From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Older discussion[edit]

See: Talk:Viipuri

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 [1]). -- 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)

Siege of Leningrad[edit]

I don't think it is relevant to mention the siege of Leningrad in this article? This article is supposed to about the town of Vyborg. The Finnish involvement in the siege of Leningrad should be discussed at Continuation War. Ghirlandajo, please explain why you thint this should be included in this article. -- Jniemenmaa 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's informative and worthwhile to mention that the town was not just retaken by the Finns, but was retaken by them when they helped their Nazi allies to perpetrate one of the most gruesome crimes in human history. It gives an idea as to who was right and who was wrong then. Please don't revert just know. This phrasing has been present in the article for quite some time, so let's see what other editors think. --Ghirla | talk 10:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before claiming someone is "wrong" and someone else is "right". -- Jniemenmaa 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
So you think there was no clearly defined culprit in the Nazis/Allies conflict and we should leave it to the reader to decide who was to blame? A curious stance bordering on Holocaust denial.... Please take care, revert warring is not a way to solve your own grievances and to push your agenda. --Ghirla | talk 11:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to find a middleground in your discussion. Cutting the railroad to Leningrad was a contribution to the Siege although mostly a passive one. The siege itself was indeed, probably the deadliest in the history, but the sieges are centuries-old ways of conducting wars that was not consider to be a military crime per se. It would be highly unusual to demand from Finns to open some sort of a humanitarian corridor for Leningrad. Nobody did so in the middle of 20th century. abakharev 12:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Alex, your version is OK with me barring the word "somehow". --Ghirla | talk 13:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, lets wait for half a day, then I'll remove "somehow" if there would not be objections. I was trying to put something showing that the Finland's contribution to the Siege was reasonably minor, that seems to be important for Finns. If you know how to do it better, please go ahead abakharev 00:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort abakharev! I still think that the sentance you added is somewhat inaccurate. Here is a link to a map showing the railroad networks at that time (I was unable to find a better map).

Finnish troops had cut the railroad going from Leningrad to north of Lake Ladoga during the first days of the war (late June or early July?). As you can see on the map, it lies quite close to the 1940 border. The Finns captured Vyborg two months after the war had started. So, what effect on the Siege of Leningrad do you think capturing Vyborg really had?

But still. I think this is the wrong article for this kind of debate. It should be discussed at Continuation War and Siege of Leningrad. -- Jniemenmaa 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "On 29 August 1941, Viipuri was recaptured by Finnish troops, whose advance 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.", or variations thereof? Olessi 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is a great improvement. But my original question remains unanswered. Why is this relevant to an article about the city of Vyborg? Now we are talking about railroads that had an effect on the siege, but the railroads in question were not even close to Vyborg. But hey, at least no one is calling me a nazi, so I think we are seeing some progress here. :) -- Jniemenmaa 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I also doesn't consider it relevant here. This is not an article about Ladoga Karelia but Viipuri, so when Finns recaptured Viipuri, the rail/land connection around Lake Ladoga has been severed already for a month and half, from July 15, so it isn't even factually correct. Even so, the capture of Viipuri severs only one of the two rail connections from Leningrad to Sortavala, as Soviets repaired Rautu railroad (Leningrad-Priozersk) immediately after the Winter War. Considering the Siege of Leningrad, the important issue was the Finnish control of shores of Lake Ladoga, not Viipuri, which was on the other side of the Isthmus, facing blocked Gulf of Finland. So let's remove it here and put it to somewhere where it belongs.
(And I don't like wording Olessi uses, as it combines two very separate facts, recapture of Viipuri and Finnish advance on the other side of the Lake Ladoga and combines them to a single effect... *mutter* *mutter*) --Whiskey 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In my defense I was not attempting to provide false information. It seems the dispute has since been resolved? Olessi 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hard to say. No-one has commented Jnieminmaa's and my entries.:-( Let's say we didn't want to continue edit war and tried to give time to discussion here. And I do understand the wording you used were bona fide, to provide short presentation of what happened. Unfortunately it seems that only Finns have researched Continuation War thoroughly, as it was a sideshow to all other warring parties. For example in Soviet Union/Russia the German adversary was much more important and interesting than war with Finland so all researchers more eagerly studied German fronts than Finnish front.--Whiskey 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't see the need to mention it. If the goal of the Finnish armed forces was to assist in the siege of Leningrad, I can understand listing it. However, it is my understanding of the situation that the Finns' goal was to reclaim land taken during the Winter War and some buffer land to the east, not to participate in the reduction of Leningrad. As I have not extensively studied the region, however, I would rather leave it to others more qualified. Olessi 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the Finns aimed at. Their actions resulted in about 1,000,000 civilian casualties. Now they tell us that the fact is not notable enough to be mentioned here. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", as Dr Johnson says. --Ghirla | talk 07:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is relevancy: How Siege of Leningrad is connected to Finnish capture of Vyborg? It was first claimed, that that way the railway connection around Lake Ladoga was severed, which has been proved false. That reasoning could be used in articles of Loimola and Koirinoja, where Finns really cut the railroad and reached Lake Ladoga in the beginning of the Continuation War. Now, do you have any other connection between Siege of Leningrad and Finnish capture of Vyborg? (Other that they happened during the same war.) If you don't, then Siege of Leningrad is not relevant in this article, like it is not relevant in articles of Tallinn, Narva or Novgorod.--Whiskey 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Some facts those who like to comment should be aware: The rail and land connection around Lake Ladoga was severed July 14 and July 15, respectively, six and half weeks before Vyborg was captured and five and half weeks before Finns made first contact with defenders of Vyborg. Also the location of this was on the other side of Lake Ladoga, on the northern shore, more than 170km from Vyborg. --Whiskey 21:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

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.


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)

I agree with Clark. Olessi 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Vyborg vs. Viipuri[edit]

I returned Finnish name to Vyborg at the time when it was refered officially in Finnish (in a similar manner it is still referred in it's Swedish form of Vyborg's Swedish era. It is used in the similar way as in the article of Byzantium/Constatinopolis/Istanbul, Tsaritsyn/Stalingrad/Volgograd or Königsberg/Kaliningrad, where the historic names are used when explaining their periods. In fact, I'm not satisfied how the history is presented currently, it gives too much space to the last century, and highlights it against previous centuries.

Also, after the Winter War, the town was incorporated to Karelo-Finnish SSR and it retained it's Finnish name. Only after the Continuation War was the town (with Priozersk) incorporated to Leningrad Oblast. (BTW, should we also stop talking about the Siege of Leningrad and talk about the Siege of Saint Petersburg instead?)

And I truly like to see more text about current Vyborg. --Whiskey 12:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of the town: In English Wikipedia, we use the ENGLISH name for a place (if such name exists). If no English name, then the name which is most used in English texts. If that cannot be determined, only then come elaborate rules what of various native is to be preferred. The official name of a place is almost no guarantee in the system - there are plenty of "official names" that are not in Wikipedia article titles (but only in article texts where they are explained) because English uses another name for the thing. The reason why quite often an official today name version wins (but not always) is the regular phenomenon that the English-speakers USUALLY know an obscure foreign place by the name it is officially known today. Almost no one calls it Viborg nowadays, because Swedish major influence there ended centuries ago. In case if the town has been obscure to English-speakers for the latest 60 years, and was much better known during, say, 1850-1944, the prevalent version in English texts may well be Viipuri. I have not surveyed English usage of it yet. But the possibility is plausible, because communications (newsworthy things, commerce, so forth) behind a small provincial place behind Iron Curtain were not good for Anglophones, whereas the town got earlier certain familiarity because (1) of warring that surrounded it when newspapers were already widespread in anglophone world, and (2) of commercial relations, tar trade, timber trade, and so forth, first with the English, then also with Americans. Shilkanni 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gdańsk vote[edit]

This policy should also apply to Vyborg --Petri Krohn 02:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(From Talk:Gdańsk)

Missing part of history[edit]

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)

Sorry, Finnish internal affairs.;-) It was Finnish Whites who captured the city during the Civil War. --Whiskey 08:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)

Karelian fortress?[edit]

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)

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). -- (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


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.


Gillis 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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): [2], 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)
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)
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)
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)


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 (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


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)

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)

Renamed in 1944[edit]

After the Winter War, Leningrad had wanted to incorporate the area of Viipuri, but it took until September 1944 for it to be finally transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to Leningrad Oblast, and the name of the town was changed to Vyborg.

I removed the part in bold since another source says that it was renamed in 1940:

March 12, 1940 Peace signed in Moscow. Finland loses the Karelian Isthmus including Viipuri, which the Soviets rename Vyborg and parts of east Karelia.

From The Illustrated Timeline of World War II. [3]
Actually, that's not right. The town was routinely referred to as "Vyborg" in 1940, but it was not yet its official name. My copy of the 1941 book on the administrative-territorial divisions of the Soviet Union, for example, refers to the town as "Viipuri (Vyborg)". As far as I remember, the official renaming did indeed take place in 1944; I will, however, need to check my home library later to find an actual source to support this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 14, 2011; 16:40 (UTC)
User:YMB29 - I had understood that due to the agreement regarding the rules of the mediation those who have agreed to participate in it should refrain from edits related to the contested matters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Well the RfC linked to this article and it would have been misleading to leave that part there when it was contradicted by a source.
And I don't think this article is part of the mediation. I did say that it should be included though. -YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Vyborg vs Viborg[edit]

Shouldn't this article be renamed to Viborg? Considering Viborg is the most used name on Google books Viborg 807,000 hits, Vyborg 67,700 hits Viipuri 104,000 hits. By far. Imonoz (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Viborg" is predominantly used in historical context, but the article is first and foremost about the modern town. In modern context, "Vyborg" clearly prevails. In historical contexts (including when referring/linking to this article from other articles) using "Viborg" (via a redirect or piped) is also fine (it's the same logic as with "Viipuri"), but the title should represent modern usage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 12:05 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. That was stupid of me, keep thinking in "historic perspective" on everything. Anyways, cheers. Imonoz (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing stupid about it; it's a perfectly valid concern which may have been actionable in a different situation. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 14:31 (UTC)
Here we go again. "Vyborg" is the English transliteration of Russian Cyrillic "Выборг", which in turn is a transliteration of the original Swedish name "Viborg". See also Schlüsselburg for an equivalent example. Why not keep the original Latin alphabet spellings? In my mind it's very strange to retransliterate names this way. Aaker (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Why should we? The town is known as Vyborg for the last 70 years.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Because the "original spelling" is not commonly used in English any more? Because in English Russian place names are commonly transliterated from Russian and not from whatever language they originally came from?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2013; 14:34 (UTC)

Why do we keep removing the summary of territorial changes?[edit]

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. (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Nug:. My response is because it is trivia. Whatever is useful is in the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a useful summary. (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Sure. It's true that it is not a standard template item. Does that make it redundant repetition? I wish we had more of them. (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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. (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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. (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

No. Twins and sisters are siblings. Affiliation is a child-parent relationship. So if Viborg went through a Russian period, it was affiliated to Russia. It was not me, incidentally, who added tables to a bunch of other posts. But when those posts are well-developed, it often means they are bloated and sometimes incoherent, self-contradictory, inconsistent or repetitive. I don't mean here. Tables and summaries ought to be unnecessary, but sometimes they help. (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a very concise summary table of the most important variable of its history is "trivia"? That's seriously stupid, guys. Maybe the colour blue looks too striking and domineering because the article isn't very long, but it's certainly not trivia. --Pudeo' 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading about what is considered listcruft in wikipedia, it's immediately obvious that this isn't the case here. The information about to affiliation of the city over the centuries is obviously not trivia, considering how much of the history section is devoted to this. Therefore, since no other convincing explanation has been given for the removal of the table, I'm reinserting it. Kostja (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)

Historical affiliations infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's hard to judge consensus with only three participants, but a few more participated in the section immediately above. The argument that this is a list of trivia is clearly invalid, in an article about a town, the country that town is part of is not trivial, but crucial information. It is repetitive of information in the body, but that is the nature of infoboxes; the "Infobox Russian town" in the article upper right is similarly mostly repetitive of information in the body, and takes up even more space. Between that and the majority of supporters who clearly feel the box is useful here, there is consensus to include the box in this article. This does not necessarily apply to "similar articles", since the issues there may be different; part of the importance of the box here is that Vyborg changed countries multiple times, from Sweden to Finland to Russia, and various incarnations of the latter. I can well imagine a town that has been part of a single country since its founding where this infobox would be completely unnecessary, and others where it would be less useful for other reasons. --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose, it lists trivia, obscures the reading, and does not add anything to the article content.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It is a useful summary for its subject, which is significant for Vyborg which has been part of many states. Nor it is trivia, which is by definition unimportant information, and is obviously not the case, considering that this is practically the main subject of the history section. Kostja (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. How can this be considered trivia? It is a vital summary of historical information that is very illustrative, similar to that found in country infoboxes. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Vyborg itself appeared in the 11th–12th centuries as a mixed Karelian-Russian settlement."[edit]

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)

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)