Talk:Vyborg

message: I wonder if "Viipuri" or "Vyborg" is the best choice in English texts. The town is actually in Russia. But knowledge of the town has historically most probably been filtered through Germans or Swedes or Finns on its way to the English speaking world. -- Ruhrjung 16:37 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
:I was wondering that too when I wrote the stub. Since most of the articles linking here have something to do with Finland I was tempted to call the town Viipuri. The article should maybe be moved to Vyborg and Viipuri made into a redirect instead. -- Jniemenmaa 17:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
::Maybe. :-)) -- Ruhrjung 19:37 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
:::I will be moving the page to "Vyborg" and change the present reference of Karelia, to Karelia (republic). As the entry grows, the history section might be spun off to Viborg/Viipuri. Any objections? -- Mic 08:56 23 May 2003 (UTC)
::::No, it's most probably the most consistent solution, although I wonder if not Viipurin ties to West might contradict this. I mean, ti was a known (although not VERY important) Hansa town, it was the Western church's north-eastern outpost, it was the northernmost town with a considerable German population up to World War I ...or II. But in tha latter case, the town is rather known as Wiburg. ...no, I believe it was a long time ago as Anglophones cared about the Western Church's eastern border, or about the Hanseatic League. Go along!
I do however suggest that Northern and Southern Karelia are mentioned in a disambiguation-manner, as the remains of Karelia within the present-day borders of Finland. -- Ruhrjung 09:23 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Seems like Vyborg is not located in the Republic of Karelia at all! It is located in the "Leningrad Oblast" (is it really called that anymore?). It is quite hard to find any solid evidence for this on the web, but all the maps of the republic I've seen do not include Vyborg (like this ). -- Jniemenmaa 10:13 23 May 2003 (UTC)
:Ooops! That's an important remark. I've also heard references to "Leningrad Oblast" long after the city was renamed, but I'm not certain as to its current status. -- Mic 11:55 23 May 2003 (UTC)
:: I have got a quite new (1 year old) Russian map of Leningradskaya oblast' and Vyborg is really a part of it. The border between Leningradskaya oblast' and Respublika Kareliya is about 100 km north east of Vyborg.Miraceti 17:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older discussion 

message: The RfC concerns the Siege of Leningrad discussion above. The disputed text is in bold: 
"On August 29, 1941, Viipuri was recaptured by Finnish troops, whose advance elsewhere had cut the railroads going to Leningrad by the northwestern shore of Lake Ladoga. A consequence of this was the prevention of relief aid during the Siege of Leningrad, one of the deadliest in history.
=== Discussion ===
RfC Comment - I think the key word here is elsewhere. We're talking the history of Viipuri, not Leningrad. Viipuri was recaptured. End of sentence. Several kilometers away, at approximately the same time, Finnish troops cut railroad lines which had consequences even further away. This may be important in the article on Siege of Leningrad, but has no relevance on the capture of Viipuri. I would suggest removing the disputed text from this article and moving it to a more appropriate article. ClarkBHM 08:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Clark. Olessi 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: RfC Comment - I think the key word here is elsewhere. We're talking the history of Viipuri, not Leningrad. Viipuri was recaptured. End of sentence. Several kilometers away, at approximately the same time, Finnish troops cut railroad lines which had consequences even further away. This may be important in the article on Siege of Leningrad, but has no relevance on the capture of Viipuri. I would suggest removing the disputed text from this article and moving it to a more appropriate article. ClarkBHM 08:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Clark. Olessi 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: How did the city pass from the Whites to Finland, and why the Bolsheviks accepted its loss?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Finnish internal affairs.;-) It was Finnish Whites who captured the city during the Civil War. --Whiskey 08:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, my bad, tnx for the clarification. It may be a good idea to point out that those are Finnish Whites and Reds in text, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing part of history 

message: Ghirla removed this sentence fragment on top of former Karelian fortress from The first castle of Vyborg was founded... with edit summary rmv unsubstantiated assertion with nationalist undertones.
Is there any proof for a Karelian fortress? --Petri Krohn 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is. It was actually found by Russian archaeologists during the 1970's. V. Tyulenev, leader of the archaeological expedition in Vyborg (1978 - 1994), has presented such an interpretation, and it is referred to in several Finnish boks, including a standard text-book Viipurin linnaläänin synty (by Jukka Korpela, published in 2004). --217.112.249.156 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karelian fortress? 

message: Can Vyborg be considered an original English name for Viipuri/Vyborg, or is it simply a englification of the Russian spelling of Vyborg?
What I am going for here is this: should articles about Finnish people from vyborg say they are from viipuri or vyborg? In case it is just an englification then i think viipuri is correct, but if the term can be considered neutrally english then Vyborg is correct imho.
Thoughts?
Gillis 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vyborg is merely a transliteration of the Russian spelling. If an article refers to the time before 1940-1944-1948, I would strongly suggest to use Viipuri (as I do). I am not quite sure which name would be reasonable to use for the period before 1918 and during WWII. Academic journals use all four spellings (Viipuri, Viborg, Vyborg, Wiborg): , note, however, that Vyborg often refers to Vyborg District in St. Petersburg or in Leningrad Oblast, while Viborg sometimes refers to something Danish)Colchicum 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See also #Vyborg vs. Viipuri right above. The Danzig/Gdansk guideline discovered by Petri is quite reasonable, at least for the time before 1918. Colchicum 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, oh whops how could i miss that :) well i was asking as martti ahtisaari's bio says he is born in vyborg (in 1937) so I'll get on changing that Gillis 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is amusing that if you go there today you'll find a very large dual-language sign in front of the railway station in Russian: "Вы́борг" and what I'm told is English: "Wiborg". One wonders if anyone uses Vyborg... Williamborg (Bill) 02:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  vyborg/viipuri 

message: It is hard to believe that some people try to ousted Finnish Viipuri and replace it by Russian Vyborg. The town was part of Kingdom of Sweden (as well as Östland / Finland) since 1293 to 1721. Then ceded in Peace Treaty of Nystad (Uusikaupunki) to Imperial Russia. During this period of Russian adminstration it become a fortessed outpost of St.Petersburg´s outer defence
chain. Population about 4.000 of which 90 per cent ethnic Finns. By that time Fredrikshamn (Hamina) and Davidoff (Taavetti) had more population than Viipuri in so called Vanha - Suomi (Old Finland) under Russian rule. Only about 900 - 1.000 ethnic Russians lived at Viipuri by that period 1721 - 1812. So there is not a question of "old Russian" town, as they have tried to lie since 1929. The Vanha - Suomi was united with the rest of the Finland by Tsar Alexander I and this decision made it possible (the town returned in Finland) to start develop Viipuri, when it was admistrated from Helsingfors / Helsinki by the Diet and later Senate of the Grand Duchy of Finland. The population rised continuously and on 01.01.1914 Viipuri had population of 
47.000 being the second largest town in the Grand Duchy of Finland. It was not an industrial center, but commercial and export center of the eastern part of the Grand Duchy of Finland. This commercial development started develop rapidly when the Saimaan Kanava (Canal of Saimaa) was opened in 1856. In 1871 the Riihimäki - St.Petersburg railway (so called Pietarin rata) was
opened into traffic. There was a small Russian garrison in Viipuri over the whole period of the existence of the Grand Duchy of Finland 1809 - 1917. In 1914 Viipuri was the biggest railway junction in Finland and Viipuri depot had a largest allocation of locomotives on SVR (Finland´s State Railways) as it has also on 01.09.1939. The Maaskola freight yard was the largest freight handling railway yard in the Nothern Countries; Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. After 1921 when a number of the so called Pietarin suomalaiset (Finnish St.Petersburgers) resettled to Viipuri they increasing the population to 86.000 and just on the eve of the World War Two in 1939 when some of the surrounding communes were incorporated into the town area of Viipuri, the total population was nearly 100.000. (about 96.000 - 98.000). Many countries, like Great Britain, Sweden, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Germany etc had their consulates at Viipuri. And none was located in Vyborg but in Viipuri or German Wiborg and Swedish Viborg. The British consul was located even in the days of Imperial Russia in Viborg / Viipuri, not in Vyborg.
There lives still many people in Finland who have in their passport written Born: Viipuri. How this town can be an old Russian town for them? I just ask.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.86.60 (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Viipuri

message: According to our article on the Hanseatic League, Vyborg was never a member. Is there a citation that can counter this, or should the intro be amended? --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Viborg was not member of Hanseatic League, nor did it (AFAIK) even have a kontor in it. However it did participate in trade with Hanseatic League (same happened with several other towns in Swedish Österland/Finland). German (background) merchant families had leading role in the town pretty much until they choose to evacuated in 1939 instead of becoming Soviet subjects - and language of the town leadership remained predominantly German until mid 19th century when Swedish started to replace it. (info from Finnish language wikipedia). So stating that it would have been Hanseatic town is probably wrong, instead it might be better to describe it as being heavily influenced by Hansa trade. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanseatic? 

message: Why do we keep removing the summary of territorial changes? (The blue box.) This is a confusing part of the world. That box was useful, and as far as I can see accurate.
87.242.193.168 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging . My response is because it is trivia. Whatever is useful is in the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Let us wait for other reactions, and if there are none, we can open an RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm kind of ambivalent about these boxes myself, but they do seem awfully listcrufty. I'd keep them only if they were properly sourced (which at present they are not) and better integrated with the text (which at present they are also not).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2015; 12:12 (UTC)
But they are an antidote to bloated articles. 87.242.193.168 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Not without references they aren't.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2015; 19:30 (UTC)
But the main body of the article can have the references. These things are surely, if anything, supplements, not alternatives. 87.242.193.168 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

text: In this article, perhaps, since it's fairly well-developed. But you also added it to a bunch of others where they don't summarize anything and just stand on their own. Those definitely need to be referenced; better yet, content needs to be added so they actually do serve as its summaries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 6, 2015; 12:23 (UTC)
* I agree that this is trivia and should not be included per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is "Historical affiliations" any way? When I think of "affiliations" I think of Twin towns and sister cities. --Nug (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I was reverted with the claim that there was no consensus for the restoration of the table. However no one has attempted to refute my arguments for nearly a week, which indicates that there is no opposition against them or no interest in discussing the subject. In either case, there is no serious reason for me not to restore the table again. And I would ask other users to discuss this here first before reverting. Kostja (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is because you state that everythins is obvious to you. If it is obvious, why should we bother to discuss anything. The information is trivia in my opinion, the extra infobox seriously obscures the reading, and I do not see why it is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we keep removing the summary of territorial changes? 

message: Should the infobox Historical affiliations be inserted into this and similar articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical affiliations infobox 

message: The source presented is difficult to aquire and understand without knowledge of Cyrillic script. There is need to have more English references to support this claim and the term “Russian” in this context needs explaining. Otherwise I suggest it to be removed. Here are couple of reasons why it is controversial:
- There wasn`t no “Russians” in the 11th-12th centuries in the sense the source suggests, only East Slavs speaking East Slavic.
- As far as I have knowledge, there isn`t any historical written sources to support the claim. 
- It is highly unlikely that there was any Slavic presence around Lake Ladoga in 10th century and it is highly unlikely that as north as Vyborg there would have been Slavic settlement in the sense that the source indicates.
- Is there any knowledge of any Slavic settlements north of river Neva at the time suggested? Even north of Novgorod?
In Karelian context Vyborg wasn`t the main area of settlement in 11th/12th centuries. There are relatively few archeological finds from the area of that time time period, besides of the area of Castle of Vyborg. Pirjo Uino`s Ancient Karelia (1997) summarizes the archeological material found by Finnish and Soviet archeologists (e.g. V.A. Tjulenev, A. I. Saksa etc, S. I Kockurkina.) from the area and in my understanding it doesn`t indicate any Slavic settlement in Vyborg.--Velivieras (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can not help. I checked the source, and it says Russian-Karelian. The source is reliable in terms of WP:RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vyborg itself appeared in the 11th–12th centuries as a mixed Karelian-Russian settlement." 

message: The article's intro reads that the city is located "in the boundary zone". The article does not explain where exactly is located the zone. Could it be the Finland-Russia border or may be because the Great Novgorod is situated somewhat close (j/k)? What exactly does that "in the boundary zone" mean? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it has something to do with the so called Russkiy Mir. Is that right? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographically challenged 

message: To add to this article:  the etymology of the name Vyborg.  Why is this basic information not already included in the article, if it purports to be encyclopedic?  173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: Exactly what use are these? I can maybe see them being used in a discussion of population changes over time but I am completely at a loss as to why they might be considered important enough for the lead. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These are present in articles on all Russian localities, and I am slowly moving them to the bodies. If you insist, I can do this for this article earlier than I planned. Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see a semicolon in the lead with Template:ru-census despite a period for the parameter. Maybe it can be changed to Template:ru-census2021? Mellk (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decades old census results