Talk:Amber Room

Suggestion

I think that some information about the finds of a mosaic and a chest of drawers belong in the chapter Disappearance. I don't know the correct dates, it was in the 90's. These findings a returned to the reconstructed chamber. Also the indications of the removal of the chamber from Königsberg should be known. The last traces of the transport were around Weimar.

Russian Characters

The Russian name of the Amber Room is not legible to me (instead, it shows accented latin characters). It probably is in some other ISO encoding, not in Unicode. Can someone who speaks Russian and has access to a Cyrillic keyboard mapping enter the name in Unicode? Thanks. - Marcika 02:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, by pasting the title of the Russian version of this article. -:o) 5 May 2005

Gdansk/Danzig

This is getting really tiresome. Since the craftsmen in question are ethnic Germans, I think it's reasonable to prefer the Danzig variant of the name, as that's what they presumably called it. Also, according to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, that city is to be referred to as Danzig "between 1308 and 1945" - i.e. at the time we are speaking of in this article. So I put back the Danzig, but left a note that it's now called Gdansk. Noel (talk) 22:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1001th speculation

Removed:

Recently, lengthy research by a pair of British investigative journalists, including very extensive archival research in Russia, concluded that the Amber Room was likely destroyed when Königsberg Castle was burned by occupying Soviet forces after Königsberg surrendered. (Among other information from the archives was the revelation that the remains of the rest of the set of Italian stone mosaics were found in the burned debris of the castle.) Their reasoning as to why the Soviets still conducted extensive searches is that elements of the Soviet government wished to obscure (even from other branches of the Soviet government) the fact that Soviet soldiers were most likely responsible for its destruction.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghirlandajo (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 July 2005.

Have you read their book? They spent several years researching the case, all of which they report. Also, if you will note, I was very careful to phrase that text as a report their conclusions, not simply state them as fact. (I.e. it's a fact that that's what's in the book, and I report that.) Since that paragraph is an accurate summation of their work, and their work was extensive and careful, I see no reason not to report it. Noel (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I got my copy back from my daughter (who'd taken it off to read it), so since you didn't like my phrasing, which was actually a lot less harsh that what's in the book, here's an excerpt (pp. 356) of their conclusions:

"However, the evidence, when we examined it, is clear. Soviet news footage shot inside Konigsberg Castle shortly after the city fell on 9 April, 1945 shows that some rooms in the castle remained intact. German eye-witnesses hiding inside the castle told Soviet interrogators that it was not burned to the ground when they surrendered on the evening of 9 April, or in the early hours of 10 April. Yet when the first official Soviet investigators arrived in Konigsberg, on 31 May, 1945, they reported that the castle was a charred ruin, and the city storage facilities in disarray. Professor Alexander Brusov wrote in his diary in June, 1945 that many of the hiding places, carefully selected by Alexander Rohde, the director of the Konigsberg Castle Museum, were flooded, on fire, and empty, having been opened, torched or vandalized after the German surrender by the Red Army."

"We know that the Soviet authorities were presented with these facts and advised by Brusov that, alongside many other treasures, the Amber Room had been destroyed between 9 and 11 April, 1945. His findings were classified and buried for more than five decades .."

".. A great untruth was born, and it enabled the Soviet people and their sympathizers in Europe and America to continue to believe that the East was the victim of the worst excesses of the West. The real story portrayed the Soviets as rapacious liars, something the leadership feared .."

...

"The world should remember Stalingrad, the 900 Days, the obliteration of so many Soviet cities, towns and villages .. But history is untidy, and as well as being the victim of unbridled German aggression, the Soviet state was a manipulative victor. Having seen their country burned, raped and robbed, Soviet soldiers became vengeful and careless."

As you can see, I toned it down a lot to report on it. (I suspect they were rather angry at the deliberate misrepresentation the Soviet Government had systematically engaged in; then again, that was one of the lesser of the crimes of that government, the worst of which were committed against its own people.)

---

Moving on, here are the bios of the two journalists who did it:

"worked as staff writers and correspondents for the Sunday Times of London for seven years before joining The Guardian as senior correspondents."

They quote extensively from documents which they unearthed in Soviet archives, and the book is fully footnoted as to sources, giving file numbers in the various Soviet archives for each document they quote (the footnotes and source list run to 18 pages of fine print).

They investigated this matter at great length: their first visit to Leningrad was in December 2001, and they had been at work for a while before that (see pp. 6); their last visit to Kaliningrad was in March 2003, and they continued working after that, visiting Bremen in April 2003 to discuss evidence that had appeared in Germany.

In other words, they are mainstream, reputable journalists, and this book is a serious work which meets the standards for responsible scholarship. As such, there is no reason to simply delete a report of their conclusions. Noel (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Finally, here are a couple of recent non-laudatory reviews.

"For years, art sleuths have scoured Europe in search of this Russian treasure. But if the authors are to be credited - and I see no reason why they shouldn't be - these experts have been wasting their time. ... What I find truly irritating about The Amber Room is that, under all the authorial embellishment, irrelevant fact and pointless 'colour', there is a cracking story. Scott-Clark and Levy have done their research, there's no doubt about that." Russian treasure story gilds the lily

"The authors of this book are to be commended for their dogged determination and commitment to their project. .. Other reviewers have laid out competently the strengths of the book, but I noted several significant weaknesses: First, neither of the authors speak Russian and only scraps of German .. yet most of their sources and interviews are in these two languages. ... The reserach has some structural weaknesses, but the conclusions are probably sound." Russian history minus Russian language

"At times it is difficult to follow the thread of their story, largely because the authors fall into the trap of thinking there's no such thing as an unimportant detail. .. Relying on the archival secret documents, Scott-Clark and Levy discredit Kuchumov's analysis .. To some observers -- especially the Russians -- their resolution may look like one more conspiracy theory. ... Scott-Clark and Levy argue that the Amber Room stands as a symbol of those [World War II] losses and that, even today, it is not in Russia's interest to accept that its own army destroyed the panels. (It is doubtful there would ever be independent Russian military confirmation of such a charge.) ... In the end, Scott-Clark and Levy have given us a valuable look inside Cold War politics." Opening a locked door

I deliberately picked reviews which were not entirely positive. You will note that although they have problems with the presentation of the material, they don't argue with the conclusions. Similarly, you may not be happy with the tone of the book, and things like their comments about the Red Army, but there's no evidence that their data (e.g. the documents they quote from the archives) is in any way incorrect - and it's on that data that their conclusions rest. Noel (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Having received no reply despite making two requests on your talk: page, I'm going to replace that material. If you simply delete it again, I will instantly file an RFC. Noel (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have extensively re-written that section, adding copious source foot-notes giving sources. I have also added commentary from Russian officials who disagree with them (again footnoted) for balance. Finally, I added quotes from a Soviet army witness, who agrees the Amber Room was burned, but disagrees on the issue of blame (also footnoted). Please read the St. Petersburg Times story (which I thought was very well done, a fine piece of journalism - and not just because it says It is not clear that any of the critics have read the book and none of them have presented any evidence that the book is wrong.), as well as the Arinstein interview in the MSNBC piece, before changing the article. Noel (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes: very clear that the evidence produced indicates that the Amber Room was destroyed when the Red Army burned the castle in 1945. That doesn't make it fact; rather, it represents their very credible theory that the Red Army was responsible (not the RAF, which the previous edit seems to suggest). Kentish 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk)

2008 Discovery

The section is confusingly worded and repetitive. Has anything happened since Feb? Is Hans-Peter Haustein the same person as Heinz-Peter Haustein? Noble Rust (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delete it -- current news is they didn't find anything; it definitely doesn't warrent it's own section.--68.35.11.25 (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/02/21/Russian-treasure-stolen-by-Nazis-found/UPI-88221203579765/ Definitively warrants it's own section. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1002nd speculation

Removed:

The Mayor of Königsberg has strong belief that the Amber room does exist in his town. The reason for his strong belief is that in his searches in Königsberg he has received death threats warning him to end his search for the Amber Room. The death threats warned if the true secrets of Königsberg are found, history as we know it will have to be re-written. Its fate remains a mystery, and the search continues.

This is unsubstantiated tabloid nonsense. No refs, not even the name of the Mayor, and the old name Koenigsberg when refering to the current Mayor(!). In any case this stuff does not belong in an intro.1812ahill (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Helicopter Evacuation

One of the only helicopters in the world was used for a perilous flight to Danzig in the closing stages of the war. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_223#Danzig_flight No reason has been given for the mission which seems strange for such a valuable asset. Could it be that the retreival of some or all of the dismantled Amber Room was involved ? I would like to see an experts opinion of the possibility, as any chance that this masterpiece may still be in existence should be investigated.

I think that you mean "one of the few".Royalcourtier (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Cost of reconstruction

Is there an estimate of the final cost of reconstruction of the Amber Room? The only amount written here talks about those extra 3.5 million USD given by a German Firm. What is the Grand Total? WPF2008 (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

'The thing is'

People can accept that there were various ownerships of the area (including several armies) with different agendas, 'incomplete and localised archives', and many treasures being moved around in some secrecy, during and after WWII; and things do get destroyed, hidden for long periods (St Stephen's Crown) or not recognised for what they are (the Alfred Jewel as a dog-collar ornament). What 'seems odd' is that the Amber Room 'so large and decorative' disappeared without trace - that no bits were taken as souvenirs, 'lost' or otherwise kept.

There are actually two Amber Rooms - the actual and real one which disappeared, whether burnt or under the replacement building, and the mirage one which "should" exist or be found if only all the archives could be correlated, and all the tunnels and other possibilities explored. Whether the remade Amber Room is more one or the other, or some combination of both cannot be determined. 128.127.29.19 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Remnants

Have authenticated remnants of the original Amber Room ever been recovered? And if so, in what countries? Understanding the geopolitical aspect of this situation, post soviet era art, and the marginalization of non political and religious art during the Soviet regime, what efforts were made during the Soviet regime to reconstruct the Amber Room? Could these elements add to the article at hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki49 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The book on The Amber Room has a picture of the surviving fragments. 128.127.29.19 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

20 February 2015

It took me most of my day, but I have massively improved the article as it's of high importance of the project scale. I'm going to nominate it for GA-status before the end of the week. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

image of soldiers

Hey there mate. I have re-added the image you removed from the article because: that part of the article describes a great deal about the Battle of Konigsberg and events related to Königsberg, so having a picture like that is not irrelevant. If you still disagree, I suggest we take to the talk page and get in the input of a neutral, third party. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't add random images to article. We add images which improve encyclopedia content. There were numerous events and things in this place and time. This article is not about battle of kenigsberg. It is about amber room. Please explain how this image contributed to increase knowledge about amber room. For example, did these soldiers carry it away?-M.Altenmann >t 23:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've explained my reasons above. I suggest we ask for the opinion of a neutral, third party. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you explained your reasons. But you did not answer my question (highlighted). As for your explanation, the article does not have "a great deal about the Battle of Konigsberg". the battle is simply mentioned. The battle itself is irrelevant. What is relevant : events before battle (room was hidden or removed) or battle's aftermath (one of the conjectures is that Soviet soldiers somehow associated with the disappearance of the room), but not the battle itself. I am not against an opinion of third party, but why don't we discuss the things logically ourselves? -M.Altenmann >t 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article may benefit from more pictures. I may suggest following topics:

• Several eyewitnesses claimed to have spotted the famous room being loaded on board the Wilhelm Gustloff
• An photo of Konigsberg damaged in the battle.
• A photo of the konigsberg palace. -M.Altenmann >t 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amber Room/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Jonas Vinther, I have completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article and I assess that it easily meets all the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that must be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you again for your extraordinary efforts in completing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   An architecture or design section is required, as this is a significant example of baroque architectural design.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Pending agreement between editors regarding the article's condition at review.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the room, establishes context for the room, explains why the room is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the room.
• The image of the reconstructed Amber Room with amber panels and gold leafs is released into the public domain and is therefore free to use.
• Consider adding a comma or semi-colon between the Russian and German translations of the Amber Room's name.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also consider rewriting as "Created in the 18th century in Prussia, the room disappeared during World War II and was recreated in 2003."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The first usage of Prussia in the lede should be wiki-linked, de-link the second mention of Prussia.
• In the second paragraph, add a comma after "In Russia."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fix typo to "inaugurated at the Catherine Palace near St. Petersburg" in the last sentence of the lede. De-link St. Petersburg as it is linked above in the lede.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, the lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

History

• The image of the corner section of the reconstructed Amber Room is released into the public domain and is therefore eligible for usage here.
• Berlin City Palace should be named as such consistently throughout the next, rather than as Berlin Castle.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Rewrite as "The Amber Room did not, however, remain at Berlin City Palace for long. Peter the Great of Russia admired it during a visit and in 1716, King Friedrich I's son Friedrich Wilhelm I presented the room to Peter as a gift, which forged a Russo-Prussian alliance against Sweden."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Rewrite as "The room took over ten years to construct" in the final sentence of the Creation subsection.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The image of an angel statue featured on the wall of the Amber Room was released into the public domain and is therefore eligible to use here.
• In the World War II subsection, the amber became brittle.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Would "cultural goods of priority" work better in the Last days in Königsberg subsection?
• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Reconstruction

• The image of the amber room in this section has been released into the public release, and is therefore permissible for use here.
• In the first sentence, add a comma after "In 1979."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, if these are American dollars, the amount should be rewritten $3.5 million.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• De-link East Prussia as it was already wiki-linked above in the article's main prose.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Disappearance and mysteries

• The image of Königsberg Castle, 1925 was released into the public domain and is free to use in this article.
• The image of the ruins of the castle, 1950s was released into the public domain and is also free to use here.
• Inline citations are needed in the fourth paragraph of this section.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

Tweaked. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The quotation needs an inline citation.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The following paragraph only requires the inline citation to be located at the end of the paragraph.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Architecture

• There needs to be a section devoted exclusively to the details of the room's architecture and design, including chandelier types, carvings, statuary, etc.

Caponer, I have edited accordingly all your comments above. Regarding this new comment, I'd say the rooms architecture and design is described and also shown with pictures very well. It's not in a section for itself, but in bits and pieces. Would this be okay, considering I have fixed everything outlined in your initial review? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Votum separatum

While no doubt formally the article meets the GA standards, it is time to actually improve the article:

• Review massive deletions by the nominee under the not-so-modest edit summary "MASSIVELY improved the article!"
• Add new content; a number of major issues is missing.

Still, I'd like to join Caponer in his congrats for the significant effort in copyediting of this article. I would also remind that the article is a joint effort of numerous contributors, who added this or that until the article became ripe to be picked by a copyeditor. Still, it is sad to notice that this article was thoroughly neglected during recent years, together with most of wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 03:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The lede is overburdened with detail. E.g., the history of its design must be moved into the corresponding section. -M.Altenmann >t 03:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Its history is mismatched in lede and in body. The references are not double-checked. I see some discrepancies. I am starting to get an idea that nominating it for GA is premature. -M.Altenmann >t 04:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian-language sources are completely ignored. While this is no a problem (this is English-language wikipedia after all), still they have much more detail than "second-hand" non-Russian non-German sources. In this respect, reference to Scotland on Sunday is especially... er... amusing, speaking of sloppiness in finding good references. -M.Altenmann >t 04:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This ru: text contains a wealth of detail. -M.Altenmann >t 04:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann, I thank you for adding the original 1931 photo to the article, but is unable to comprehend why you bring up all these other issues. Firstly, there is no doubt that my edits significantly improved this article, absolutely. The article was a literal mess before I started editing it! The GA-reviewer himself called my work on this article "extraordinary efforts". Secondly, I have not removed any significant or important content from the article which was in it before I started editing it; I have simply reformulated it and shorten unnecessary long sentences and paragraphs, making the article more pleasant and easy to read. Thirdly, I don't speak or read Russian, so I have only included English and German sources. I don't see any problem with Russian or any other non-English sources for that matter, but used the sources in my reach. Lastly, as you said yourself, this article no doubt meets the GA-standards, but I plan on asking for a A-Class review and also open a peer review, so all your comments for improvements can be listed there instead of here. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther and Altenmann, I thank you both for your attention to this article, and for your valued contributions to it. Because an article must be stable and free of all disagreements prior to passage, I am going to keep this article "on hold" pending your joint concurrence on the version of the article that is currently up for review. If a compromise cannot be reached, I will decline passage of the article until one can be attained. Altenmann, please add content and citations from some of the German and Russian language sources, as much as translation tools will allow you to. Jonas, thank you for making the above updates. Because this room is a significant piece of architecture, I would find it odd to not have an architecture or design section dedicated solely to its baroque carvings, chandeliers, etc. I trust Altenmann could assist in crafting such a paragraph. -- Caponer (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I found an excellent source here regarding The Amber Room's architecture. I will do my best in creating an "Architecture" section my sandbox and present it here when I'm done to hear your opinions. I trust that a collaboration between me and Altenmann on this section would mean the end of any disagreements. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, I look forward to seeing the final result. Thanks for all your diligence and patience throughout this review process! -- Caponer (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, would you say that the information I have placed in the new section is too little? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Caponer:I don't have any disagreements with Jonas Vinther. As I said, it is clearly GA now. I am sure you are aware that there is always room for improvement, and the work never stops. I merely listed my observations:

• From my long experience every copyeditor undertaking major rewriting omits some details they think unimportant. In this particular case, (forgetting lesser detail) Jonas removed a whole section about the influence of the Amber Room on culture. Of course, this section must follow WP:TRIVIA, but there are several notable comments.
• I fail to see why request for adding new content must be a show-stopper: it is a never-ending quest, and I did not formulate my request as denial of GA status.

As for architecture request, well, it has been plain room (rooms); nothing special architecturally (the sources I know pay no much attention to it); the only prominent elements are decorations.

Of course, I will expand the article in my spare time, but again, if my comments somehow mess with GA process, then fuck GA process it clearly has drawbacks and you must follow common sense. -M.Altenmann >t 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann, I agree; the rooms architectural details are hard to expand into a full section when it's just plain rooms. Even so, the St. Petersburg reference had some interesting info on that, and I did my best to formulate it into the newest section added. I just left a message for the GA-reviewer if he is fine with the length of it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann and Jonas Vinther, you all have done a fantastic job of adding more content and streamlining the narrative of this article. In the "Creation" subsection, could there be a mention of when the Amber Room was actually installed in Russia. It should be mentioned in chronological order that the Amber Room was installed at the Catherine Palace of Tsarskoye Selo near Saint Petersburg, since that content is also highlighted in the lede. I stand by the request for a design or architecture paragraph. I'm sure someone out there has quantified the number of amber panels, etc. If not, I feel what you have now suffices and thank you for crafting that section. I used Google Translate to conduct a cursory translation of the German Wikipedia article and it looks like there are more facts that could be added to this, like the role of Empress Elisabeth in selecting the location of the room's installation. I would conduct a literature review to support some of the facts in that article, and add that content here. I am very confident that this article is close to passing, but I want to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible before doing so. Great work all! P.S. Also please ensure that all inline citations are placed in numerical order. -- Caponer (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, I have added more info on the quantified number of amber panels in the Architecture section, the mention of when the Amber Room was actually installed in Russia and also the role of Empress Elisabeth, all of which is now sourced. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, your additions look incredible. At first glance, citations still need to be placed in numerical order and should be placed at the end of a sentence rather than in the middle. I'll review soon, but upon first look, it looks about ready to proceed to GA status. Great job sir! -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and thank you for your thorough review. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, I've completed a cursory copyedit of the article, and while I assess it to have been greatly improved by your recent additions and edits, I find that the article still requires a little more research and copyediting. Also, some of the sources may not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, like in the case of About.com and AskMen. I would like to keep this article review on hold for a little longer while you continue to research for additional sources. This is one of the most famous rooms in architectural history, so I want to see the article reach Good Article status, but I want it to be worthy of the room it illustrates and represents. I would also nominate this article for further review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests so that it can receive a more thorough copyedit. Please continue to research for other sources, and consult with Wikipedia:Translation regarding translations of German and Russian sources, which are critical to making this a truly comprehensive article. As I stated, let's keep this on hold and continue to improve the article further. -- Caponer (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, thank you for all your hard work; the article looks much better. However, I don't see what's wrong about using sources like About.com? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, the About.com source can remain, but some of the site's content has been contested on Wikipedia before. I just want to make sure we put forward an indisputable article that can be a contender for a FA, which I know it can be because of your excellent contributions! Requests for translations and assistance from Russian and German-speaking Wikipedians may hold the key to this article's GAR completion. -- Caponer (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, I would really appreciate if About.com could stay, as it's one of the most used sources and contain such a wealth of info on the Amber Room. I plan on opening a peer review after the article has reached GA-status with the purpose of getting the article to FA-status, so I would also only want the best sources, but don't see any problems with About.com. The Daily Mail has also been criticized before by the community, but is still abundantly used on Wikipedia—even on GA-articles. I will do my best in getting some help with translating the Russian sources (I speak German myself) and get back to you ASAP. Thanks again. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, in accordance with your latest comments and by having this source translated from Russian to English, I have made the final edits. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, while the article now meets the criteria for Good Article status, I still highly recommend that this article be nominated for a full copyedit by the GOCE. Great job on this article, and please continue to research and add details as your further research uncovers more information. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, It's an excellent suggestion I intend to do. I also plan on requesting a A-Class and peer review as well. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Amber Room

Cyberbot II has detected links on Amber Room which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.guide-guru.com/best-of-st-petersburg-attractions/amber-room/

  Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amber Room. 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://www.webcitation.org/5msN0LHUv?url=http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~pbruhn/bernzim.htm to http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~pbruhn/bernzim.htm

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) 00:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How is this a good article?

...when there are some blatant inaccuracies like the Amber Room was built into the Charlottenburg Palace. I corrected it, but I suppose there are further mistakes.Ernio48 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Amber Room..."

"... is a reconstructed chamber ... its current whereabouts remain a mystery."

So which is it? --84.132.148.245 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. In my opinion, this article is primarily about the historic Amber Room, with the reconstruction a subsidiary issue, and the lede should be adjusted accordingly. GrindtXX (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now made the necessary changes. GrindtXX (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy

The article now reads, under Evacuation during World War II: "However, over the years the amber had dried out and become brittle, making it impossible to move the room without the amber crumbling"; then in the very next paragraph, "German soldiers of Army Group North disassembled the Amber Room within 36 hours under the supervision of two experts … the priceless room reached Königsberg in East Prussia, for storage and display in the town's castle …On 13 November 1941, a Königsberg newspaper announced an exhibition of the Amber Room at Königsberg Castle.

If the room had been impossible to move, the Germans couldn't have moved it… Presumably, the article should read that the Russians thought it couldn't be moved?

24.136.4.218 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Amber room

The United States was actually backing Hitler on the down low they knew he was pretty much of a thief and for safe passage to Argentina they requested the Amber room what would really be messed up is did they really melt it down most likely they did United States government is very evil believe it or not 151.213.93.71 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)