There is absolutely no justification to use Swedish names for places that were unilingually Finnish speaking. I guarantee that there is not a single English language history book on this war that refers to Koivisto as Björkö. Thus its usage here is contrary to mainstream sources, and thus it can also be classified as original research. Looking back at the old discussion at the archives of the Continuation War article, I can see that the result of that discussion was "Closed as no consensus to use any particular name for the town from November 1939 to September 1944", so you can not use that discussion as some sort of precedent. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- The most reasonable proposal at the time was to use Finnish or Russian depending on stable de facto control, also, as confirmed by contemporary English language accounts (that is, common usage)—for example, names of cities and towns as reported in LIFE magazine at the time. "Viborg" is Viborg, see, for example, the June 26, 1944 issue of LIFE,
I don't see any evidence for Björkö being used at the time, Koivisto is the only term used in contemporary (at the time_ English language sources, all of them in reference to the conflict. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I think a name change overnight in the middle of a war would be confusing. We should be consistent throughout the Continuation War. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Well, then I'd suggest LIFE magazine is a most appropriate representation of common English language usage for the conflict and how it was reported and understood. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Koivisto and Viborg reflect English language reporting at the time. Are there any others which pose an issue? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I regret that all the citations to these archives... shattering and all, are not admissible for this article. The Soviets glossed over conflicts which went less than well. By way of example, if Glantz uses archival materials as part of his conclusions, that is one thing. However, to quote Soviet archives directly here constitutes use of primary sources and is WP:OR. I'm not intending to gut related content, however, there are passages which will require new citations or eventual removal. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Note 28 containts a reference that is not in the source list (Baryshnikov 2006). Jack194.153.60.231 (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC).Reply
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
