory, and therefore that is what we should write. Like I wrote earlier, if you disagree with the authors' use of "Pyrrhic victory" you can always write to them and get them to issue an erratum. Another way to do it is to get Wikipedia's policy on RS changed, such that we rely on the interpretations of editors instead of RS. Until then though rejecting "Pyrrhic victory" is in my eyes a pretty flagrant violation of basic Wikipedia policy. Compromise is great, but some things cannot be compromised on. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm so confused Pinkbeast. "pyrrhic: used of a victory won at too great cost to be of use to the victor." Yes, that's what a pyrrhic victory is. And that's what the RS refer to when they use it. Why, Pinkbeast, do you presume that the RSs are using it in some different manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZinedineZidane98 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Because, as you know perfectly well, RSes agree that Napoleon's losses at Borodino were not what led to the strategic catastrophe, but rather his decision to occupy Moscow with the Russian army still a coherent force. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm, no. Is that your argument? That the occupation of Moscow was the "pyrrhic victory"? You seem to be slipping into absurdity here again.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea where you get that from. There was no pyrrhic victory. Not at Friedland, not at Smolensk, not at Borodino, not at Moscow, and not at Leipzig. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Options summary

It looks like we have several options

  1. Russian retreat, which suggests that the Russians continued the pattern established at the first months of the campaign ...
  2. French advance, which suggests neither that the French won, nor the Russians lost, but that simply it followed the pattern of the entire first months of the campaign (Russians withdrawing deeper into Russia, French pursuing).
  3. French victory, which suggests that the battle was relatively decisive
  4. Pyrrhic French victory, which suggests that the French initially appeared to win the battle, but over time, this assessment was qualified by what happened afterward.

When I first read this morass of accusations etc., I didn't really pay attention to who posted what, just what was posted, what were the sources, and how did it all fit into the article, wikipedia's goals, and the WPMilhistory goals. It seems to me that the option 4 is the best solution to the problem, not because I side with one editor or another, but because of the historiography of the battle. As I mentioned earlier, when I teach the Napoleonic wars at my university, I use this battle as a good example of a Pyrrhic victory, one that initially appears to be a victory by one side, but in the end is considerably less than a victory. I stand by that assessment. I recommend:

  1. either leave the current "result" as empty by consensus and clarifying consequences with additional text
  2. or change "result" to Pyrrhic French victory, using wikilink on Pyrrhic, and keeping the text about the Russian withdrawal and French advance.

I'm done with investing more time in this. I wish you two would get on to other things, and stop annoying each other (and the rest of us) with this edit war, which is entirely counterproductive. There are plenty of articles to be edited, written, improved, etc., and I object to your investing my time, your time, and anyone's time in this pointless exercise. auntieruth (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That is nothing but the truth. I spent the better part of 45 days writing this article with a few Wiki friends. So what is the time spent on? Arguing over the damn results box. I ended up taking a two year wiki vacation over this kind of stupidity. Guys this is getting to be trolling. If you go through the history of the article long enough you will find two other authors that managed to stop all work. Why? The results box and the page spent years as two fat paragraphs. Between the both of you all work has again stopped. This could be an FA article instead you spend all this time accomplishing NOTHING. Find another article to work on you both have successfully ended up in no win battle.Tirronan (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Tirronan, for weighing in. I agree that with careful attention, this could be brought up to FA. But not while it's the subject of an edit war. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you I'd pick option 2. Background on the results, the battle simulates a French victory (The French were in better shape the Russians were a wreck and had to retreat). The 2nd confuser, the battle effected nothing, the more mouths to feed the faster you lose them so more French troops equals more deaths (logistics over all in this campaign). 3rd confuser, victory at Borodino was the worst result for the French. They would have lost far less had they had to retreat. Option 2 seems to be the best summary.Tirronan (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
My vote is for option 4 - as per the 15+ unimpeachable sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've managed to slip in the occasional non-results edit. Plus, I got much better at spelling "pyrrhic", so it ain't a dead loss. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds a bit redundant to me - most of the time after a victory the victorious army advances (although of course there are exceptions). Support plain vanilla option 4. Banedon (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Which two? I count Zinedine, myself, Charles, even Tirronan, Tttom1, UBER, and JRPG as editors who have weighed in, at least three of whom have edited the results more than once.
Sure, Charles and I have done most of the talking recently, but Zinedine could wear anyone out. I've only come back having resolved not to reply to them, given that it's futile.
I am very rarely convinced by the argument "this is a completely trivial issue, so do it my way and stop talking about it". Pinkbeast (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
In order of preference:
  • Option 0, leave blank.
  • Options 1 and 2, with no relative preference, linking to the Aftermath section of the article.
  • Option 3.
  • Option 4, because to be a pyrrhic victory means that the costs themselves were the reason the victory was a false dawn, and that's simply not the case. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Skimming back up the talk page, looking at editors who have not yet added to this section (if you do, _please_ feel free to edit yourself out of this list):
  • UberCryxic - do not leave blank, prefer "tactical French victory".
  • JRPG - "tactical French victory, strategic Russian victory". (I think).
  • Djmaschek - "French victory" (cited) and "French pyrrhic victory" (also cited).
  • Nick-D - Leave blank, link to discussion in body of article.
If I have missed anyone, it is not deliberate. Of course, these editors did not see the more recent counterproposals, but I hope notifications might encourage some of them to revisit the page. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we go for this: The Russian army's withdrawal from the battlefield allowed Napoleon to capture Moscow, which had been stripped of supplies and, over the next days, burnt to the ground; consequently, this conquest became meaningless as winter approached and the Russian army continued to elude him. When Napoleon retreated from the Russian Empire, the Russians continued to attack him, resulting in continued French losses and the eventual destruction of the Grande Armée. auntieruth (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am honestly not clear on where in the article you intend that to go. For the infobox we are having the RFC on it seems verbose; for the lead, well, I think the lead is pretty good now the outcome of the campaign is in the first paragraph (but I rewrote it so I would say that, wouldn't I?); for a section linked to from the results box, we have the "Aftermath" section of the article (which even uses the dreaded p-word), although it wouldn't hurt to put a clear statement like that you suggest at the head of it (and if that's where you want to insert it, that seems eminently sensible to me). Pinkbeast (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm for "French tactical victory"; the article is about the battle more than the consequences. But I'd also support even further qualifying the victory as "limited", "marginal", or "non-decisive". --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Limited French tactical victory. Strategic Russian withdrawal. And we can put an elaborated version such as I included above in the lead....? And use the p-word there. auntieruth (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinkbeast summarized my suggestion well, tactical French victory, leading directly to a strategic French defeat. If it were simple we wouldn't be having this discussion! JRPG (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be simple if we just followed the sources, like we're supposed to - instead of paying heed to the intellectual acrobatics of various anonymous Wikipedia users...... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
So, well, "limited French tactical victory", fair enough - they dislodged the Russians but the Imperial Guard did not pursue. "Strategic Russian withdrawal" is a curious one, though. Did they withdraw for strategic reasons, or because they were compelled to after Kuzutov's paralysis? After all, it's been suggested by historians they might have won (indeed, one can imagine us having this conversation the other way round; the French dislodged but falling back on their supply lines, improving their strategic situation).
I think this illustrates the basis of the "leave it blank" position - it's not that we can't think of things to put in the infobox, but that anything we do think of is not very satisfactory. (Hence the proposal of a bland undeniably-true statement like "Russians retreat", although of course that is not very satisfactory because of all it leaves out).
In the lead we already have "Borodino represented the last Russian effort at stopping the French advance on Moscow, which fell a week later; but because the Russian army was not badly beaten enough to be rendered ineffective, the French would have no clear way of bringing Czar Alexander to peace, resulting ultimately in the retreat from Moscow and the defeat of the French invasion." What specific changes to that would you propose? I agree that bits of what you have, especially the section beginning "which had been stripped of supplies", would be useful additions.
... but not the p-word, to no-one's surprise, I suppose. (It does come up in the Aftermath section). Honest question: how would you define a pyrrhic victory? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

With this comment, it should be obvious to any disinterested reader that Pinkbeast isn't qualified to have his opinion figure so prominently in this debate. Above he said, and I quote: "The French dislodged the Russians (so they won?) but didn't destroy the Russian army (so they lost?)". That, together with this admission that he doesn't know what a Pyrrhic victory is, should reveal the above argumentation for what it is: deliberate obfuscation in order to complicate the issue, and ignore the sources. I've provided 14 or 15 high quality sources which state it was a Pyrrhic victory - with some referring to what that actually means. Others, like Hosking, don't use the word "Pyrrhic" but nevertheless elucidate the concept. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made no such admission. I have asked auntieruth how she defines the term. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
And what is the point of asking such a question? Presumably she defines it the same way as everyone else does, including, notably, the countless scholars who have written about the battle and called it a pyrrhic victory! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Let Aunty speak for herself. Please stop attacking other editors and assume good faith. At least most of the "anonymous" editors in this conversation are regular constructive editors rather than dropping by every few months for a tedious bout of edit warring over a pyrrhic obsession.Charles (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Charles, looking at the edit history of this page, of the 500 edits, it seems you've "edit-warred" by "reverting" almost two-dozen times, against at least 4 separate users trying to make sourced changes to the results tab.... and you accuse others of being "obsessed". This was, I believe, the first article I tried to edit on Wikipedia... if something as simple and straightforward as this does not adhere to established scholarship, it doesn't leave me much hope for trying to tackle truly controversial issues...... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Charles.  :) Zine and Pinkbeast, I'm trying to find middle ground with which both of you can be satisfied. Left to my own, I would say it was a Pyrrhic French victory, or possibly a temporary French victory. Although Napoleon managed to achieve his immediate territorial goal (Moscow), the escape of the Russian army meant that he would not be able to bring the Tsar to any peace discussions, let alone a surrender. The destruction of the city (including the removal of all supplies) meant he could not sustain his own army in the region over the winter. So if the battle was a French victory, it was indeed a hollow one. The subsequent destruction of his own army during the withdrawal from Russia gives the victory in the campaign to Russia. Whether or not this Russian victory was a Pyrrhic one is arguable; the Russians were not only in the position to field an important army in the subsequent fighting, but were in at the kill in 1815. auntieruth (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Do I agree it was a hollow victory? Absolutely. But that's not quite the same thing. I think some of my comments above may have been lost in another round of "15 sources".
So, please, what do you think of the contention that anything one might put in the infobox is, to some degree, unsatisfactory? Can you be more specific about changes you propose to the lead? And - honest question - how do you define "pyrrhic victory"? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the first article you tried to edit on Wikipedia was French invasion of Russia where you made an edit with no edit summary, were reverted with an explanation, and promptly reverted back with no edit summary; the start of a long and illustrious career in edit warring. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Do RSes actually say "pyrrhic victory" or indeed "French victory"? (Spoiler: they don't)

It strikes me that using Google Books to find sources that do use a phrase you want to employ does nothing to measure how many other sources don't use it.

I've spent an interesting couple of lunch breaks in the university library looking at all the English-language (since a) this is partly a language usage issue and b) I speak French and German abominably) books on 19th century Russian history published from 1950-1999 (because the library is quite large). I happen to have also looked at two books from this century, one because I intended to borrow it and one because it was the first book and was next to the group I intended to be looking at. I list the books below which mention Borodino more than in passing, with what seem to be the most salient quotes. Other than that I have not been selective; I specifically have not discarded any book which says "pyrrhic victory".

"each side claimed the victory, but the day ended in a stalemate, and Kutuzov's forces, however shattered, retreated in perfect order."
Neither side is granted victory.
"Had Napoleon used it, he could probably have destroyed the Russian army. But he reckoned that price was too high to pay, for it would leave him too weak after the victory."
"it" is of course the Imperial Guard. No mention of "pyrrhic". Unclear to me if it grants victory to Napoleon, or only speaks of the victory that would have been had he committed the Guard.
"Even here he was not able to press home the victory which he thought he had gained."
"he" is Napoleon. Neither side granted victory; Napoleon thought he had a victory.
"too close run"
"both opposing commanders claimed a victory, Napoleon because his men had captured the Russian positions and Kutuzov because his army still barred the road to Moscow."
Neither side is granted victory.
"Napoleon refused to order the Guard into action to win a decisive victory."
"Beside this mountain of corpses each one claimed victory."
Neither side is granted victory.
"Pyrrhic victory"
Neither side is granted any other kind of victory.
"in the stubborn protracted combat both sides suffered tremendous losses. The Russian army held its position and was ready to renew the battle the following morning"
Neither side is granted victory.
"the French held the field. But the Russians had fought and retreated with great discipline."
"Never in all his campaigns had a battle cost Napoleon so dearly. Yet it seems certain that this inconclusive battle would have been a decisive victory had he thrown in his elite troops, the Imperial Guard."
Neither side is granted victory.
"It is possible that Napoleon might have won the decisive victory he wanted if he had committed his Imperial Guard towards the end of the conflict."
Neither side is granted victory.

So, of ten books examined, all of which appear to be scholarly sources, only two use the expression "pyrrhic victory" and only one (two, at a push) describes it as a victory absent the word "pyrrhic". The majority of RSes appear in fact to conclude the battle was a draw.

Hence, since only one editor has (predictably) not found my suggestion above at least tolerable, and since there does not in fact appear to be any preponderance of reliable sources in favour of "pyrrhic victory" or "French victory", I propose absent some cogent objection to implement it.

To anticipate the cry that fifteen is more than ten - it is, but I didn't pick those ten by searching for the exact phrase I wanted to use. It might be better to say that only fifteen sources, out of all the Googleable sources that discuss Borodino, employ that misnomer. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You've still yet to find a source that contradicts the "pyrrhic victory" designation. There is nothing new here. Some use the ter "pyrrhic victory", some don't. Some point out that both leaders "claimed victory", some don't. They all say it was a costly battle. None say it was "a draw" (your interpretation). Unless you can find any sources that state that the conventional account of the battle is inaccurate, you're still fighting a losing battle here. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a funny sort of history book you must have that goes around saying what things are not. I have a number of books about Oliver Cromwell, but not one of them says he was "not the King"; a number mentioning Trafalgar, none of which say that Nelson was "not in excellent health afterwards", and indeed I have never read a book about Napoleon's campaigns that says that the Russian winter is "not toasty warm". Likewise, I don't expect an author who knows what a pyrrhic victory is to take time out to write "not a pyrrhic victory", so the expectation that one would explicitly contradict it is unlikely.
You are also clutching at straws with objecting to a "draw" (a word I have not proposed putting in the infobox). Almost no source says it was a victory; they use words like "stalemate", "inconclusive", "too close run". These words are not too far in meaning from "draw".
Why would I need a source that says the conventional account of the battle is inaccurate? I think the conventional account of the battle is accurate. However, it seems that the majority of sources do not give an account that calls it a "victory" of any kind, let alone a "pyrrhic victory". Since it is also easy to cite sources on English usage that say what "pyrrhic victory" means, the expression is neither justified by correct usage nor by the majority of sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Then have a result that says Pyrrhic victory (cited), Stalemate (cited), inconclusive (cited), both sides claimed victory (cited), Pinkbeast victory (cited), and whatever other result you can find a RS for. Is it that hard? Banedon (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Or better still leave it blank in line with long term consensus and military wikiproject guldelines.Charles (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that even remotely satisfactory? We start by telling the reader it's something it wasn't (and in fact that it seems sources generally do not call it), then we use two approximate synonyms (plus any more synonyms for "draw" we can drag up?), then something else, and then whatever a "Pinkbeast victory" is.
This comes down to trying to cram half the article into the infobox. And seriously, for all Zine's howls of protest, why _should_ we use "pyrrhic victory" at all when it's not actually widely used by sources? Pinkbeast (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to use it.Charles (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that, per guidelines, we leave it blank if we can't reach consensus, which seems to be the case here. But, users will typically expect to find a result in the infobox, so I'd judge this no-consensus as a failure on our part; can we please avoid that? Perhaps we can compromise on "inconclusive"? That can be both a fair summary of the battle results, and fits the sources inability to agree on a "better" conclusion. Failing that, I guess we might go with "debated" with a link to the full description of the results, but that sounds like we editors just gave up completely. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What about the "fresh proposal" in the previous section, which all but one editors found acceptable (not marvellous, but tolerable)? I think that's a reasonable compromise (of course, I would, since I suggested it). Pinkbeast (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean "French tactical victory, leading to strategic disaster"? I'm okay with that (although "disaster" seems ever-so-slightly unencyclopedic), but it wasn't clear to me that there was consensus for it. The whole section if full of tangents, with the proposal itself hardly mentioned. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There isn't consensus for anything; no wording (including the current lack of wording) has been proposed and actually liked by all the editors replying.
Hence I think we must make the best of a bad job and try and pick a wording which a majority of editors can tolerate and which seems vaguely consistent with some of the proposals made up-page. So far, all but one of the responding editors (no prizes for guessing the other one) have said that they think the wording is tolerable, which I think makes it the least worst suggestion we have got. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: I used the term "disaster" because "strategic defeat" seems a bit of an understatement for describing the retreat from Moscow. If Napoleon had been the one who was compelled to fall back, and hence ended up retreating from Russia much earlier in the winter, that would have been a strategic defeat. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Banedon hit the nail on the head. You can find various sources calling it various things - but the preponderance of sources call it either a "pyrrhic victory" or a "costly victory". The fact that Pyrrhic victory is overwhelmingly used to describe this and other classic pyrrhic victories throughout the history of warfare, should be enough for us. But Pinkbeast seems hell-bent on characterizing it as not just a "draw" or "inconclusive", but as a "disaster" for Napoleon. Not even the Russian monument at the field of Borodino itself makes such an outrageous claim. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And another thing, all we can do is take your word about what the sources you found in the library apparently state.. and given your record above - accusing me of all kinds of nefarious actions of bad faith - I wouldn't be inclined to trust your integrity. (If you went to all that trouble, why didn't you photograph the pertinent passages? I can photograph the books I have at hand). I mean, it seems a pretty convenient coincidence that all the sources one can find online, and in my bedroom, call it a costly victory of some sort - while all the ones you personally found, in a library somewhere, didn't..... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If you follow the links you will find that the "somewhere" is Cambridge University, of which you may have heard; the University Library has, I believe, a slightly more comprehensive collection than your bedroom. Any member of the University (or, I believe, fellows of many other academic institutions) can go and view those books for themselves and verify both that they say what I say they do and that there is not a vast selection of other books I have omitted - indeed, anyone at all can look for English-language books in the online catalogue with classmarks beginning "586:7.(a/b/c/d).95." which I seem to have omitted. I don't intend to respond further to the accusation you are making.
Furthermore, you are rather ignoring the distinction between a costly victory - manifestly both sides' casualties were enormous - and a pyrrhic victory, where the costs are themselves what renders the victory useless. It is not remarkable that when you search _for_ "pyrrhic victory" all the sources you find online use that phrase; it is more remarkable that when I try as far as possible to look at a random cross-section of books, only a small proportion do.
It is also not true, of course, that I am trying to classify the battle as a disaster. My proposed wording says that the battle led to a strategic disaster. I think it is probably generally acknowledged that the occupation of Moscow did not turn out ideally for the French. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a nice story. But the facts remain the same: eminent authorities on Russian history (Hoskings, Mikaberidze) and the Napoleonic Wars (Rothenberg) call the battle a pyrrhic victory. It is an established convention, dating back hundreds of years (the Comte de Ségur used the phrase in the early 1800s, Theodore Ayrault Dodge at the end of that century). These sources are unimpeachable. Unless you can find something that contradicts, or revises them, then what are you doing here, saying they're wrong? On what authority?
Quoting single sentences from random books and then writing "Neither side is granted victory" does not change the facts. Does not change what the sources say. Unless you can find equally eminent sources which contradict the ones I have given, you're not only in breach of Wikipedia policy, you're guilty of a profound misunderstanding of how the discipline of history works. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pushed the button

Until more than one editor finds my suggested wording other than the best compromise we have, or until there is a better proposal, I have put it in the infobox; I would prefer the de facto situation where it is blank, but I appreciate other editors do not, and we cannot wrestle Zine forever - particularly since, to be frank, they have accused me directly of lying about sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So, you're operating according to your own personal whims, and the support of Charles (who has edited-warred on this article over this same issue going back years). All the uninvolved editors since I did the RfC, agreed with me. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not the one who has previously been blocked for edit warring on this article, or anywhere else for that matter. I support Pinkbeast's action. It is time for ZZ to drop the stick and stop trying to bulldoze their opinion into the infobox.Charles (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Pot.Kettle.Black. The majority of editors agreed with me - not to mention all the sources. Pinkbeast and Charlesdrakew vs the 13 sources, myself, Djmaschek, UberCryxic, and Banedon. That's 4 v 2. Plus, ye know, the 13 sources that you just deleted. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's not get emotional over this. I suggest that, since we're all heavily biased thanks to our involvement here, we do one of the following:
  • Ask an uninvolved editor to close the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and everyone agrees to abide by the closer's decision.
  • Request formal mediation.
I think the first option is preferable. Banedon (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm confident that any uninvolved editor/s will respect the sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree. First of all, as we've seen, it's easy for someone coming to it fresh to accept Zine's cry of "fifteen sources" (in passing, I'm not totally convinced that "Kathleen Berton Murrell, Discovering the Moscow Countryside" is a scholarly source on Napoleonics, nor indeed that the US Army Command and General Staff College's principal concern in 1942 was accurately describing a battle 130 years ago) without realising that it seems actually only a small proportion of sources use the expression "pyrrhic victory". You yourself came to that snap judgement, and I think you would have to now admit it is not as straightforward as it appears. Hence I would much prefer to continue with the opinions of those who have followed the discussion.
Secondly, I don't think we're that biased. With one exception, the editors here have been willing to discuss wordings other than their preferred one and their relative preferences, in a civil fashion. I believe my edit has improved matters, replacing a blank result, which more than one editor (yourself included) described as worse than what we have now. There is no reason not now to go to FA, as Tirronan would like. Equally well, I am quite willing to discuss any further proposed wording; I don't regard what is there now as more than a potentially temporary least-worst solution and I think it is entirely possible that someone can come up with something better.
Zine aside, who will never be satisfied until they get exactly what they want, the process we have used works; we talk about proposed wordings and try and work out which one we dislike the least. This is a useful iterative process to improving the article; I don't see that abandoning that for an answer set in stone would be useful. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not true that "all the uninvolved editors since you did the RfC" agreed; for example, A D Monroe III and Nick-D did not - nor did UberCryxic, in spite of you naming them above. It is true that every editor but you has described my proposed wording as tolerable. It is not true that anything like that proportion of editors so regard your proposed wording. It is not true I am operating according to my own personal whims; I have removed my preferred option - blank - and inserted the one that seemed to be disliked the least by editors overall. I could have operated according to my own personal whims by spinning out the talk page discussion forever. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the current wording -- not perfect, but highly preferred over blank. Anything with "pyrrhic" would require some additional explanation since French losses alone did not lead to final defeat, defeating the purpose of the infobox being short and simple. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How can there be a "compromise" wording that is pure opinion, or, as Wikipedia likes to phrase it "original research"? Pinkbeast has not provided a single source for the "strategic disaster" designation. I'm tired of insisting on appealing to the sources, appealing to authority (nevermind logic or common decency). If two individual Wikipedia editors are allowed to contradict the esteemed, specialist authorities on something as fundamental established historical facts - while trying to block input from neutral, uninvolved users - then, really, what's the point? It seems to be becoming clear to me that the way Wikipedia is currently function here: Pinkbeast and Charles own this page as a Gang of 2, and the opinions of historians or the input from other users is totally irrelevant. This is a cause for serious concern. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If we owned the page as a Gang of 2, the result would be blank, that being the option we actually prefer. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Why should your "preference" be of any concern to us or Wikipedia at all? You're more of an authority, better qualified, than Alexander Mikaberidze - on whose work the bulk of this article is based upon? You're opinion is more important than the weight of 200 years worth of historical analysis? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We have a lot of proposals, all sourced; it's up to us to balance and select from them. If ZZ opposes "disaster" as not specifically quoted in a source (though I'd be surprised if one couldn't be found), then I suppose "defeat" would be okay. But, please, "pyrrhic" is against consensus at this point. Something very close to what PB put together is all we have left. If we end with no consensus then we must blank it, which I would count as a failure as our job as editors. Let us not be that incompetent, and give the readers something informative. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A D Monroe, if you can find a high quality source that calls the Battle of Borodino a "disaster" or a "defeat" for Napoleon, then I'll quit and never post a single thing here ever again. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We're using "leading to" for defeat/disaster -- the retreat from Moscow; that's sourced, of course. We're all trying to reach a consensus, right? We've spent thousands of words on this short phrase, so far. Our editing skills are more valuable elsewhere. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've really tried to stay out of this except to voice a few opinions and vote. Pink you have derailed any consensus except the one that you proposed. You have frustrated the hell out of a pair of folks sent over by the Milhist group. Then on top of that you decided to put your own idea in anyway. This is flat out ownership of the article or at least the results box. I don't have time or patience for this kind of behavior. You can either remove the result and find a way to work with the rest of the nice people or I will take this up with the appropriate folks. I don't like trolling and like it or not that is exactly what you are doing. I am beyond sick of this forever blog and your ability to campaign endlessly. No one will work on the article because of your and Zine's playground behavior. Keep it up and I am going to the Admin's and see what has to be done.Tirronan (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. The results box _had_ my preferred option in, and I changed it to something else - something else I proposed, yes, but that's because I've been trying to propose options and see who likes what rather than sticking to my own preference. If I remove the result (of which you yourself said "That would work for me") it'll be back to my preferred option again, and the question of what to put there will be right back where it started.
I specifically alerted the admin who locked the page and threatened bans last time before making this edit, an edit I said I proposed to make a week in advance after going and looking up more sources to justify it.
If you want to take it up with other admins that's up to you, but I submit a better idea would be to leave it be. Whoever suggested it, we have a wording everyone (but Zine) can live with where we didn't before. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That is the problem Pink, only you will set the results box. That is by definition ownership. We DO NOT OWN articles in Wikipedia. Make a decision and live with it. Tirronan (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
We have a solution that appears to fulfill consensus; what else matters? --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we have a final that everyone is in agreement then?Tirronan (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Bluntly, I don't think we can. No wording has been suggested that everyone likes, and it's not clear to me that any wording exists that everyone likes. That's why, for all you've just bit my head off for it, I've been trying to find the least-disliked. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with current "French tactical victory, leading to strategic disaster" that links to the section discussing the complete results. It may not be perfect, but it's not objectionable, and much better than leaving it blank, which is what we get without a consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree as above.Charles (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree I used to think this was possible as a last-ditch compromise, but the more I think of it the more I dislike it. Linking the battle result with the campaign result is unpalatable, or one might as well say the Fall of France was a German tactical victory, leading to strategic disaster. Besides the wording right now says that Borodino led to strategic disaster, when the aftermath section says that the French were suffering strategically before (and after) Borodino. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree, obviously. Speaking of this battle as a "strategic disaster" is a twilight zone reality. Not to mention the sources, of course. (and the uninvolved editors, the Military History Taskforce members, the totally innocent random users who have come along over the years to change to infobox, only to be immediately reverted by Charles, etc, etc, ad infinitum). Why not just get an admin to make a ruling? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This thing, again

I've read much of the discussion that's taken place above. I can say without equivocation that the current version of the result is much worse than if it had been left totally blank. The fundamental problem I have with the new statement is the total bastardization of this thing called causality: the phrase "leading to strategic disaster" implies that Borodino caused the strategic disaster. But that's absolutely false. Surely the 150,000 troops Napoleon lost because of typhus had something to do with the ultimate result. Surely the fact that over half of the French central strike force had already been lost before the Battle of Borodino because of disease, malnutrition, and logistical exhaustion had something to do with the ultimate result. Surely Napoleon diddling around for three weeks in Moscow didn't help, nor did choosing to retreat the French army via a northern route bereft of supplies.

Borodino by itself didn't lead to any disaster; it just failed to knock out the Russian army. And the same bland fact is true for every other French victory in this campaign; the Battle of Smolensk, for example, is quite hilariously labeled a "French strategic victory" in its current infobox even though you could criticize the outcome for the French on the same grounds as Borodino (the Russian army lived to fight another day). Under this logic, every battle on the way to Moscow was a "strategic disaster" for the French since it didn't annihilate the Russians and just drew them further into the dragnet. It's a bit absurd. There are people in this discussion that want to make this article about the campaign and not about the battle. Let's stop this nonsense and remember what we're dealing with: a battle, not a war. My position is that the infobox should simply say French tactical victory with no qualifications, but I would rather just leave it blank rather than misrepresent history so blatantly.UBER (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. "Absurd" is definitely the word. I prefer "pyrrhic", however I can live with "French tactical victory". ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we can live with leaving it blank I'll be delighted. That's what I've wanted all along. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Blank has always been my preference.Charles (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, can we get a vote similar to the one in the section above to see if anyone (other than Pinkbeast and Charlesdrakew) is not happy with some variation of "French victory", "French Pyrrhic victory" or "French tactical victory"? Banedon (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Er, could you say _which_ of those you are actually proposing, please? I certainly don't think the same of all three of them.
  • "French tactical victory" (linked to Aftermath) is the best of a bad bunch. I could live with that.
  • "French pyrrhic victory" is right out for reasons listed ad nauseam.
  • "French victory" (linked to Aftermath) is somewhere in between. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then perhaps "French tactical victory [link to Aftermath]" would be acceptable to everyone? Banedon (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It still perpetuates the absurdity (i.e., anonymous Wiki users making our own judgments on history, and giving our own special names for things, regardless of the sources and centuries-long established scholarly convention) but it's better than nothing. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If that is the consensus then I will agree.Tirronan (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's been almost two weeks with no contrary opinion, so I've gone ahead and edited the result. All hail consensus! Banedon (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Not to be awkward, but I had envisaged French tactical victory, to naturally guide the reader to that section... Pinkbeast (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory"

There is no consensus to accept "French Pyrrhic Victory" or indeed any other phrase (except maybe "it's complicated"); an alternate proposal by Pinkbeast is found wanting also, though there is less discussion there than I'd like. I do not see significant opposition to their suggestion that a link be placed to an "Aftermath" section. Participants, and particularly ZinedineZidane98, are advised that personal attacks are counterproductive in an RfC, as well as blockable. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory", no result, or some other description of the result? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I and some other editors maintain that it should, according to the sources. Some other editors disagree ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


"According to the sources" is a sneaky bit of editoralising. Other sources do not use this expression. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to share any high quality sources that deny Borodino was a French victory - Pyrrhic or otherwise? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
"Or otherwise" is the gotcha there, though. You are advocating a wording that says it was _not_ otherwise. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether the word "Pyrrhic" is used or not is of no concern to me, it's the concept. "Costly" would also be acceptable (another user added that in, which I believe you or Charles immediately deleted). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive list of high-quality sources that support my side of the argument...


David Saunders, Russia in the Age of Reaction and Reform 1801-1881, Routledge, 2014

"Napoleon entered Moscow a week after Borodino but quickly discovered that he had won a Pyrrhic victory." (p. 52)


Gunther E. Rothenberg, The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Indiana University Press, 1980.

"Borodino was a Pyrrhic victory and Waterloo a failure." (p. 150)


Mark Schrad, Vodka Politics: Alcohol, Autocracy, and the Secret History of the Russian State, Oxford University Press, 2014

"Borodino was a pyrrhic victory for the French, who were too exhausted to pursue the withdrawing Russian army." (p. 152)


Alexander Mikaberidze, The Battle of Borodino: Napoleon Against Kutuzov, Pen & Sword Military, 2007.

subheading: "A Pyrrhic Victory" (p. 204)


Achilles Rose, Napoleon's Campaign in Russia 1812: An Analysis of the French Campaign from a Logistical and Medical Perspective, Leonaur Limited, 2012.

"After the pyrrhic victory of Borodino the French occupied Moscow...." (book cover)


Philippe Henri De Segur, Napoleon's Russian Campaign: The Invasion, Battles and Retreat by an Aide-de-Camp on the Emperor's Staff, Leonaur Limited, 2007.

"the early successes of the French and allied armies and the pyrrhic victory of Borodino. He accompanied Napoleon to the Kremlin and saw Moscow burning." (book cover)



U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Military review, 1942.

"Borodino was indeed a Pyrrhic victory for Napoleon. Both Russian and French losses were very great, Kutuzov losing about 40,000 and Napoleon 30,000 men." (p. 36)


Kathleen Berton Murrell, Discovering the Moscow Countryside, I.B.Tauris, 2001.

"...enabling the French to take Moscow unopposed. But it was a Pyrrhic victory..." (p. 31)


Erik Durschmied, The Weather Factor: How Nature Has Changed History, Hachette UK, 2013.

"At Borodino, Napoleon won a pyrrhic victory..." (p. 183)


Theodore Ayrault Dodge, "Napoleon; a History of the Art of War: From the beginning of the Peninsular war to the end of the Russian campaign, with a detailed account of the Napoleonic wars", Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1907.

"A PYRRHIC VICTORY" (p. 583)


Spencer C. Tucker, A Global Chronology of Conflict, ABC-CLIO, 2009.

..."enabling Bonaparte to claim victory... The victory is a hollow one..." (p. 1088)


Alexander Mikaberidze, The Burning of Moscow: Napoleon's Trail By Fire 1812, Pen & Sword Military, 2014

"Indeed, it was a Pyrrhic victory..."

ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Banedon (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd encourage anyone coming here afresh to read the discussion above; it's a bit more complicated than it looks. It's also worth referring to Template:Infobox_military_conflict which explicitly discourages this suggestion.
Indeed, on referring to that template it suggests we might put something like "result=Consequences", which I'd favour. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking "sources that support my side of the argument" is a terrible practice. All accessible sources should be considered. From what I've seen, the consensus is that this battle was a French victory, but that it wasn't decisive as the Russian Army survived and was able to use the geography of the Moscow area and its climate to wait out the French. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Who's "cherry picking"? I've haven't been able to find a high-quality source which says anything other than the battle being a costly military victory for Napoleon. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This return to a stale topic is about as welcome as Bonaparte returning from Elba to kill a lot more soldiers. Infoboxes are for essential indisputable facts, not for value judgements of this nature. I agree about the cherry-picking of sources. Just leave the parameter blank and have a balanced and far more informative discussion in the body of the article.Charles (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; I've come to expect seeing a statement about who won that I can digest at a glance. It doesn't have to be "French victory" or "Russian victory" - "stalemate" or "inconclusive" etc would also be a result. The vast majority of articles about battles have such a result; this should, too. Banedon (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To do that we'd have to settle who did win. That's the issue. The French dislodged the Russians (so they won?) but didn't destroy the Russian army (so they lost?). And it certainly wasn't a pyrrhic victory because the consequences did not follow from the French losses. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It's silly to think Borodino could possibly have been a Russian victory because the French didn't destroy the Russian army. Most battles don't outright lead to one of the armies being destroyed. The standards of the time, I'm pretty sure, gave the victory to whoever controlled the field at the end of the battle. In that view the French won, period. Next question is whether it's a Pyrrhic victory. A Pyrrhic victory is one in which the victory cost the victor so much it might as well have been a defeat. In that sense, Borodino wasn't immediately a Pyrrhic victory, although it would later prove to be one. Do you call that a Pyrrhic victory? I would. There are also plenty of sources that say the same. I don't want to say this, but the ultimate authority on Wikipedia is sources, not the opinions of editors. Banedon (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, you've slid into the realm of absurdity when you claim that it can't be a French victory because the didn't "destroy the Russian army". I'm not sure your opinion ought to be taken seriously, at this point. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Destruction of the Russian army was a realistic goal, one that might have been achieved by committing the Imperial Guard. This is discussed in the article. It's hard to see it as a Russian victory, but one can see it a a draw (and some sources do); and one can see it as a Russian strategic victory because they kept their army intact (and some sources do).
It didn't later prove to be a pyrrhic victory; it never proved to be a pyrrhic victory. The huge French losses at Borodino were not the cause of the ultimate loss of the Russian campaign. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
List the sources that call it a draw or Russian strategic victory? Banedon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Above - literally the first book I had to hand, "Napoleon", Alan Forrest, 2011, who writes of Smolensk and Borodino: "Neither battle was conclusive; certainly neither was a great tactical Napoleonic triumph. The carnage was frightful, the losses shocking on both sides. Each time the Russians withdrew after the battle, and each time Napoleon was lured further into the Russian heartland" - and doesn't use the word "victory" at all.
But I'm not arguing for "draw" (or "Russian strategic victory", because that opens the complicated question of whether the Russians had any idea things were going to work out in the end and, if not, whether one can be said to win a strategic victory entirely by accident); I'm arguing that anything in "result" is somewhat misleading. However, I appreciate the point that it's a bit odd to have nothing, which is why I'm suggesting a short factual statement no-one can disagree with: "Russians retreat". Pinkbeast (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well aside from the fact that that source doesn't call Borodino a draw or a Russian strategic victory, there's also the fact that it implicitly calls Smolensk and Borodino tactical Napoleonic triumphs (just not a great one), and the fact that 'triumph' in this context is practically synonymous with 'victory'. I am unconvinced that Forrest thinks Borodino was not a French victory. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We've been down this road before. Please see Battle of Toulouse. There was a dispute over whether it was a British or French victory which was neatly resolved by me and User:Alexandru.demian by citing the authors who gave each outcome. That way it's not any one editor's opinion. One way to resolve the Borodino dispute would be to do the same: with French Pyrrhic Victory cited and French Victory cited. Yes, I see the description under "results" in Template:Infobox_military_conflict but there are exceptions to every rule. Indeed, the ideal solution (which I'm not volunterring to do) would be to follow the template and create a Commentary section to air out this dispute, citing authors of course, instead of wasting one more minute in this futile discussion of a minor point in an otherwise excellent article. For an example of the Commentary approach see Battle of Caldiero (1805). Djmaschek (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already rewritten the lead to make the outcome and consequences more clear, which is more useful than this dispute. There are exceptions to every rule, but I ain't convinced this is one. The suggestion at the template that "result" be set to a link to the Aftermath section seems equally useful and is consistent with the rule. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Caldiero (1805) seems a perfect example of the sort of unsatisfactory situation that arises from wanting to list a result no matter what. We read at the top in the infobox that it was a French victory, and only when we get to the bottom of the page do we find out that no-one can quite agree who won. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been the same story for over a year now. I provide sources, while Pinkbeast and one or two others provide their own personal opinions and convoluted rationalizations. Why are they allowed to get away with this? Why should an encyclopedia care about the opinions of 2-3 random, anonymous internet users? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing on RFC by ZidaneZidane98

I'm taking this opportunity to editorialize. Pinkbeast, in the previous sections it was ZinedineZidane98 who behaved less than admirably; this time it's you. Please refrain: there is no evidence that an editor was picked because they were likely to influence the outcome in a manner favorable to the alleged canvasser. In other words, there was no canvassing. Note that I'm simply going down the list on this talk page, from one unholy conflict to the next. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I notice that ZidaneZidane98, not content with the RFC itself, is inviting specific editors to participate: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Auntieruth55&diff=prev&oldid=669337970 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian_Rose&diff=prev&oldid=668878112

The potential to cherry-pick ones who they feel are likely to agree is obvious. This is sharp practice. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. But "Auntieruth55" was suggested to me by "Ian_Rose", as you would have seen, if you bothered to read the above diff you posted. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
So, so far, you have only cherry-picked one editor. Good. Please don't do it again. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Who have I "cherry-picked"? Ian Rose is the head of the Military History Project - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators , and he excused himself due to an admitted lack of expertise (an honorable move, you should take note), suggesting two editors who he knew to be specialists in this area, both of whom have commented. Who else do you suggest I should have asked for input? The more eyes on this the better, as far as I'm concerned. The sources are definitive. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, I was not cherrypicked, I was identified as an authority in the Napoleonic wars by Ianrose, the lead coordinator. I suggest you two stop this mindless bickering. Add Pyrrhic French victory to the info box, and get on to other things. Make sure the article clearly states why it was a Pyrrhic victory, please, and cite such sources as Rothenberg and Alex's book, and we're good. Please move on guys. There is a lot of work to be done, and we don't need to expend energy in discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin. auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We wouldn't be expending this energy if ZinedineZidane98 - someone whose entire use of Wikipedia is edit-warring, judging by their talk page history - hadn't been willing to go on about it for years. It takes two to tango (or rather, at least two, since I'm hardly the only editor fed to the back teeth with their approach) - difference being, I've actually been editing the article itself to try and improve the situation rather than coming back every few months for another revert.
I agree with the instructions on the template, and I don't agree it was a pyrrhic victory, full stop, because it was not the costs of Borodino that caused the eventual disaster. I'm not the only one, either in the previous talk page history or attracted by this RFC. I do appreciate the point that leaving it blank is undesirable, which is why I've made a third proposal.
Essentially, you're saying "shut up and do it my way". I can get that from Zinedine (and indeed I have had a surfeit thereof). Pinkbeast (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We're not saying "my way", we're saying, "the historians/scholars way". This isn't a matter of opinion between random anonymous internet identities. The sources are all that count. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This thing from an admin's point of view

This admin subscribes to the opinion given above by Auntieruth55, which was echoed by Tirronan. We have something in the infobox right now. (To link to the section with a footnote is awkward, but OK.) No one's fighting at this very moment. But if this flares up again, y'all should run a new RfC, but you'll have to do it without Pinkbeast and ZinedineZidane, since I'll go to AN and get an article ban for those two editors--I doubt that this would be difficult to obtain. Both are guilty of wikilawyering (one more than the other, perhaps, but still) and their presence on this talk page is simply not helpful. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nikolai Rostov - Fictional character detailed as a commander at the Battle of Borodino

Looking at the box containing 'Commanders and leaders' I am surprised to see there is no mention of Mikhail Kutuzov whereas Nikolai Rostov, a fictional character (?) from 'War and Peace' by Leo Tolstoy, is included.

I am not (yet) a contributor to the otherwise very helpful content and would not wish to edit anything which I might not have fully understood - but is it right that Rostov is there and Kutuzov is not? I do note Kutuzov is mentioned elsewhere in the main text.

Nimrifs (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You can revert cases of obvious vandalism - checking the page history would show it was a random drive-by edit by an IP. Mind you, what do I know, my presence on this talk page is simply not helpful, says Drmies. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It is uncertain if Kutuzov was on the battlefield or not. Chandler says that he was, later historians say not. As listed in the article there were many outright lies when it came to recording the battle. A lot of accounts intended to settle old scores on top of the normal "I remember this the way I want it to be" sort of normal distortion. I've simply put down both accounts and let it be. Pinkbeast I am sorry if I came across harshly but you had to know you and Zine had pushed things way too far. I let someone push me way too far once at Wikipedia and I wish that I had behaved the way I do now but I didn't. Getting in ownership battles over articles is just never going to turn out well. I had to ask myself how I behaved regardless of what the other guy did and I did not like the answer. My suggestion is 1st and foremost learn from it as I had to. I ended up taking a two year wiki vacation to get my perspective in order. These are just observations from what I saw without judgment. From where I stood you were "defending the article" well when I got in that place it tends to be appointing me appointing myself as the article's protector. The problem is that we can't do that it is ownership. I had one fellow while I was writing this article constantly changing the results box while I was doing it. Not helping not doing anything but being a POV warrior for the Russians. I exploded over it in frustration over being dragged into info box results instead of being allowed to expand the article in desperate need of expansion. We lose ourselves in our passion sometimes. I think you did. I learned that I had to get a bit dispassionate about my work here. So learn from my mistakes and yours and ask yourself a few questions as I had to.Tirronan (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hang on, there seem to be three issues here:
Kutuzov not at battlefield: I think we mostly have this one right in that we don't place too much stock in Soviet-era accounts of him curing cancer and leaping tall buildings at a single bound, but rightly reflect both contemporary accounts and modern analysis that has him well to the rear and not very involved at times.
Insertion of a fictional character - that was just vandalism and Nimrifs could have reverted it without discussion.
Me griping at Drmies. Well, you're not Drmies. I admit I was vexed when you had a go at me midway for changing the page _away_ from my preferred option, but let's not rehash all that. I was considerably more vexed with what I felt (and feel) was misuse of being an admin to issue vague threats of topic bans later. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll give you a laugh, my preferred outcome was "Just one more loss in an unending series of causalities".Tirronan (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Map-Symvbols

There is a mistake on the map:

Boney and Kutuzov are "Spureme Commanders" so they are marked by 5 X (XXXX) 4 X is a "Field Army" --95.223.135.1 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Borodino. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

End of the battle wording

"Only the misplacement of Russian forces by Kutuzov over both Bagration's and Barclay's protest prevented the ruin of the French army that day..." That sentence is strongly biased, implying the Russians were guaranteed great victory except for Kutuzov's deployment. Needs reworded or removed. Also if Bagration and Barclay did protest the positions it should be mentioned toward the start of the article in the Battle - Position section, instead of the End of the battle. Checkn8 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It needs attributing to a source that is competent to make a judgement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It's been unattributed for some time and seems hard to justify. I would support removal. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Tolstoy

Currently in the legacy section, we mention that Tolstoy saw Borodino as fatally wounding the French army. What's not mentioned is that Tolstoy argues again and again that Borodino was a Russian victory and that (quoting from memory) "everyone who was there could see it". Should this be mentioned in the article? I assume many people's only acquaintance with the battle is Tolstoy's novel.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?

I notice that the sidebar lists the battle as a 'French Tactical Victory', yet the introductory text states that "The capture of Moscow proved a pyrrhic victory...". Since the battle immediately proceeded the capture of Moscow and the two are clearly linked throughout the text, this seems highly inconsistent. Suggest the sidebar should list the battle as a French Pyrrhic Victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.185.1 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this talk page have formed consensus that this did not qualify for tagging as a pyrrhic victory, hence the current term.Charles (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Given a free choice I'd remove the misuse of "pyrrhic victory" from the lead, but let's let this one lie. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Mishist Group has already expressed an opinion and I refuse to get into it again let it lie.Tirronan (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
A tactical victory can be Pyrrhic. They're not mutually exclusive qualifications, so it can be both, just as a tactical victory can be 'bloody' or 'hard-fought' or whatever. Tirailleur (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion got so heated that the admin's started threatening subject matter bans. The matter is pretty well closed to further discussions.Tirronan (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the admins have some issues of their own then. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 19:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Borodino/Archive_4&oldid=1161785351"