Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive55

'12-'13 season naming

If, one would hope, the lockout is resolved prior to its self-imposed deadline, would this year's season pages, e.g., 2012–13 Anaheim Ducks season, remain being called the "2012–13" season, or would they be switched to merely the "2013" season, because the season would be played entirely in 2013? I realize that articles from '94-'95 are titled "1994–95" (e.g., 1994–95 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim season) even though that season was played entirely in 1995. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The season article covers all events occurring from immediately after the 2012 playoffs to the end of the 2013 playoffs, and so it still spans two calendar years. isaacl (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is still the 2012-13 season. The fact that all of 2012's games were cancelled doesn't change this. As Issac notes, many things still happened. The 2012 draft, free agency, trades. Happenings of the lockout related to each team. For instance, 2012-13 Calgary Flames season#2012 lockout - and I still need to make notes of players who went overseas. Resolute 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It remains as 2012–13. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Locked-out players - change back to their NHL teams

Now we know that the NHL will be playing this season, we apparently need to change back the articles for all locked-out players (who are playing with other teams) to indicate that they have returned to their NHL teams. I think that, if someone has a complete list of players who are currently with other teams, that would make the process more effective. HeyMid (contribs) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is from October, but it's a start: http://www.sbnation.com/2012/10/5/3461702/nhl-lockout-2012-europe-players-list TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The players will not return to their NHL teams until the lockout actually ends, and that will not happen until the deal is ratified by both sides. Resolute 16:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't state that the lockout is over - but I mean that it will be officially over in a few days. So we need to get prepared for the end of the lockout, now we know that it will end. HeyMid (contribs) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Eurohockey.com has a list. I don't know if it's up to date. --Tiouic (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Details of NHL collective bargaining agreement

The article NHL salary cap has a number of details on the NHL collective bargaining agreement that aren't directly related to the cap. Should the NHL collective bargaining agreement article be expanded to include more details of the terms of the CBA, and the corresponding information removed from the salary cap article? isaacl (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a logic move to me. I have no problem with that. Information that has its place in the CBA article should belong there. But does the CBA information in the salary cap article indicate a background / help the reader understand what the salary cap is? HeyMid (contribs) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look and see what you think... Two of the sections I am thinking of are the ones on free agency and contract limits; they have a lot of information unnecessary to understanding the salary cap, and in fact is missing the key point of what the cap hit is for a multi-year deal. Most of the "Waivers" section should probably be merged into the Waivers (NHL) article. Anything important for the salary cap can be retained, and pointers can be given to the appropriate separate articles. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Best-on-best for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Best-on-best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best-on-best until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.18abruce (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Curtis Joseph

Hey, there is a user over at Talk:Curtis_Joseph claiming to be CuJo who is asking how to asking how to correct some info. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling it is him. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would direct him towards OTRS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

IIHF U20 World Championship officially changed to World Junior Championship

I'm not sure if there's a sub-section I should bring this up in--it's all quite far-flung and confusing and I couldn't find a section that deals with article title conventions, so I'll just say it here. The IIHF has officially changed the name of the U20 World Championship to the World Junior Championship, to match its colloquial usage, as mentioned here [1]. Strangely, Wikipedia articles are titled "World U20 Championship", which was never the proper name. I figure the names of the Wikipedia articles should be changed likewise, but it won't let me move it. How do I do it? Of course, all applicable tables and lists should be changed likewise.Djob (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) comment edited to make external link visible isaacl (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I would treat that as an official change quite yet, since it appears to be one of the Malmo organizers using the colloquial term. It may be the case, but given all documentation related to the tournament on the IIHF site is still related to Ufa and the 2013 U20 championship, I'm not sure yet. I do know that in a very recent issue of The Hockey News, it was stated that the IIHF specifically calls the tournament the U20 World Championship because the word "junior" is viewed as a synonym for "second rate" in many parts of Europe. Resolute 16:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the IIHF statutes and bylaws, both the U18 and U20 tournaments are World Junior Championships. That is the title they use, and have done so since they started publishing it online. Additionally, the articles are predominately titled "World Junior Ice Hockey Championships" currently. Your contention of what the proper name was, or should have been, does not match the IIHF records, rule books, or archives.18abruce (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the article closely that I referenced to, which is written by an IIHF staff writer and appears on the IIHF website here[2]. The first "Note" at the bottom reads: "- As of 2014 the event will be called the IIHF World Junior Championship – as it has been generally known in Canada – and not the U20 World Championship anymore." That's pretty clear. Djob (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, you are right. I did not see that. I was reading the blog-type entry, not the notes at the bottom. Thanks! Resolute 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think we can move the article to World Junior Ice Hockey Championship, now that it's become pretty apparent that it will be generally referred to as the "World Junior Championship". Also, it seems strange that, for example, the 2012 and 2013 tournaments are titled "World Junior Ice Hockey Championships" while the main article for the competition itself is named "IIHF U20 World Championship". Time to move the article, at least from my point of view. HeyMid (contribs) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Winnipeg Free Press archives

I picked up a week's membership to WFP's archives to help finish of the Steamer Maxwell and start the Billy McGimsie articles. (It just occurred to me I should use it to search for more info on Dan Bain as well). Since I've got it for a week, and it cost $10, if anyone has anything they are looking info on that the Free Press may have covered, let me know! Resolute 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mike Ford played five seasons for the Jets in the 70', article is a tad short. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of transactions made by a GM

On a few GM pages a user is adding a list "notable" transactions made by a GM (see: Brian Burke (ice hockey) and Joe Nieuwendyk‎). I personally don't see a need for this and I see it as just clutter. If a GM makes a highly notable/controversial deal it is or should be talked about in the prose. IMO it also raises issues about what is notable, right now they are just a handful of transactions cherry picked from the career, for example I don't see the Kris Versteeg or Jiri Tlusty trades as particularly notable. I removed them once and the user put them back, so before I get involved in an edit war I would like to get the communities thoughts on these types lo lists. Thanks. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You got to them before I could. One fan's opinion of "notable" is pretty much the definition of POV. And we certainly do not need laundry lists of trades on these articles. Resolute 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Though it would make for a good stand-alone list. Probably more for Wikia, not sure if it would stand an afd here. Resolute 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm the one who made those edits. I've added external links pointing to the ice hockey wikia for trades made by Greg Sherman and Joe Nieuwendyk. I think it's rather buried in the Nieuwendyk article and I do think a list like this would serve a purpose to some amount of people, myself included. I'd like your thoughts on maybe making them more apparent. Thanks. Rrubenking (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Resolute, they should be in the prose not as a list. The goal here is to use less lists and more prose in all articles. Only use lists when there is no way they can be listed in prose. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed views: I agree that notable transactions must be sourced (often there is discussion of this topic when a GM has a career change), and should be integrated into the prose. However, a summary of the GM's defining transactions would be akin to a summary of a player's awards. Player awards should be integrated into prose as well, but this does not preclude there being a section listing them, so I think a case can be made for a well-sourced summary of the most important transactions made by a GM. isaacl (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The concern I have is something akin to the navbox problem, and what I personally define as an issue of "closed loop" vs. "open loop". An awards table has defined criteria that will not expand into something unmanageable (the closed loop). But a list of transactions is something that will inevitably grow and bloat over time (the open loop). While we would try to restrict the list to "notable" transactions, that would basically be us applying our own POV to what is a notable trade and what isn't. Beside that, people will inevitably try to add all trades regardless. And then there is worry of expansion. If we do trades, why not free agent signings? Draft picks?

As to Rrubenking's question, if a complete list of transactions was an internal article, we could easily use the {{further}} template at the head of the most appropriate section to give it more visibility. Should we consider doing that here, even though Wikia is an external link, and see if anyone chooses to revert? Resolute 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I don't believe a comprehensive, fully-sourced standalone article of transactions made by a general manager over his career is too excessive. Ultimately I think it would serve a purpose, albeit very specific. I don't think you'd include draft choices, but you most certainly would include all trades and I think it would be best to limit the list of free agents signings to players who played on an NHL roster. At that point, I don't think it would be considered POV.Rrubenking (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think a comprehensive list is warranted; though it would avoid pushing a specific point of view, it would give undue weight to this aspect (GMs make hundreds of transactions in their career). isaacl (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)No, I agree. A full list of trades would be NPOV. The reason why I suggested doing the list on Wikia had to do with the general climate of Wikipedia itself. There are a lot of people who think we are too sports-heavy (and/or pop-culture heavy), so there is a risk of someone taking it to AFD. Whether or not it would get deleted (and I expect "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information" will be the argument) I cannot say. This has been pretty typical when we start new concepts. When I began the concept of separate articles for each season for each NHL team, we had a few AFDs. I also remember the same for lists of general managers and the like. I would say that if you wish to try and create such an article on Wikipedia itself, feel free to do so. But, I would then suggest making it as complete as possible. For Brian Burke, as an example, include his trades from all teams he's managed (and source them), and give it a good lead section that covers the key transactions (i.e.: Phaneuf and Kessel trades) in detail. I can't guarantee it would survive an AFD discussion (I'd vote keep, myself), but if it did not, the work could move to Wikia so wouldn't be lost. And if we are going to look to set a precedent, I would definitely use a guy like Burke rather than Nieuwendyk. Someone with a long history and a lot of coverage to build a solid base. I would also suggest working on it in your sandbox before moving to article space, as a half-complete concept could fall to a quick AFD. Resolute 16:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict - it seems that my views disagree somewhat with the others. I think the worst that could happen with a stand-alone list is that it gets deleted. It really is a matter of if you are willing to put the work in and risk that. Resolute 16:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

• I think when a GM changes positions/steps down/retires/writes memoirs, the media will generally publish a thumbnail sketch of the GM, including notable transactions, and this could be a basis for a list. I agree though that it may be, in practice, difficult to limit. isaacl (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Any trade relevant enough to be referred to as "notable" will no doubt be discussed in the prose, no? Leave the standalone lists to the teenage girls. ChakaKong^talk 16:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

template:NHL Number One Draft Picks

{{NHL Number One Draft Picks}} has been created and subsequently nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup we use succession boxes for this. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

An editor has been adding "Aftermath" sections to some NHL Stanley Cup Finals articles and NBA championship articles. I reverted this one that was added to the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals article, as I thought it went too far afield, being simply a description of what future events transpired for the various participants. What does everyone else think: should the championship articles include this information? isaacl (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhh yeah, that is a lot of irrelevant stuff that has no bearing on the 1994 Stanley Cup Final. Resolute 15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be a SNIyer12 sock. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Based only on a very quick glance, the editor has an editing history for several years, and the pattern of contributions seems different. isaacl (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this user about before. And yes, I agree, the pattern overall is different, though there are some similarities with this specific edit. Resolute 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Zamboni

The usage of Zamboni is under discussion, see talk:Zamboni -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Zamboni" and ice resurfacer

I've suggested that a Zamboni company/model article be carved out of ice resurfacer, see talk:ice resurfacer -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Vacant captaincies

Shall we continue listing no captain for the time periods that teams go without a captain? I'm seeking clarifcation on this, as I'm experiencing resistance at New Jersey Devils, where their captaincy was 'vacant' during the 2012-13 lockout. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoever is captain now is the captain for 2012-13. There is no point to listing "no captain" for the lockout. Resolute 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be more consistant, if I removed all no captain notices, from the lists. It might confuse readers to only remove some of them. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

More consistent with what?

• 2011-12: Captain 1
• 2012-13: Captain 2

That's consistent. What you are suggesting is akin to putting "summer of 2012: vacant". There's no point. Nobody is ever going to be looking up an article to find out if there was a captain during the lockout. Resolute 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, are we listing them on a seasonal basis or calender basis. Anyways, we should remove all no captain notices. It would make the lists less cumbersome & readers will make the deductions, via missing years. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead & deleted the 'no captain' notifications from all Captains Lists of the current & defunct team articles. Those lists are for the captains 'only', plus it removes clutter. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather strange discussion. The team didn't have a period of "no captain" if they didn't play any games during that period of time. If a person was the captain continuously from the first game of the season until the last game, he was the captain for the entire season. It is often the case where a team hasn't named a permanent captain until after training camp or the pre-season is finished. A team only has a period of "no captain" if they played regular season or playoff games without a captain in place.Djob (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodday: along the same lines, I would argue that any team that changed their Cs and As at the beginning of the season (a week ago), installed them for the entire season. As in between Oct and Jan, Chris Pronger had no team to captain. There is no need to add a confusing breakdown like what you reverted at 2012-13 Philadelphia Flyers season. Thanks, TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with everyone else here. When games aren't being played there is no team to captain. So any captain named for the season is captain for the entire season. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Pronger was captain of the Flyers until he gave up the role to Giroux in January 2013, games played or not. The article is called 2012–13 Philadelphia Flyers season not 2013 Philadelhpia Flyers season. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

During the lockout, the captains were continued to be recognized as such. Otherwise, we'd have (for example) Ryan Getzlaf, 2010–2012; 2013–present instead of Ryan Getzlaf, 2010–present. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but that doesn't justify being pedantic where it isn't necessary. There is no need to make note of the fact that Pronger only gave up the captaincy in January rather than October because of the lockout. There is, in fact, no real reason not to simply say Getzlaf is the Ducks captain 2010-present AND that Giroux is the only captain the Flyers have had during this season. Resolute 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

According to 2012–13 Philadelphia Flyers season, the Flyers current season began before January. Indeed it began at the 2012 entry draft. This is what was decided concerning the team lockout season articles. But FINE, if yas wanna contradict those articles titles, then go for it. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your issue would easily be solved in the eventual prose with a statement akin to "During pre-season training camp in January, Giroux was named captain" TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronger was the Flyers captain during the first-half of their 2012-13 season, regardless of wether games were played or not. It's moot now, as I've been outnumbered on this argument 4-1. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though you all have chosen to confuse 'less familiar' readers, rather then help them by being more accurate, I implimenated the changes you all want on the 2004-05 and 1994-95 team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with "less familiar readers", and everything to do with your obsessive-compulsive behaviour around the topic. Sometimes consensus doesn't agree with you. Happens to me all the time. But in those times, I might suggest accepting this with better grace. Resolute 17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm usually opposed at this WikiProject, therefore my frustration is honest. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are never "opposed" at this WikiProject. It is the case, instead, that some -- by no means all -- of the ways you'd prefer things be done haven't achieved consensus. You know I agree with you on at least one of those key issues. We just happen to be outvoted. The differences, I fancy, are that in I don't view that consensus as deliberately and personally targeted at me, and that I haven't chosen to be disruptive enough over it as to elicit multiple blocks, as well as topic bans and ArbCom sanctions. Ravenswing 23:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. You have been a long standing and valued contributor to this project. Please don't take this personally. I've been on the "losing side" of consensus at times as well. TerminalPreppie (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 1960 Winter Olympics

Another request for elusive information. I have added games summaries for all tournament games except for the February 23 game between Finland and Japan (which is missing from the report). I am looking for anyone who may have an alternative source than the la84 games report sourced on the page. Failiing that, a finnish source that lists the roster with point totals for the finnish team would be of tremendous benefit because I believe that Jouni Seistamo belongs among the scoring leaders, but I can't prove it.18abruce (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

1953-54 Boston Bruin.jpg

file:1953-54 Boston Bruin.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know since I have noticed you post a few of these notices to the talk page. We have a section for these notices here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I do appreciate the notices. Sometimes I miss when we do post deletion noms on the main page. Resolute 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I find them overly spammy when they are on the talk page. Was always under the idea we had the section to avoid the spam on the talk page and because it makes it easier to notice them because they trigger a separate watchlist line item whereas on the talk page they can get hidden fast if someone comments in another section. But I don't care that much, was just pointing him to the main page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Another good option to make sure you don't miss any is to watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Article alerts and then you will get updates any time an article tagged with our project gets put up for XfD or Featured article etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Team logo requests

I've put in a couple of requests for some SVG logos, specifically the Leafs' 1967 logo and the Canucks' modern stick-in-rink logo. I've requested them for two reasons. The first reason is that I'm doing an art project involving the NHL and I need those two logos in SVG format. The second is that the modern stick-in-rink needs to be converted to SVG and the Maple Leafs' article could really use the 1967 logo, considering they have other eras' logos and the 1967 logo would be very significant to the Leafs' article since they were wearing that logo when they last won the Cup. In any case, I hope someone will be able to help out, because I will have other requests, and don't worry, I will make sure to include a reason for why they would warrant inclusion here on the wiki so I'm not just requesting them for selfish reasons. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Eurohockey.net

A link that is often used on hockey articles has been brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard. This is a courtesy notice since this is the project that would best be able to discuss its merits or lack there of. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.eurohockey.net. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Referrees in the NHL

Hi, I can't find any information about the NHL Refs. Not here, nor on the NHL HP. How much do they earn? HAve they season long contracts or longer? Is there a list with all Referees names, Age aso out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.236.96 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your best bet for basic info is the NHL Officials Union website. I'm not sure of much of that information myself, however. Resolute 20:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Baltic states dispute

On Leo Komarov there is a dispute on his birthplace. talk. I'm contending that he was born in the Estonian SSR, since he was. The other editor is taking the view that Estonia was "occupied" so Komarov wasn't really born in the USSR. He's using the consensus from elsewhere on wikipedia on using common sources. I'm using common sense (Komarov's family only was there because they were Soviets, and that's why he has Russian citizenship today - because he was born in the USSR.) Considering Estonia didn't exist as far as ice hockey is concerned, I don't think we should be using media sources. Most media sources (like nhl.com or eliteprospects and the like) also ignore that the Soviet Union existed - and a lot of bios say guys were born in Russia, for example.

My points are as follows:

1. Using 'common use' for bios will domino into the USSR / Czechoslovakia, etc. being removed from info boxes

2. If Estonia was never in the USSR, then neither are the other baltic states, and this dominos further...

3. Apply common sense and don't get political

What's the current consensus here? It's always been my understanding that we look at things from a hockey perspective (in this case, Estonians would have played for the Soviet national team, and the baltic states (namely Estonia) had teams (Kalev Tallinn, Dynamo Tallinn; Riga and Kaunas as well, etc.) in the Soviet League)--Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He was born in Estonian SSR, Soviet Union & that's a fact. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Estonia, at that time, was internationally recognized as being part of the Soviet Union. At the time, come to think of it, it was -- whether that was part of an "occupation" or otherwise. Never mind the Baltic States dominos ... no doubt folks might object to the birthplace of a retired hockey player born in 1942 in Vienna or Prague, being listed as part of Germany, but de jure, that is what they were. Ravenswing 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

De jure, the west didn't recognize it as legitimate, just de facto. The USSR / it's allies did entirely, though. Then you've got the IIHF recognizing the baltic states as being members since the 1930's, but you've got guys like Kasparaitis they had no problem with playing for the Soviet / CIS teams.--Львівське (говорити) 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd lean towards using USSR as well. While the Baltics argue they were occupied and never really part of the USSR, they effectively were. People didn't travel on Estonian passports or anything, and despite what the West may have argued, they pretty much accepted them as Soviet republics as well. Not to mention that any Baltic players were members of the Soviet team, not a Latvian or Estonian team. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to birthplaces, why do we even list Russia SFSR? What is the point? The borders didn't change, the ethnicity didn't change. It was part of USSR, but it was still basically the same thing. In Poland, it was People's Republic of Poland, but we don't list Warsaw, PR Poland. These technicalities are a bit bizarre, no? Estonia's boundaries didn't change from 1918 to today? Estonia ought to be fine. Same for Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine. Technically and controlled by USSR, they did not change borders or ethnicity before and after USSR. It's one thing to have an article on Estonia and another on Estonia SSR, but I don't see why we need to specifically link to one stage or another. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine etc etc, weren't sovereign states during their time within the USSR. They were among 15 republics which made up a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Soviet republics were very might 'officially' sovereign; Ukraine and Belarus were both UN members independent of the Soviet Union (Russian SFSR et al.) Of course, this was all just a matter of show, but still - sovereign is just a matter of perspective.--Львівське (говорити) 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about why link to Russia SFSR instead of simply Russia. The Russia article is inclusive of the Russia SFSR. The SFSR is part of Russia history. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia wasn't a sovereign state in 1987. It was 1 of 15 republics which made up a sovereign state. Though the borders are the same, Russian SFSR & Russia are different. PS - If we choose to use 'only' the sovereign state for birthplaces of non-Canadian & non-American hockey players? then we'd use Soviet Union. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that Russia is a continuation, but we don't list Russia for those born in the Russian Empire, for example (even though it was colloquially always just "Russia". While the borders didn't change, its matter of independence did. On a personal note, I think it would be less useful to list someone as "Kiev, Soviet Union" without stating the state, just as confusing as "Dallas, United States" or "Vienna, European Union"--Львівське (говорити) 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia is 1 of 15 continuations, in that case. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's still the same place after all. Although maybe we should use "Russian Federation" if we are to follow this path, for those born after 1991. For a common-name based encyclopedia, this country designation is a quirk. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find a specific page on it, but I'm *fairly* certain this is how it's designated across all of wikipedia for soviet birthplaces.--Львівське (говорити) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, since you mentioned 'Ukrainian SSR' on the other talk page; the Ukrainian SSR was known as such in the UN. Here's a pic from the UN assembly, Ukrainian SSR to the left, Soviet Union on the right, separate.pic --Львівське (говорити) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: We use Soviet Union as Komarov's birth-country at Template: Toronto Maple Leafs roster. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I have Sweeney Schriner's birthplace listed as Saratov, Russian Empire. A question, Alaney, but are you concerned about what we are linking to, or to the visual style of the link? I think a lot of the "Russian SFSR" and "Ukrainian SSR" type links are the result of people who didn't like "Kiev, Soviet Union" and wanted their modern nation included somehow. Could a solution be to still use the links as current, but use piped links to remove the SFSRs? So "Moscow, Russia, USSR?" Resolute 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a result of yours truly, the current result / format was a result of the consensus we eventually decided on. I'm sure it's in the archives somewhere...--Львівське (говорити) 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Dump the SFSR, SSR, etc. Good idea. What about putting the (USSR) in brackets? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with pipelinking, as Russia is also used for the Russian Empire & the Russian Federation. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Use this format on the roster templates (that is Narva, Estonia (USSR) ) instead of using Narva, Soviet Union? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea, as Estonia is commonly used for its independent status. We should avoid pipelinking the Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I noted before, we don't use PR Poland, for people born during that time in Poland. There is no other Estonia, not like Macedonia, to cause confusion. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually we do use PR Poland. Atleast we should be. I know I have seen it on many pages. But I am sure there are equally as many that are wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine. We don't use Warsaw, Republic of Poland. That's my point. This extra stuff is just that, extra and anal :-). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well anal as it may be, it is accurate and we strive to be accurate. I don't much care one way or the other because it is so anal. But I tend to like to err on the side of "official name" in such situations. But that is all I have to say on this situation...I am surely not going to let myself get dragged into another ridiculous quagmire since life is too short to worry about such things. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes pipelinking is helpful (see [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]), but not this time. The Soviet republics shouldn't have their names pipelinked as the sovereign state names. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Use the common name. I really doubt people in Moscow went to the trouble of saying the SFSR part. Indicate the USSR part, I can agree, but the SFSR, SSR etc.? If you lived in Massachusetts, would you say you live in the 'Commonwealth of Massachusetts' or simply 'Massachusetts'? Exact same thing. Even if you are making a point about the independence change, well the Estonia of today is the successor of the Estonian SSR. Poland changed their name to Republic of Poland, then People's Republic of Poland, then back to Republic of Poland. Russian Federation, Russian SFSR, Russian Federation today. Needless detail. A letter addressed to Russia, Russian Empire; Russia, USSR; or Russia then or today would all get delivered to the same address. People know these things. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not the exact same thing, which is why we've got 2 seperate articles - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic & Estonia. As for Massachusettes? no matter what you name that article, it's an American state. You're concentrating on 'only' the geographics. We're concentrating on the political status. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can have articles on -anything- at Wikipedia. ;-> When formatting the place name, using the SSR is not necessary. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, using SSR is necessary. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly I agree mostly with GoodDay here but for a different reason. Massachusetts isn't the same thing because Massachusetts isn't ambiguous like Estonia is. There were two distinct entities that could be called Estonia so you need to distinguish which one you are talking about. That isn't the case for Massachusetts. Where the common name only means the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (I should note however that I would use Soviet Union as the birth country and not Estonia or Estonia SSR, but since we allow provinces and states in the birth place listings then I would be okay with Estonia SSR, Soviet Union) -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost. Where is the -other- Estonia? :-) I think there was only one in the USSR. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again you are thinking geographically instead of politically. There was the Estonia SSR when it was in the USSR. And there is the current Estonia. While geographically they are the same (or nearly) thing they are two completely distinct political entities. And a birthplace is as much a political thing as it is a geographical one. As long as its clear they were born in the Soviet Union as opposed to the current Estonia it doesn't really matter to me. But it would look wierd to be Anytown, Estonia, Soviet Union as opposed to Anytown, Estonia SSR, Soviet Union. My preferred method would just be Anytown, Soviet Union. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How am I thinking geographically when I say there's only one Estonia in the USSR? How is it weird to use the common name? As for using Estonia, there could be two of a city/town/etc in the USSR. Big place. The only arg to not using the pipelink and you've not mentioned it is that people could be expecting a link to Estonia, not Estonia SSR. To me that's the issue and I think that comes from the SSR being used as though it is some other place. Really we all know what we are talking about. The peoples of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine would prefer the usage of their republic. Especially Ukraine, as it had its own seat at the UN. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What those people want, is irrelevant. Those areas were a part of the Soviet Union & that fact can't be retroactively changed. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we can't assume people know that we mean Estonia SSR when we type Estonia. Because there is another Estonia. That is an easter egg. And a bad one at that because there are two distinct meanings, neither of which would I call primary. I know as a child I would not have known the difference if it wasn't pointed out. Again I don't care about the pipelink so much as the stripping of the Soviet Union. But with the Soviet Union being there we should be consistent and use the SSR name as well. *sigh* can't believe I got tricked into this discussion..... -DJSasso (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the necessity to include the USSR. Estonia, USSR makes clear that we are talking about the Soviet-era entity, where simply Estonia refers to the pre- or post-Soviet entity. Resolute 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I should also mention that if you use Estonian SSR, then Soviet Union is superfluous. There is no other Estonian SSR. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What are WP:BIOG & WP:BLP views on this matter. Perhaps we can get consistency for all NHL players & former players. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you have ignored the prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that a consensus was reached in that discussion, as the project page itself has not been updated with guidance. isaacl (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself looking at that discussion it didn't appear that any consensus was reached. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To Isaac: what project page do you mean?

To Djsasso: Based on what can you claim any consensus was reached when every participant in that discussion agreed with the conclusion? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus exists in practice, in that all Estonia related BLPs list Estonia as the place of birth. The only issue was finding consensus on a text that formalises that existing consensus. --Nug (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You linked to the talk page for a project page that is a placeholder for a Wikipedia manual of style on Baltic-state related articles; the project page itself though has not been updated to record any consensus. (Note that before the page could officially form part of the manual of style, it would have to go through Wikipedia's Request for Comments process, as part of the process of getting a new policy or guideline approved.) isaacl (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made my stance clear on this issue & I'm not interested in edit-warring with Jaan, at that article. It's up to WP:HOCKEY, as to how his birthplace will be shown. Which will it be? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone has been quite clear here how they stand and it's WP:NOCONSENSUS what we are looking at. I would be ready to share facts on the status of Estonia and other occupied countries. Unfortunately, I can see a certain reluctance to accept these facts among some editors here and a will to go on pushing what they believe regardless of these facts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A simple straw poll:

I propose we discontinue the use of SSR, SFSR, etc. for the countries of the former Soviet Union. I suggest using either Riga, Latvia, USSR or Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In thinking about it and in seeing Alaney2k change a players birth place to Chelyabinsk, Russia, Soviet Union I would have to oppose. There are too many possibilities for confusion by doing this. In the example where Alaney did this, Russia is the common name for the Soviet Union as a whole and not just the Russian portian. So it looks as if you are being redunant, even though you are meaning a different meaning of the word Russia. This easter egg causes problems that wouldn't be there with the simple SSR being included. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Only in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, could we argue that using Russia SFSR is less confusing than Russia. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps there is redundancy and Chelyabinsk, USSR would be enough. But Kiev, Ukraine, USSR? Would that be a different scenario? Resolute 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In the literature outside of Wikipedia, people use Ukraine, they don't write Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Unless they are writing about that government. Not that place. Not that nation. Not the home of the Ukranians. It really is as simple as that. Really, even here, we are using the abbreviation of Ukrainian SSR. It's a weird quirk and unlike our usage of common names. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you are referring to in the outside literature. If you are referring to where the person is born, literature often doesn't even mention Ukraine it just mentions Soviet Union. If it is getting specific to the point of exactly where in the Soviet Union they do tend to use Ukranian SSR. I wouldn't write it out full length. But I wouldn't drop the SSR just for what amounts to stylistic reasons when there is a valid concern about distinction. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty up on this subject, and history treats it as 'Ukranian SSR', the UN treated it as 'Ukrainian SSR', postage stamps, an old Stoli bottle I have...'Ukraine' is colloquial usage but not really what's seen in print.--Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, as there's potential for confusion. Chelyabinsk, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union or Chelyabinsk, Soviet Union is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you expand on that thought? You've not explained why. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia tends to be confusingly equated with the Soviet Union. How many times have you heard the 1972 Summit Series being erroneously called Canada vs Russia? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the series called all sorts of names. It never really had a name. So people called it what they wanted. Ok, so you want to be more precise. So why oppose using the republic name? Using simply Chelyabinsk, Soviet Union is not enough, though. It was a big country, and it was made up of republics, not counties. That's what Estonia, Latvia, etc. are. They are not 'sub-national'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem I think we are having with your argument, they are sub-national. They are republics but they are only pieces of one combined country. They were not independent countries in themselves. They are the equivalent of states and provinces (though of course use a different government system). Chelyabinsk, Soviet Union is no different than our use of Paris, France or Stockholm, Sweden. We don't use their sub-national entities either. We only use sub-national entities for US and Canada. If you want to discuss if that should be the case that is a completely separate topic and one we can certainly discuss but lets keep the two things apart. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

France and Sweden are not a fair comparison. The size alone. But Estonia, etc. had/have presidents separate of the central Soviet Union. Ukraine had a UN seat. It just doesn't seem appropriate to compare Estonia to a county. I think we can determine that Estonia is not the same as that. I think that most USSR republics had different ethnic groups, languages and histories, too. That's different from Sweden, France, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I think it would be too much of an overhaul to the wiki since it overlaps so many players, and on top of that, wiki-wide policy seems to be to include the SSR/SFSR portion for clarity's sake. I'm not agains abbreviating it, I usually do so in the body but not in the infobox - because it seems to be site-wide in style.--Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't oppose the proper usage of them. For example: [Russian Soviet Federative Socalist Republic|Russian SFSR] is acceptable, where as [Russian Soviet Federative Socalist Republic|Russia] is not. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Then do you object to using Russia SFSR, Soviet Union on the roster templates? I think we should be consistent with the infoboxes. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if it's Russian SFSR, which is the proper name. Personally, I would prefer that we use city, province/state/republic, country for all NHL & former NHL players infoboxes and for NHL team roster Templates. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think GoodDay had the right idea above: presumably this issue has already arisen with non-hockey biographies so we should just follow their lead. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mikhail Gorbachev uses Russian SFSR, Soviet Union. But it doesn't change the debate really. If people knew it commonly as Russia, there's no need for the SFSR. And if you use the SFSR form, then you probably don't need the Soviet Union, because that was the only time they existed. The republics on their own decided to form independence, and this was a right under the USSR constitution that they exercised. Of course, until the 80s, it was a right not to be done lightly! I recognize that the place to argue this is probably in a different group, but we can still go our own way if it makes sense. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You should divide your proposal into 2 proposals. The NHL team roster templates are coverd by WP:HOCKEY, while NHL player bio infoboxes are covered by WP:HOCKEY, WP:BIOG & WP:BLP. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. "Place of birth" implies geographical location, since the definition of "Place" means "a particular position, point, or area in space; a location"[3] Estonian SSR is just a formal name of a political regime that existed in a place called Estonia for a period of its history. Note that period is mentioned in that article Estonia#Soviet_Estonia as well as in History of Estonia as a subsection Estonia in the USSR. We don't say that Jean Ferrand was born in the French Third Republic or that Philippe Bozon was born in Chamonix, French Fifth Republic, for example.

Nor do I see how it would be more informative to a reader to link a BLP's place of birth to a defunct political regime rather than the contemporary country article that discusses the full history (including previous political regimes), geography, culture and people of that living person's place of birth.

Another observation: The standard worldwide definition of "Place of Birth" used for passports of living people is the current country name, for example see United States passport#Place of birth:"The name of the country is the current name of the country that is presently in control of the territory the place of birth and thus changes upon a change of a country name." Thus Leo Komarov's dual Russian/Finnish passports would list his place of birth as Estonia. Passports would be a reliable source and the International Civil Aviation Organization has a list of current places of birth to be used in passports here (see Appendix 7 for the list). It is the the most neutral and verifiable way of handling place of birth for living people.

Therefore SSR should be dropped altogether and place of birth listed as the contemporary country for BLPs. --Nug (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes complete sense. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the debate could actually go either way based on practice. "Place of birth" implies to me far more than just the location at the time of birth, otherwise we introduces anachronisms. To use an extreme example, 5th century BC poet Theodorus is called "Theodorus of Byzantium", not "Theodorus of Istanbul". However, your point regarding the French Republics is well taken. Though for full accuracy, I'd still suggest (and likely insist) that a birthplace of someone in that time frame follow a convention of Tallinn, Estonia, USSR. It is one thing to argue which link should accompany Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc., but it is quite another to pretend that they were not subordinate to and part of the USSR at that time. Especially in our context, as players from those regions represented the USSR internationally. Resolute 14:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That was exactly my concern. Removing the USSR part creates anachronisms which causes errors. What ever link you put in between the city and USSR doesn't matter to me as much as making sure the USSR part remains. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We should leave out mention of the Soviet republics altogether on NHL bio infoboxes & just go with city, Soviet Union or city, USSR. In fact, we should do this (city, sovereign state) for all the non-Canadian & non-American NHL bio infoboxes & thus bring them in-line with the NHL team roster templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't like this idea, those republics were still member states, some were UN members in their own right. This is one step above UK constituent countries. I think they absolutely need to be in there for infoboxes. Federal Subjects on the other hand, not necessarily.--Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The NHL lists Komarov as born in Estonia, so I can't believe -you- want that. See here. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in facts. Komarov was born in the Soviet Union & that can't be retroactively changed. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We've been doing it all week. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@GoodDay, a reader can still read that Estonia was in the Soviet Union if the place of birth is linked to Estonia, a reader can also read about the geography, culture and people too of that place. @Resolute, citing the 5th century BC poet Theodorus is irrelevant because he is dead. We have reliable sources that attest to a living person's place of birth, such as the documented international convention on listing the place of birth in passports generally and specifically the NHL website. --Nug (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy is what's called for & Komarov was born in the Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the arbitrary distinction between living and dead. Should I take that to imply that the birthplace of someone should change when they die? I can pull a multitude of sources for Soviet era players that state they were born in the USSR. Resolute 18:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly WP:RS doesn't ask us to use just current sources. It requires us to all sources. There is no difference between living or dead. It would be an error to try and claim they were not born in the Soviet Union. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion below. --Nug (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I think it would be beneficial to close this section at this point. Resolute 16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe that User Jaan, may have breached WP:CANVASS by leaving a message for participation at Occupation of the Baltic states article. It's alright to contact WikiProjects, but whatabout other articles? GoodDay (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC) This is a serious accusation. Care to cite exactly what part of the policy I may have breached? ---Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC) On the surface, I would agree that it is not canvassing, as the message left was neutral in tone. But I have no idea of the history of regular editors on that talk page, so cannot say if the audience was selectively chosen. It would have been better to leave the note at a related WikiProject, since our discussion would impact others, but I see no reason not to AGF, GoodDay. Resolute 14:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I already tried the talk page of the Baltic States noticeboard, with no effect. That noticeboard seems idle so I turned to the relevant history period's talk page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. I appreciate additional input. Resolute 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Note I said may have. In otherwords, I wasn't certain & so needed assurance that no breach occured. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC) In other words, you assumed guilt until proven innocent. Resolute 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, I'm peeved with what appears to be PoV-pushing at the Leo Komarov article. The guy was born in the Soviet Union and we shouldn't be claiming otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC) You're not listening and you're claiming your ignorance as neutrality and informed arguments which resulted in the current Baltic place names manual of style conventions to be crap. Grow up and stop being petulent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Komarov, cont'd

How come you don't highlight that a player was born in the European Union? Seems to me that highlighting that someone was born in the Soviet Union one year before it ceased to exist is the one pushing POV. --Nug (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

He was born in 1987, which was 4 years before the USSR dissolved, actually. PS: What does the European Union have to do with this? GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, four whole years. Perhaps if he had been old enough to play for the Soviet Union then perhaps mentioning it may be marginally relevant. Since when did we start ignoring WP:RS policy and dismiss what the NHL states as his place of birth? --Nug (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What's important is that he was born in the Soviet Union, a fact that can't be challenged. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is it important to you? --Nug (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The project calls for accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec):Because it is factual and we are an encyclopaedia where we like to get the facts right? -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a bit of a straw man there. Reliable sources do place that city in the Soviet Union at the time he was born. Reliable sources aren't being ignored. Doesn't matter if it was 4 years, 40 years or 4 days from when it became independent. It is an anachronism to state otherwise, thus an error. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A) The EU isn't recognized as a country in its own right. B) He was born in the USSR, not Estonia; he left Estonia before it was even independent.--Львівське (говорити) 20:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Published international conventions on listing the place of birth do distinguish between the living and dead. If accuracy is what's called for and we are required to use all sources then note the fully sourced quote from the Occupation of the Baltic states article:

The Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991.

So it is not an anachronism, listing Estonia as Komarov's place of birth totally accurate nor is anything being retroactively changed since that country was deemed all along to have remained an independent state under illegal occupation. --Nug (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They were 3 of 15 Soviet republics, wheter they liked it or not. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, Wikipedia is not an international agency. It is simply a collection of editors who work by consensus. We have two points to consider. The historical accuracy that Estonia was not independent from the USSR at the time of birth. The Republic of Estonia did not exist on Estonian land at the time. You could not argue someone was born to a country that existed in exile. He might be born into some status with the govt-in-exile, but that's not a place of birth. We should indicate both Estonia and USSR in birthplace. The article about the Czech president Václav Klaus lists Klaus as born in Bohemia and Moravia (now Czech Republic). I suggest we adopt the same convention for infoboxes. Either Narva, Soviet Union or Narva, Estonia SSR, USSR (line break)(now Estonia). Though I prefer the latter (without the SSR, but still ...). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Vaclav Klaus article's infobox, should be changed to born in city, Czechoslovakia, IMHO. That's how all NHL players born in Czechoslovakia, should be, btw. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? It'd be an anachronism, wouldn't it? Klaus was born in Greater Germany. Please do not retroactively change the history. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Czechoslovakia, it would be factual, if they're born 'before' 1 January 1993. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What about Vaclav Klaus born in the Nazi created statelet of Bohemia and Moravia, or people born in German-occupied France? --Nug (talk)

IMHO, you're merely here to push a political PoV & thus wasting time. Komorav is a hockey player article & therefore WP:HOCKEY's domain. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you. Don't think for a second you are being objective. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Estonia SSR, USSR (line break)(now Estonia) is inaccurate because there was always an Estonia, not "now Estonia". As you correctly state a govt-in-exile isn't a country, but "Republic of Estonia did not exist on Estonian land at the time" is not a view supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources assert that Estonia continued to exist while a puppet state was imposed upon it. Note that Latvia and Lithuania did not have governments-in-exile. What was recognised was the continued existence of the pre-war Baltic republics, and that did not require an existence of a govt-in-exile but the recognition of diplomats who continued to represent these countries. An accurate representation would be Narva, Estonia (then controlled by the USSR). --Nug (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with this. We have articles about such and such Duchy or King who has no rights, but the lineage exists, for what it's worth. It doesn't change what was on the ground at the time, which satisfies the approach of the naming -at the time-. The USSR needs to be stated for completeness. Maybe less wordy, somehow. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay - Just because Komarov is a hockey player does not mean we WP:OWN the article. Nug and Jaan are obviously interested in Baltic States, projects to which this player's biography also belongs. And while I mostly agree with your viewpoint, their opinions are valid, and do not deserve to be dismissed so easily. Resolute 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(od) Yikes, folks. We have an agreed upon convention for place names for the Baltic states, which were never legally part of the Soviet Union, and that is to use the name of the country without the SSR designation. In fairness, if a particular person can be reliably quoted as having been "proud to be born in the Soviet Union", we could, for that one BLP, note, for example, "Estonia (XYZ person considers it to have been the USSR [with ref])". No legal sovereign entity ever existed named the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, or Lithuanian SSR, let's not have WP start creating them. Hockey plays by the same rules as every other topic, this is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT anarchy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that there does not appear to have been consensus in the discussion about the the convention you say was agreed upon. And now that it is under scrutiny it appears there is even less consensus on it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? The editors involved in that discussion have consensus that is flexible and makes perfect sense - to use 'Estonia' as the default country and use 'Soviet Union' for people active in the Soviet context (such as players of the Soviet squad, Soviet officials etc.). What part of this does not seem like a consensus to you? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That discussion does not appear to have ended the way you think it does. I see as much opposition to the idea as support for it. And I also see that the actual MOS page was never changed to reflect that consensus. That tells me there wasn't consensus. That isn't even throwing in the fact that there are now a large number of people that have disagreed with the so called consensus which would tilt the no-consensus close to consensus against. -DJSasso (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No editor opposed the conclusive statements. What else do you need? There is no MOS page for birth place I am aware of. And please be aware that WP:NOCONSENSUS means a revert to the stable version, contrary to what you are edit warring on Leo Komarov. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred anything. I reverted once. You have reverted now 5 different people. You would be the one edit warring. Frankly if I wasn't involved I probably would have blocked you for it at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:0RR. You should be aware that NOCONSENSUS means a revert back to the last stable version and your assertions that there never was one are ridiculous. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does, but on that page there are 5 people supporting its current status. Only 2 opposing. That is a consensus unless it changes. So whatever no consensus says, clearly doesn't apply any more. -DJSasso (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a result of a vote but is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Until you have demonstrated the superior quality of your arguments (meaning a different side has no counter-arguments), no consensus it is. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's all very well and good, but since we don't have impartial judges ruling which side is right and which is wrong, we do go on headcount a great deal of the time. That you don't like the consensus which has developed is plain, but your opposition doesn't negate it on the sole strength of your personal declaration. Ravenswing 22:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh come now, we have someone arguing that if 5 people insist the moon is made of cheese and 2 insist it's not, the cheese wins? For those who argue this is about hockey and not history, I'm sorry, it's very much about history. We can have a resonable discussion on how the current conventions (no SSR) came to be or we can simply insult each other. "Estonian SSR" cannot be a birthplace because it never existed legally. We don't say someone born in France in the 1940's during the war was born in "Vichy France" or "Militärverwaltung in Frankreich", do we? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@DJSasso, it's been very much agreed. Hockeyists haven't exactly made a name for themselves for rationality, I still remember the last blow up over "That's not his name, the diacritic mark isn't on his uniform." It's embarrassing just to read. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to tar everyone with the same brush indiscriminately, you will find that most people will simply ignore you. But without intending to, you make a point about POV arguments. Above, we have people arguing that since nhl.com drops the USSR part from a birthplace, it should be dropped from the article. Somehow I doubt you would feel the same about nhl.com dropping diacritics in the same fashion. Resolute 23:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather with Resolute ... if you're going to argue absurdities, you'll find that people ignore you. Comparing the majority POV here to arguing that the moon is made of cheese is insulting. (And no, we don't say that someone born in France in the 1940s was born in "Vichy France," we say "France," the name of the country in English.) Ravenswing 07:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The amusing thing about that comment is that the hockey project was under fire for diacritics because we actually compromised and both used and did not use diacritics. We use them in the title and on all player pages. The complaint that the people attacking our project had wasn't that we don't use them. It was that we did use them in the titles of player articles. What is more amusing is that I am one of the ones that was strongly supporting their use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(od)I'm just commenting again to re-affirm my viewpoint from earlier and ensure a wider audience sees it. I support using City, State SSR, USSR for players born in territory governed by the USSR and the relevant Soviet republic. Further more, as a history student, I am well aware of the debate regarding the Baltic States and their (non-)inclusion in the USSR. However I'd argue that as they were de facto Soviet republics and well entrenched in the Soviet political and governmental structure, they were not independent.

I'd just like to point out, since we're talking 3RRs, 0RRs, consensus, warring, etc...that Jaan already got blocked once for this via DIG, so the idea that there is immutable consensus / site-wide acceptance seems pretty sketchy. --Львівське (говорити) 04:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In order to maintain accuracy, we should not resort to using anachronisms, but strive to use the correct name of said location at the time of birth or event. In that vein we don't refer to St. Petersburg in 1944, nor to we call it Leningrad today. While the Baltic States may have been de jure independent and occupied illegally, they were effectively part of the USSR and should be represented as such. To do so otherwise is to deny history. With that, I'll back out of the debate and let it sort itself out. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to you (agreement), and to Verc (who said "because it never existed legally"), we should establish that a) it was de facto recognized by all, and de jure recognized by some. It wasn't legally recognized by the Estonian people, the US, or the UK, but it was recognized by Germany, Russia, and Sweden (and I'm sure the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries recognized it, right?). So legally, if I'm following correctly, we have a split, but factually, it existed without a doubt. Estonia, on the other hand, existed to some "legally" but to none as a matter of fact, historical or otherwise. --Львівське (говорити) 04:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation was de jure explicitly recognised by no one except for the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and their puppets, and Sweden, Netherlands, Spain and New Zealand. Do you really think this is the view Wikipedia should take, as opposed to the position of the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, and the U.N. Human Rights Council? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to pick sides or choose a view. Major countries recognized it as legitimate. Wikipedia does not by default accept history or law based on European Parliament, and that the US/UK/Western Europe saw it as illegal does not change history, and it especially does not give way to historical revisionism. Also, the UN Human Rights Council really has no say in the matter; the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Belarus, and Eastern Bloc were all UN member states, which carries a lot more weight. This isn't Transnistria we're talking about here.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the view Wikipedia should take is to reflect fact, rather than political polemics. When the European Parliament starts its own online encyclopedia, it can pen whatever revisionist "facts" it wishes. That being said, you're in the wrong place for your crusade. Since this is a broad convention throughout Wikipedia, you should take this to WP:MOS or thereabouts. Ravenswing 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The broad convention on Wikipedia is not to present occupation regime but the occupied country (see people born in France, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Baltic states etc. etc.). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. Also, those are poor examples, as wartime occupation differs from disputed territory / unrecognized nations. BTW, France was always France, it changed it's name from 'French Republic to 'French State, it remained France, just as 'Weimar Republic' and 'Nazi Germany' were just period names for what remained 'Germany'.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And Estonia was always Estonia, it changed its name from the Republic of Estonia to the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic then requested to join the Soviet Union as a constitutionally sovereign Soviet republic free to leave the union at any time, which it did in in 1991 when the republic's Supreme Soviet voted to leave the Union and change its name back to the Republic of Estonia. How is it encyclopaedic to list an unrecognised state as a place of birth, are all states mentioned in List of historical unrecognized states valid places of birth? Does that mean it is valid to list someone's birth place as Principality of Hutt River rather than Australia? Me thinks that kind of approach makes Wikipedia look somewhat kooky. --19:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Because when it joined the Soviet Union it stopped being a separate country and was just a part of the Soviet Union until such time that it left the Soviet Union and became its own country again. Just like Texas is a constitutionally sovereign republic in the United States free to leave at any time. But you wouldn't say someone born there was born in Texas and wasn't born in the United States. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it didn't stop being a separate country because that union never achieved international recognition. --Nug (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Did every country recognize it? No, of course not. But it was internationally recognized by many others. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Recognised by Nazi Germany, Netherlands, Spain and New Zealand only. That much misunderstood phrase "de facto recognition" actually means that some countries recognised the fact that the Soviet Union exerted control over those states, not that they recognise sovereignty of the SU over those states as a fact. --Nug (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but people who were born and lived under Soviet rule would have been issued Soviet passports, correct? Resolute 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources tell us:

"States may retain de jure (legal) status even without de facto control of territory, as when most states refused to recognise illegal annexations such as the 1940 Soviet takeover of the Baltic states, or Iraq's 1990 annexation of Kuwait, both reversed in 1991"[4]

There is no distinction made in RS between the illegal annexations of the Baltic states or Kuwait. Iraq no doubt issued passports in its newly aquired region, but we don't say someone was born in 1990 in Kuwait City, Iraq, so why are is there this insistance on saying someone was born in Tallinn, USSR. I thought accuracy was the stated aim. --Nug (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you've repeated the "illegal occupation/annexation" part many times now. We are well aware of this aspect of your POV. I take it by your response that you accept that yes, people born in these regions in this time frame would have been issued Soviet passports. I am simply taking your earlier arguments to their logical conclusion. As much as you like to bring up the passport argument, you can't ignore the passport they would have been issued at birth. This is all something we try to balance already with how we lead our opening statement. We don't, for instance, call Komarov a "Soviet ice hockey player", we call him Estonian to reflect his acknowledged nationality. However his birthplace, in context, was Soviet, therefore the USSR. As I noted above, I think we can reflect your position and the reality of the time by noting he was born in Tallinn, Estonia, USSR. Resolute 20:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be like listing someone born in Tokyo in 1950 as born in 'Japan, United States'.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute, not my POV, I'm just attempting to inform you as to what reliables sources say. Djsasso stated that Estonia stopped being a country, I presented a RS that refuted that. My earlier passport discussion was to demonstrate the accepted practice of listing birthplace as the current country not defunct countries. As I said before, the term "Place" implies geographical location, where as this insistence of adding "USSR" is more like adding a "birthregime" rather than a "birthplace". And you haven't explain why its not acceptable to use Kuwait City, Kuwait Province, Iraq but it is okay to insist on Tallinn, Estonia, USSR. --Nug (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can easily do so using the same passport argument you do. People from these territories were issued Soviet passports, and those passports were stamped and accepted around the world. Besides, I've not actually commented on the appropriateness of either the Kuwait (or Tokyo) examples, though if we continue following the passport string, I trust that sources can show that people in these occupied/annexed territories were given Iraqi and American passports, yes? Truthfully, I understand the desire to revise history in this case. I don't share it, but I do understand it. Resolute 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't catch your last point, do you think 'Kuwait, Iraq' and 'Japan, United States' are valid birth places? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're being silly. Japan was never made the 51st state. Also, the Kuwait Governorate was a real thing, if only for a few months.--Львівське (говорити) 20:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So a birthplace of Kuwait City, Kuwait Governorate, Iraq is acceptable? --Nug (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I've read, it seems to me that putting Estonia SSR is incorrect, even if you accept that USSR was correct. If the ESSR government was not recognized, but Estonia and USSR were recognized, then the birth place of Komarov should be properly show as Narva, Estonia (then USSR) should it not? Can that not fit all viewpoints? It indicates the current and past status, and is as succinct as possible? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The incorporation of Estonia to the USSR was not recognised, so the combination of these two would only be correct with reference to the recognised legal status of the occupied country. I know 'Narva, Estonia (then occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union)' is too long but that's the shortest of the correct ways of combining the occupied and the occupant country. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is too long. I don't think annexed is even necessary. [[Narva]], [[Estonia]] ([[Occupation of the Baltic States|occ.]] [[USSR]]) which looks like: Narva, Estonia (occ. USSR) or Narva, Estonia (occ. USSR) should suffice for birth place purposes. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the 'occ.' text might be objected to by Russians reading the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@alaney2k, I think it is somewhat redundant since the Soviet period is discussed in the Estonia article in any case. It is an info box after all thus space is limited and is intended as a navigational aid, so readers can click through and discover that aspect of Estonian history if it is important to them. It is not like this individual played for the Soviet Union at any point in the past, he was four years old when it collapsed, so mentioning it in the infobox isn't really relevant when there is no discussion of it in the body. What's the point of it? --Nug (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not relevant? Seeing as he's a Russian citizen / Russian-league player, it seems that leaving out that he was Soviet-born would make it confusing as to why someone born in Estonia is a Finnish-Russian dual citizen. --Львівське (говорити) 23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that is totally irrelevant, lots of places have Jus sanguinis citizenship. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's like working at the OECD, which I once did. Sometimes you have to accept the least disruptive choice to get agreement/consensus. The paragraphs would take a long time to translate as the language had to be 'just so.' ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To address the redundancy, I think it addresses the point that others make about providing the full information of 'at the time'. You are reading the article and you see, oh, he was born when it was still in/occ. by USSR. You don't have to use the link. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But what's the point of adding "USSR"? It is not like there are two Estonias, the other one being in Africa so that we must add "USSR" so readers don't confuse the two. So Estonia is sufficient to resolve the location of the place. For example Stephen Cooper is list as being born in Durham, England, not Durham, England, UK. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)\

Because the point of the infobox is to name the country he was born in, and the country was the Soviet Union. --Львівське (говорити) 23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not what reliable sources such as signed news paper articles say. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A beat writer saying he was born in Estonia means absolutely nothing in regards to this argument and its context. By your same logic, a writer saying "Alex Ovechkin was born in Russia" would mean he wasn't born in the Soviet Union - which is now WP:SYN on your part. This is an argument about WP:HOCKEY style format for Baltic-Soviet born players, not twisting sources out of context to make political statements.--Львівське (говорити) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is regarded as a newspaper of record, I give it more WP:WEIGHT than the opinion of evidently mis-informed Wikipedians with an apparent poor knowledge of main steam viewpoints with regard to the status of the Baltics and seemingly intent on dogmatically pushing one-size-fits-all style guide dressed up as "accuracy". --Nug (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If we were to start following your line of thinking, then we'd have to remove Israel, Korea, Armenia, and Taiwan. A number of countries did not recognize it legally, ergot, "it never existed". --Львівське (говорити) 04:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop this one-size-fits-all thinking? I do not know the specifics of Israel, Korea, Armenia or Taiwan so I cannot comment on the appropriateness of their respective infobox style. If encyclopaedic accuracy is the goal then one-size-fits-all clearly cannot work and that is why we have specific style guides for certain regions such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. --Nug (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "one size all thinking" would be pretending Estonia wasn't in the USSR, and removing all mentions of said person being born in the USSR, and pushing to remove USSR from all player articles (as you suggested in the Komarov talk page), just because a few countries didn't legally accept it. This is a very narrow POV you're pushing. I doubt you'll find any BIOs of Israelis that say they were born in Palestine (or stating 'Occupied by Israel' as a footer). Same goes with the other such example of de facto states with split de jure recognition. De facto is the tie breaker. --Львівське (говорити) 05:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, one-size-fits-all thinking something applicable to the Baltics is equally applicable to Israel, that is just un-informed (i.e. unsourced) opinion that has no weight here. --Nug (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you just don't like the comparison not being in your POV's favor, which fits your MO so far (ignoring consensus thats not in your favor, ignoring sources not in your favor, etc.).--Львівське (говорити) 07:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Any comparison is just plainly uniformed WP:OR nor do I see any "consensus" for your position with respect to articles within Wikipedia Project Estonia. As for your other claims you apparently do not understand Wikipedia content policies. --Nug (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

...I don't think you understand what "original research" is. --Львівське (говорити) 08:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug has now declared (via his edit at the article-in-question) that Komarov's being born in the Soviet Union is original research. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Speaking legally and academically, Estonia (and Latvia and Lithuania) maintained continuous statehood in spite of the completely illegal Annexionsbesetzung by the Soviet Union. Attempts to say otherwise are indistinguishable from the Russian/Soviet apologist-revisionists who maintain that it was "voluntary accession", that no famine of separate note occurred in Soviet Ukraine, and that the invasion of Poland was to defend it from the Germans. Now, at the same time it is also true that the occupation Estonian SSR was the de facto power exercising territorial control on the ground. If a principle is to be uniformly applied that we count the governing apparatus of the territory at the time of birth as the birth country—e.g., those born in the de facto nonexistent "Czechoslovakia" between 1939 and 1945 as either born in the Slovak Republic or Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Nazi Germany; or one born in de facto nonexistent Poland from 1939 to 1944/45 as either in the General Government or one of the Nazi-annexed provinces—then this would be acceptable, perhaps with the proviso of a footnote explaining the legal situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Lothar, I don't believe anyone here on the WP has any interest in East European politics or history - save for myself, who as you know, couldn't be further from the Soviet-apologist camp. Also, those examples wouldn't bother me. However, a) these are wartime examples, it's more apt to apply the 'de facto' label once the dust settles, b) they would have to have partial international recognition to be analogous to the Estonia example.--Львівське (говорити) 07:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've a secondary proposal, btw. Not sure if it's already been tabled, but anyways - Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) would be a neat fit. It show's Komarov's birth country's pre & post 1991 names. If it can be done for cities? why not countries? GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You obviously haven't being paying attention to the discussion here. There is no "now Estonia", there always has been Estonia. We do not write "Dublin, United Kingdom (now Ireland)" in articles like Paddy Moore, Kevin O'Flanagan, Peter Farrell, Bill Lacey, Jimmy Dunne, Paddy Coad, Johnny Carey. --Nug (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, been there and done that ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Many editors are reverting each other repeatedly, and a couple are either past WP:3RR or on the cusp of it. I've fully protected the article for three days owing to the edit war. Jaan, Lvivske and GoodDay - I suspect you three especially are in danger of being blocked for edit warring if this continues to escalate to the point where other admins get involved. I'd just as soon avoid that myself. I've protected the article for three days, but will lift (or invite any admin to lift) if we can get assurances the edit warring will end. Resolute 01:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I revved once on the 22nd, 24th, and 31st. I'm in the clear and have mostly used the talk page(s) for this. Jaan, however, went on a streak here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I don't see anyone else in violation of 3RR on this dispute (unless I'm overlooking it).--Львівське (говорити) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

NHL team roster templates

Just want to point out: If Jaan & Nug, prevail at the Leo Komarov article? changes will have to be made at the NHL team roster templates (for example) concerning 'all' players born in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This was actually my main concern in my first post that started the discussion (re: domino effect)--Львівське (говорити) 05:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is specific to the Baltic states, there is no objection to the current handling of Ukraine, Belarus or the other Soviet republics. Unfortunately the world is a complex place, but this is an encyclopaedia after all, so I'm sure you can handle exceptions to your rules with respect to the Baltics in the pursuit of accuracy and precision. --Nug (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We're already aware of your revionist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop making ignorant statements. There is nothing "revisionist" about the mainstream position of modern academia (cf. Mälksoo). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is an obvious and strong nationalistic bias at play here. Understandable, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. Resolute 15:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it seems more like lazy ignorance tinged with a hint of hypocrisy. Everyone agrees that, for example, France was always France so it is nonsense to write "Paris, Vichy France", nor do we write "Dublin, United Kingdom (now Ireland)" in articles like Paddy Moore, Kevin O'Flanagan, Peter Farrell, Bill Lacey, Jimmy Dunne, Paddy Coad, Johnny Carey and others. Perhaps, just perhaps, people associated Wikipedia Project Estonia may have read up more on the Baltic states to have a reasonable idea of what is mainstream in regard to state continuity and have long ago settled on the most appropriate form for place of birth. To claim "obvious and strong nationalistic bias" is just plain nonsense. --Nug (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of hypocrisy, I find it ironic that you use examples of Irish people born before Irish independence was recognized internationally - seeing as your entire premise rests on "legal" standing.--Львівське (говорити) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted Sherlock, that is why I posted these examples. The hypocrisy is that you guys apparently don't see a problem with these Irish biographies while spending an inordinate amount of time railing against the same practice in Estonia related bios even though the latter has a stronger case for doing so based upon mainstream scholarship. --Nug (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:HOCKEY, why would we oversee soccer pages? PS: Reread what you've written, you're being a hypocrite, clue in.--Львівське (говорити) 19:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And the bio also comes under WP:ESTONIA, we have long figured out how to represent places of birth in all WP:ESTONIA accurately. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As Resolute correctly pointed out, WikiProjects don't control articles. WP:Consensus at the article-in-question does & so far, consensus is to use 'Soviet Union' or 'USSR'. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes he did, but someone interested in hockey is less likely to have sufficient knowledge of mainstream scholarship regarding the Baltic states generally, as you have amply demonstrated. There is no global consensus on how place of birth is represented as these Irish bios have shown, and you chanting there is will not make it so, we have represented place of birth this way in WP:ESTONIA bios for years, making an exception for hockey articles does not make sense. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Making an exception for Estonia-related articles does not make sense. You're gonna have to expand your arguments to a community-wide forum, because (so far) you're not gaining any consensus here. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Your actions today on 2 player articles, is becoming worrisome. You're being quite disruptive, now. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that East Germany would also fall under the same domino as the Baltic states. East Germany was also considered occupied, and not de jure recognized by the Western/NATO states until 1973. Would we then, for all players born between 1949-1973, be born in "Berlin, NOT East Germany"? Or do we pretend East Germany never existed and just include it in [West] Germany? Potentially saying 'East Berlin, West Germany', which is just revisionism at its finest.

From 1949 to the early 1970s, West Germany maintained that East Germany was an illegally constituted state. It argued that the GDR was a Soviet puppet regime and thus illegitimate. This position was shared by most of the world, until 1973. East Germany was recognized only by Communist countries and the Arab bloc, along with some "scattered sympathizers".[26]

It's an identical parallel to the Baltic situation, and something more of you here are more familiar with historically.--Львівське (говорити) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not identical at all. Nazi Germany was defeated in war and signed an unconditional surrender, so its post war status was completely different to that of the Baltic states, where the fraudulent elections were held and the resulting government passed laws joining the Soviet Union without them being passed by the senate nor being subject to a popular referendum as required by the constitution. So the whole incorporation was illegal from the beginning. That is why the international community refused recognition. --Nug (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's literally exactly, completely identical. Both Germany and Estonia lost the war, both had fraudulent elections, both were occupied, both weren't "recognized" by the West. What Estonia's pre-war constitution said is completely irrelevant to anything. If you can't recognize how East Germany is a complete parallel to the Baltic situation, then I'm done here - you're just in denial at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 01:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Estonia lost what war? It was incorporated in 1940. The only war at that time was between Germany and France. Please don't make stuff up. --Nug (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WW2 called. --Львівське (говорити) 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Estonia was a formally neutral state under occupation during WW2. That both the Soviet Union and Nazi German conscripted Estonians into their respective armies is irrelevant. --Nug (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Just on the topic of de jure vs de facto: "De facto recognition implies that the recognizing state expresses its willingness to maintain relations without formally accepting the sovereign authority of the recognized state. Some scholars have argued that, from a legal point of view, de facto recognition does not seem to be distinguishable from de jure recognition [and the] distinction lies merely in the political sphere." - which just goes with my previous point that as neutral wikipedians, we should stay out of the politics, legalese, and hairsplitting involved here.--Львівське (говорити) 06:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, "Some scholars have argued that" implies its a minority view. Secondly, court cases over property rights show that it hent beyond the political sphere, it had commercial impact:

"For example, a UK court in a case concerning Estonia did not give legal effect to a nationalization decree of the Estonian SSR. As a result, ships that the Estonian SSR claimed a state corporation owned the UK court held remained in private hands."[5]

Thirdly, as you previously pointed out, the template guide states city, administrative unit, sovereign state, therefore like it or not, recognising whether a state held sovereignty or not is the criteria that has to be met. --Nug (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?

Now that we've had a nice long talk about the history of the Baltic states, and subsequently talked in circles a few times, can we form some sort of consensus so we may move forward? edit: I hope that this sub-section stays on the topic of consensus, and doesn't turn into another argument. Please just state your votes / final statements for the purpose of establishing some finality here. --Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the article-in-question, Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia), is accurate & quite helpful to less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the "(now X)" part follows wikipedia standard guidelines. I'm not sure if it's set in stone, but I just don't see it done in infoboxes for MS:BIOs. Also, as a community, is this going to be the format for all ex-soviet players bios? --Львівське (говорити) 21:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a compromise proposal on my part. All x-Soviet player bios should be treated the same, whatever the result. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Baltic states were a different case from those states, now independent, which were in actuality part of the USSR. I appreciate your search for uniformity and usefulness, but this is how fundamental misconceptions start. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Baltic states were a part of the USSR from 1940 to 1991. They wer 3 of 15 Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union or Narva, Soviet Union or Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) or Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union (with pipelink to ESSR) - all are accurate. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union or Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union (if the latter, then the same should follow for Russian/Ukrainian/etc players., though we already do for East Germany (vs. "German DR")--Львівське (говорити) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• If I were to rank my choices, I'd say Narva, Estonia (USSR) first, then Narva, USSR (Estonia), then Narva, Estonia; then Narva, Soviet Union. I'd leave out the Estonia SSR completely. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonia, the place of birth of the country at the time the person achieved notability. This is a derivation from the NHL determination of the place of birth being the country at the time the player was inducted into the league, which is in turn based upon the place of birth in player's current valid passport. If that is the way it is done by the respective official hockey leagues, then it should be done here. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union is my only choice. I've no objection to "SSR," but I think it's unnecessary, in the same fashion that we don't describe Keith Tkachuk as having been born in "Melrose, Commonwealth of Massachusetts," or Bobby Orr as having been born in "Parry Sound, Province of Ontario." Ravenswing 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet the NHL lists Jaromir Jagr's birth place as Kladno, Czech Republic, how did they get it so wrong? Or maybe they got it right. Doesn't WP:V count? --Nug (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest nhl.com is often wrong, having completely wrong cities. So we don't tend to use them a lot because they are a primary source and not a secondary source as is required. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, likely for the same reason why they drop diacritics on names: simple laziness. You've never addressed the fact that the IIHF lists Komarov as having been born in the Soviet Union, Nug. Resolute 20:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That IIHF publication is not available online so verification will take some time. In any case, if you think NHL gets it wrong on some ocassions, why wouldn't the IIHF also get it wrong on other occasions? --Nug (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where Lvivske asked for a straight vote, without further tendentious argument that mirrors the argument above. I have no intention of justifying my vote in this section to you or anyone else, never mind in response to straw man baiting. Ravenswing 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union I am in full agreement with Ravenswing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union (or Narva, USSR (Estonia) if preferred). I've made my position clear that it is not our place to alter history to suit modern nationalistic insecurities. Resolute 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious on where you obtained this "alter history" meme from when most of the countries never recognised the incorporation of Estonia into the USSR consistently since 1940. See for example see Marek's Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law published in 1968, where it is asserted that the Baltic states never ceased to exist and if they gain independence it will not be the creation of new states by the restoration of the old pre-incorporation states, which of course subsequently occurred in 1989. This is reflected in the numerous court cases over property throughout the post-war period where the USSR failed to assert title over shipping assets from Estonia. --Nug (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sure, we can say that Estonia post-1991 and Estonia pre-1940 are the same. Much the same way the NFL considers both incarnations of the Cleveland Browns to be the same franchise, despite reality. But for the period between 1940 and 1991, Estonia was part of the USSR. Resolute 19:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources show that Estonia never lost it's identity when it was incorporated into the USSR, it continued to exist. The USSR was never able to gain recognition of that incorporation as a sovereign part of the USSR, only a limited recognition that it controlled the territory. However Estonia, USSR implies the contrary. --Nug (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither side was able to gain unanimous legal recognition, however, all sides agreed that the ESSR existed de facto. We, from a historical context, aren't here to argue legalese, just facts. Unfortunately, we're back at this circular argument all over again.--Львівське (говорити) 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well no, most countries withheld declaring of any position, while around two dozen countries recognised the USSR had de facto control over the Baltics, that is a sourced fact. These same sources also state that ESSR was a puppet state that had no legitimacy. It is also a documented fact that diplomats for the those countries that did recognise de facto control by the USSR ensured that they never visited the ESSR so as not to imply any recognition of the ESSR what so ever. You claim accuracy is required, then when I attempt to explain status accurately as possible, you claim such detail is "legalese". --Nug (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug, this sub-threat is for stating your position, not for running down others positions. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If people continue to make patently false assertions of "revisionism" then they need to be informed of what the mainstream view is in reliable sources on the matter. --Nug (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon I came in late here...how were parcels addressed in the soviet union? TerminalPreppie (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tallin, Estonia, Soviet Union if this USA-to-USSR one is correct, here's an example to Ukraine (syntax is reverse) USSR, Ukrainian SSR, Ternopil Oblast, city/address --Львівське (говорити) 17:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this say? [6]. Sorry, if it was typed, I could figure it out, but I can't do handwritten cyrillic. That seller seems to have a lot of envelopes. Thanks. TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, same boat, the handwriting is giving me a headache. Is it from Russia to Russia? Because it might be just saying oblasts/raions or whatever subdistricts--Львівське (говорити) 20:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow, relying on letters, which are a primary source, is OR. --Nug (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

He was merely curious as to what the common use form was at the time. We're not using it as a source on a page, just to become more informed on the reality of this period.--Львівське (говорити) 23:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If one of those envelopes was addressed to a hockey player's parents and we used it to establish his place of birth, than yes it would be OR. If we use them to support content in an article about the Soviet postal service, yes that would be OR. I'm merely trying to figure out Narva, Soviet Union versus Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union. I haven't even started on Estonia's legal status during the Soviet era. TerminalPreppie (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Soviet Union could refer to Narva, Primorsky Krai or Narva, Krasnoyarsk Krai. --Nug (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how valid this straw poll is, given that the article is in the perview of a number of other wikiprojects. According to the person infobox template guide, a birthplace is defined as city, administrative region, sovereign state. It is not defined as defined as city, administrative region, de facto state. For a state to aquire sovereignty over a region requires international de jure recognition, otherwise it remains de facto control, i.e. occupation. There are entire books that discuss this aspect of the Baltic states, such as The Baltic Question During the Cold War by John Hiden of the University of Glasgow:

"This book focuses upon the foreign policy decision-making mechanisms which sustained the western non-recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic States after 1940."[7]

Therefore including Soviet Union as place of birth is contrary to that guide because the mainstream view in published sources is that it didn't hold sovereignty over the Baltic states and thus represents the promotion of a minority PoV into a statement of fact. So I don't think this strawpoll will not end the matter. --Nug (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Estonia was not a sovereign state, however, the Soviet Union was. Estonia would be the administrative unit in this case. Estonia declared sovereignty in 1988, and was granted it 3 years later - but you already know this.--Львівське (говорити) 01:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Estonia remained a de jure sovereign state, see page 131 of D. W. Greig's book International law published in 1976:

"The United States and Britain have in the past consistently refused to recognise the Soviet seizure of the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940 and continued to accept the diplomats of those states as accredited representatives of a de jure sovereign state"

Are you ever going to base you arguments on published reliable sources, or just on what you WP:KNOW? --Nug (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course the USA and its closest ally didn't recognize the Soviet claim to the Baltics. The 2 sides disagreed on A LOT of issues. Its been a couple years, but can you list the number of countries that did not recognize the claim to the Baltics. I'm not talking about 15 years after the fact either. A handful out of almost 200 countries isn't really convincing. This is pretty basic stuff: you see it with civil wars in the Arab spring: nations start to officially recognize regime changes. TerminalPreppie (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Only four countries ended up officially recognising the Soviet claim to sovereignty over the Baltics: Netherlands in 1942, Sweden in 1944 and New Zealand/Spain in 1977. Australia briefly extended recognition in 1975 but that was withdrawn the following year. Just over 20 went as far as recognising that the SU exercised de facto control over the Baltics, but did not extend that recognition to de jure sovereignty over the Baltic states, that group included Britain which continued to recognise Baltic diplomats as representatives as indicated in the source above. Then there was the handful that even refused to recognised Soviet de facto control which included the USA. The remainder of the 200 did not declare their position one why or the other, remaining silent on the issue, which means that for those countries that formally recognised the Baltic states between 1920-1940 there was no change in their position. That was the low level of recognition achieved by the SU after 50 years of intensive diplomatic effort. Hardly Arab spring stuff. --Nug (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatabout the Warsaw Pact members? GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is generally agreed that the Warsaw Pact countries were puppet states of the Soviet Union. See for example Richard M. Pious, Governments of the world (1998) - Page 135:

"the Soviets and their puppet states in Eastern Europe formed the Warsaw Pact as a military alliance"

So they were just parroting Moscow's line and any dissent was crushed, for example see Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia and Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Communist countries outside of the Warsaw pact like Yugoslavia and the Chinese PR refused de jure recognition. --Nug (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So, they don't count because you don't like it. We get it. But NATO states parroting the US is fine. --Львівське (говорити) 05:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly, both Netherlands and Spain are in NATO but they both continued to recognise Soviet sovereignty when they joined. --Nug (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Spain didn't join NATO until 1982 and the Netherlands' position was made 7 years before NATO existed.--Львівське (говорити) 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the Netherlands (and Spain) continued in its recognition didn't change it after joining so your claim that NATO states parrot the US is disproved. --Nug (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There were other sovereign states aswell, that recognized the USSR has having 15 republics. Here's some of them: Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Iran, Sweden, Spain, India; etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

China, too. Along with a bunch of Asian and African states that were communisto sympatico --Львівське (говорити) 05:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Australia reversed its recognition while India and Iran never made a formal declaration one way or the other although some writers think a visit to Tallinn implied recognition. Three scholarly sources concur that China was in the "refuse de jure recognition, accept de facto control" camp. As for your "Along with a bunch of Asian and African states", got a source for verification or is that based on what you WP:KNOW too? --Nug (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You already know this source from our other discussion, but here: "The Baltic states were frequently visited by party and government delegations from communist countries. These included [India and Iran], as well as other leaders of Asian and African countries. Communists from the Baltic states frequently participated in, and even led, Soviet governmental delegations to Third World countries." --Львівське (говорити) 06:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Narva, Estonia. Do we really need to have this discussion again? Let's go with major sources and international publications (not to mention, international law), not original research and fantasies. --Sander Säde 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonia per mainstream scholarly research on the state continuity of Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonian SSR, USSR iff Prague, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Nazi Germany. Any principle must be uniformly applied. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonia per Lothar. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I agree with the posts suggesting this style (by Resolute and others). Ho-ju-96 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus #2

Now that we've got consensus for including Soviet Union or USSR? it's best to decide which style. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

it is premature to declare consensus has been achieved, there were atleast three other people strongly opposed in the earlier discussion, and additionally the WikiProjects that have purview over this article in question have not been involved in the discussions.--Nug (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've no objection to letting it run a day or two more, but I see six people advocating some form of "Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union," and the only one who's opposed is, well, you. Given your increasingly tendentious behavior, I'm unsurprised at your inference of forum shopping, but the nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes you're on the losing end of consensus. I recommend losing gracefully and moving on. Ravenswing 06:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jaan and Vecrumba and others are opposed. Wikipedia is not a democracy nor is it about winning, your tone and recommendation about losing gracefully may be perceived by some as evidence of a battleground mentality. --Nug (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that this began with you asking "what consensus does wp:hockey have?" - of course, now after reestablishing such consensus, and confirming birthplace guidelines followed throughout all of wikipedia, it's "this isn't a democracy". I just have to shake my head at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 16:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Was there consensus established here previously? I was led to believe there had been but I'm still waiting for an answer[8]. I doubt very much birthplace guidelines are followed throughout all of wikipedia, that shoe cannot be made to fit all cases. Dogma and accuracy do not mix. --Nug (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I still would recommend dropping Estonia from the infobox, as my first choice. The name Estonia is associated with the 1918-40; 1991-present, sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In usage terms Estonia dominates Estonian SSR by several orders of magnitude throughout the entire period[9]. --Nug (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, pipelinking it to Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic helps. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure okay, I've added Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic and it gets even less than Estonian SSR![10] --Nug (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union is included, of course. GoodDay (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the diverse set of interested parties, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography might be a good place to have a common discussion on this matter, regarding the best approach to specify the birth and death places of a person in a brief summary form. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an RfC at the Infobox person template on this topic back in November. Not the largest participation though. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind, this is the icehockey player infobox, and we have our own quirks (regarding flag use, or how we use abbreviations for US/CAN players birthplaces but long form for European, etc.) so the outcome or participation on that RfC doesn't necessarily change how we manage hockey players (and to belabor my old point, Baltic players and Baltic teams all were Soviet, if we're to be practical)--Львівське (говорити) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There may be specific scenarios where additional guidance from a consensus of editors interested in ice hockey may be useful for hockey-specific data, but for overall guidance, this group cannot override global consensus, and so I think it is better to invest time in generating a global agreement from the start. Determining the appropriate birth place name for a given place and time in history is a matter of common interest to all biographies, and I don't really see why this project would want to diverge from a broader guideline (and as a practical matter, I think you'd get a higher percentage of parties interested in debating this question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography than this page). As the debates on flag icon usage have discussed, citizenship, nationality, birth place, and so forth are different than representative nationality, and so national team eligibility isn't a consideration. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

May I point out that altogether seven editors have strongly opposed the inclusion of SSR or USSR on this talk page, in addition to one on the Leo Komarov talk page. What consensus are you talking about? Certainly this should be decided on a global consensus with the highest possible number of editors involved. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've no problems with opening this discussion to a Community-wide forum. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good. You should also not claim premature consensus nor to support altering the Komarov article's stable version in the middle of the discussion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean like how you tried to claim a consensus on the article from a previous discussion that had far fewer participants, and could in no way be considered "consensus" by an objective observer? Resolute 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors interested in that topic at that moment reached an agreement in that discussion. Sorry that we forgot to call you, the objective observer. Or what is your problem? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute, let's be clear here. In regard to the way birth place is represented in WP:Estonia articles, consensus exists in practice per WP:EDITCONCENSUS, all articles in that space have birth place in that form. The issue of the discussion you refer to was finding a formulation of words that formalises that consensus that exists in practice. --Nug (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except it wasn't really. It wasn't until recently that articles stopped having USSR in them when Jaan made a concerted effort to change the articles and then ended up getting himself blocked for it. So it would be hard to claim there was any sort of consensus on that since the articles only just changed from what actually would be the EDITCONSENSUS since most of them had been long standing with the USSR in them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not the case at all if you actually look at all the articles rather than the handful you have been exposed to recently. --Nug (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So, 5:0 vote from the neutral WP:HOCKEY contributors, 1 additional in favor so long as formatting is equally applied to all similar de-facto situations, and 4 'Narva, Estonia' votes from Estonian editors--Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Concensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. --Nug (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, it's 2 for "Narva, Estonian SSR, USSR", 4 for "Narva, Estonia, USSR" and 5 for "Narva, Estonia". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Count again.--Львівське (говорити) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I was curious about those numbers myself as its actually 1 for Narva, Estonian SSR, USSR and 5 for Narva, Estonia, USSR and 4 for Narva, Estonia. But either way its not worth bickering about. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: Narva, Estonian SSR, USSR 2 unconditional votes (GoodDay and Lvivske), Narva, Estonia, USSR 4 votes (alaney2k, Ravenswing, Resolute, and DJSasso), and Narva, Estonia 5 votes (Nug, Vecrumba, Sander Säde, I, and Miacek). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Myself and GoodDay were in favor of either 'City, Estonia[n SSR], USSR' variant, the opposite of 'unconditional'. Plus Lothar, so it's actually 6+1 in favor of some variant involving the USSR being in the placename.--Львівське (говорити) 16:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are all good at counting votes the way we like. It's also 9 votes for involving Estonia (as opposed to Estonian SSR with only 2+1 votes). Not that it really decides anything. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most people have no problem including Estonia. Its the lack of USSR that most people are concerned with. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. That's what this entire snafu started over. That, and "you WP:HOCKEY guys don't have a consensus" - which is evidently unanimous.--Львівське (говорити) 16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Grow up. There are no "WP:HOCKEY guys". There is discussion between editors from different fields who obviously do not have consensus.

Fortunately, we have made some progress and sorted out two options: Narva, Estonia, then USSR (or something in this vein) and Narva, Estonia.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The first is a choice supported by only 1 editor. That's not consensus. Also, the agreement seems to be that in a case of dropping the superfluous SSR, the 'Estonia' would pipelink to Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic--Львівське (говорити) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

However, it's still an unappreciated great idea. :-) Get on my band wagon! :-) What is wrong with compromise, seriously? As for the SSR, I would not pipelink, either. Estonia existed before and after the SSR, and the SSR is of 'dubious legality' at best. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As Jesus Presley mentioned at the RFC: "If the birthplace nation/territory did not exist long enough to span over a persons life, it should rather be neglected". That is also the issue here with the Komarov article. I don't think anyone would oppose Jaan's scheme if that bio was about someone who actually played hockey for the Soviet Union, but this guy was four years old when it collapsed, it is irrelevant. --Nug (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone agrees with that arbitrary line of thinking. Is the cutoff spanning their life? Is it them playing for the state internationally? It's an imaginary line. --Львівське (говорити) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The cutoff would be when and where did that person achieve notability, for example if the guy played in the Soviet olympic team. --Nug (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're applying a convention used for nationality (fluid) to birthplace (fixed). --Львівське (говорити) 17:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a compromise. The template guide does state the criteria is sovereign state and that hasn't been met here as multiple reliable sources assert that the USSR never acquired sovereignty over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the other way around. The USSR was a sovereign state, 'Estonia' was not, in any sense of the word.--Львівське (говорити) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, in the context of administrative unit, sovereign state it means the state that has sovereignty over the administrative unit. --Nug (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The USSR had sovereignty over the ESSR, it's just that some western countries argued that the ESSR had no legal right to exist as a state in its own right (and subsequently did not have diplomatic relations with this counterfeit Estonia).--Львівське (говорити) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just wiki-lawyering. RS are clear on this point. --Nug (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm not going to play that game with you.--Львівське (говорити) 21:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not make it about group A and group B; can an interested party please start an appropriate discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and post notification messages to the various interested WikiProjects, so a suitably wide cross-section of editors can engage in discussion? isaacl (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We can all join Template_talk:Infobox_person#RfC:_country_of_birth. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at here, take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This topic will soon swallow all projects and all topics, and eventually Wikipedia itself, which will then devolve into a discussion of whether we want to write an encyclopedia again. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is our realm's form of Gozer the Gozarian.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Latvia now

A Latvian IP/new user is now changing all the Latvian player articles to fit European law, or whatever. user. Apparently DJsasso is already aware of this, and Jaan is already back to edit warring in support of this POV.--Львівське (говорити) 15:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah its somewhat interesting that Jaan was suddenly at the page 3 minutes after I reverted. Think a sockpuppet investigation may be in order. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly just following my/ our contrib history. He's arguing on the IP's page now against me --Львівське (говорити) 15:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So are we going to drop 'Latvian SSR' and use XXX, Soviet Union (now Latvia)? I wonder if we need to use Soviet Union (de facto), Latvia (de jure) :-) ???? As we progress along the Baltic Sea, should we suggest a similar format for Lithuania? In all cases, I think the particular SSR was denied legal recognition as a republic, but the USSR has legal recognition. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I *believe* consensus leaned towards using a format that would churn out: Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union--Львівське (говорити) 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@alaney2k, while the the USSR has recognition as a state, there is no recognition that the Baltic states became a part of the USSR as constituent states. --Nug (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we've gone over this. 1. No-one denies the USSR occupied Latvia. 2. At the time of birth the player would have been born a citizen of the USSR. The matter of legality is outside of the realm of Wikipedia. It's part of the biography of the player to indicate that they were born in such and such a place. At the time, no-one would argue that the USSR had control of the place. The player would have been born into a situation whereby the USSR's laws were in place, irregardless of legality. If you were doing an ancestry lookup, you would need to know that the person was born while the USSR occupied the place. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The people born in Estonia during the occupation were born as Estonian citizens. Their Soviet passports, however real, were null and void as issued, not just declared as such afterwards. The Wikipedia standard practice in such cases is to state the occupied country as the birth place. Check ten random wikiarticles of ten people born under occupation regimes. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As you said: "Soviet passports, however real". That's all I am talking about. It was real. The regime existed. It would be leaving out real information to exclude the Soviet era notation in biographies. I think you are arguing on behalf of these persons as though you represent them. I am sure that they all agree that the USSR existed and that they lived in it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Komarov is a secret Estonian now. The OR and e-lawyering going on here knows no bounds. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I never said he was Estonian just that under the Geneva conventions, the USSR had no right to issue passports in Estonia and therefore these were null and void. My main point is that that the only valid constitution there was that of Estonia and this is also a valid part of the reality. And regarding the 'secret Estonian' comment, Lvivske, don't you think you are a little bit inconsistant? In edits like this you relentlessly insert Ukrainian nationality to a person who, as much as we know, has never had a Ukrainian passport. So secret Ukrainians are OK, but no secret Estonians? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the lawyering is bizarre. No-one needs a Wikipedia reference for any reason. Not like a passport. You can't use it to buy a cup of coffee. We use common names and English ones at that. We are trying to reflect reality, not legal issues. I think we try to reflect on oppression, occupation, annexation and slights fairly, and try to be true. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why is the standard practice to list the occupied country not the occupier? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it just needs to be said *again* that other countries did recognize the baltic states as being part of the USSR - many countries did. The only ones that flat out denied it were the US, UK, and Canada for a period... the rest on the west of the iron curtain either provided de jure recognition, or implicit de facto recognition; on the east, they all recognized it. This then goes to the roundabout reasoning of "satellite state's dont count" - why, I don't know, because unlike Estonia, those satellites were members of the UN. The minority viewpoint is here is zero recognition, the majority is some form of recognition. --Львівське (говорити) 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think many of you have looked up the meaning of de facto in the dictionary, meaning existing in fact, although not necessarily intended, legal or accepted. Now, as much as we know, 36 countries made explicit statements upon the issue. Three countries explicitly refused to recognise the Soviet control of the Baltics either de facto or de jure. 29 explicitly recognised the de facto Soviet control over the Baltics but refused to accept the annexation de jure, therefore regarding this an occupation. The USSR and three more countries explicitly accepted the annexation. No other country made an explicit statement. The majority view should be clear now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Except you leave out the 100+ who never made a statement which means they accepted it (by their lack of statement) as the de facto state. The majority view is clear. That of acceptance. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is OR. The countries who never made a statement neither recognised the annexation nor opposed it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is a well accepted principle around the world that lack of action or statement is acceptance of something. So much so in fact that it is part of law in most countries. Hence why on wikipedia we say if something sat on the page long enough it had consensus by silence. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about implicit recognition and this is not how it works. International law does not regard lack of policy as acceptance, unless you have alternative sources to cite. And please please read State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states#List_of_recognition_and_non-recognition_of_annexation, save us all the time of reading it up to you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Both using Wikipedia as a source and assuming I haven't read it. Nice. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources I use are Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden – Boston: Brill. ISBN 90-411-2177-3 and Hiio (2006). "Legal continuation of the Republic of Estonia and the policies of non-recognition". Estonia 1940-1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 195–198. The only thing I assumed was that you don't have access to these works. If you do, please read them. The list and its comments are entirely incorporated from the source, so in case you do not access to the RS, please read these. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The list itself seems to be original research, as in the case of China, they never made explicit "de jure non-recognition" as the article lists them as. They didn't even want to recognize Estonia as independent in '91 until Russia gave them the green light, yet the list makes it look like they were opposed to Soviet control. Yeah, nice source for us to go by.--Львівське (говорити) 18:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The list is entirely incorporated from Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden – Boston: Brill. ISBN 90-411-2177-3 and Hiio (2006). "Legal continuation of the Republic of Estonia and the policies of non-recognition". Estonia 1940-1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 195–198. You are welcome to introduce alternative lists from RS. Until that, these are the best we have. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DJSasso contention about the "100+ who never made a statement" implies recognition because "lack of action or statement is acceptance of something" just does not apply here. There is a presumption of continuity of states in international relations, otherwise the world order would be unstable for obvious reasons. In the case of the Baltic states, being recognised as sovereign states and full members of the League of Nations before 1940 means that "no statement" implies continuation of that prior recognition. --Nug (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Were they full members of the United Nations before 1991? Did any international body recognize Estonia as existing in any capacity outside of just condemning the USSR? No? Oh, well then...--Львівське (говорити) 20:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Estonia was not a member of the UN and so was not Taiwan and a number of other countries but we don't list them as China or any other convenient country. What is your point?

Are you saying we should go the Taiwan route? In which case, the de facto state is all that matters. Make up your mind.--Львівське (говорити) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not express my opinion on how Taiwanese birth places should be presented. My point was UN membership is not a common criterion for birth place. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Estonia was a member of the League of Nations until its' termination. On 13 January 1983, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the occupation and submitted the issue to be handled by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization. On 30 January 1985 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution on the Baltic self-determination rights. On 26 July 1985 the Baltic Tribunal condemned the occupation. Just to give you a few examples. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lvivske's claim "A Latvian IP/new user is now changing all the Latvian player articles" is untrue, in fact I see that Lvivske has just raided several Latvian articles Viktors Bļinovs,Māris Bičevskis,Armands Bērziņš,Aleksandrs Beļavskis,Helmuts Balderis,Ģirts Ankipāns,Jānis Andersons and changed the long standing place of birth to his preferred version even though no consensus was established to do so. --Nug (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

a) yes, there was an IP b) how is this different from you doing the same to Estonian articles the other day? I'm just staying within the scope of hockey, per consensus here, at the least. (there were some where the country was just "LV", others were missing latvia entirely, for example, and needed fixing)--Львівське (говорити) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The hockey template states simply: (city, then comma, then country code; use country's abbreviation). So all this discussion about pre-existing consensus for place of birth at time of birth seem all to be just plain bs. --Nug (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we can work it out. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't BS because if you look through the archives of this page there are a number of discussions where it was discussed. Secondly this discussion itself if you look at the hockey editors that commented it was a unanimous among all of them that we list at the time of birth. Trying to say there was no consensus is the BS. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I doubt your claim has any veracity, I looked myself and couldn't find anything so thinking it would be better to ask someone who may be more familiar with past discussions I asked you here, but you never came up with the goods.... --Nug (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• The clone wars have begun.--Львівське (говорити) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty

This is why I was concerned when the argument carried into the article on sovereignty itself. They appear to want to ensure the definition of sovereignty is only de jure and not de facto, so as to argue "the USSR never had sovereignty, because de facto sovereignty doesn't exist - it has to be legal, you lose". At least, this is my perspective on where the debate is going, with this new "Brussels" legal ruling being used in the arguments now...--Львівське (говорити) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm, yes, Nug's intention was to wiki-lawyer us into submission. See here.--Львівське (говорити) 20:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

First the mantra was it had to be place of birth at the time of birth because that is what the template requires, but when told the template also requires it to be sovereign state, then it is wiki-lawyering. Go figure. --Nug (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't even use that template.--Львівське (говорити) 23:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You guys cited that template when claiming there was consensus for place of birth at time of birth. The hockey template has no such requirement. --Nug (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It was used to demonstrate wiki-wide common practice, as we also use sovereign state.--Львівське (говорити) 23:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So why do you insist pushing the minority viewpoint that the USSR had sovereignty of the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely you mean majority viewpoint? --Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the majority of countries who expressed their view, refused to recognise the annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And the majority viewpoint as expressed in highly reliable scholarly literature that the Soviet Union failed to acquire sovereignty over the Baltic states. It is ironic that after fifty years of the Soviet Union failing to convince the world to recognise its claim to sovereignty over the Baltic states and finally collapsing as a result, that Wikipedia should now re-write history and accord that recognition twenty years later. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly sources mean nothing here, this isn't a legal dispute. Just because some countries' courts don't find it legal doesn't change history. Just because a book reciprocates a certain POV doesn't change history. (PS: The Soviet Union did not collapse as a result of 'The Baltic Question')--Львівське (говорити) 20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Nug:Ha ha. That's a pov that gives way too much authority to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no authority. Look elsewhere for that! Wikipedia has no legal authority, why pretend? We include person's birth names as they were at birth. Why not indicate what the state of the birth place was the same time? The article titles are common names and they get debated but only try to reflect 'what's out there'. Again, nothing legal, nothing defining, just trying to reflect reality. I contend that to act as if the USSR never existed is very contradictory to Wikipedia practice. So, we are trying to indicate what the common practice 'at the time' was. I think for those born prior to 1991 or thereabouts that these players would have been indicated as having been born in the USSR. They would have had to emigrate from the USSR. They would have been listed as USSR by the IIHF or other media sources, not legal journals. Those would not be the 'common' practice. It's important to reflect on current practice as well, and eliminate any confusion as well. That's why I suggest using the 'then' or 'now' double practice for country. We are not all lawyers and do not want to act like them. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny that you should talk about rewriting history, Nug. Resolute 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We're relying on those Soviet lackeys in Reuters now? --Львівське (говорити) 21:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To Resolute: would be fair to list these cases against the headers listing it as "Riga, Latvia" during these years.

To alaney2k: not sure which of my statements you are referring to. I have never regarded Wikipedia as legal authority, so no clue what you are talking about. I was just referring to WP:EDITCONCENSUS meaning that if we want to be consistent then the birth places of a wealth of people born under occupation regimes should be altered. Unless you think the Baltics should be an exception, which is inacceptable.

Regarding the reality, the Baltic countries were occupied and that is a poorly disputable fact and it should be represented in the birth place. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nor can you dispute that at these times, these place names were listed under "USSR" or "Soviet Union". The reality is, at the relevant points in history, these locations were part of the Soviet Union, and considered so by the world. Later attempts to retcon these time periods are quaint, and often politically or nationalistically motivated, but not supported by historical reality. The world said "Riga, Soviet Union". Resolute 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to rain of your parade, but I did a google book search of books published between 1940 and 1990, and here are the results:

• "Riga, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" - 12 hits[11]
• "Riga, Latvian SSR" - 27 hits[12]
• "Riga, Soviet Union" - 12 hits[13]
• "Riga, USSR" - 67 hits[14]
• "Riga, Latvia" - 264 hits[15]

Google book search of that period conclusively proves that "Riga, Latvia" was what the place was known as during the period from 1940 to 1990. The world said "Riga, Latvia" by a ratio of almost 3 to 1. --Nug (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the first link on your "Riga, Latvia" page there specifically discusses the country's history between 1920 and 1940 - pre-Soviet rule - your conclusion is obviously flawed. In fact, the majority of the page 1 links in that search are referencing Riga outside Soviet rule. That actually supports our position that places are properly referred to by what they were called at the relevant point of history. Not to mention, if I search "Riga, Latvia, USSR" using your time parameters, I get 18 entries. "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" adds four more. Those are false positives on your preferred title that instead support ours. Your case becomes exceedingly weak on even a cursory check. Resolute 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To the interested editors: unless you're willing to abide by a consensus agreed upon by those who frequent this talk page (and I suspect some of you are not), it would be best if this discussion is pursued in a venue with a broader audience. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

'Those who frequent this talk page' own no WP:BIOGRAPHY article. However, I did not bring this discussion here so I don't mind if it's pursued elsewhere. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's rather Issac's point, I think. You're one to talk about "local consensus" when it suits your purpose, but seem completely unwilling to accept it when it doesn't. Resolute 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it funny that he talks about being "consistent then the birth places of a wealth of people born under [de facto] regimes" and not making some exception to the rule for the Baltics. The thing is, and he/they know this, the common practice as is cases like Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, etc. is to present the de facto sovereign state. Making an exception to the rule would be to present a non-existant state that only existed on paper to a minority of countries. As always, twist the situation to suit the POV.--Львівське (говорити) 15:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To Resolute: The only time I talked about consensus was to refer to one reached between the only editors at the time experienced in the Baltic history. Can't see anything wrong in that.

To Lvivske: This is just assumption of bad faith. I am not familiar with the status of these countries you refer to. I did not twist anything, I only used the example of Taiwan to show that the UN membership is not used as a criterion for birth place, as opposed to occupied countries. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith? --Львівське (говорити) 20:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate, then, for all interested parties to place your points for discussion and analysis in these other discussion threads, so that they can receive a more thorough examination from a broader audience, since a consensus will not be generated on this page. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, this dispute was taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard, and Nug & Jaan gained no support for their proposal, just as there was no support here. Personally, I find the proposal to say Latvia instead of Latvian SSR to be a decent compromise on our part. --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately our arguments are still standing and until that it's no consensus. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Except consensus does not equal unanimity. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, "consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We've sought compromise and solicited outside opinion, but you've stuck to this "my way or the highway" attitude despite, literally, everything that has been said by everyone.--Львівське (говорити) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These reverts show rather the opposite is the case regarding the compromise: [16] [17]. Let me also point out that the main compromise you have offered is "Estonia, Soviet Union", which is nonsense as two mutually exclusive countries listed together. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So Tallinn, Soviet Union or Riga, USSR it is then? Resolute 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, the counterarguments are still standing so I would suggest at least to consider a compromise suiting both sides along the lines of my two edits. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The compromise that consensus came to was the one you just dismissed. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The one above and the one gleamed from all the users that weighted in at the BLP page. At this point you are just being ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said the counterarguments are still standing. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And as you know whether they stand or not...it doesn't matter. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Concensus isn't a vote per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and simple polling isn't a measure. BTW, did you find that previous talk page discussion you claimed existed? --Nug (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it also doesn't mean there is a lack of objections. So whether or not his arguments stand is irrelevant. There have been arguments on both sides and frankly most of his have been shot down. As for the discussion I haven't bothered to look for it again since you two have descended into tendentious arguing at this point. You both long passed the good faith line so I haven't bothered to waist my time. If you want it, it isn't hard to find go to the search box in the archive box above and type birthplace. There isn't just one discussion on it there are many. -DJSasso (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Google news for the period 1945 to 1990:

• "Riga, Latvia" dozens of pages hit[18]
• "Riga, Latvia, USSR" less than one page[19]
• "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" less than one page[20]
• "Riga, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" no pages[21]
• "Riga, Latvian SSR" less than one page[22]
• "Riga, Soviet Union" less than one page[23]
• "Riga, USSR" one and a half pages of hits[24]

"Latvia, Riga" was the common name for that WP:PLACE during that period. --Nug (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is what I was saying. People were not using the SSR form. Maybe we can finally all agree to drop the SSR in the info boxes? As we've seen elsewhere the 1991 references used USSR. I wonder if the style reference for UPI, etc. changed later along in the cold war period. I still prefer the (then USSR) suffix notation as it is more informative for further research. Did you nug ever comment on that notation as an acceptable second choice? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I made this edit[25] nearly two weeks ago in support of your edit[26], (adding "in" to make it "then in USSR") but the lot was subsequently undone by other editors[27]. Apparently some editors are not willing to compromise. --Nug (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My revert (which you've referenced 'again) is no longer relevant, since I no longer care about the topic-in-question. You can put Narva, Planet Mars, for all I care anymore. GoodDay (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

When I say "other editors" I didn't mean you specifically, but as a metaphor for the others who seem to think that being born in a country that ended up in Ronald Reagan's predicted dustbin of history, is some how really, really important and relevant to a four year old Leo Komarov. --Nug (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me make a quick comment on the comparison of the frequency of occurrence of "Riga, Latvia" versus "Riga, USSR". This is a rather specious argument because the question is not whether Riga, Latvia was a common way of referring to the city. Make the search and compare "Chicago, Illinois" versus "Chicago, United States" or "Edinburgh, Scotland" versus "Edinburgh, UK" and you'll find the same sort of result. That doesn't make Illinois a sovereign state. Pichpich (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

True, also, Moscow, Russia was just as commonplace as Moscow, USSR during the period; popularity of the former does not void the latter.--Львівське (говорити) 19:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, Moscow, Russia was equally as commonplace as Moscow, USSR because people accepted that Russia was USSR, but the huge difference between Riga, Latvia and Riga, USSR is because people did not recognise that Latvia was USSR, but a sovereign state that was under Soviet control. By way of comparison Kiev, Ukraine gets one and a half pages[28] while Kiev, USSR gets seven pages of hists [29], which is the opposite to the Latvia result. People clearly viewed Ukraine as USSR but Latvia not. --Nug (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No the point is that measuring how the world viewed the sovereignty of Latvia by using the prevalence of "Riga, Latvia" in Google searches is silly and I think the case of Chicago is pretty telling in that respect. It's absurd to say that every journalist who wrote "Riga, Latvia" was somehow lamenting the plight of the oppressed Latvian people. (Equally silly would be to claim that every journalist writing "Latvia, USSR" was celebrating Soviet oppression) Pichpich (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Which all just drives down to the editor's style guide that they were following, just like how our hockey articles follow their own style guide, and the MOS, etc. Also, and even if they were promoting a political statement (they weren't.), this would just reflect US/UK English sources, and this whole time we've acknowledged that the US/UK had their own hardline view against the Soviet Union in this. Following how 2/3rds journalists used a style guide still ignores how the rest of the world viewed the reality of the situation.--Львівське (говорити) 23:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see the point about the style guide. I see no reason to talk down the style guide, though. It expresses to writers to use the term most commonly understood. I think that is the purpose. The reality is not disputed. The use of the word 'sovereignty' is. And probably rightly so when it was not the free will of the majority that the baltics were annexed. The independence was expressed by a free will vote, but not the other way around. It is disputed outside of Wikipedia, and it so therefore it will be so here in Wikipedia. I ask you Lvivske, are you opposed to the use of Latvia, instead of Latvian SSR? (And the same for the other baltics, their case I believe is not the same for the other republics, [Although I still contend you would not use the SFSR or SSR at all as a common wording] whom it might be advisable to research) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the 'SSR' part, but think it should be uniformly applied to all SSRs we deal with. As far as the 'free will of the majority' argument goes, the entirety of the eastern bloc weren't free during this time, I don't see why the baltics were an exception other than NATO using it as a political playing card. Ukraine, for example, was also annexed by the Red Army in '22 during Russia's anschluss and again in '45. Which actually brings up another point, if someone was born in Austria during the anshluss, do we say Germany or Austria?--Львівське (говорити) 00:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Baltics is incomparable to Soviet states such as Ukraine. Ukraine was never an internationally recognised state unlike the Baltics in 1922 or in 1945. Highly reliable scholarly sources have previously been presented that show that the Soviet Union never acquired sovereignty over the Baltic states and that the Baltic states had their de facto independence restored in 1991 as continuous states unlike Ukraine and the other SSRs that are seen as succeeding from the USSR as new states. These sources have been dismissed as legal mumbo jumbo with no reflection on the reality of how people at the time viewed the Baltic states. So I present a Google search of news articles that show how people perceived the Baltic states not as being inherently USSR like Ukraine, but distinct sovereign states formed in 1918-20 that have retained their identity in the minds of these journalists at that time.--Nug (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@Nug: "Ukraine was never an internationally recognised state unlike the Baltics in 1922" I'm merely giving an adequate example. Ukraine was an internationally recognized nation after the Russian revolution, in accordance of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, gaining independence and international recognition at the same time as Estonia, incidentally. It was however mostly annexed by the Soviets and incorporated as an SSR in 1922. The remainder, which was annexed by Poland following the Polish-Soviet / Ukrainian-Soviet war, was further annexed by the Red Army in the period of 1945/7 when the land transfers were carried out. Ukraine also had it's own 'government in exile', just as Poland did. This is the sad reality of war. Accept it.

Get real Lvivske, the Ukrainian state was dead before it was even born. Ukrainian nationalists lost its civil war to the Ukrainian Bolsheviks fair and square in 1921. It was certainly never a member of the League of Nations which the Baltics where up until the League was disbanded in 1946. --Nug (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The United freakin' States weren't even members of the League of Nations. Where are you even going with this?--Львівське (говорити) 04:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske, your passage on the Ukraine marvelously demonstrates your historical ignorance. The USSR could not annex Ukraine in 1945. No country can annex its administrative unit. Ukrainian SSR offices continued in the Soviet rear and were generally recognised by the global public as legitimate. Similar reality can be observed with the Baltics - the Estonian Government in Exile and the Baltic embassies continued and were generally recognised as the legitimate representations of the occupied countries. This reality may be hard to handle but that's the mainstream knowledge as opposed to WP:FRINGE.

Also, funny you should say 'this brings us' the Anschluss example. Several editors have made the point that that we (Wikipedia editors per editconsensus) say 'Born in Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland 1938(39)-1945' when the reality was Germany or Greater German Reich occupation. There is no reason why the Baltic states should be an exception. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This was just curiosity on my part, I've so far been opposed to using at-war examples (like above or the Kuwait example) since the dust hadn't settled and de facto realities hadn't truly set in, and in most cased actual administration hadn't as well. This is more like the Palestine example, where decades later, you have to face facts. Also, there's nothing "fringe" about the position the majority here seem to be taken. This isn't fringe theory, this is facts and reality and history. This is de facto statehood and international recognition and decades of facts. Trying to pretend this never happened due to a legal technicality is what's "fringe"--Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What "de facto statehood and international recognition" are you talking about? You have not provided any sources to back these assertions. I think I get it now, I get the distinct impression that you seem to think that pretending there was no distinction between the Baltics and Ukraine, that somehow the Baltic's claim to sovereignty will somehow rub off on Ukraine. Face it dude, unlike the Baltic states which the international community agree where continuous sovereign states founded in 1918-20, Ukraine is a new state that only achieved sovereignty in 1991. --Nug (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You have no clue what you're talking about and are just incoherently rambling now. Yeah, we're all out to get you. I'm done. *drops mic* --Львівське (говорити) 04:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Man this argument makes me remember why I dropped off the face of the Wiki Earth since the summer time for the most part. My take on all this is illegal occupation or otherwise, the USSR was the controlling body. I would support listing places of birth as the Slovak Republic and any other nation. However, I've often thought adding the SSRs were a little on the silly side, regardless of whether the people of the Baltics felts it to be an illegal occupation or not the nation they belonged to was the Soviet Union period. Thus, no one born pre-1990/1991 should show their place of birth to be anything other than City, USSR. If anything needs to be explained put it as a note next to the place of birth like I did for List of countries with their first National Hockey League player. "Komarov was technically born in the Estonian SSR of the former USSR, which became the country of Estonia in 1991." Add it as a note and everyone is happy.

In the Ukrainian example cited above, I don't believe the UN should be considered any sort of official deciding factor on anything as far as nations go. If we were to list places of birth by current geopolitical standards anyone born between 1949 and 1971 in mainland China would have their place of birth listed as Beijing, Taiwan. As until 1971, the government of Taiwan ([{Republic of China]]) was considered the government for all of China. After, 1971, Taiwan ceased to exist according to the UN and the People's Republic of China became the recognized government for Taiwan and mainland China. Also, if the UN is the be all and end all for anything, Switzerland did not exist until 2002. I think it safe to say, all players who were born prior to 2002 in Switzerland are Swiss.

Also, in the case of Komarov, he does not even hold an Estonian passport. According to this he holds a Russian passport. So I think it is safe to say, he feels an affinity to Moscow, ergo showing him as Soviet born likely wouldn't ruffle his feathers any. Also, the political status of Narva is disputed anyhow. There are still some dispute between Russia and Estonia over who controls the city. As Komarov was born in the disputed city of Narva, this whole issue might be a moot point if at some point in the future, Narva is ceded to Russia.

I noticed someone cite how a passport would list the place of birth, that is inherently unreliable too. For instance, if you were born in Jerusalem, Canada does not put a country next to it. Why? The Arab states believe Jerusalem belongs to Palestine and will deny them entry if it says Israel. Also, in the case of former states it seems Canada is wishy-washy in how they put them. Some will have Berlin, FRG and some will have East Berlin, GDR on them. So that is not a proper thing to say, besides the country who issues the passport will bow to their political stance instead of the proper names. Despite what many Western nations want to call it, Myanmar exists. However, Canada officially refers to it as here as Burma.

Ultimately, when history decides that Estonia was a sovereign nation during the time the Soviets controlled it, we can change it all to Estonia. However, as all history books I have read (and I have taken University level Russian/Soviet history classes) refer to the 15 constituent republics of the USSR. Thus, despite the POV of one editor, the general consensus amongst historians is that Estonia was one of the Soviet Socialist Republics that made up the USSR. Estonia itself felt it was too, otherwise there would have been no need to cede from Moscow in 1990. This was not a case of Chechnya whereby they were retained by force. Estonia calmly stayed part of the USSR until 1988 when their Parliament began the diplomatic process to breakaway from the USSR and completed in 1991 when they formally ceded from the Union. It would appear that the Estonians were also content with being Soviets between the end of the Nazi occupation and 1988.

This whole battle seems to be one editor attempting to push their POV on everyone. In the end Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not a place to revise history. I am sorry that some editors in this fight do not like that the Baltic republics were under Soviet rule, but the fact is they were. This is not a case of Czechoslovakia or Poland where they were part of a sphere of influence, Moscow had direct rule over them. There were no Embassy of Estonia set up in other nations nor were any specific diplomatic relations developed that would indicate they were any different than that of Saskatchewan or Colorado. This is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it wrongly reflects a revisionist version of history. Essentially, this is akin to saying that Wayne Gretzky was not a member of the Los Angeles Kings because the Edmonton Oilers had no right to trade him as he is a free and independent person and should be able to make his own decisions. Good, bad or otherwise, Peter Pocklington traded him to LA, it happened and it is indisputable. Much like the fact that Moscow had direct control over the laws, defense, foreign affairs and economy of Estonia. Good, bad or otherwise, it happened and is indisputable. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just fun factoid since you mentioned FDR/GDR, but Canadian passports for those born in West Germany just say "DEU" for the country.--Львівське (говорити) 07:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What Shootmaster 44 said. The argument that Latvia was a sovereign state in the Soviet era is akin to arguing that Nelson Mandela is and always has been a free man which probably goes something like this: Those who don't know better believe he was a prisoner in Apartheid-era South Africa but that's an illusion: he was in fact a free man all along but a free man that just happened to be living in a jail cell controlled by the Apartheid-era South African government. Pichpich (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I said I was going to leave this madness but Shoot's comment about Narva piqued my interest. So Komarov was born in a disputed city in a disputed country? Oh shoot me now. Ends up also there was a prior claim that Komarov's Soviet passport was "void" and he was an "Estonian" citizen by birth - well, apparently - most in Narva have Russian citizenship or "grey" stateless passports, the latter of which are ethnic Russians who were Soviet born but didn't meet national requirements (re: language) to become Estonian, and didn't apply for Russian Federation citizenship. Over half of Estonia's Russian-speakers aren't Estonian citizens today. So perhaps the "not being Estonian" factor played into Komarov's family bolting to Finland.--Львівське (говорити) 07:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re Lvivske's since the dust hadn't settled and de facto realities hadn't truly set in, and in most cased actual administration hadn't as well. This is more like the Palestine example, where decades later,... - This is the closest to reasonable argumentation you have showed so far. I wish you would spend some time in the library reading up on the Baltic and the Ukrainian statehood, which, BTW, bring the same examples as you do now.

Re: de facto statehood and international recognition and decades of facts. and legal technicality - This just shows you have failed to read up on any research regarding this issue for the whole month, despite the number of references we have cited for you.

Re: Komarov's Soviet passport was "void" and he was an "Estonian" citizen by birth - The USSR had no right to issue passports in the Baltic states. Of course, Komarov never reached an age to get a Soviet passport. I also checked up the Estonian Citizenship Act and Komarov, as a descendant of immigrants, was never entitled to Estonian citizenship, my mistake.

Re Shootmaster's IDONTLIKEIT - Please show where any editor has shown disapproval of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states other than what is written in WP:RS. Until that, this is a straw man.

Re: There were no Embassy of Estonia set up in other nations nor were any specific diplomatic relations developed - You are wrong here, read State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states#Baltic_diplomatic_sphere_1940.E2.80.931991.

Re: the political status of Narva is disputed anyhow. - Never heard of it. Citation please. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that "adding the SSRs were a little on the silly side", but my eyes were rolling up by the time I read Shootmaster 44's claim that Narva was a "disputed city", seriously, are you kidding? Here is the European community viewpoint:

"Significantly, in a Joint Statement issued on 28 August 1991, the European Community and its Member States explicitly recognised the legal continuity of the Baltic States and, therefore, agreed with the Baltic thesis that the Soviet period was illegal and should be considered null and void."[30]

History has decided, Soviet rule over Estonia was null and void, ego Komarov was legally born in Estonia and if he ever obtains a Canadian passport his birth place would be Narva, Estonia. --Nug (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Narva, "Officially, Estonia has no territorial claims in the area,[14][15][16] which is also reflected in the new Estonian-Russian border treaty. Although the treaty was signed in 2005 by the foreign ministers of Estonia and Russia, due to continuing political tensions it has not been ratified." I would take that as meaning that Narva is technically Russia unless I misunderstanding what that means. Reading the only English source cited, it doesn't make it clear which side of the border it is referring to My assumption is that Estonia believes Narva to be Russian. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. The border was always along the Narva river, even when Estonia was Duchy within the Swedish and Russian Empires, and Narva is on the western (or Estonian) side of that border. The issue was in respect to Jaanilinn on the eastern side of the Narva river that Estonia seized in 1920 during its independence war. Jaanilinn was always a Russian possession since Empire times so Estonia has no issue with it being in Russia. So there are no territorial claims from either side. The article you cite needs to be fixed to remove that evident ambiguity that misled you. --Nug (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Some nationalists are strongly pushing a POV that the brief independence the Baltic states enjoyed from Russia/Soviet Union between 1920-1940 continued "legally" during the 50 years they were part of the Soviet Union. While this is an argument, I do not think it is right, nor do I see any relevance to a Russian ice hockey player who was born in the Soviet Union. I believe one reason for this argument is to justify racial discrimination against non-Balts. I think USSR is the sensible response.176.1.212.131 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this claim of "nationalist POV pushing", well evidently bodies like the European community and scholars in the field of state sovereignty in declaring Soviet rule null and void are all a bunch or "baltic nationalists", clearly. Would you like me to provide reliable sources that state your viewpoint is part of the so-called Russian "patriotic-nationalist" POV? --Nug (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Komarov was clearly, provably born in the Estonian SSR, of the USSR. Any other "option" is a non-option, because it's original research at best, and blatant anti-Soviet PoV-pushing at worst. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 08:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Really, nobody disputes that the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states, but the guideline for the infobox template with regard to the place of birth is that it must be the sovereign state at the time of birth. As the title of this subsection suggests, the substantive issue under discussion is whether the Soviet Union acquired sovereignty or not. Heaps of verifiable sources have been cited that state the Soviet Union, despite its prolonged occupation, never acquired sovereignty, it simply is ludicrous to claim this is "OR". As for the some what ironic claim of "POV pushing", see my comment to the IP above. --Nug (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug bodies such as the European Union waged a long cold war against the Soviet Union, and continue to be hostile to Russia. The European Union includes all 3 Baltic States, and excludes Russia so is hardly neutral. I do not dispute that your views are sincerely held, and that there is some support for them, but the United Kingdom took the view that the Baltic States ceased to exist after the annexation, and Soviet sovereignty was recognised de facto or de jure by almost every other state. The fact that the Baltic States were part of the Russian Empire, Poland and Germany for centuries is also germane, but seems to have been erased from wikipedia. I am not sure that my viewpoint is part of the so-called Russian "patriotic-nationalist" POV, as I do not deny the current independence - if European Union membership can properly be described as such - of the states. It is a fact that they were part of the Soviet Union, indeed discrimination against Soviet citizens who moved, or were moved there, is based on this. While you can argue that they existed as independent states for 50 years, having gained independence 20 years previously, I do not see how this reflects reality. In this case what is particularily relevant is that the man in question was a Soviet citizen born to Soviet parents in a Soviet Republic. The fact that he has no rights to citizenship might also be considered germane.46.115.105.6 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Baltic countries were far from EU membership during the declarations in question. The cold war may have had an effect on these but it had and has no effect on mainstream scholarly research, which is independent by definition. Let me point it out to you that it is not the Euro-American vs. Soviet/Russian POV but the independent scholarly vs. Soviet/Russian government-controlled POV.

Most countries that took a stand on the issue, including the U.K., recognised the Soviet control (de facto) but did not recognise the sovereignity (de jure). Some countries, including the U.S., recognised neither.

Komarov's citizenship is reflected under the 'nationality' line, so this is irrelevant to his birth place. He might have been born as a Mongolian citizen to Kenyan parents, that would not affect his birth place.

It appears an RfC was opened on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918.3F So the debate might as well move there. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Opened by an IP who may well likely be a regular not wanting to be accused of forum shopping, the IP is certainly not a newbie despite the small number of edits. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh I don't disagree. The amusing thing is based on their edits I thought they supported your opinion. I actually assumed it was one of you or likely a meatpuppet of one of you but lacking proof wouldn't accuse anyone of such. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Although looking closer I do see now comments that mention you guys as nationalist POV pushers so you could be right. -DJSasso (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Having spent the past hour reading all of WT:BALTIC and WT:HOCKEY, I have the following comments: (1) I want that hour of my life back, lol. (2) The line "our arguments are still standing and until that it's no consensus" is the most amusing statement from the entire dispute, and I'm glad DJSasso corrected its author immediately: "consensus does not equal unanimity", it is reached when a majority of editors favour one solution and is not impeded by the continued adherence of a minority of editors to other viewpoints. (This is not to comment on whether consensus has or has not been reached in this case, just on what consensus entails in the general case.) (3) The claim that describing someone born in Riga in 1965 as born in the USSR "is OR" (especially with the implicit or explicit corollary that describing them as born in a sovereign and independent state of Latvia would be "NPOV") finishes a close second in the "most amusing statement" category. -sche (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll never get that hour back. Never. Btw, welcome to the black hole that is this argument. You may not leave.--Львівське (говорити) 21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@-sche, consensus does not equal unanimity, but it also isn't a vote either. It is based upon the quality of the arguments. We have brought verifiable reliable sources to the table, whereas all you have brought is an argument based upon what you WP:KNOW. --Nug (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

lol. You think that your arguments are valid, and the arguments of the people adovcating other approaches are invalid? Hm, where have I heard that before? Oh, right: from every side of every other dispute ever. In fact, a couple of the people advocating approaches different from yours here seem to think that their arguments are valid and yours are invalid. So... unless one of us is prepared to reveal that he or she has been vested by Jimbo and/or The Cabal™ with the power to unilaterally decide, over their opinions of other editors, whose arguments are valid and whose are invalid, we're back to "consensus is reached when a majority of editors favour one solution and [consensus] is not impeded by the continued adherence of a minority of editors to other viewpoints". :b -sche (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just that we have cited scholarly research on this topic and you have not. Nothing else really matters on Wikipedia (except for formal logic, perhaps). Until you beat our sources with better secondary sources dealing with this subject, it is "Narva, Estonia" or no consensus as long as you keep pushing your truth. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really that scholarly. There is a broad range of secondary sources. I think the argument regressed basically into "we've been doing it this way, convince us why we should change". The onus is somewhat on those who want change to demonstrate the benefit of the change. You may have felt it was self-evident. But it never seems to be. :-) To me, the over-riding principle is to be accurate and understandable to the reader. Be beneficial and don't talk down to readers but don't leave mysteries. Deliberately leaving out that Estonia was occupied/controlled as part of the USSR at the time of birth, I think, is leaving a bit of enigma and anachronism. It's tolerable, but it's not fully accurate. The reader has to click on the link to find out. That's why I think that's too far. I don't think you've proven that it is the best solution, but I think you've shown it's better than the opposing viewpoint of Narva, Estonian SSR, USSR, which I think is going too far the other way. It's not the common name of the place - it's the specific organization at that specific point in time. The SSR is gone and it was and is dubious. Not using the historical name of the place 'Estonia' at all is basically unacceptable. I think you've shown that. The SSR was of dubious usage during its existence, except maybe within the Soviet 'orbit', not internationally, widely outside the orbit and by consensus. We should not digress into debates over sovereignty when we are editing to provide information for the reader. It's more of a 'manual of style' debate. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You know you are not the only one here working towards a compromise, just your proposals get discussed while mine get reverted and ignored, such as these [31] [32]. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not mean anything. It was meant as a picture of how hard it is to effect change. If it's any consolation, it's been quite frustrating for me too. Alaney2k (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus #3

Alaney2k, would you please stop implimenting your "City, Country (then USSR)" proposal onto articles? There's no consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

When I'm on the wrong side of an argument with -you-, then I know I don't want to be here. I'm out. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So much about consensus. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're just going to troll, Jaan, don't bother hitting the edit button. Resolute 19:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, everyone here seems to have his or her own consensus. And I cannot see a real consensus coming until you stop shooting down compromise proposals based on votes and start discussing them, specifically Alaney2k's and mine. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is your idea of "compromise", then you shouldn't be surprised that not many are interested in it. That's just ridiculous and POV politicking well beyond the scope of an infobox. If you really want to compromise, then propose something realistic. But to my comment before, I think a lot of people have gotten very tired with you and Nug perpetuating this argument for weeks now. You are not doing anything productive with snide comments. Resolute 00:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Its a bit disingenuous to cherry pick some old edit of Jaan's in order to seemingly misrepresent what he is saying here. So exactly what is your problem with what Alaney2k and Jaan are proposing? --Nug (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do I reject Narva, Estonia (then USSR)? A) because the Soviet republic was called Estonian Soviet Socalist Republic and B) the USSR was the sovereign country at Komarov's birth & therefore shouldn't be in parenthesis. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your uncompromising hard line position (that hasn't moved one millimetre) is well known, I was addressing my question to Resolute. --Nug (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your uncompromising hard line position (that hasn't moved one milimetre) is well known, too. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that I indicated my support for Alaney2k's edit on your own talk page[33], you have just been caught with your pants down telling pork pies. --Nug (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall you accepting the Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) compromise. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Even Lvivske found that unacceptable and attempted a compromise with this edit, but you even reverted him to your preferred no-compromise version[34]. This hardline stance is disruptive to finding consensus. --Nug (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pointless for you & Jaan to continue with your agenda. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't have an agenda. We are just trying to represent what the mainstream sources say about this issue. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes you do, don't pretend otherwise. So does GoodDay. So do all of us. I think for some, however, it is more personal. And FWIW, I object to "(then USSR)" for the reason that it is redundant. We are talking about a birthplace at a single point in time. It goes without saying that the location was then in the USSR. Is "Narva, Estonia, Soviet Union" (or "Narva, Soviet Union (Estonia)") acceptable to either of you? Resolute 14:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Only with piped links to the Soviet Union. You see, your proposal doubles the birth country, just as "Czechoslovakia, Nazi Germany" or "Nazi Germany (Czechoslovakia)" as the birth place of the people born in Prague from 1938-45. As we all know, we are talking about complicated situations so at least minimal clarification of the double birth country is appropriate, along the lines of "Estonia (then controlled by the USSR)" or a piped link to the occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no occupation. Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union, just like Ukraine, Russia, Belarus etc etc. Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) is the more proper compromise. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to the sources this a fringe view. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You should be apologizing, for 'bleeping' around & wasting people's time, with your Baltic nationalist BS. If you & Nug are determined to get yourselves Topic-banned or even a long-term block? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How very constructive and compromising of you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that piped link is an easter egg. We should not be taking the reader where they do not expect to go. Resolute 16:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I know, so we are still short of a compromise solution against the double birth country. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay's claim "There was no occupation" is a minority POV, held predominately by Russian nationalists according to sources (I can cite them if anyone wants verification). I don't want to go over old ground, but someone questioned whether the 100+ states that remained silent could be presumed as giving "silent assent" to the Soviet incorporation. I argued that there is a strong presumption of state continuity thus silence means the original recognition remains unchanged, and someone claimed that was OR. However this source asserts: "For reasons of stability in international relations, international law practice also reveals a strong presumption in favour of the continuity of established states."

@Resolute, you say "It goes without saying that the location was then in the USSR", how is that inconsistent with "Narva, Estonia, (then in Soviet Union)"? More accurately "Narva, Estonia, (de facto Soviet Union)" or better yet "Narva, Estonia, (occupied by Soviet Union)" would be more consistent with what the sources say. --Nug (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be consistent with the POV you want to push. Resolute 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally POV pushing is related to the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Your accusation is somewhat ironic given that GoodDay (and seemingly you too) insists on presenting a minority POV (that there was no occupation, which has been identified as Russian nationalist POV, see David Mendeloff, Causes and Consequences of Historical Amnesia; The annexation of the Baltic states in post-Soviet Russian popular history and political memory[35]). I'm trying to find middle ground, but you seem "resolute" in ignoring that. --Nug (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I've taken a few days off from this nonsense. Now it's just devolved into trolling and lies from the same two who started this.--Львівське (говорити) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Who started this? You did here. So who is lying here? --Nug (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be glib, you two started this when you started reverting and disrupting consensus.--Львівське (говорити) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your bold edit which removed sources and sourced information and was conducted without consensus. Your actions preceded mine, so you cannot claim I started it. It has always been in your power to finish this discussion in compromise. I still urge you to do so instead of calling other editors trolls and liars. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing consensus

Nothing has changed here, in over a month. Recommend 'removing' the dispute-tag at Leo Komarov & going with the Narva, Soviet Union. If Nug or Jaan, choose to continue edit warring, then they should be escorted to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, there are several editors involved on both sides. No basis to remove the dispute tag with the opposing arguments still standing. However, if you feel entitled to report someone somewhere, good luck with that. Just be aware that your own conduct will be assessed as well. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like seeing those 'dispute tags', as there's nothing to dispute. But, they're better, then having you & Nug attempting to force your edits onto the articles. Afterall, it would be difficult to argue over these articles, if we're all blocked for edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty hypocritical from a guy who just broke the 3RR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually you both have made 3 reverts on that page in the last 24 hours. That being said it actually takes 4 to break it. Although that doesn't mean you both aren't edit warring. So both of you quit reverting each other. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed this one was not a revert but an original contribution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't negate the last part of my comment that you two were still edit warring and that you need to stop. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the page would stay fairly quiet if you refrained from altering it.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't touched that page since the 31st of January which is almost a month ago. While you have many times. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant GoodDay. And I have merely reverted his bold edits on the disputed subject. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been making repairs to the Templates of NHL team rosters & I'm not impressed with my findings. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder what the results would be for Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic & Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, if Jaan & Nug were to nominate them for deletion? GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Straw is not a substitute for discussion--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

When you 2 open AfDs on those articles, please do notifiy the related WikiProjects GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)