Jump to content

Talk:Kaliningrad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.181.193.59 (talk) at 20:40, 21 June 2022 (→‎Present-Day Kalingrad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No Demography section

It seems strange that there is no demography section with statistics about how many ethnic russians, germans, poles, etc, actually live in the city.

Given that the place was emptied of Germans in 1945 and settled with Russians you'd expect there to be only Russians except for the 'odd' foreigner who married into Kaliningrad. I think Russia wanted to sell the exclave to Germany or a neighbour of the place in the early 1990s but nobody wanted to buy. "What are we supposed to do with half a million Russians?" Since then the place has been rebuilt more and more and is popular with Russian holiday makers. They now get their gas from Russia through a new pipeline - and all is well apparently. As someone from Abkhazia, whose status is 'open', said 'what do you want, we eat, the children go to school ....'.
In order to destroy Königsberg in 1945, Sweden breached their neutrality and let the British Lancaster bombers land and refuel. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:80:8612:7E9:8687 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof of that? The wiki article clearly says they took off and landed back in UK. And they certainly didn;t need to land in Sweden to bomb Berlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.211.137 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


You stole my suggestion! --108.45.56.173 (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Present-Day Kalingrad

I am in the process of conducting some research about the region. Specifically, the role it plays in both conflict and cooperation between Russia and the West. I will be updating this page within one month. If there is anything you would like to see added to this page, chances are I will be coming across the data. QatBurglar (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a better map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.116.56 (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent unpleasantness, there needs to be much more definitive explanation of what is the legal status, or a link to that, and discussion, especially as regards latest news regarding sanctions, Lithuania and Russian jurisdiction if any. The article leaves one rather confused on these questions.

Königsberg Pre War Population

The figure 316.000 in main article is wrong. The offical German statistic shows:

Stadtkreis Königsberg 193 km2 Einwohner 1.1.1940 372.270. I correct this in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.188.135 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Can anyone add information about the percentage of speakers of each language in Kaliningrad if possible, or some idea as to how prevelant Russian, German, etc. are in the region? Paxuniv (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kienigsberg

The direct German name Königsberg in Cyrillic Kjenigsbjerg was used also much earlier than 1945 - 1946. At least during the days of Imperial Russia and in Soviet Union up to 1946.

Layout

Could someone sort out the mess on the left hand side adjacent to the temperature table? It is beyond my skill level! I have since noticed that the mess in is Firefox and Safari but not in IE or Chrome, and that quite a lot of information is missing in Firefox, obviously a formatting issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.221.95 (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Startling Omission

The article mentions a 2002 Census determined 78% Russian ethnicity and 0.6% German; an intriguing result albiet the article mentioned the USSR Russified the population. Here you have a nation founded and existing for nearly 700 years as part of the Germanic state and in a mere 57 years nearly all Germans there cease to exist. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micael (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the article: "The remaining German population was expelled from 1945–48." Please read Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Ethnic cleansing. Erikeltic (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Michael. This section itself feels "cleansed," lacking important information. By stating that the population was "expelled," the impression is given that they were perhaps simply asked to move or transported. Following the war, in the winter of 1945, the Red army decimated whole German civilian populations. How can there be no history of the nature of the violence exacted or threatened against the German civilians in this area? The article feels unbalanced by avoiding the topic, probably because it is an uncomfortable subject for those who wish to see the war as "black-and-white" - Germans as evil Nazis, Allies as good. Of course, that type of partisanship has no place in the article page of an encyclopedia. But even if it did, what this position misses is that Russia, along with Germany, began the war by mutually invading Poland. So, their hands were not clean as non-aggressors to begin with. Also, the expulsion of civilian populations (with or without killing) was one of the bases of war crime charges resulting in Nuremberg sentences at the time. But not so for Red Army commanders? These are historically important facts, and the article should simply state them if they are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Expelled" is to remove by force - by definition, the German population was not "asked." This was part of the Stalin regime's setting up buffer states, security areas, and wholesale moving the borders of Germany away from that of the USSR. - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.21.24 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you, but this article is not the place for it. This article is about the new city built on the ruins. That detail belongs either in the konigsberg article or (more probably) in a special article. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling to/from the rest of Russia by land

Related to traveling from the rest of Russia to Kaliningrad by land through the EU, the article says that Special travel arrangements for the territory's inhabitants have been made. Can anybody expand that, here or in other article? --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found them here to be the Facilitated Transit Document (FTD) and Facilitated Rail Transit Document (FRTD), the documents needed for the transit. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The legislation implementing the documents is here. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad.ru City portal

Hi, friends. Kaliningrad.ru was a popular news portal in Kaliningrad since 2003, and one of the most visited independent regional news portals in Russia for about 5 last years.

On 09-10-2009, the domain was misappropriated by a pro-government RF organization. New location of the Kaliningrad.ru news portal is now www.NewKaliningrad.ru/ - The details of the issue are available in Russian here: http://knia.ru/digest/751.html - it is another independent city news site, and here is the translated by Google into English version of that article: http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://knia.ru/digest/751.html

Currently, the original owners of the "Kaliningrad.ru" trademark are thinking over further steps to obtain justice.

At the moment, all web site contents, with numerous subject forums, are available under http://www.NewKaliningrad.ru —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliningradka (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Not to appear insensitive or something, but, all in all, we don't care. You are, of course, welcome to update the links so they lead to proper sites, but the politics around this situation is of no relevance to Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

"Rumors" present in the article

The "Military" subsection includes this sentence: "Since 1991 there have been rumors that the Russians have transferred numerous tactical nuclear warheads to the exclave."

Even though there is a reference, it is still admittedly a reference to rumors and I believe the whole sentence should be deleted. 97.125.48.202 (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Eulers solution of the "Seven Bridges of Königsberg" problem

The sentences "The city is famous in the history of mathematics in connection with the famous Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem. The solution of this problem by Leonard Euler was the beginning of the branch of mathematics known as graph theory, and the first example of methods which were to form the mathematical discipline of Topology." are in contradiction with the article "Seven Bridges of Königsberg" which contains the sentence "Euler proved that the problem has no solution.". Tis is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.11.183 (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While in math the word "solution" is also used for resolving the problem by proving that the problem has no solution, i agree, that this can be misleading to a laical reader. I propose to change " The solution of this problem" to "The mathematical analysis of this problem" to avoid misunderstanding. 94.64.39.46 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calininopolis (or Kalininopolis)

This Greek name seems a bit odd. I respelled it with a K... Anyway, there's no corresponding name on Greek Wikipedia. It's spelled "Καλίνινγκραντ" (Kaliningkrant) and Καίνιξμπεργκ (Kalinixmpergk) or Καινιξβέργη (Kainixberge) for Konigsberg. Is this correct or relevant?

Cheers, Cashie (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No: "Καλίνινγκραντ" (transliteration: Kaliningkrant, transcription: Kaliningrad) and Καίνιξμπεργκ (transliteration: Kainixmpergk, transcription: Kenixberg) or Καινιξβέργη (transliteration: Kainixberge, transcription: Kenixberyi) for Konigsberg. -- PhJ (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute August 2010?

The History section of the article is marked with a neutrality dispute from 8/2010, but I don't see any comment on the discussion page dated from then that flags specific areas for neutrality.

IMHO the current section is factual, if a little bit terse when describing the transition from Russian to German population (per 'Startling Omissions' above). Does anyone want to take a stab at trying to fill that in a bit more without recapitulating the full history of ethnic cleansing during and after WW2, or is there a consensus for leaving it and clearing the neutrality tag? Willhsmit (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. I think the tag should be cleared. That said ... the section could probably be abbreviated. All that it really needs to say is "Kaliningrad was formerly Konigsberg, and was populated by Russians after the German population was expelled." The rest belongs to the Konigsberg article, IMHO. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian name (pre-Soviet)

What was the original name of the city in Russian, before the Soviet take-over? best. 188.221.129.72 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right above, German: Königsberg. Also sometimes Anglicized as Koensigsburg. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd inconsistency

I find it quite odd that this article makes such a radical break between the pre-war German period and the post-war Soviet/Russian one. This is very different from the approach taken in the articles about the cities that became part of Poland, such as Stettin or Breslau. Those cities, much like Koenigberg, were also incredibly destroyed and completely ethnically cleansed. Globo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Kaliningrad/Königsberg was conquered by the Red Army and Germans driven out. Breslau was allocated to Poland by the Yalta or maybe Potsdam conference or both, and emptied of Germans only in 1946. That was an orderly ethnic cleansing while Kaliningrad was not, from what I have read. Breslau: I know because I have a relative who was born there and spent two years as a hungry toddler (aged 4 to 6) on the roads and in trains until the family reached Germany proper. East Germany. Soon they had to move again, fleeing to West Germany. Wars impact on people. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:81E3:7ACC:4412:7B77 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German name of city

The article starts by saying: "Kaliningrad (Russian: Калининград; IPA: [kəlʲɪnʲɪnˈgrat]; German: Königsberg". This suggests that the current German name for Kaliningrad is Königsberg, in the same sense that the English name for Napoli is Naples. But this is not correct. The current German name for Kaliningrad is Kaliningrad. Königsberg is the former name for the city when it was a German city. The current wording implies that Germany does not recognise the fact that the city is now in Russia, which is untrue. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've made the corrections for German, and for Polish as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 24, 2012; 18:32 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hate to quibble, but what does "Polish: Königsberg (formerly Królewiec)" mean? I don't doubt that the city is called Królewiec by some Poles, but it has never been a Polish city and that has never been the actual name of the city. The wording suggests that now the Poles have stopped calling it Królewiec and started calling it Königsberg, which makes no sense. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means I'm a moron who didn't bother to re-check his edit after posting. What I meant to do is to put "Kaliningrad" as the Polish name (because, just as it is with German, "Kaliningrad" is the name used to refer to the modern city in Polish) and to retain "Królewiec" the same way I retained "Königsberg" for German. Instead of "Kaliningrad", however, I must have accidentally pasted "Königsberg", so you have a full right to quibble :)
How to best format all these details in the lede without overwhelming it, I'm not entirely sure, but I like neither the way I did it, nor the way you corrected it today. Perhaps Polish name shouldn't even be in there at all. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 25, 2012; 20:49 (UTC)

Area?

Why there is no area information? There is census figure from 2010, and a city has to have some kind of borders by which the inhabitants are determined. Or is it done differently? 82.141.65.120 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one single source to get the area, as it is the case with the population and the Census data. What's more, an area can be reported in multiple ways (that of the city proper, of the administrative division, or of the municipal formation). Official websites aren't always helpful either—many don't report an area at all, or often don't specify what kind of area is provided. With Kaliningrad, however, you seem to be in luck :) Their official website has a link to the passport of the urban okrug; I've added the area reported in that document to the infobox. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2012; 14:02 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Kantgrad ---> Kaliningrad

OK, i will merge myself and I'll redirect Kantgrad to Kaliningrad. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I close this as not done. Numerically, we have 8 opposes against 3 supports, which is slightly above the usual consensus threshold. In terms of the arguments, in the end of the day what was discussed is a matter of convenince: Whether the article is long enough to be split, and, assuming this is the case, what should be the name for the split off article. I do not see significant opposition to the suggestion that it should be History of Kaliningrad, but I do not see sufficient support for this point of view either, so that if someone wants to rename the article (possible with adding more info on the Soviet period), this would be a reasonable discussion topic for this talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad -There seems to be a content fork here created in 2006. Claims that Kaliningrad was built "on the site of" Königsberg were used to deny the simple truth that they are simply two names for the same Russian city, as these two definitions support. Ka·li·nin·grad (k-lnn-grd, -gräd, -ly-nn-grät) A city of extreme western Russia on the Baltic Sea near the Polish border. It was founded in 1255 by the Teutonic Knights and joined the Hanseatic League in 1340. Called Königsberg, it was an important Prussian city and the birthplace of Immanuel Kant (1724). Transferred to the USSR in 1945, it was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946. Population: 426,000. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Kaliningrad (Russian) [kəlininˈgrat] n (Placename) a port in W Russia, on the Pregolya River: severely damaged in World War II as the chief German naval base on the Baltic; ceded to the Soviet Union in 1945 and is now Russia's chief Baltic naval base. Pop.: 427 200 (1999 est.) Former name (until 1946) Königsberg Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. 5.28.89.25 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the following all redirect to Koenigsberg

Konigsberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Karaliacius (redirect page) ‎ (links) Regiomontium (redirect page) ‎ (links) Köningsberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Konigsberg, Prussia (redirect page) ‎ (links) Königsberg, Prussia (redirect page) ‎ (links) Koeningsberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Koningsberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Koenigsburg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Kyonigsberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Königsberg (Preußen) (redirect page) ‎ (links) Königsberg in Preußen (redirect page) ‎ (links) Karaliaučius (redirect page) ‎ (links) Karaliaucius (redirect page) ‎ (links) Königsberg (Prussia) (redirect page) ‎ (links) Konigsberg in Preussen (redirect page) ‎ (links) Konigsberg (Preussen) (redirect page) ‎ (links) Königsbarg (redirect page) ‎ (links) Koenisberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) K\xC3\xB6nigsberg (redirect page) ‎ (links) 5.28.89.25 (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • I don't recall anyone justifying the split because "Kaliningrad was built on the site of Königsberg" and is somehow a totally distinct entity. The split was simply a convenience matter to better handle large chunks of information; the Kaliningrad/Königsberg divide seems to be the best breaking point to use. Merging the articles would produce an unwieldy monster; I simply see no tangible benefit to doing so.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2013; 12:13 (UTC)
Please look at the articles-that justification has been made- eg This article currently says "The site now occupied by Kaliningrad was previously the site of the East Prussian city of Königsberg." Other Russian cities do not have seperate articles under their old and new names- why should Kaliningrad? For example, Leningrad, and Petrograd redirect to St. Petersburg, while Tsaritsyn & Stalingrad redirect to Volgagrad. Danzig redirects to Gdansk. Why should Kaliningrad be different? 5.28.89.25 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both [1] and [2] show that having a seperate article under the old name of a city is not normal.5.28.89.25 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that it is a new city is expressed here- [3]. Discussion about the name split is all in that archive. It seems as though the decision was taken on nationalistic grounds. Moreover, when Kaliningrad was split from Konigsberg in 2006, it lost its talk page archive, as Kaliningrad was renamed Konigsberg, and a new Kaliningrad page was created. I can see no advantages, and significant disadvantages, to having two entries for the same city. If the unified article would be too long, parts could be spun off. 5.28.89.25 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a claim is made in the article that Kaliningrad is a new city, that certainly needs to be corrected, but that was not the justification for the split (even though some opinions which may be viewed as nationalistic had been voiced in the process). The only reason why these two articles are separate is because both have a wealth of information, and the Soviet takeover is the most logical point at which the split could be made. Articles on history are split like that all the time; the Kaliningrad/Königsberg situation may be a little unusual, but I just don't see why it should be a problem. If the misleading claims are fixed and the two articles are properly interlinked (and contain summaries of one another), I see no problem with them being separate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2013; 13:32 (UTC)
The split is not made at the Soviet takeover, which is covered at length in the Konigsberg article, and predates the name change. If you look at the links above, you will see that it is not normal have two articles for the same city under different names. Konigsberg has been called Kaliningrad since 1946. Konigsberg should default to Kaliningrad. I have no objections to the article being subdivided if it is too long, but I do not see a) why that split should be made 70 years ago for a 750 year old city and b) why a defunct city name should be presented as though it still exists.5.28.89.25 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the split was made at the Soviet takeover, more or less. Doing so does not preclude us from briefly describing what happened after in the Königsberg article or from what happened before in the Kaliningrad article (in fact, doing so is necessary for maintaining proper continuity across the two articles). The split point is logical, because articles generally tend to swell the closer we get to the present (that's how it is possible to end up with roughly equal articles for 600+ years of history vs ~70 most recent years of history), and the name change provides a natural solution for titling the two separate pages. If we are to split the article due to its size, I don't see any other more natural point, do you?
On your last objection, I simply don't get what you mean. The very first paragraph in Königsberg makes it crystal clear that the article is about a period in the history of the city, not about a city which is completely different from modern Kaliningrad. If that is contradicted further into the article, it can be edited accordingly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2013; 14:25 (UTC)
Why must the article be spilt? Even with the duplicate material, both articles added together are not that long. Without the duplications, the article would be about the same length as Stettin or Gdansk, significantly shorter than Berlin or London. on the other matter, the first paragraph is

Königsberg was the capital of Prussia from the Late Middle Ages until 1701 when the capital was moved to Berlin. During the period from 1701 until 1945 it was the regional capital of the Prussian (and from 1871, German) province of East Prussia. It was the easternmost large German city until it was captured by the Soviet Union and Allies near the end of World War II. In 1946 the city was renamed Kaliningrad (Калинингра́д).

A clear version would be-

Kaliningrad, then known as Königsberg, was the capital of Prussia from the Late Middle Ages until 1701 when the capital was moved to Berlin. During the period from 1701 until 1945 it was the regional capital of the Prussian (and from 1871, German) province of East Prussia. It was the easternmost large German city until it was captured by the Soviet Union and Allies near the end of World War II. In 1946 the city was renamed Kaliningrad (Калинингра́д).

The article was split because it was considered to be long. If the consensus has changed since then, I'm sure other people will make themselves heard in this thread. I don't really have anything more to say beyond what I've already said. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2013; 14:50 (UTC)
Note that city authorities don't distinguish any difference and see historical continuity of the city(especially since it was Russian before 1945). As to excessive information I suggest to move it to History of Kaliningrad article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kaliningrad authorities don't see 1945 as beginning of new city. They celebrated its 750 existence(and we shouldn't forget that it was Russian before 1945). Hence your comparisons are flawed. This is the same city as before.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be a lot of material in the history section that pertains solely to the history of Königsberg. i.e. detail that should be summarised much more succinctly in the overall Kaliningrad article. So if anything this is a subarticle of Kaliningrad dealing solely with the period when it was called Königsberg. But it's quite hard to know how to deal with that, other than History of Kaliningrad (xxx to yyy) or somesuch  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HerkusMonte - which reasons? The examples you give are very inexact parallels- why should this article differ from Gdansk? As described at WP:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historical contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City).

86.56.71.208 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The amount of text in these articles (~100 kB total) is enough to justify the split. However, it's unclear which article should cover 1945-1946, when the Soviet Union captured the region and began a program of ethnic cleansing of which the renaming was a part. Resolving the ambiguity and covering this period (apart from the battle) in one place would be worth the inconveniences that come with a long article. —rybec 21:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. We don't have seperate articles for Poznan and Posen, or Wroclaw and Breslau. It is the same city, same history(including being part of Russian state before in 18th century), and several old buildings remaining. There is absolutely no reason why we should have two different articles. Excessive text should be moved to sub article called History of Kaliningrad and that's it--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment-it might be also worth adding that city authorities don't see the city as new creation in 1945 but as continuation of the long history. In 2005 there were celebrations of its 750 years of existence under the slogan "One city-one history"(I can provide source for that). I think this heavily suggests we shouldn't engage in creative writing here and claim the city is something new.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Oppose - I think there is enough material for two articles here... and distinguishing them by historical name / modern name (the way we do with Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul) is appropriate. That said... the Königsberg article does need to take a purely historical tone... as currently written, it does occasionally stray into material that would be better placed in the article on the modern city. I would suggest a review of both articles, with selective merging of individual paragraphs and sections... rather than a compete merger of one article into the other. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with Blueboar in that there is enough material for two articles here, and that it is good to distinguish them by historical name / modern name. If we merge, we might well end up with an over-long article, which would then probably have the 'History' section split off to create History of Kaliningrad, which we already happen to have ready-made in Königsberg . -- Marek.69 talk 17:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem. We can shorten info from here and add it to Kaliningrad, larger part of information can be moved into History of Kaliningrad article. I can volunteer to do it. There is no reason for two separate articles, especially as city authorities underline historical continuity of the city.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Name change to History of Kaliningrad

The name should change to History of Kaliningrad, and I think Koenigsberg should perhaps link straight to Kaliningrad. The consensus is that Kaliningrad is the current name for Koenigsberg. Troy does not link directly to the first five civilisations, it is confusing to use different names for articles on different time periods of the same city.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High traffic on Polish border

[4] - may be notable enough to warrant discussion in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph about it. —rybec 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Name-Change

The article states the name was changed to Kaliningrad in 1946 in honor of Kalinin following his death, which was in 1946. There is no source for this information. I have a source claiming the name of the city was changed to Kaliningrad in 1947, not 1946: The Amber Room: The Fate of the World's Greatest Lost Treasure by Catherine Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy, New York 2004. Here is a quote: "It is from Kaliningrad, the Soviet name for Konigsberg, given to the city in October 1947 following the death of Mikhail Kalinin, chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet." Scott-Clark doesn't have a footnote for this statement, but her work is heavily footnoted throughout, and I assume she got this year right.

There also seems to be some confusion in the article about which year exactly Kaliningrad was officially incorporated into the Soviet Union, from the Soviet perspective, and focuses instead on what the non-Soviet Allies were willing to grant rather than actual votes and measures by Soviet parliamentary organs for, for example, applying the Soviet constitution inside Kaliningrad, naming it an oblast and incorporating it into the RSFSR. These matters need better sourcing if the article is to meet the minimum requirements for a true history and encyclopedic content. Hypatea (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Something's gone wrong with the labelling of the composite lead image. The labels top left etc do not seem to correspond with the images. The composite on Commons is labelled in Russian so perhaps it'd be easier for someone who reads that or knows the city to fix it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the wrong labels; now the individual images aren't labelled at all, just as "Views of Kaliningrad". Readers can work that bit out for themselves. What are these local landmarks, some of them surprisingly old-looking and beautiful, despite the claimed near-total destruction of the city? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the component files, named in Russian:

File:Вид на рыбацкую деревню (Калининград).jpg
File:Кафедральный собор (Калининград).jpg
File:Площадь Победы (Калининград).jpg
File:Памятник морякам-балтийцам (Калининград).jpg
File:Храм Христа Спасителя (Калининград).jpg
File:Дворец культуры моряков (Калининград).jpg
Thanks for listing them here. I'm on a mobile connection now, so it wasn't convenient to jump between browser windows. The landmarks, in the order above, are:
  • View of the "fishing village" (which is not an actual fishing village, but rather a historical neighborhood built in German style)
  • Königsberg Cathedral
  • Victory Square
  • Monument to the Baltic Seamen
  • Church of Christ the Savior
  • Seamen's Palace of Culture
If you could format this properly and transfer it to the article, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2015; 12:10 (UTC)
Done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad is not contiguous with the rest of Russia

It would be helpful if a clear statement to this effect was at the beginning of the article. It would also be useful to state ways of getting from Kaliningrad to the main part of Russia.

A better map showing this would also help.

Marvin Kornblau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.79.66 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kaliningrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kaliningrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaliningrad. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaliningrad. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Kaliningrad

Deutsche Welle had "Kant Serves as a Cultural Bridge" but the article gives a 403 and there's no archive. Other articles have a preview: "German Foreign Minister Fischer is scheduled to open the first Consulate General in Kaliningrad on Thursday, the 200th anniversary of the death of philosopher Immanuel Kant, the city's most famous son." WhisperToMe (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New governor

Deserves a discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustastra (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? :) For example, why do you think it is even necessary to discuss the governor in an article about the city?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2016; 13:22 (UTC)

IPA and transliteration of names

The first line or two are a bit inconsistent. The Russian version of Kaliningrad is followed by the IPA; the Russian version of Konigsberg is followed by a transliteration. and do Poles and Lithuanians not say "Kaliningrad"? Or is it identical to the English? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kaliningrad. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military

used to be the most heavily militarized area. What about today?Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small border traffic law

To be updated.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kaliningrad. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaliningrad. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Andree's POV

POV of a German book from 1831, which was much less biased than Kulturkampf-era and 20th century Anti-Polish German nationalist POV: https://books.google.pl/books?id=xgUEAAAAYAAJ&pg=P218

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:editwarring, you already broke the WP:3RR rule. A book published in 1831 is hardly a reliable source for such a strong claim (WP:AGEMATTERS). We use modern sources and summarize what modern sources say. Your language above also shows a pretty blatant POV pushing attitude. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the source, Andree says "von Polen abhängig war", abhängig = dependent, he does not say, it was considered or actually was part of Poland. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will change it to dependent (or fiefdom). BTW it is just a matter of fact that early 1800s German sources are not anti-Polish while late 1800s / early 1900s often are.
Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1675 is obviously a matter of transposed digits, because the Treaty of Wehlau ended the fiefdom in 1657. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the article

Before we get into an 'edit war', this article has been set to European English, both for consistency with the article on Konigsberg, and because it is a European city. HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is not up to you to decide, but for people who actually write the artyicle. I am reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I understand the rules it's not up to anyone to claim 'ownership' of the article, Ymblanter. Edit-warring is bad form. Let's escalate the matter for a competent adjudication.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just please do not forget to mention WP:BRD (which you failed to follow) and that the article is perfectly consistent with aseverl thousands other articles on Russian localities.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3O According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety the existing variety should be retained in the absence of consensus. Although Kaliningrad is a european city, I can not see how it would have an especially strong tie to British English. Therefore I would say that the original variant, which in this case is AE, should be retained. --Cerotidinon (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cerotidinon; helpful to have that question raised. Actually, this has little to do with British English, specifically, and more to do with European English. 'Not sure if everyone is aware that there is such a thing, but there certainly is. So a question I'd pose in return is whether there is any reason to believe that there are specific ties to American English? It does sometimes happen, quite legitimately, e.g. re USAF bases in Germany, but it's hard to see a case for it in this instance.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot follow you on your claim that there is such a thing as European English. For example, Wikipedia explicitly distinguishes British English and Irish English. It is highly questionable whether Russia has stronger ties to British English than to American English just because it lies partly in Europe.
Addendum: There is an article on Euro English stating "The question whether the appropriation of English by non-native speakers in Continental Europe is giving rise to a potential European variety of English has not yet been resolved.". So for now, I would not acknowledge that claim as a basis for Wikipedia articles. --Cerotidinon (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for locating that helpful article, Cerotidinon. It does accord with the experience of many European contributors. There are many countries and regions where European English is officially a second language but unofficially the lingua franca - Malta, Cyprus and Menorca leap to mind - but despite (or perhaps because of) the history it would be highly insensitive to call that 'British English'. HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not engage in further edit-warring on this article. The consensus view, as established above, is that European English should be employed. Repeatedly inserting irrelevant changes makes the article less readable and wastes the time of contributors.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus established above that European English must be employed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There very clearly is. Might it be helpful to consult some fellow editors who speak English as their first language? Repeatedly insisting upon a point of view without evidence is unlikely to lead to a positive conclusion.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the version of English matter? This is a Russian city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 007Леони́д (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

This article has unfortunately come under fire from an editor who has apparently been so reluctant to discuss content and act upon consensus that a blocking procedure was used inappropriately. The two complaints, apparently triggered by that editor's preference for American English, were essentially "I don't see it" and "I wrote this so keep your hands off". These are both unhelpful attitudes. When something is not understood, that is not a reason to undo another editor's good faith contributions; the appropriate response is to engage in conversation on the talk page. The appropriateness of European English to this particular article, and the lack of a plausible cause for employing American English, are both covered in some detail in the discussion above and wilfully ignoring this is not helpful or constructive. Asking or expecting other editors to avoid contributing in deference to an earlier contributor is attempted ownership of content, and that's a cardinal sin, as any experienced editor should be well aware. Input from other editors to repair the damage done to this particular article would be appreciate. The transgressing editor may unfortunately have to be the subject of a formal complaint if malicious behaviour reoccurs.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your block was perfectly appropriate, and your claims that this very talk page has consensus for usage of British English is are ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ymblanter, sorry to be summoning you again so soon, but there appears to be a sock puppet of this now blocked account. The editor has returned to this page to change the EngVar again ([5]), and is doing so on at least two other articles as well (see 1 and 2). The user at the time of the earlier block stated he might set up a new account and you cautioned him about doing so here (adding a ping to original blocking admin Ivanvector). The editor continues to make the argument that everyone else is mistaken, despite clear policy explanations. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the first edit, but I can not revert the second edit, this must be done manually, and I totaly do not have time this week.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying me in, Laszlo. 'Happy to confirm no socks were harmed in the making of this article! I honestly can't imagine why or how anyone would see this article as appropriate to set in US English, but a glimpse at this section of the talk page is surely to enough to convince anyone that an edit war is indeed likely - so I shall gladly walk away.ByzantiumLives (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been blocked as a sock--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kaliningrad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 18:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The article currently meets the quick-fail criteria due to outstanding [citation needed] tags and the fact that a large amount of content is not verifiable to reliable sources. Please make sure that all content is cited to reliable sources and then re-nominate. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has not been any response, I'm going to close as delist. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Königsberg which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaliningrad&oldid=1094304904"