Talk:Khabarovsk

comments from 2005
Is this article NPOV? Parts of it don't sound it. --KG

Well then, edit it to make it NPOV. Or at least specify what you don't like about it. Balcer 19:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

17th century events
"Manchu-Korean forces met the Russians at Sharhody (Chinese: 沙尔虎达 Russian: Шарходы/Шарходе Hangul:의례목성 (어라이무청)), on the mouth of the Sungari River, killing 270 Russians and driving them out of Manchu territory." That's not POV?! --SergeiXXX 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the passage in question refers to the description of Russians taking over of the Manchu territory. What exactly do you see as a POV problem in this sentence?  It was a Manchu territory after all.  Or do you mean something else?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no political correctness in words killing 270 Russians and driving them out of Manchu territory. I certain that in some russian notes of that times Manchu were just retrogrades and they were only able to kill themselves in front of danger. I hope there is no place for insults in the free Encyclopedia.

But it is evident the article has been written by a Korean, hehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.27 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a great series of postings, in Russian, on the events of the period here: http://www.gerodot.ru/viewtopic.php?t=13026 Although this is in a forum format, and not in a journal article (so we can't use it is a reference - but we can look up some of the same info in other sources), I believe that the poster is a professional historian who's published some journals articles and at least one book on the Manchu-Korean and Manchu-Russian conflicts of the 17th century. One of his sources is apparently Polyakov's mutineers' denunciation letter against Khabarov, published by B.P. Polevoy in the 1990s (which is online, and is now among the references to this article). Vmenkov (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Labor camp
I don't see any reference on this page to the labor camp in Khabarovsk... a Japanese solider I was researching was taken there after the war and died there in 1950. Was this a different Khabarovsk? Is the camp of too low importance/significance in the big picture to be mentioned? Or is it simply not mentioned just because it's been overlooked? I apologize if I sound accusatory - I do not intend to be. I am simply ignorant as to the history of Soviet labor camps, and Japanese POWs, and in particular the history or significance of the one at Khabarovsk. LordAmeth 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
I saw some good pictures on the Russian wiki article, so I assume they are fair use, though I don't speak Russian, so I don't know if the pictures have any warnings. Perhaps to spruce up the article a bid, someone better at this can transfer some of those pictures? Leoberacai 12 February 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I have created a disambiguation page for Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk Krai, Khabarovsk Bridge, Khabarovsk Novy Airport. Looking at the primary/secondary situation with Khabarovsk and Khabarovsk Krai, I think Khabarovsk should be renamed Khabarovsk (city). Feedback? speednat (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Khabarovsk" (without any modifiers) refers first and foremost to the city, hence the article about the city is located there. Any other use is derived from the city name and is thus secondary to it (the krai is named after the city, not the other way around).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, January 26, 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Support speednat (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I propose a move of this page to Khabarovsk (city), and wish to hear from all opposed or in support of this proposed move. My reasoning has these points:
 * Khabarovsk Krai is listed without the krai on numerous maps
 * the city is not the clear primary usage
 * it is more in line with other similar ambiguations
 * it will make it easier to find what the user wants
 * it will create negligible, if any, negative effect speednat (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To find out what the primary usage of "Khabarovsk" is, it is sufficient to ask any person who is knowledgeable about the topic. If you don't trust my expertise, feel free to ask any other Russian editor.  Just because the primary meaning is not clear to you does not automatically mean no primary meaning exists.  On the maps, names (and especially qualifiers such as "oblast", "district", "krai", etc.) are often omitted due to space constraints.  This is strictly a question of utility; since we don't have the same space constraints, we use full names.
 * I'm all for being "more in line" with similar disambiguations, but only when it makes sense. Here, we have the city of Khabarovsk (which is the second largest city in the Russian Far East, fairly well-known throughout the world, and the administrative center of a federal subject), and a bunch of other entities, all of which have "Khabarovsk" in their names only because they are related to the city in one way or another.  Clearly, the city is one and only most important entity in this list.
 * The vast majority of users, when typing in "Khabarovsk" in the search box, would be looking for the city. A good chunk of those who think they are looking for the krai (perhaps by looking at one of the maps you mentioned) will eventually find that they really need the article about the city (I'm talking from experience here, by the way). Those who really need the article about the krai may easily jump to it from the very first paragraph of the Khabarovsk article ("Khabarovsk is the administrative center of Khabarovsk Krai").  So, how exactly does it make it easier for the vast majority of readers to land on a disambiguation page instead of the article they are most likely seeking?
 * The effect may be negligible, but it is not towards an improvement; it simply makes things slightly worse (per reasons outlined above).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, January 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The city is clearly the most common Khabarovsk, as a simple google search denotes; those referring to the Krai will clearly state Khabarovsk Krai.
 * You have shown no evidence of any maps which show it without Krai, but again, we should not allow ourselves to be guided by the laziness or ineptness of some, as yet unidentified, map makers.
 * It is not inline with similar ambiguations. Not within usage on Russian articles that is.
 * The disambiguation link at the top of the page is enough to help users find what they want if by some chance they meant the Krai, or the airport, or whatever.
 * The effect would be huge and entirely negative because of the usage of Khabarovsk by itself is in favour of the city, the work fixing links would be cumbersome. Additionally, it would also have a knock-on effect to other entities such as Moscow, which would have to be moved to Moscow (city) due to the existence of Moscow Oblast, etc. Note how it works on Los Angeles, which can very easily mean Los Angeles County.
 * Unfortunately, I can't see any reason to do the move, and the little positives are far outweighed by the negatives. That my 50кп. --Russavia Dialogue 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose; No need to move; agree with the above poster. Vmenkov (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Population
Actually, Khabarovsk has about 500'000 registered inhabitants. But then, it has about 400'000 UNregistered inhabitants as well, which makes the population about 900'000 in total.
 * See, this is exactly the kind of information that needs a good, solid, reliable source.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 20, 2013; 11:54 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khabarovsk. 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/20070502123815/http://www.mtcha.com.ne.kr/korea-term/sosun/term86-nasunjungbul.htm to http://mtcha.com.ne.kr/korea-term/sosun/term86-nasunjungbul.htm
 * Added tag to http://dicimg.empas.com/art/k03n001801m4.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201172835/http://vestnik.tripod.com/articles/conflicts.html to http://vestnik.tripod.com/articles/conflicts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khabarovsk. 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/20060525063941/http://www.inauka.ru/discovery/article35236.html to http://www.inauka.ru/discovery/article35236.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813035909/http://www.amursk.ru/az/05/1130/r2.htm to http://www.amursk.ru/az/05/1130/r2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228031353/http://www.adm.khv.ru/invest2.nsf/edd578ced75448e2ca256524001a00c2/6ea7ef189fc9473fca25665100159738?OpenDocument to http://adm.khv.ru/invest2.nsf/edd578ced75448e2ca256524001a00c2/6ea7ef189fc9473fca25665100159738?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External link no good?
I tried http://khabarovskadm.ru/  and it never loaded for me.--Billymac00 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khabarovsk. 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/20110817181236/http://hbr.moigorod.ru/news/details.asp?n=2146407918 to http://hbr.moigorod.ru/news/details.asp?n=2146407918

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Chinese early dynasties
I doubt that "Before 1860, this was a typical Chinese city, with more than 50% Han residents." can be true. There's no evidences and proofs that shortly before 1860 inside of current borders of the city there was something which can be called a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andruhon (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Коллаж Хабаровска.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Коллаж Хабаровска.png

Easternmost city?
In my recent edit, I deleted an uncited claim in the lead section that called Khabarovsk Russia's easternmost city. I found this claim strange and dubious at best, since there are places such as Komsomolsk-on-Amur east of Khabarovsk which meet both the common English definition of a "city" and the Russian definition of "город".

If I'm missing something here and you'd like to reinstate that claim, please write it in a clearer and more accurate way, and cite it if possible.

Spudslover (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Maybe if it meant above a certain population (500,000?) but it still seems strange to include. Mellk (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)