Talk:Kronstadt

kotlin.ru - more information about Kronshtadt on English and Russian

wheres the english version or section on that site? -max rspct 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

POV wording

I realize that the words were originally there, but they seem to have been removed with good intent and I think it was a good idea. However, this change was reverted, but I don't see why. Making articles NPOV is always a good thing. Can we keep the version without the POV adjectives please? -- Rediahs 08:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As you please. I just think the epithets in question reflect certain hard facts rather than somebody's point of view. I don't see how anyone can argue that suppression of the rebellion was not ruthless and destruction of one of the major Neoclassical cathedrals was not barbarous. --Ghirla | talk 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but do they contribute anything to the article either? Just because they are nearly universally true doesn't mean there's a good reason for them to be there, when they could be considered POV. I will go ahead and remove them again if that's all right. -- Rediahs 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The traditional way to handle POV issues is to add quotes by leading participants and historians that reflect these differences of opinion. For example, Emma Goldman called the Bolsheviks' actions "a frightful massacre", while Leon Trotsky defended them as "necessary". Ahasuerus 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a passer by here, but after reading this article I could not help but notice the language included an unsettling amount pride and is expressed with a too heavily slanted POV. Examples: “... St Andrew Cathedral (1817), formerly Kronstadt's pride and beauty, was ...” “pride and beauty” is unnecessary. “...barbarously destroyed by the Communists...” “barbarously” is most definitely unnecessary. “...one of the most venerated Russian saints...” I think his status in the Rus Orth Church could somehow be expressed more objectively. It can, at times, read like a tourism pamphlet. Eebmore 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Max Rspct Vandalism

I would also like to add the line, "The older St Andrew Cathedral (1817), formerly Kronstadt's pride and beauty, was barbarously destroyed by the Communists in 1932" is outrageiously subjective. "barbarously destroyed"? How about, just plainly: was destoryed, while we are at it, make the statment a bit more accurate: Was destoried in the civil war.

---

Ah, what a surprise, another page on Kronstadt where Max rspct constantly vandalises other people's posts and reverses them.

Whilst we are 'discussing' things, you have the presumption to 'correct' someone's post mentioning a riot by sneering that it was a 'rebellion' or 'uprising' - typical POV stuff from you of course, since in almost every History it is known as the Kronstadt MUTINY, just like the Spithead Mutiny, or the Kiel Mutiny, or any other uprising by a Navy against it's command.

You rail against authoritarianism with your Anarchist POV, and yet you are a consistant authoritarian on here, constantly editing out or reversing the posts of others.

A quick search at http://print.google.com finds 172 pages that refer to "Kronstadt uprising", 211 pages that mention "Kronstadt rebellion", 129 pages that use "Kronstadt revolt" and 108 pages that reference "Kronstadt mutiny". All four terms seem to be used more or less interchangeably by non-anarchist authors. Ahasuerus 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed the reference to the rebellion being led by White Guards, as the source that was linked to was blatantly POV (Trotskyist) and the "Kronstadt rebellion" article has information to the opposite effect. Everyone agrees that the sailors rebelled, not everyone agrees who their leaders may or may not have been... XbenX 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to that.

-G

---

I replaced "until the fall of communism in 1989" with "until the fall of Communism in 1989" to denote that this must be a reference to the state party rather than communism in general. Further editing to this end may be necessary --Dean Sayers 01:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Removed Military History tag as article is out of scope. --dashiellx (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

History

The article states "Pushkin's great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, oversaw its construction" and cites a recent biography. However, according to the Wikipedia article on Gannibal, he was in Constantinople in that year. More importantly, he was also 7 years old. Could someone doublecheck the biography or some other source? The Wikipedia article does state that he was a miltary engineer, so perhaps he contributed to the fortress at some later date. Norm mit (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Name to Kronshtadt ?

Has the name to be changed to Kronshtadt, because it is in Russian Кронштадт ? Although the name come from German language, it is a place in Russia like imeni Karla Libknekhta, имени Карла Либкнехта named after German Karl Liebknecht. --85.76.152.252 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Finrus, why hide behind an IP to ask a question? And is this a move request (in which case you need to format it accordingly), or just curiosity? Yes, the page needs to be moved to "Kronshtadt", for the reasons outlined in WP:RUS and per the Tolyatti precedent.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2010; 17:32 (UTC)

Where the move will stay? Afraid something? Friendly, --85.76.152.252 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the more you comment, the less I understand you. What does "where the move will stay" mean? Why should I be "afraid" of something? How's that even relevant to this article?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2010; 21:07 (UTC)

So, what is the correct name to this article (and place): Kronstadt or Kronshtadt ? If Kronshtadt, why You don't move it to that name, if "it would take only a few seconds to move the page"? Perhaps You afraid that Your move will be abolished? --85.77.77.31 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Both versions are "correct". There are other "correct" names as well (such as, for example, "Cronstadt"). The spelling choice depends solely on the romanization system one selects. Since Wikipedia's standard is WP:RUS, the article should ultimately be moved to "Kronshtadt". It's not hard to do, but the corresponding cleanup takes time. I've put this task on my to-do list and will do the move when I get to it. Thank you for bringing attention to this issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2010; 14:04 (UTC)

It is very good to know, that e.g. Helylä is a correct name as well to Хелюля, Lahdenpohja to Лахденпохья, Ägläjärvi to Ягляярви and so on, like Kronstadt to Кронштадт. Respectively, --Finrus (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I told you exactly that on at least four previous occasions. The part you keep missing is that while there might be several possible spellings for any given place, there can only be one which we can use as an article title. WP:RUS was established exactly for that purpose—to determine how the title should be spelled. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2010; 16:57 (UTC)

However, if the place on Russia can carry its original German name Kronstadt also in English (You have not make the move at least yet), why should not the places in Russia can carry their original Finnish names, like Helylä, Lahdenpohja, Ägläjärvi and so on also in English? Respectively, --Finrus (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to our previous discussions about this. I have nothing new to add to what I said about this before.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2010; 20:05 (UTC)

Dear PatGallacher and Ëzhiki (Igels etc.), the point is that places of Russia, which carry non-Russian names, should naturally and consistently be written in English language similarly as in the other Latin-alphabet-based language, from which the names are: Kronstadt (German: Kron(e) for crown and Stadt for city), Schlüsselburg (German: Schlüssel for key and Burg for castle), Lahdenpohja (Finnish: lahden for bay's and pohja for bottom) and so on. As You see, inter alia German and Finnish are written in Latin alphabet just like English: the Russian Cyrillic transcription is as if 'a loan' in these names.

Such names as "Kronshtadt", "Shlisselburg", "Lakhdenpokhya" etc. transcribed straight from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet are peculiar.

Respectively, --Finrus (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So, You think also that names as "Kronshtadt", "Shlisselburg", "Lakhdenpokhya" etc. transcribed straight from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet are peculiar, unnatural?

--Finrus (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Finrus, this page is for the discussions of the article about the city, not for general policy rants. You are more than welcome to comment on this particular case here, but please take your other grievances to an appropriate page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2010; 14:07 (UTC)

Yes, but where here is some kind of a "coffee bar", in which everybody can discuss generally about practices, language planning etc? --Finrus (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RfC is your friend.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2010; 14:04 (UTC)

Many thanks to You! Friendly, --Finrus (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RUS applicability

Ah, but WP:RUS also states that if a place has a well-established name in English we use it e.g. Moscow, Saint Petersburg. I would argue that Kronstadt is well-established in English, mainly because of the controversial Kronstadt Rebellion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pat. I see you are new to this argument. Finrus and me have been at it forever :) Anyway, what you've missed is that WP:RUS not only states that we should use a well-established name in English when there is one, it also gives a very precise definition of what is considered a well-established English name. Namely, it refers us to what the dictionaries and other reference materials use, and those favor "Kronshtadt" heavily (although, of course, they occasionally give the alternative names as secondary as well). See, for example, Britannica, which not only has the article about the location under Kronshtadt, but also titles the article about the rebellion Kronshtadt Rebellion. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2010; 20:05 (UTC)

If so, WP:RUS could itself be in breach of WP:PLACE, by putting forward an unduly rigid definition of what we should regard as a common English name. This place is mainly known in English because of the rebellion, and having seen quite a bit of controversy over the incident, I believe this is the normal spelling, the Britannica may be using an unconventional one. PatGallacher (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how's using established academic reference sources (of which Britannica is only one example, by the way) in breach of our guidelines? I don't understand your point. Could you, please, clarify? What do you propose we should be using instead, google hits?  :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2010; 21:03 (UTC)

Look at the lengthy list of external links and sources at the foot of the Kronstadt rebellion article. This is the spelling they all use. PatGallacher (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pat, just to clarify—no one is suggesting that the article about the rebellion should be moved. WP:RUS does not even have a section dealing with the concepts other than people and place names. The article in question is this one, the one about the city itself.

With that (hopefully) clear, I would like to address your statement that WP:RUS is somehow at odds with WP:PLACE. In fact, that is not at all so. Let me demonstrate. WP:PLACE, in its Widely accepted name section, provides a list of methods one should apply to determine what the commonly used name is. While the list is in no particular order, item 1 explicitly refers us to the English-language encyclopedias to establish what the spelling should be. I've already shown above that Britannica uses "Kronshtadt". So does Columbia. Dictionaries are on board as well—see, for example, Merriam-Webster. This is not an aberration (and even if it were, it is not up to us Wikipedians to decide; the important thing is that the source is reliable); this is what the modern academia uses.

On the other hand, if we apply all six criteria of WP:PLACE (one of which is looking at sources; it's under #2) to both "Kronshtadt" and "Kronstadt", we'll see that each spelling would meet some of them and fail the others. That is unsurprising—in fact, that's exactly what I stated at the very start of this discussion—that both spellings are acceptable and used in English. Our problem, of course, is choosing the one to use as the article title. WP:PLACE recognizes that such situations occur, which is why it channels these cases through the country-specific guidelines. For Russia, WP:RUS is specifically listed as the next step. So, while you are right that WP:RUS criteria are more restrictive than those of WP:PLACE, they are this way by design; to be applied to cases which WP:PLACE can't positively resolve.

Additionally, WP:RUS is based on the BGN/PCGN conventions, which are also mentioned by WP:PLACE as something that needs to be considered when making a decision.

All in all, this city's name isn't even in the dreadful gray area where our guidelines are insufficient to make a confident choice—if you apply our guidelines methodically, you'll arrive to one spelling, which happens to be "Kronshtadt".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2010; 14:07 (UTC)

I'm afraid all conclusions at which you arrive are seriously flawed. Frankly, I'd run a bot to undo a number of moves you have done recently. The damage they have done to the English WP is enormous. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty sweeping conclusion, Ghirla. Would you care to provide specifics? Or evidence (especially that of the "damage")? Perhaps enlighten us as to how the guidelines should be applied? Please? My talk's page fine, unless this is related to Kronshtadt directly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2010; 14:02 (UTC)

Name

Why does it have a German name? Sca (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gannibal oversaw construction?

The second sentence of the History section says (or said, until I removed it):

Pushkin's great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, oversaw its construction.

and there's a ref given for this and a "dubious-discuss" tag, with the reason given being "He was 7 years old at the time", and a date of 2010 which is six years ago now.

There's been no discussion that I can see in any of that time. I can't read the ref, which is a book I don't have. It is true that Gannibal was born in 1696 (according to his article) and the construction began in 1704 (not only that, he was born in Africa and didn't even enter Russia until 1704.)

And it says the fortifications were "constructed very quickly". It's hard to imagine anyone, even a member of the imperial household (which Gannibal was), running such a large project before, say, age 18, which he attained in 1714. And he was in France 1717-1723.

So even if "constructed very quickly" means "it took 13 years or more to construct", Gannibal would only have been in charge for about three years. He might have been Chief Engineer of Kronstatd for a few years, responsible for maintenance and improvements. That's different from "oversaw its construction".

So ref or no, the statement's been under challange for a long time, hasn't been defended, and seems unlikely, so I removed it. --Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kronstadt. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315031656/http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob19.html to http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob19.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)