Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth

This page in a nutshell: How should a person's country of birth be indicated in (1) the main text of an article; and (2) in an infobox?

For the past few days, there has been a discussion occurring at the WikiProject Football talk page regarding how to define country of birth for those born in states that no longer exist, and how to include this in infoboxes. This was kickstarted by edits by User:Maracana to articles on footballers, changing the infoboxes of footballers to change country of birth to how it was known at the time. Examples of the changes made by this user include changing Mart Poom's infobox from Estonia to Soviet Union, changing Gabriel Zakuani's from DR Congo to Zaire, and changing Luka Modrić's from Croatia to Yugoslavia. Because of this, I started the discussion linked above, though in retrospect it is something that will reasonably affect all biographies on Wikipedia, hence this page to gain wider discussion, and to prevent any future edit wars that may arise around this issue, not just on football articles, such as the edit war from 2007 on Andriy Shevchenko, discussed here, and the numerous reverts of Maracana's edits.
So far, there have been numerous points raised in the discussion:

Early responses in the thread were agreeing with the changes made, that the infobox should state the countryofbirth as it existed at the time. Comparisons were raised to Jan Kaplický, whose infobox has always said "Prague, Czechoslovakia", and to Graeme Hick, an English cricketer who was born in Rhodesia, as stated by his infobox, though as a piped link to Zimbabwe. User:Dweller took the point to the extreme by pointing out that saying Trajan was born in Spain would be wrong, as the concept of Spain didn't exist at the time.
Around this time, as an early consensus appeared to have been established, Number 57 pointed out that this was how he had handled the issue when working on Israeli politician articles, and then elaborating in the article's prose along the lines of "born in Tallinn, Soviet Union (today in Estonia)" for the Mart Poom example earlier. This can be compared with User:Jacklee's earlier proposal of using the form "Tallinn, Estonia, Soviet Union" in the infobox itself. I also reverted my only rv of Maracana's edits.
Soon afterwards, User:Daemonic Kangaroo disagreed with the consensus, suggesting that Latvia didn't cease to exist while it was part of the Soviet Union, and that while someone born in Riga in the 1970s was born in the Soviet Union, they were also born in Latvia, and that it is equally correct, even, to say Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. He also suggests we are in danger of trying to be too politically correct, while User:Woody thinks things are the other way around.
As another possible solution to how to write countryofbirth, User:MTC suggest using "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union", to use the above Riga example, while User:Jacklee suggests using "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now the [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])" for the article, and either "Riga, Latvia" (note the piped link), or "Riga, Soviet Union" for the infobox, if space is considered an issue, with Number 57 preferring the latter for historical accuracy - that whatever it would have said on their passport should be used. Responding to one of Jacklee's points, User:Necronudist points out that long infoboxes aren't an issue, as <br> can be used, citing Aron Winter as an example.
JHONY echoes an earlier point that reaching a consensus and including it in a policy would be good, to avoid edit wars such as the one on the Andriy Shevchenko article linked above.
At this point, User:Oth suggests that the Occupation of Baltic States was illegal, and not generally recognised, and therefore changing country of birth to Soviet Union is "both confusing and political", and asks that if a person was born in Estonia between 1941 and 1944, would their country of birth be Reichskommissariat Ostland? Oth also admits to making a few reverts before realising the scale, similar to how I made one revert before checking contributions. Jacklee admits that the perceived legality of certain occupations and the like adds an additional complication, comparing the situation with that of Taiwan, which some countries consider part of the People's Republic of China, rather than an independent nation. He suggests that WT:WPF is probably not the best place for this discussion (which was my mistake, as the original user's edits were all to footballer articles). JHONY suggests Centralized discussion, and also points out that while changing country of birth to Soviet Union is confusing and political for some, reverting is confusing and political for others, and that controversial cases should probably be handled on an individual basis.
User:Dkua mentions that this discussion resurfaces regularly, again pointing to the Shevchenko talk page from above, which he participated in, adding that his viewpoint is unchanged from that discussion. That it is "important to put useful and relevant information, not just stick to a legal definition", and that "for someone born in an empire it is clearly important and relevant to include the constituent country/nation/republic rather than the empire", particularly if a person's legacy is associated with the constituent entity rather than the empire. Subsequent discussion is largely on how we determine what is useful and relevant to the reader, the definition of empire and the like. It can be found at WT:WPF#Defining country of birth, from Dkua's first post onwards, but is possibly a bit too tangential and hard to summarise here.
Jacklee agree's with JHONY's earlier point about creating a Centralized discussion page, I agree, and Jacklee suggests I start a page. I admit I'm not always the best person when it comes to summarising something concisely (probably self-apparent by this point), but I would go ahead if noone else volunteered, as I felt it was important to have a wider audience on the issue. JHONY suggests that I, or someone else who can't be accused of having a conflict of interest, should do it.
User:Martintg suggests that a comparison can be made with David Beckham, who we say was born in "London, England", rather than "London, European Union", or "London, United Kingdom". He contends that for the Mart Poom example, "Tallin Estonia" would suffice, as Soviet Union is too large like the EU, and Estonian SSR is too formal, like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. JHONY suggests this is a false analogy, as England, Scotland, Wales e.t.c are considered independent nations in football, with their own national teams and national leagues (for those not familiar with this, see Football in the United Kingdom). He suggests that on the contrary, the best Estonian footballers played for the Soviet Union national team, and that the best Estonian teams competed in the Soviet League System. Martintg contends that countryofbirth refers to the geographic location, rather than the political entity, and therefore it would be clearer for our readers if we use the current name of a location, rather than the name of a former political entity. JHONY suggests the wording should be along the lines of "Dvirkivschyna, present Ukraine", rather than just "Dvirkivschyna, Ukraine". Going back to an earlier example, Peanut4 says that Gabriel Zakuani was born in Kinshasa, and less specifically was born in Zaire, not in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so his place of birth should be Kinshasa, Zaire.
JHONY points to Centralized discussion again, but Martintg suggests that as this is a football issue, it should be kept here. JHONY says it is not directly related to football, and and Peanut4 agrees, citing his Graeme Hick example from the top of the discussion.
Martintg suggests that if we are going to put someone's place of birth as "Kiev, Soviet Union", then we must be consistent and use "London, European Union". User:PeeJay2K3 states that this makes no sense, as the Soviet Union was a recognised country, while the European Union is not.

Much of the discussion from this point on is retreading old ground I think, and if required can always be found on the original talk page linked above. I fear I'm already on the wrong side of the concise/comprehensive line, so I'll leave it at this.
I think to summarise, we need to reach a consensus on how to write the place of birth for people (not just footballers) who were born in places that no longer exist, or go by a new name, e.t.c. Once a consensus is reached, it would probably be a plan to put it in policy somewhere, to link to in future discussions on the issue, or if there are edit wars or the like.
To the users that took part in that original discussion, if I've misrepresented your views or left out important ones, feel free to say so below. I have a slight suspicion that I've not done this "right", as well. I found Wikipedia:Centralized discussion#Usage rather confusing, and I'm not familiar with this process, so apologies again if I've done everything wrong. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Is it too simplistic to suggest that we simply say that the individual was born in Kinshasa, or Kiev, or London, and let the reader who is interested in further detail or uncertain as to where it is follow the link? Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nationality is a quite important trait, so I wouldn't like it left out of a bio's introduction. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can introduce "citizenship"("nationality") in the infobox and then remove country of birth at all in controversial cases. I would support that. Jhony 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't agree with that. The only people making it a controversial issue are POV pushers who want to rewrite history. If someone was born in Baku in 1960, they were born in the Soviet Union, like it or not. Likewise, someone born in Bulawayo in 1955 was born in Southern Rhodesia. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - With regard to countries that were former Soviet Republics, why not just (for example) born in Riga, Latvia where Latvia is a wikilink to Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic as that would then cover all those interested to find out the historical context of the players country of birth as it would lead them to the specific Soviet Republic, and as has been said Latvia and all the other countries within the Soviet Union did not cease to exist.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To Number57: I just have tried to assume good faith. Surely I will support wording like Riga, Soviet Union too. Jhony 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piping as in [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]] is by far the best solution. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed that articles about American footballers have the following conventions for country of birth: cityofbirth = [[City name]], [[State name]] | countryofbirth = [[United States]]. For example, North Brunswick, NJ, U.S. (Tim Howard). So shouldn't we stick to Riga, Latvia, USSR? Jhony 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the one, AnteaterZot, "piping" is what I meant (sorry I did't know the term), that though would surely cover everything as it shows they were born in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic and anyone who wishes to check further can do so.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I would say this just illustrates the reasons why infoboxes should be kept to a minimum - they always encourage inaccurate oversimplification. In text one can say "Riga, Latvia (then part of the Soviet Union..." or some such formula. Secondly, before drafting new rules, the complexities of pre-national periods need to be considered. Germany and Italy were not states until the late 1800s. Other countries, like Lorraine and Flanders were nations and states but stopped being so hundreds of years ago. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Wales, Scotland and England ceased to exist as independent states long ago, but in the context of sport they continue to be noted as "country of birth". The histories of all countries are too varied and complex to enable some general "one-size-fits-all" rule. We must look at each on a case by case basis. Martintg (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Digression on status of Soviet Union started here - moved to own section below Johnbod (talk)

we should also not necessarily make general rules based on the particular situation of the baltic republics, any more than on the basis of PRC and Taiwan. There should be some way of handling this on a basis that does not involve resolving the political status of the area at the time. When we need simple wording as in an infobox, I think the best rule in general for contemporary figures is to use the nationality they ascribe to themselves, and to historical figures, the nationality used at the time they were active, and explain more fully in the text. The main principal is not to waste time in reverting established articles. DGG (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must take particular care where the place has changed names and/or hands since the birth. Trajan is a bit of an extreme, but take George Habash, rightfully describing his place of birth as Lydda, British Mandate of Palestine, rather than Lod, Israel; there have been lots of places where borders have shifted, states coalesced or collapsed, but we should record the state of affairs at the time of the event (here a birth), so Jesus was born in Judea, not in the West Bank; Imanuel Kant born at Königsberg, Kingdom of Prussia, not Kaliningrad, Russian Federation, etc. I think due to piped links, if anyone really followed to find out about the city where someone was from, they'd realize that the long dead would hardly recognize the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest following approach: wikilinked city, then name of the country as it was known back then (country which controlled the ground), name of the country today. Therefore Trajan had been born in "Whatevercity", "Iberia" (now "Spain"). Somebody born in Tbilisi in 1980 will have "Tbilisi", "USSR" (now Georgia). Somebody born in Tallinn in 1942 should probably have "German Empire" as 2nd part, although I don't mind clarifications (Georgian SSR) and (Ostland) or (occupied Estonia) in brackets, or even vice versa, like "Georgian SSR" ("USSR"). George Habash is wonderful example. He must be listed as being born in Lidda (Lod), British Mandate of Palestine (now Israel). Let's leave political wikiwars aside. RJ CG (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing two issues[edit]

Would just like to comment that there are two issues here that should be distinguished: (1) how a person's country of birth should be stated (1) in the main article text; and (2) in an infobox. From what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be much dispute that for issue (1) a person's place of birth should be stated as it was at the time of birth with the current country in parentheses, e.g., "Prague, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)". We may therefore have consensus on at least this point. As to issue (2), is there consensus on the point that the same rule should apply, that is, a person's place of birth should be stated as it was at the time of birth? If so, then the remaining issue is what should be done about states with disputed legality in international law. On this point, see my comments below. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not sure there is consensus even on the first point, at least where the current country was a recognised national unit of a now-disappeared larger supra-national state - like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia (Federal Republics), the Habsburg or Byzantine Empires. I think it is both more accurate and less offensive to national sentiment to say "... Split, Croatia (then part of Yugoslavia)..." than "... Split, Yugoslavia (now in Croatia)...". Also we rightly use Italy, Ireland, Germany and other countries for dates well before they existed as national states, and usually don't bother to mention whatever state the location was then part of. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digression into legality of Soviet Union etc[edit]

Most western countries never recognised the incorporation of Latvia or Estonia into the Soviet Union and Soviet rule was seen as illegal. The pre-war states continued to exist de-jure, hence strictly speaking players like Poom were born in the Republic of Estonia, not the illegal puppet state of the Estonian SSR. Martintg (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting the issue of illegality to one side, the Estonian and Latvian SSR were political entities, while Estonia and Latvia are nations. When we talk of French players, do we say players born before 1958 are born in the French Fourth Republic and those born after 1958 are born in the French Fifth Republic? No, we simply say they were born in France. So in the same way we should say Latvian/Estonian players were born in Latvia or Estonia without any piping. Martintg (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, they had Soviet citizenship. Why are some editors so keen to cover up the fact that people were born in the USSR? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since restoration of Republic of Estonia, Mart Poom has been considered a natural-born citizen of it, and having holded republic's citizenship since birth. You were saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.24.213 (talk • contribs)
    - Equally some french players had citizenship of the French Fourth Republic. Why are some editors intent on highlighting the fact that some players were born in a defunct totalitarian regime? Martintg (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Completely different situations. The country was France and still is France. The Soviet Union was a country but doesn't exist anymore. The fact that it was a totalitarian regime is irrelevant. Do we hide the fact that people born in Pyongyang are from North Korea? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Estonia is still Estonia, just because the Soviet Union set up an illegal puppet state on the territory of Estonia, does not mean Estonian citizenry ceased to exist. The Soviets may have attempted to impose Soviet citizenship, but also citizenship of the de jure Estonian state continued to exist. Martintg (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So did no-one recognise Soviet passports held by people from Tallinn, Riga etc? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Most did, but most also recognized the passports issued by the existing foreign legations of the de-jure states. Martintg (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is unfortunate that people think that we need to refight the battles over the Cold War annexation of the Baltic States here. Why not include a link on every Lithuanian footballer's page about how huge numbers of ethnic Lithuanians enthusiastically participated in killing their Jewish neighbors in WWII? AnteaterZot (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ??? What has the Cold War and your rather appalling non-factual comment on the unfortuate fate of Lithuanian Jews have to do with this thread here on citizenship and the rule of law. At the time of Poom's birth he held two citizenships, de facto citizenship of the Soviet state and de jure citizenship of the Estonian republic. How do we address this in the info box. I suggest the solution is to simply refer to his country of birth as Estonia without any piping, as it was originally. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest the infobox states Soviet Union and that the intro states Soviet Union (today Estonia). The fact that a few countries didn't recognise the occupation is irrelevant; these people had Soviet passports and lived under the Soviet administration. Do we have to say that people born in Taiwan were born in China because many countries do not recognise the Republic of China? We should recognise facts not theories, and the fact is that Estonia was part of the Soviet Union; only in theory was it independent. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You do know what de jure means, don't you? It has nothing to do about "in theory it was independent". The foreign legations of the Estonian Republic also issued passports which were recognised as valid travel documents. The Soviet Union was nominally a union of sovereign socialist states, that mostly covered the area of the former Russian Empire, it is too geograpgically imprecise to be used as a "country of birth" in an infobox. Should we say someone born in Australia before the federation in 1901 as "Newcastle, British Empire"? Would you know where that was? Martintg (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes I am quite aware of what de jure means. Do you know what de facto means? Again, your Australia example is completely different. Australia was not part of the United Kingdom, but a set of separate colonies, so I would list it as Newcastle, New South Wales (for a similar scenario, see Kwame Nkrumah's infobox, which lists his place of birth as "Gold Coast (now Ghana)"). The Soviet Union was a single state, not an empire - its MPs were elected from the entire area, not just part of it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        According to Britannica [1], the Soviet Union was indeed an empire, an northern Eurasian empire stretching from the Baltic and Black seas to the Pacific Ocean and consisting of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics, with the Russian SFSR being the dominant constituent state. While New South Wales was never a part of the United Kingdom, the Estonian SSR was never a part of the Russian SFSR, but both New South Wales and the Estonian SSR belonged to empires controlled by the British Crown and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (originally called the Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks))respectively. Martintg (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It might have been described as an Empire, but it was still a single country according to the Britannica link you provided. Estonians elected MPs to the Soviet parliament; this did not happen anywhere in the British Empire. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are kidding, right? There were no MPs in the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union was not a parliamentary democracy. Soviet era ballots usually had 98.9% turn out with 99.8% voting for the single Kremlin appointed candidate. Martintg (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It might have been a sham (and I don't like your insinuation that I believe otherwise; please stop trying to devalue my opinion with stupid questions and comments and debate like a grown up), but the point is that the parliament had representatives from all areas of the USSR and therefore can be counted as a single country unlike the British Empire. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        People in the UK have elected MEPs to sit in the European Parliament, the EU has representatives from all parts of the EU. Martintg (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, the EU is quite different; it is a supranational body, not a country; it doesn't have a seat at the UN or a sports team. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The Soviet Union initially demanded 15 seats in the UN for each of its 15 republics, but in the end it was permitted to hold three seats, with the Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR being admitted. A single country does not hold three seats. The USA, twice the population of the Soviet Union only holds one seat. Martintg (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Two quotes: "The United States was also offered three members but to political problems (regarding which TWO of the 48 states would be represented) the two additional votes were never acted upon." and "In reality this simply meant giving the Soviet Union extra seats (and votes) in the UN, since the Ukrainian SSR had no independent voice in international affairs". So the USA (a single country) could have held 3 seats, but didn't. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the USA was offered three seats but they didn't take it up, while the Soviet Union demanded 15 seats and had to settle for three. This to me is affirmation by the Soviet Union itself that it did not want to be seen as a single country, unlike the USA which was happy with a single seat. Martintg (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Number 57. I generally prefer to name the country as it was known at the time. Individual cases where the identity of the country at a particular time was disputed are beyond my ability to judge. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've used a lot of examples having to do with Eastern Europe, so you have "Riga, Russia", "Riga, Latvia", "Riga, Latvia (SSR)" or "Riga, Latvia (USSR)", and back to "Riga, Latvia." However, we haven't even scratched the surface of the real litmus test, which is how to deal with Africa, which has gone through far more radical changes over the last half century. Whatever our framework for coming to conclusions in this discussion, we should not assume old territories approximate current territories, nor should we assume people have any familiarity with those territories, either past or present. —PētersV (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was the Soviet Union a country?[edit]

As the debate above doesn't appear to be going anywhere, do other people want to add their two pennys' worth? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a socialist union of 15 countries. Martintg (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that it was a single (federal) country along the lines of the USA or Australia. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please.......! And was Soviet Union really Soviet? And was it really socialist? What a useless debate... --necronudist (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sadly there is obviously not agreement on the issue, so this needs to be resolved in order for us to have consensus on what we can use as "country of birth". пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Soviet Union wasn't a country. It was a pipe. --necronudist (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God! Yes, it was a country. Also, I don't think that the best way of spending time is discussing Soviet Union with Estonian nationalist, who Martintg obviously is. Jhony 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to be Australian. I would be careful with your assumptions of bad faith. Whereas you, on the other hand, are a Russian national from Saint Petersburg, what is your agenda here? Martintg (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Formally, Soviet Union was an union of (sovereign) Socialist Republics. They had own governments and even the right to secede from the Union. In reality, of course things were ran differently. Oth (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also the Soviet Union itself wanted the world to see it as a union of 15 countries, when it demanded 15 seats in the UN for each of its republics. Martintg (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Martintg. I wonder who else, except for nationalists, would repeat in every single message that Soviet Union was not a recognized country and even claim that, citation, "one didn't have Soviet Union "nationality""? How many reliable sources where claimed that "Soviet Union is not a recognized country" and "there is not such thing as a Soviet nationality" can you find? Or it's just your allegations and WP:OR? Jhony 00:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I a nationalist? No, I'm not. I just annoyed with your utter unwillingness to reach a consensus. Jhony 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Was Grossdeutsches Reich a country? Where was Christian, Prince of Denmark, born at Sorgenfri Castle on October 22, 1942, born? Was he born in Denmark or in the Grossdeutsches Reich? Keskminehermann (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you could read this article before asking your question. Germans basically let Danes manage their own affairs pre-1943 and Denmark was not a member of Grossdeutsches Reich in 1942. So Christian, Prince of Denmark, was born in The Kingdom of Denmark. RJ CG (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the issues[edit]

It sounds like we need to establish or clarify a few things:

When we refer to "country" in the term "country of birth", what do we mean? The geographical region or the political state? It seems to me that most of us are referring to it in the second sense.
A particular problem seems to arise when a person was born in a constituent country (e.g., Estonia) of a larger political entity (e.g., the Soviet Union). It is then necessary to determine whether the larger political entity should be considered as the relevant "country" or not. Is there any neutral definition than can be borrowed from elsewhere or developed? Should the matter depend on whether the law of the larger political entity provides for citizenship of that entity, or of its constituent countries, i.e., during the Soviet era, did Estonians hold Estonian citizenship or citizenship of the Soviet Union? What if they held both?
Is it necessary to develop slightly separate rules for infoboxes because of the need for brevity? Should the rule be on the lines of "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])" in the main text of an article, and "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]]" (i.e., just the constituent country) in the infobox?
Is there any neutral way of determining whether a political state is (or was) legally recognized as a matter of international law? What is the relevant standard – is it enough if a majority of UN member states recognize the state? We may need a subject expert to comment on the matter. Can a request be posted at a suitable WikiProject?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like:

"[[Riga]], [[Latvia]] (then [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvian S.S.R.]])"

would make the text vs. target relationship of the links a fair bit less confusing. — CharlotteWebb 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvian S.S.R.]], [[Soviet Union]] (now [[Latvia]])" makes more sense to me than "[[Riga]], [[Latvia]] (then [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvian S.S.R.]]). Former describe administration of the day, then clarifies what country this area belongs to today, latter tears information about place of origin apart and inserts today's ruler in the middle."RJ CG (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CharlotteWebb's suggestion is certainly better than [[Riga]], [[Soviet Union]]. My view is that for the purpose of an infobox, the "country of birth" should be the country in the geographical sense. Particularly for contemporary people, readers want to know at a glance where the person was born. I think the description of the political state can be complicated, so it is best to have that discussed in the text of the article itself. If rule is to refer to the political state in the infobox, it opens up a whole can of worms. Do we refer to people born in war time Estonia as born in [[Reichskommissariat Ostland]], or in France before 1958 as born in [[French Fourth Republic]]? Martintg (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be correct, indeed. I don't care what's more "user friendly", AFAIK this is an encyclopedia. --necronudist (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know where Riga is, but a casual reader may not, and [[Riga]], [[Soviet Union]] is totally useless in conveying where a person was born. Martintg (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our fault if he was born in Soviet Union...come on...we must respect facts. --necronudist (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So someone born in Prague in 1943 [2] should have their infobox as [[Prague]], [[Nazi Germany]]? Let's be clear on the implications here. Martintg (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as that is what the situation was at the time. Is there a problem with that? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About questions from Jacklee:

Personally, I see at it as a geographical place, a location on the Planet Earth.
Is UK example relevant here? As I understand at least footballers are "sorted" according to the constituent countries into Welsh, Scottish etc and they are not just from United Kingdom. I looked at the List of Scottish writers and infoboxes of writers follow the suit.
I would suggest keeping infobox entry short and "geographical". Political nuances can be covered in the article text according to their importance to the subject. In the case of Estonia I would use in infobox either "Pärnu, Estonian SSR" (w/ or w/o piping) or just "Pärnu, Estonia" (I prefer the last one, but I am a bit nationalistic here).
I think it's best to leave this matter to experts. Public discussion, I'm afraid, would be long, ugly and probably useless.

Thank you, Oth (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but, in my opinion, things are simple: Mr. X Y was born in Riga, Latvian SSR, Soviet Union. This is a fact. Then we try to "adapt" this info to make it easy for the poor user who don't know where Riga is to know where Mr. X Y was born. He was born in Soviet Union, want it or not. If you wanna know where Riga is now, click on it, or maybe add a (now Latvia). But don't mystify facts. --necronudist (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to swear I did not read your comment before I wrote mine, but I proposed same approach. In your example "Riga" was part of "Latvian SSR", "Soviet Union" (now "Latvia"). All 4 entities need to be wikilinked. But somebody born in Zagreb was probably born in "Zagreb", "Yugoslavia" (now "~~Bosnia~~Croatia"). Three links here. RJ CG (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(now "Latvia") is a bit odd as Latvia has been "Latvia" for many centuries, even if it bore the clunky title "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" during its 51 years annexed as a puppet state (during which everyone outside the USSR still referred to it as "Latvia", of course). Perhaps "X Y was born in Riga, Latvia (during Soviet occupation)" would be a little over-the-top

but it's laughable to imply that Latvia "wasn't Latvia yet" at the time of X Y's birth. — CharlotteWebb 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Moscow has been Moscow for many centuries. And what, is Moscow a country? Jhony 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, and your point is? Charlotte is right - Germany, Italy, Hungary, Ireland etc are other examples, as I've just said above - summary or whatever section. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if x has been x for many centuries, that doesn't mean that x is a country. Secondly, we are talking about countries, not about nations. When Soviet Union annexed Latvia, Latvia ceased to exist as a country, since country is a political state by definition. Jhony 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the definition of a country at all. Germany, Italy etc were always countries, but not always states. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy was always a country? So Ancient Rome is a hoax or how? Jhony 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Ancient Rome was a city, which eventually conquered Italy (as it was already known, though then excluding Sicily) and then many other countries. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example, anyway we already agreed that both Latvia and Soviet Union are countries. Jhony 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, since Rome hasn't changed its geographical position, it means that it hasn't changed its belonging to a country since Ancient Rome?!? (contradiction) Jhony 01:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Latvia's current independence is not a basis to rewrite a history. Jhony 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it revisionist to state the obvious, that Latvia was called "Latvia" before, during, and after the Soviet regime, S.S.R. or not? — CharlotteWebb 01:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that Latvia was called Latvia during Soviet Era, doesn't contradict with a fact that Latvia was a part of a country called Soviet Union at that time. Jhony 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't, so I was wondering what you meant by "rewriting history". — CharlotteWebb 02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why then you are against using Soviet Union as a country of birth, if you agree that in fact it is a country of birth? Jhony 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought somebody had already mentioned that countries can contain other countries, or puppet states, whatever you want to call them. — CharlotteWebb 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, as a general rule of thumb, that we refer to the smallest unit that could be considered autonomous. In this case, we refer to Latvia and clarify that it was formerly known as the Latvian SSR. — CharlotteWebb 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Wouldn't it violate WP:NPOV? Jhony 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of fact. "John was born in Riga, Latvia. At the time of John's birth, Latvia was known as the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (as it was a constituent state of the Soviet Union) from 1940 to 1991)." This is a verbose way of saying exactly the same thing, the part in parentheses being one click away on the Latvian SSR page. Is this somehow non-neutral? — CharlotteWebb 03:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Above is a verbose way to say Riga, Latvia (then Soviet Union). Jhony 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Oth, about UK. England, Scotland etc are like independent nations in football (a tribute to their football contributions), with separate national teams and separate leagues. On the contrary, best Latvian footballers played for Soviet Union national team and best Latvian teams competed in Soviet League System. So example is irrelevant. Jhony 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the List of Scottish writers. Martintg (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another case, as List of people from California also exists. Jhony 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important is that Scottish writers have just Scotland as a "country of birth" in their infoboxes, not the list itself. It serves as an example outside football. Oth (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not England and Scotland are "like independent nations in football' is irrelevant because Template:Infobox Football biography asks for countryofbirth - not football_association_of_the_area_at_birth or something_like_an_independent_nation_but_only_in_football_of_birth. The only thing that is relevant is that Scotland and England are countries (as well as constituent countries). Note that both England and United Kingdom are countries (if you read the definition of a country, alternatively a definition of a country at Merriam-Webster. Dkua (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, most templates I've seen use birth_place or place_of_birth (though often with a wide variation in spacing and capitalization). — CharlotteWebb 02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Although this is a special case, we should consider a possibility to change UK places of birth to something of a Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. In what sense both England and United Kingdom are countries? Jhony 02:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "born in Riga, Latvia (SSR)". This is brief enough, and emphasizes (a) that Latvia has always been Latvia, and (b) that Latvia was temporarily the "Latvian SSR", including at the time of XY's birth. — CharlotteWebb 02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see what is wrong with Riga, Soviet Union (today Latvia), and the only arguments I have heard against it seem to be attempts to deny the USSR's existence. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 02:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious problem with that is that only a relatively tiny part of the former Soviet Union is known as Latvia, and that part was Latvia even while occupied by the Soviets. It's presented as an implied quid pro quo, as one might say "Siam (today Thailand)", but that doesn't work well here. — CharlotteWebb 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "that part was Latvia even while" is irrelevant. At the time of particular person's birth is was a part of Soviet Union country, not reflecting that is a violation of WP:NPOV. Jhony 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What it shows is that person was born in the Soviet Union and in a part of the USSR that is today the the Republic of Latvia. And TBH, I would list people born in pre-1949 Thailand as being born in Siam (today Thailand). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is Siam and Thailand are geographically equivalent, whereas Latvia and [the entire] Soviet Union are obviously not. Thus saying "Soviet Union (today Latvia)" could cause confusion as to the physical dimensions of Latvia. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. — CharlotteWebb 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riga, Latvia, USSR solves the problem. Jhony 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you would oppose any language which clarifies that Latvia is no longer a socialist republic or that the USSR no longer exists (almost as if the article had been written decades ago)? Ask yourself if this would violate NPOV. — CharlotteWebb 03:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. I offered a number of variants, from Riga, Latvia (then Soviet Union) to Riga, present Latvia. Jhony 03:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a country[edit]

Here's some quotes and links:

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 (Australia): "Foreign country means any country (whether or not an independent sovereign state) outside Australia and the external Territories;" URL
INTERNATIONAL BANK ACT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA): ""Foreign country" means a country or sovereign government other than the United States and includes any colony, dependency, state or possession of such country or sovereign government other than the United States;" URL
International Law Reports (Hardcover) by Elihu Lauterpacht (Editor), C. J. Greenwood (Editor), A. G. Oppenheimer (Editor), 748 pages, Cambridge University Press (2002): "We agree with the Government that a "foreign country" does not refer solely to a foreign sovereign or independent nation. Both now and in the mid-1800s, the word "country" had a variety of meanings, including, among others: ...Oxford English Dictionary, supra... "the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories", id. at 1042 (emphasis added)." URL
Country
Constituent country

Dkua (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is Soviet Union a country by that definitions? Jhony 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. Dkua (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such case, would you agree with Kyiv, Ukraine, USSR? Jhony 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it whatsoever (though in the actual rule I would avoid being overly prescriptive). If you remember the debate was stirred by Maracana replacing Ukraine/Latvia/Estonia etc. with USSR, not adding USSR. Dkua (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember. Good that we finally agreed on something. Jhony 03:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

I would set aside the definitions of "country" or "foreign country" in statutes as unhelpful. Statutes define terms only for the purposes of the law contained in the statutes, and do not purport to give general definitions of terms as they are ordinarily used. I feel the most accurate definition is the one from the Oxford English Dictionary: "the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories".
However, this definition appears to confirm the fact that there is no single accepted definition of a "country". Should Wikipedia try to define how the term is used in the Manual of Style? If so, the issue that needs a decision is whether a guideline to state a person's "country of birth" refers to a constituent country (e.g., Latvia), the larger political entity that it is a part of (e.g., the USSR), or both.
Does anyone have a suggestion on which WikiProject we might approach for an answer to the question of what to do with countries that were not legally recognized by other countries at all, or only recognized by some and not others?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by the Oxford English dictionary definition of country as "the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories", then [[Estonia]] and [[Latvia]] are the correct "country of birth", since they were "distinct in race, language and historical memories" even when they were a part of the Soviet Union. This is consistent with the treatment of Scotland and Wales as distinct countries. Martintg (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that. However, to be accurate, Scotland and Wales are constitutent countries of a larger state, the United Kingdom. The question therefore is, when we use the term "country of birth" in the Manual of Style, do we mean simply a constituent country, the larger state that the constitutent country is a part of, or both? This may be an issue that consensus can be reached upon. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at birth places of people listed in List of Scottish writers, then it seems the current practice is to list the constituent country only. Martintg (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that no specific thought was given to the matter for the persons listed in "List of Scottish writers". Anyway, this centralized discussion is an opportunity to see if there is consensus one way or another. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick polls[edit]

Participants in this discussion may wish to briefly respond to these quick polls, for the purpose of gauging whether consensus is moving in one direction or another.

Present-day country first, or vice versa?[edit]

Where a person's place of birth is set out in full (as in the main text of an article), which of the following do editors prefer?

"[[Riga]], [[Latvia]] (then [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic]])"
"[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union|USSR]] (now [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])"

Option 2 – CharlotteWebb suggested Option 1 and I appreciate that it is more succinct, but to me it seems historically incorrect to say that a person was born in Latvia (that is, the present-day Republic of Latvia) when it was not called by that name at the time of birth. That having been said, I have no objection to the state being termed "Latvia" as long as the actual political entity existing at the time is linked to. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, as Soviet Union, while also being a country where a person born, isn't mentioned in Option 1. Would also agree with [[Riga]], [[Latvia]] (then part of [[Soviet Union]]), however Option 2 is more correct one. Jhony 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, obviously there is going to be no perfect option, anything you come up with someone will come up with a situation where it becomes ridiculous. But #2 is the best. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Option 2, this is an encyclopedia and me must reflect facts. --necronudist (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, as explained above; more accurate. Perhaps we need to get away from the Baltic States & think about on eg Germany pre 1880! Option 1 has ludicrous results applied to many earlier situations, and certainly should not be enforced. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlisted Option, the other options are too brief for a main text description. Prefer Charlottes formulation "xxxx was born in Riga, Latvia. At the time of xxxx's birth, Latvia was known as the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (as it was a constituent state of the Soviet Union) from 1940 to 1991)." Martintg (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fine way to put it, but should not all be in the first sentence or two. In most cases the second sentence of that need not be in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against both - What's the point in overcomplicating things? Spare a thought for a reader of the article about Jan Koller which would then have something like "born in Czech Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)". This particularly doesn't belong in an infobox. Note that someone has already started putting this idea in practice - look at the ridiculous Marian Pahars infobox - not only is it unnecessarily long-winded (there's even a footnote) but also there's no such thing as "Republic of Ukraine" (it's simply "Ukraine"), but of course one can't write "Ukraine (now Ukraine)". Dkua (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, but in the form of Riga, Soviet Union (today Latvia); as noted above by Dkua, Kiev, Ukraine, Soviet Union (today Ukraine) just looks silly. Constituent country is not necessary except in biographies of sportspeople who play for a constituent country ~~where the situation is unchanged since their birth~~ (i.e. Scottish footballers would have "born Edinburgh, Scotland, UK", but people that now play for Armenia would not have born Yerevan, Armenia, USSR, as Armenia did not have its own sports teams when it was part of the USSR). пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What a bizarre criteria - whether the national team existed at the time of the person's birth. Why would it matter to a reader? Are you suggesting you can't write that Billy Bassett or John Goodall were born in England because England still did not have a national team when they were born? How about Viacheslav Turchanov, a Ukraine Under-17 international who was born 2 weeks before Ukraine seceded from the USSR? You still can't mention that he was born in Ukraine even though the only USSR team he could have possibly played for was a USSR Under-2-Weeks National Team? And Denys Prychynenko who was born after Ukraine's secession from the USSR but before it had a national team? And what criteria would you have for Scottish writers - whether there was a national association of Scottish writers at the time of the writer's birth? This overcomplication you are suggesting is completely unnecessary in my view. Dkua (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Turchanov was still born in the USSR, regardless of the fact that it was 2 weeks before it was dissolved. Prychynenko would be listed as being born in Ukraine because it was an independent state and not a constituent state at the time of his birth (making the sports criteria irrelevant). The two English examples are more complicated because no international football teams existed at the time of their birth, but I would list them as being born in England. пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I shouldn't have put that "unchanged" bit in, as the UK is pretty much the only country with constituent nations having separate sports teams. I've struck it out. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's were we differ - you think that Billy Bassett, John Goodall, Denys Prychynenko, Viacheslav Turchanov, Andriy Shevchenko and Mart Poom are different cases and keep coming up with ever more complex criteria to justify it. I don't see a point in designing these overcomplicated criteria. And since you decided to answer my questions (which were meant to be rhetorical) why didn't you answer the one about Scottish writers? And what would you criteria be for military leaders - whether the country of their birth had an army? Dkua (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't say that a caveat regarding sportspeople born before international sports existed is "ever more complex criteria". I pointed out how the criteria would apply to your two Ukrainian examples rather than changing it to fit them. I think that sportspeople are the only ones that need the caveat of constituent country; Scottish writers to not compete for Scotland on the world stage. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have just designed yet another criteria - whether the members of the respective profession compete with others on the world stage. So a footballer born in Scotland will have "Glasgow, Scotland" in the infobox, but a writer is not allowed to have Scotland and will have "Glasgow, United Kingdom" because "he doesn't compete on the world stage"; a military leader will presumably still have "Glasgow, Scotland" based on your criteria (presumably Scotland "competed" with others militarily on the world stage at different times?). What's the point of all this? That was my question - I didn't need your clarification on how you would apply your criteria to the two Ukrainian examples, it was rather obvious; however it was bizarre. Particularly bizarre given that you proposed to apply the criteria differently even for those who "compete on the world stage". Dkua (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said originally, limit the application of constituent country to sportspeople; the competing for the country bit is not "yet another criteria" - I was merely pointing out the logic behind the sportspeople bit. If someone fought for Scotland, it was when the country was independent anyway. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And I don't see how I was applying it differently for the two Ukrainians; constituent country would only be included for sportspeople. One of the players was born in the Soviet Union (of which the Ukraine was not a contituent country in sports terms) and the other was born in the Ukraine (which was not a constituent country in sports terms; it was an independent country). How is this different? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Having thought about it some more, I'll clarify again:
        The infobox should contain city plus sovereign state/overseas colony/overseas department at time of birth (including de facto states, e.g. Northern Cyprus), whilst the text should contain city plus sovereign state/overseas colony/overseas department (today sovereign state X (if different)), unless they are British sportspeople, in which case the constituent country is included.
        The rationale for the single caveat is that the home nations compete separately at in most sports - even though they compete as one at the Olympics, they split for the Commonwealth games. I can't think of any other countries that do this, but if there are, then they should be included in the caveat. I await your hole-pointing-out :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. You have come up with yet another of your bizarre criteria, which appears to have been created just for the sake of it. Apparently only overseas colonies can be mentioned. Previously you came up with a new notion, "constituent countries from a sporting point of view". I am not picking holes, I don't need it, I am just expressing my astonishment at someone going to such lengths designing such meaningless rules. I have asked you a few times why you do this and you keep replying what you do. I see what you do - in my view there's no point in it, it's just a set of bizarrely overcomplicated rules which seem to have only one purpose - make sure that constituent countries are not mentioned in infoboxes. And that is our principal disagreement - I think mentioning constituent countries is fundamentally useful, and that someone trying to delete them is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. Dkua (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's just my opinion that mentioning constituent countries is not particularly useful, except in cases where it would be silly to omit it (i.e. in cases where those constituent countries act like sovereign countries - and the only occasion I can see this happening is the British sports teams). Is that the answer you were looking for? I can explain the reasons behind colonies etc later if you want :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In all honesty I don't quite believe your answer but I may be wrong. Perhaps indeed there are people who think that whether one was born and brought up in Estonia or Tajikistan makes no difference. I find it incomprehensible and I tend to think you have an agenda, but then again, there are all kinds of unusual people. Yesterday while checking how Britannica deals with birthplaces I learned that Lazar Kaganovich was born in Ukraine (yes I didn't know it), and that was quite a discovery. The person who brought upon so much suffering on Ukraine and its people was actually born and raised in Ukraine! If you find facts like this "not useful" then at least you should be able to try and step outside your own shoes and look at things from others' perspetive; otherwise it is your opinion that becomes "not useful" (or rather only useful as part of a larger, more representative sample). Dkua (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but my preferred way of doing it would still show that Kaganovich was born in the Ukraine in the text, just not in the infobox (see Moshe Kol as an example). I don't have an agenda beyond believing that infoboxes should be minimalist, and so only need city + soverign state. The Kaganovich infobox looks like a mess to me because the city of birth spills over three lines, when only one could be used. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The Kaganovich infobox is indeed a mess - it looks like the exact postal address of his birth. However I disagree that infoboxes should be minimalist - they should be short but useful. Dkua (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - The subject extends well beyond recently living athletes. How would we define someone born in Aragon or Prussia, for instance? I think it makes most sense to link the place of birth as two separate entities, [[City]] and [[State/Country]], ensuring that the latter refers to the specific governmental entity in power at the time, considering how may biographies relate one way or another to the extant national government. Regarding the specific matters regarding the various satellite or even member states of the USSR, that's a bit outside of my field, but I wouldn't mind seeing Riga, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, USSR, to ensure that we don't inadvertently violate POV though. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "country of birth" for Manual of Style purposes[edit]

"Country of birth" in the Manual of Style means:

The constitutent country of a sovereign state that the birth occurs in (e.g., Scotland).
The sovereign state that the birth occurs in (e.g., United Kingdom).
Both the constitutent country of a sovereign state, and the sovereign state itself, that the birth occurs in (e.g., Scotland, United Kingdom).

Option 3 – this seems to be the formulation that most people would be happy with. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 – all countries should be mentioned as per WP:NPOV Jhony 04:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 – mention all countries, but only when there is a clear "many countries in one country" relationship, as per the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Option 3. --necronudist (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these covers all situations. As I keep saying, this discussion is far too restricted to a few examples from a short period. Medieval Germany? Greece under the Ottomans? Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a suggestion as to how historical cases should be dealt with? Otherwise, perhaps we should concentrate on trying to reach a consensus for persons born during the 19th (or 18th or 17th – thoughts, anyone?) century and afterwards and, again, leave the other question to be dealt with another day. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think general principles, and some specific cases, should be prescribed, but there are two many complicated cases, even in more recent times, to cover all of them with specific rules, without a load of extra work. Most of the time most editors actually find good solutions. It is especially where competing national POVs come into play that we get trouble. Medieval Italians born in Italy are hardly ever a problem (the occasional editor comes along & says Italy was not a state, but the concensus is always against them), but if they were born in parts of the former Yugoslavia then owned by various Italian states, then it is always a nightmare. Often the country is enough, and the state is not needed. In the case of a Chinese person born in the 1920s or 1930s, for the lead sentence we needn't worry about who ruled their part of China at the time - The Nationalists, the Communists, the Japanese etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think running a quick poll was a bit premature, as I don't think we have had the opportunity to explore all the available options, which only a subset seems to be listed here as candidates. Martintg (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do add other available options that you have in mind to the poll. We can then have a look at them and adjust our responses to the poll accordingly. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these. There is no need to be overly prescriptive. It depends on the article. In the case of David Beckham "England" may be enough for everyone, but in the case of Martin Poom someone like Maracana would insist on mentioning "USSR" in addition to "Estonia". Why not just put a general recommendation that if there is a dispute then both the constituent country and the sovereign state should be kept. Dkua (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about somebody born in Prague in 1943, what sovereign state were they born in? Martintg (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Martintg, Germany. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Further Reply or perhaps the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, if it were Prague. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Option 3 - acknowledging that in some cases, like England, Scotland, and Wales, it won't be particularly necessary if the exact status of the country in question at the time is generally know. The same thing could be said about some of the US states which haven't existed outside of the US since the American Revolution could be assumed to always be part of the US. It might make sense to differentiate Charleston, South Carolina, Confederate States of America, for those individuals born during the time of the Confederacy, but otherwise I think the US and in some cases UK and other extremely obvious national identities could be reasonably inferred. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always the charges of "nationalism" (earlier). To one of the examples, "Riga, Latvia (SSR)" is fine. Latvia does not recognize itself having ever been legally part of, belonging to, etc. the Soviet Union, but this nomenclature covers all cases. Since the USSR was constitutionally a union of sovereign republics who could come and go, I would use "City, Name-of-SSR (SSR)" for any part of the former Soviet Union including Russia for someone born "under" the USSR. I don't see any issue with this. Whether the USSR was the successor entity to the Russian Empire and to what degree the vote of the CIS members recognizing Russia the legal successor of the USSR counts for something are topics for another (a real "country or not") conversation. —PētersV (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "place of birth" for Football infobox purposes[edit]

Perhaps in the case of infoboxes for football articles, we should follow the convention of organisations like FIFA and sporting portals like http://www.euro2008net.com, where Latvian player Marians Pahars place of birth is simply listed as Černovoja, Ukraine [3] and Estonian player Mart Poom place of birth is simply Tallinn, Estonia [4] Martintg (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very convenient that you've chosen an (unofficial) source which happens to exactly match your criteria. Official sources like FIFA and UEFA don't actually list country of birth on their playing stats [5][6]. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact FIFA seem to think Ukraine only came into existence in 1991 [7], so I don't see why they would claim that a 31 year old was born there... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming www.euro2008net.com is not UEFA's official Euro2008 competition site? Martintg (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's obviously not the official site (it has google ads down the side, no German or French pages, and doesn't even carry UEFA's logo!). This is the official site. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are correct, FIFA seems to think Ukraine only came into existence in 1991. However according to FIFA, Estonia existed since 1921 and has been affiliated with FIFA since 1923 [8] Martintg (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it fails to mention that the Estonian FA was disbanded whilst it was part of the USSR. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for football related infoboxes[edit]

Football is governed FIFA, the articles are about footballers playing in FIFA affiliated countries, therefore "Place of birth" ought to be countries as defined by FIFA and their affiliates. Martintg (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The idea is completely flawed by the fact that using such logic would mean that we say Toto Tamuz was born in Israel rather than Nigeria and that Eduardo da Silva was born in Croatia rather than Brazil based on their UEFA profiles[9][10], whilst many others would be listed as having been born in countries that didn't exist at the time, such as (united) Germany [11],or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [12]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Number 57. --necronudist (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The poor way in which information is presented on the UEFA web site has nothing to do with this discussion. I believe Martin is only suggesting that we accept FIFA's definition of "country" when determining the correct "country of birth" in our biographies of soccer players. That doesn't mean that we reproduce obvious factual errors, or interpret sources incorrectly when we know better (as in the "it says Israel but he was born in Brazil" situation above). — CharlotteWebb 13:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes ofcourse, I was only suggesting FIFA's definition of "country". Number 57's argument is a straw man. The country listed in the players' profiles on the UEFA site is the country where they currently reside, not place of birth. Since the main reason for these players notability and hence listing here in Wikipedia is they play in competition sanctioned by FIFA, and would fit in with the treatment of Scottish and Welsh players as being born in Scotland and Wales, which Number 57 attempted justify above by saying that in football, England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries, which is true from the point of view of FINA for the purpose of competition, statistics and results. Equally FINA views Estonia as a separate country since 1923, for the purpose of competition, statistics and results. Martintg (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is way too narrow, it only covers football and even in football it is flawed. How about other sports, sciences, politicians, artists, military leaders, etc.? (Dkua), 10 February 2008
- I was never proposing a general solution, just one for living footballers currently playing in FIFA sanctioned competition. There are too many complexities and exceptions to have one rule to fit all. I have no objection to the approach you suggest below for historical figures. Martintg (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no point in birthplace rules designed specifically for footballers (or any other kind of personalities). Dkua (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other encyclopedias[edit]

I have checked how Britannica does it for persons born when their country was part of a larger entity (e.g. the USSR or the Russian Empire). I have looked specifically at people born in Ukraine. If the person was born in a place which was part of Ukraine at the time of birth then Britannica has two approaches:

"Born in Town, Constituent country, Sovereign state", or
"Born in Town, Constituent country"

For example:

"Born in Yanovka, Ukraine, Russian Empire"
"Born in Khoruzhivka, Ukraine"
"Born in Kiev, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R."

See for example the following personalities:

If however the place was not part of Ukraine at the time of birth then the format is:

"Born in Town, Country (now Town, Country)"

For example:

Simon Wiesenthal was born in "Buczacz, Austria-Hungary [now Buchach, Ukraine]"

Dkua (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of this and WP:Flags[edit]

If the county at the time of birth is decided to be used i assume Mart Poom will be be used for the flag Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not

or both

. Anyway, infoboxes don't seem to have birth place flags in them right now. Oth (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on their club pages like Sunderland_A.F.C.#Current_squad and using the Union Jack for Val_Harris or John_Feenan won't go down well Gnevin (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons should only be used to show nationality, not country of birth (as per WP:FLAGS: The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated). As nationality is current (or latest before someone died), then Poom would be represented by the flag of Estonia. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality doesn't change in my examples but the flags of the time change and can be so easly defined like you do. I'm not talking about the infobox I'm talking about Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once. and Historical_considerations- Use historical flags in contexts where the difference mattersGnevin (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that someone who played for the Georgia national football team between 1991 and 2004 (but not since) would be represented by

instead of

? I would agree with that. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ask people Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)? It would certainly make articles more colourful but the country itself is the same, there wasn't even a change of name. Oth (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin, how would changing

to

next to Mart Poom on Sunderland_A.F.C. article improve it? You don't want to use Union Jack for Irish player, yet you think Soviet flag is appropriate for an Estonian? Oth (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the point if their country of birth is changed ,then the flag of the country at the time should be used but will cause major issues Gnevin (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant as no-one is saying that flagicons should be used to represent country of birth. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not irrelevant see Sunderland_A.F.C.#Current_squad and some one born in Ireland in 1902 should have? Are you saying use national team not nationality? Gnevin (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, national team (thus Matt Holland represented by the Irish flag in Charlton Athletic#Current squad). Anyway, this discussion is not for here; take it to WP:FOOTY. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need , thats fine Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Regardless, they had Soviet citizenship. Why are some editors so keen to cover up the fact that people were born in the USSR? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never, hope to toss my few cents in here. the answer to this question is very simple. And it has nothing to do with a cover up. USSR or Soviet Union means basically Russia, so if anybody would say born in USSR, that would make the nationality Russian. Please note that each Soviet republic had its own passport and the Soviet Passports said it clearly, born in a City, in an Union Republic. Therefore it should be straight forward: Tallinn Estonia; Riga Latvia; Vilnius Lithuania; Tbilisi Georgia etc. exactly like the Soviet passports said at the time. Meaning, people had general Soviet citizenship and a citizenship of an Union republic. In case anybody thinks it is important to point out that those republics were part of the USSR at the time, feel free to add it. Another issue is that the people born in the 3 Baltic republics, Estonia Latvia Lithuania were considered occupied by the Soviet Union. So calling them Russian-Soviets would be like calling Norwegians or the French born during the WWII -Nazi Germans. You're not going to make many friends by doing that пﮟოьεԻ. Hope that it helps to clarify the issues.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on the matter of how to note country of birth in biographical articles, other than that it should be done in a manner that is informative to readers, is not motivated by nationalist sentiments, and does not carry over historical and political disputes into thousands of biographical articles. However, the statement that the "USSR or Soviet Union means basically Russia" is incorrect in this context. While it is undeniable that the Russian SSR dominated the politics of the Soviet Union, it is inaccurate to claim that Soviet citizenship implied Russian nationality. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well Black Falcon Soviet Union was synonymous with Russia in the minds of people (at least in western countries) for very long time, still is I think. It might not be the same for younger generations perhaps. Even though Russia is the only legal successor state of the Soviet Union and therefor Soviet implies or at least suggest -Russian all right. I don't wish to get further into this, just thought spelling out the situation would be helpful for you guys. --76.168.108.240 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a bit late for my two cents worth but I think that their country of birth doesn't change. The country might not exist anymore, but they were born there. In most cases, there are articles on former countries which also show where they relate to this day (see Rhodesia for example. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main point of debate is not whether country of birth changes with time but what can be treated as a country for the purposes of the countryofbirth field in the infobox. A number of people believe that for example England is not a country and the constituent republics of the USSR (such as Ukrainian SSR) were not countries (see country, constituent country, state). Dkua (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that that was a secondary issue. Some of the changes mentioned above are related to countries who have now changed their name. Also I don't believe that anyone was suggestiong England shouldn't be used in regards to countries due to the way that they run their sports programs. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different impression - I think the naming issue was secondary, after all Maracana's bulk changes were not about changing country names to the full names that existed at the time of birth (e.g. changing "Estonia" to "Estonian SSR"), they were about deleting some countries and replacing them with larger sovereign states (e.g. replacing "Estonia" with "USSR").

And yes you are right, there have been suggestions that England qualifies for being mentioned in the infobox on the basis of how it runs its ~~sports~~ football programs. However, it came along with a suggestion that it is the only reason, and so in infoboxes of all people other than footballers England should not be mentioned, only United Kingdom should - e.g. by implication the infoboxes should state "born in London, United Kingdom" or "born in Dublin, United Kingdom" (for those born in Dublin before independence e.g. Oscar Wilde). This amount to claiming that England is not a country, it simply runs its football as if it was a country. Dkua (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could lead to another question. Could England be classed as a country? It's part of a Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This could lead Latvia to being a country being part of a union called the USSR. These things will never be clear cut. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian SSR|Estonia solution is just another way for the nationalists to hide the Soviet name whenever possible. In this way the reader only reckons the truth if he possibly should follow the link. At the page he is still mentioned as born in Estonia. This solution will take us back to where we started. Earlier the nationalists tried completely to deny the facts, having learned this does not work, they are now trying to hide it as well as possible. One cannot take it for granted that the reader clicks the Estonia link and finds out it does not refer to the current country. ;">User:Maracana

Yeah, and Gargamel have run the 9/11. --necronudist (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maracana (surrounded by evil nationalists), there is no need to label people. You have no more reason to call me a "nationalist" than I have to call you, say, an "imperialist". The only person who consistently tries to "hide" or "deny" information (in your own words) is you. You keep trying to "hide" the fact that Shevchenko was born in Ukraine, Poom was born in Estonia, etc., by erasing these facts from the infobox. Moreover, you deliberately continue to bulk-edit articles even while there is an ongoing centralised discussion aimed at arriving to a consensus. Other editors are staying within the limits of civility and not engaging in edit wars while the discussion is ongoing, however the information you keep deleting will clearly be ultimately restored. Dkua (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Perkins, I have already cited Oxford English Dictionary's definition of a country earlier in this article : "...the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories" books.google.com. Dkua (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious what will happen to Maracana if he tries to bulk-edit the birth places of Paddy Moore, Kevin O'Flanagan, Peter Farrell, Bill Lacey, Jimmy Dunne, Paddy Coad, Johnny Carey and others to "born in Dublin, United Kingdom". Dkua (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully he would get a barnstar for helping to add to Wikipedia's factual base, as they were born in the UK. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome is that the numerous Irish pro-Republican POV pushers would continously revert and try to get him banned. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he hasn't made the change because mentioning Ireland in the infobox doesn't annoy him as much as it does with regards to Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and other countries. Anyway Number 57, you are seriously biased. In no way does replacing "born in Ireland" with "born in the UK" add to Wikipedia's factual base. Both statements are unquestionably true facts (Ireland was part of the UK). Replacing one fact with a less specific fact cannot possibly add to the factual base. Dkua (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to say in which way I am seriously biased? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did above. What exactly do you want me to clarify? Dkua (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that you claimed I had an agenda (whatever that may be), but I don't recall you saying I was biased. In which direction am I biased? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "I don't recall"? I said so just a few hours ago in this thread. I then went on to explain what I meant in the same message. Dkua (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your original reply seemed to suggest that you had called me biased prior to the most recent occasion as you still haven't said how (or at least only said it in a very unclear way - your following comments only seem to be debating the specifity of the facts rather than saying how). Anyway, perhaps you could clarify again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did enough by writing a clarification post - if it is still unclear then I don't see the point of trying to rephrase an already re-phrased statement. Dkua (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to rephrase. You claim that deleting Ireland as a place of birth and replacing it with the UK will "add to Wikipedia's factual base", implying that "born in Ireland" is not a true fact. Dkua (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is about "country of birth", and Ireland was not a "country" when it was part of the UK (except in sporting terms). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely wrong. The "sporting terms" reflects/ed the fact that Ireland has always been recognised as a country - for example in both Catholic and Anglican church organisation, peerages, legal systems and many other ways. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Ireland was not an independent country. It might have been a constituent country in the same way that England was and is, but we are talking sovereign states here, and it was not one of those. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Country" and "sovereign state" are different concepts - see the discussion above. We are not talking about "sovereign state of birth" - this page would be far shorter if we were. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have been arguing for sovereign state all along here. That was my point regarding Ireland (that if we use Soviet Union, we must also use UK for pre-1921 Irish births). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That the discussion started as one about country of birth doesn't mean it can't be expanded. As I have stated in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth#Another suggested solution, I see eliminating the countryofbirth field as a workable solution in order to avoid politicizing the issue. (2) Ireland was not a sovereign state but it was a country according to common definitions e.g. the Oxford Dictionary. Stating that only the sovereign state can be mentioned in the countryofbirth field is utterly pedantic in my view - sticking by that rule would limit the usefulness of Wikipedia. Dkua (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is annoying me the most - that you wrongfully accuse me of these things - or the fact that the person who has had this behaviour the entire time is your self. Since the debate started on the Shevchenko talk page the reason for the promoting the Ukraine sollution has apparently changed for you, however claiming consensus when you don't have it still seems to be your style. Your changing in Serhiy Rebrovs infobox contradicts your own statements by the way, but whatever.

Perhaps it "seems" to you to be my style but it isn't my style. Well done for checking my contributions history, however you failed to notice that I changed Rebrov's infobox before the centralised discussion was initiated, and that it was part of broader changes throughout the article. Dkua (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dkua, after your Ireland-example I was just curious: I suppose if you get it your way, all articles about french, german, italian, spaniard etc. persons will have to have their infoboxes changed. It is going to be "Francesco Totti - Rome, Lazio" instead of "Francesco Totti - Rome, Italy. "Phillipp Lahm - Münich, Bavaria", instead of "Phillipp Lahm - Münich, Germany". "Willy Sagnol - St. Etienne, Rhone-Alpes" instead of "Willy Sagnol - St. Etienne, France" or "Xavi Hernandez - Terrassa, Catalonia" instead of "Xavi Hernandez - Terrassa, Spain". All countries with departements, Bundesländer etc. with a high level of political independence. Actually, this pretty much goes for all countries around the world, concerning hundreds of thousands of WP articles. Or is it only big countries who can have their regions mentioned. The Wikipedia is not the USA, and equal rules must go. User:Maracana

Maracana, the above isn't "my way" - you would know it if you had tried to follow the discussion instead of bulk-editing articles while others try to find a solution. I have said a few times that an infobox should be useful and relevant. Perhaps you should start by at least reading my two suggested solutions before you try to manipulate the readers of this thread by attributing to me something I have never said or suggested. Dkua (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you clearly did not follow the discussion, I will try to help you catch up by quoting one of my earlier messages, so that you at least know where I stand:

QUOTE. The point was about providing useful and relevant information. For example, you may not care whether Sergey Korolyov was born in Ukraine or Uzbekistan - his legacy is that of a Soviet rocket engineer. The opposite is the case for Andriy Shevchenko and particularly someone like Oleksandr Hladky. That the latter was born in the Soviet Union is nothing more than an odd curiosity, but you absolutely want to know whether he was born in Ukraine. END OF QUOTE. Dkua (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this discussion since it's start, and the manipulation and arrogance I am leaving solely to you, calling other users edits bizarre, ego-centered, puzzling and so on. If I had not started making the edits, you would still be lecturing the unknowing editors around the discussion pages of e.g. Shevchenko. Your setup of the three options itself is fine, but it is just funny that anyone claiming anything but your option 2 favorite must be lectured like an unknowing ignorant. Unlike what you have earlier claimed I have no problem following consensus (another manipulative statement), I just sense that it will be hard to reach one, when some users totally ignore others points, Number 57 of course being the main victim. Anyway, before this gets completely OT, a soon compromise on option 3 would be fine with me, however I could never see Dkua editing back a revert to option 2, if he saw one in an article. User:Maracana

I have no problem being strong-worded if the situation warrants it, e.g. I have no problem calling your last two posts manipulative because they are (either that or you have not followed this discussion particularly well). Dkua (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There it was again, the mysterious point of "what people want to read". "Ukraine is much more useful" "USSR is an odd curiosity" and so on. I don't know where you get this, or who you think you represent with these statements, however I am still waiting for some users saying that this is what they wish to see. And except the nationalism-taboo I don't see the agenda of that basic point which would eventually have to result in a major change of the entire WP. If we all went in to semantics and odd personal ideas of what other readers want, I do not think I am the only one seeing a bunch of unuseful edit wars occuring. User:Maracana

Maracana, don't try to be manipulative again. I never said that "USSR is an odd curiosity". I never said some of the other things you claim I have said, not without a context. You are not debating in a straightforward and honest manner. Dkua (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the manipulative accusations come from noone but yourself. On the Andriy Shevchenko talk page (off course back when you thought we would never get this far in a debate) you claimed that: "Shevchenko was born in Ukraine and Shevchenko was born in the USSR are both facts. One is simply much more useful and relevant than the other" However, with obviously very few users remembering the entire debate it is much more easy just calling me manipulative, because who would care go back and check that the opposite is the fact? That is manipulating when it is worst. Hopefully people will see the incorrectness of your accusations. User:Maracana

Maracana, I have no problem repeating what I said then. I repeat: "Shevchenko was born in Ukraine and Shevchenko was born in the USSR are both facts. One is simply much more useful and relevant than the other." However, I have just re-read your previous post where you claimed (among other things) that I had said that "USSR is an odd curiosity" - which is a blatant lie. I have said above that I have no problem using strong words when appropriate, and on this occasion I am prepared to be more strong-worded than ever: Hence let me tell you that you are a lier. You have debaded in a totally dishonest manner. You blatantly distorted my comments, presumably in order to manipulate the discussion. I hope that you have it in you to apologize but I don't hold by breath. Dkua (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your outburst say more about you than they do about me. I don't know if you think you can make your clumsy arguments look stronger by using strong words and shouting at other users - maybe you do, because have been doing it for long - but I don't see you succeeding with this tragic behaviour. When you write that XX bein born in the USSR is an odd curiosity, off course it refers to a personal opinion, in this case that the USSR is not important in the case being discussed at this page. And for me, it is fine that you feel so, because unlike you I respect other peoples opinions. It is not surprising me that you support an option that is simplyfying things, this matches your simplyfying of other users opinions well. User:Maracana

You debate dishonestly and get a response - it's only fair. It is my first experience of this kind at Wikipedia (and I hope the last one). I have had some heated debates with Dudesleeper, JHONY and Number 57 but I don't recollect any of them every trying to delude anyone. Dkua (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very touching now seeing you crediting your debate-opponents like this. I hva no problem being the target of your entire anger on this topic if you wish so. To get a response to an opinion is fair - to get one which shows your desperate off-course actions on this topics is more your problem than mine. I could start to shout back in the same terms, there's enough to work with if I wanted, instead I will just summarise that your bizzarre accusations of my apparent "lies" all can be contradicted for whoever wants, if they go back and read through your earlier posts. It seems obviously that the topic is too sensitive for some users, the reason therefore I shall not point out, however I have my ideas, I think anyone reading "between the lines" in some of the posts do too. User:Maracana

Another suggested solution[edit]

As stated in my first Suggested solution (which still seems to be an option as nobody has rejected it outright), I think we need something very flexible.

How about replacing the cityofbirth and countryofbirth fields (where they exist) with a single placeofbirth field. This is the way it is done in the case of musicians, writers, scientists etc. - see Template:Infobox Musical artist, Template:Infobox Writer, Template:Infobox_Scientist (examples: Elton John, William Shakespeare, Charles Darwin). This can be very flexible and should eliminate all silly political discussions. Dkua (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is what is a country? (if somebody thinks that Soviet Republics or England aren't countries...bad news for him), so I don't think this is a solution. It's more like avoiding the issue. --necronudist (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what is a country? is not your problem (not mine either) but it is the problem of those who triggered this discussion (eg Maracana who bulk-edited hundreds of articles precisely because the countries indicated in the countryofbirth field did not qualify as countries according to his criteria - interestingly this seems to be the only thing he does at Wikipedia). Personally I still prefer the first of my suggested solutions, however "avoiding the issue" as you've put it is not necessarily bad. I just don't think that what is country? is such an important an issue to keep locking horns over. With this solution "place of birth" will be completely flexible - whatever is deemed to me most informative and useful for a particular person will make it into the infobox, as long as it is concise enough. Dkua (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I keep disagreeing :-) --necronudist (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dkua has offered a workable compromise to find concensus. Saying simply "Well, I keep disagreeing", then offering a smiley is hardly in the spirit of finding consensus. Aligning Infoboxes with "Place of Birth" makes a lot of sense. Martintg (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

This discussion has been going on for a month and has turned rather unseemly. I wonder if someone who will be perceived as impartial could try and draw a line? Not sure if this is possible at all. Perhaps we could vote on all the suggestions that have been put forward. Or otherwise perhaps the discussion should be closed without reaching a conclusion so that we can get on with editing without further distractions? Dkua (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we reached a consensus and settled on your first suggested solution. Jhony 08:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dkua put up three suggestions for how the place of birth should be indicated, which were discussed. To summarize they were:

1: City, sovereign state (eg. Tallinn, Soviet Union) 2: City, country part (eg. Tallinn, Estonian SSR) 3: City, country part, sovereign state (eg. Tallinn, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union) These were the main options discussed. Regards, User:Maracana

Piotr Konieczny, the above is not my first suggested solution. I have not mentioned an abstract "country part" anywhere, only constituent country for which there is a definition in Wikipedia (not to mention other crucial details). Please see the actual suggested solution (as well as an alternative suggested solution). Dkua (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give us some time time to discuss with editors from xSU[edit]

I have looked through the pages and saw nothing like a consensus. Moreover 75% of the discussion was about the labeling for the Soviet Union, but it looks like only Estonians took part in the discussion (and they were strongly against the decision. There were no announcements on any related boards and projects. It looks like Ukrainians are furious about the proposed changes. Is it possible not to implement the decision (at least for the Soviet Union) now but make an announcement on the related boards and see what happen? I might be mistaken but I do not think the proposal will fly unless some mentioning of the present countries will be made (e.g. Pskov, Russia then part of the Soviet Union), there might be a separate infobox for the fSU if it to complex for the general case. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have announced the discussion on a number of regional xSU boards. Lets see the feedback Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supposse before they give their input in the debate they are going to read through the page as the debate has been going until now, instead of just launching some sort of "final answer". User:Maracana

From my experience, a reasonable solution is to give the information on the past and present country; ex. "born in X, Russian Empire, now Y, Ukraine".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone from the former SU, I think something like "Soviet Ukraine" would be a reasonable compromise. Both sides have some valid points. See article Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for example. It does not tell he was born in "British Empire". It tells he was born in "British India". This is a kind of compromise like "Soviet Ukraine". At the same, telling he was born in "India" (an equivalent of Ukraine) would also be O'K. Biophys (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interesting note somwhere at the top of the page that it should say whatever the subjects passport would say, so I took a look at Soviet birth certificates and Latvian (citizen) passports at hand. Latvian passports don't designate country of birth, only the city of birth was given, there is a seperate field for citizenship/nationality given either as "of Latvia" or "Republic of Latvia" (and that is the only field the country is mentioned, translation and content of the field varies as passports have been issued in different years, the first example is from the oldest). The largest entity given in Soviet birth certificates is republic, in the given case it say Latvian SSR. Also my grandmother was born in area of Latvia that was later ceded to Russia - as far as I know she had nearest district of present day Latvia written in passport as place of birth, not the pre-war district (to come to think of it - she was born during Latvian independence war, posibly in a territory controled by one of the powers which existed only during the war). I am noting this only as an interesting fact and perhaps a source of inspiration for some, it does not reflect my opinion in any way. ~~Xil...sist! 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alex Bakharev, there definitely is no consensus here, particularly with former SU countries. In my view, in the case of infoboxes, particularly for living people, the present country should be mentioned. For historical people, then ofcourse the former country should be mentioned. Failing that, using "Place of Birth" rather than "Country of Birth" is the best compromise, i.e. the geographical location, rather than the political entity. Martintg (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a reasonable compromise position by Martintg. I support that.Biophys (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might work for capitals and large cities like Tallinn or Lviv. But it somebody was born in a small town or village that nobody is aware of, then it might be a problem especially if the settlement is a red link. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg, any explanation for difference between infoboxes for living and deceased people (I mean, beside your burning and obvious desire to prove that Soviet Union did not exist)? Should we change infobox once person is passed away? I insist we should. It does not make any sense, but original proposal does not make any more sense. RJ CG (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Piorus's suggestion born in Leningrad, Soviet Union (now Saint Petersburg, Russia) if the place renamed or born in Sevastopol, Soviet Union (now Ukraine) it provides historical data as well as the present ones. I guess one of the reasons why the country labels are important for both readers and editors is that people feel warm and fuzzy towards their compatriots. In the case of Soviet Union most people rather keep warm feeling towards the people their present country rather than to the Soviet Union or Russian Empire or British Empire etc. Thus, many editors are ubhappy with changes like Poltava, Ukraine into Poltava, Soviet Union and I do not think we should ignore their feelings. The other problem that while Soviet Union is a reasonable known entity, such former countries like Far Eastern Republic or Moravian Protectorate are not. Many ephemeral "sovereign states" e.g. created during the Russian Civil War are still red links by now. On the other hand, the bondaries of the present states are in the most cases well defined and well-known Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might work for capitals and large cities like Leningrad or Minsk. But it somebody was born in a small town or village that nobody is aware of, then it might be a problem especially if the settlement is a red link. With a union spanning 11 time zones, having a description "born in xxxx, Soviet Union (now yyyy)", is useless Martintg (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is still better than nothing, though I agree that if a settlement is a red link some smaller administrative unit (like Oblast or Soviet Republic) will be helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of "better than nothing", we already had a satisfactory situation before User:Maracana started to changing the infobox "place of birth" to USSR. Looking at his contribution history it seems that this is all he does, in classic SPA fashion it seems. The implication of User:Maracana' approach, which now you seem to agree with, is that we will have to change all articles of people born within the British Commonwealth before 1948, when the British Nationality Act came into force, as being born in the British Empire, since before that date, all these people, Canadians, Australians, Indians, etc, had one single nationality status: British subject. Is this the road Wikipedia should go down? Martintg (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as noted above, there is a clear difference between an Empire and a country such as the USSR. Someone born in an overseas colony should be listed as being born in that colony, e.g. Gold Coast, New South Wales. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, New South Wales ceased to be a colony in 1901. Anyone born in Sydney, New South Wales before 1948 was a British subject, entitled to hold a British passport, just like somebody born in Kiev before 1991 was entitled to hold a passport of the Soviet Union. Martintg (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a difference. People living in Australia did not send representatives to the British parliament; ergo it was a separate state, regardless of the passport situation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German occupied Prague had no representative in the German parliament, yet someone above suggested that anyone born in Prague in 1943 should have their infobox as born in Prague, Germany. Martintg (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Prague was not overseas - it was part of a contiguous state, which is a little different. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Réunion are all overseas, are they not an integral part of France? Martintg (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted above that overseas departments should also be listed as country of birth as there is a clear long-distance (i.e. not Kaliningrad or Isle of Wight) physical separation from the main part of the country. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Réunion is closer to Paris than Vladivostok is to Moscow. So you are saying someone born in Hawaii or Alaska should not have USA as their country of Birth? Martintg (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is no physical separation (such as a sea or other country) between Moscow and Vladivostok. Not sure about Alaska, as it is only 500 miles from the rest of the USA and is at least on the same landmass, but I would put Hawaii as country of birth for those born there as it is so far away from the lower 48 (as would I for Easter Island, which is technically part of Chile); certainly places like American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands should be. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii is not a country by your own definition in the previous discussion, yet you are willing to list it as country of birth to support your new condition that only continuous land-masses qualify as a country. Seems all a bit contrived in my view. Martintg (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; you keep pointing out special cases, and for special cases the rules can be different. I never said landmasses qualify as a country, just explaining why I wasn't sure about Alaska. Perhaps you should stop trying to (a) prove your point by pointing out special cases and (b) twisting people's words and actually be constructive. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wanting to apply some rule, lets understand what that rule is and let us apply it consistently. I am being constructive and I and others have offered many compromises to seek consensus. For infobox purposes, let the place of birth be the geographical location, not the political entity. What have you offered? Martintg (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several ideas, explanations of how the ideas would work and compromises. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Martintg here. Using geographical location in the infobox is the shortest and clearest way, political nuances can be explained in the article itself if deemed necessary. Oth (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it is the acceptable compromise, then lets have it. If the location is a redlink then we should provide an administrative unit or a nearby place as marker. This way we are sure to avoid many nasty edit wars. Just think of somebody born in Karabakh or Kosovo Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I'm very tempted to start editing campaign to mark birthplace of every Roman emperor born in Lybia as "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", just to underscore the sheer absurdity of proposed "solution". Please, pretty please, explain to me rationale behind this "solution" but to soothe wounded nationalistic pride of editors who can't bear thought that people they fond of were born in lands under administration of countries those editors don't like! RJ CG (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?? "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is the political entity, not the geographical place. Martintg (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a compromise supposed to be a solution that everyone can live with? And not the most extreme POV on one of the sides in the debate. I agree with Number 57, e.g. Mart Poom born in Soviet Union, now Latvia. This is short and accurate, and in my opinion still geographical. User:Maracana

Compromise is moving from your original position to take into account the views of other people, something that you refuse to do. Martintg (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent)If you after reading through this page and the now archived one at the WikiFootpall page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_16#Defining_country_of_birth seriously feel that your solution is reflecting an overall compromise, then I'm not the (only) one not moving anywhere in this debate. Simply writing Soviet Union, as I did in my reverts was my first choice, however after the debate I have noted relevant reasons for ALSO adding the current country. However Martintg still stands at the POV he had at the right beginning, and haven't moved an inch during the debate. User:Maracana

(indent)What you say is untrue, look at a recent edit which shows you continue to simply write Soviet Union without compromise [13], now all we know now after your edit is that Alieksandr Klimenko was born in the Soviet Union, in Kalinigrad or Vladivostok we don't know. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being overseas changes situation. Person born in Prague in 1943 was born in [[Prague]], [[Protectorate of Bohemia]], [[Nazi Germany]] (now [[Czech Republic]]) RJ CG (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about what to put in an info box, the above it too long. Besides, only Germany recognized the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, therefore POV, to the rest of the world it would be: Prague, Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic). Martintg (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were number of references given here with longer descriptions. for example Ghandi and Habash. Life is complicated thing, so sometimes complicated definition are needed. Speaking about POV, my understanding is that any naming in case of disputed "ownership" of the particular tract of land is POV-ish, therefore I prefer to stick to naming used by "lord of the land at the moment". Infobox on Ghandi is a good example. He might consider himself born just "in India", but infobox uses British naming convention, as Britons were the ultimate rulers of the maze of semi-autonomous princely states and territories occupied by British. Anyone interested in internal situation can follow hyperlinks and bury him/herself in details as deep as his/her heart wishes.

On the flip side, once you open "recognition" issue, it all becomes extremely muddy. How would you draw the border between "recognized" and "not recognized"? Using latest findings of some aging Cold War propagandist from either side? By the number of countries which recognized this or that border change (giving as many voting right to single Estonian as to one million of Chinese)? By the population of countries which recognized this or that border change (completely drowning voices of Estonia and hundred other statelets in Chinese and Indian vote)? By the combined GDP of states which supports this or that POV in some disagreement? Where is NPOV here? BTW, speaking about "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia", I'm sure it was not only Germany which recognized it. 1st Slovakia, Croatia and other German puppets and Axis member states recognized it as well. RJ CG (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then anyone born in Singapore in 1943 was born in Singapore, Japan, right? Martintg (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your suggestion is? I'd say that infobox for this person should refer to Wikipedia article describing Japanese occupational regime in Singapur at this time. And, if you wish to play with examples, Prophet Mohammed had been born in Saudi Arabia and some of Roman emperors - in the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Sounds logical to you? To me, former had been born in XXX, now now [[Saudi Arabia]], and latter ones - in [[Roman province YYY]], now [[Libya]] RJ CG (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed this to death with the British and Roman Empire etc earlier in the discussion, but I have no problem taking it again. Another thing which many people - including me -favored, was that the wikipedians probably pretend to read facts ahead of "what things should be". There was no such thing as eg. The Republic of Belarus in eg. 1980, therefore it is completely inaccurate to write that a person born this year in Minsk was born in Belarus, it is the Belaurusian SSR. If you read through the debate page there are as good as sero supporters of writing the present day countries in the infobox. I hope the persons who have restarted this debate because they did not like the earlier outcome will notise that, otherwise I don't see any compromise being reached this century. Btw, I do not have any problem having other editors grunting at me for this subject being "the only on interesting me". As long as a sollution seems far away, and people not agreeing with the outcomes just restart the debate frequently, there is enough work to do only in this case. User:Maracana

I confess I didn't read all of the disscusion (it is overwhelmingly long), but it seems that this hasn't been discussed before - maybe it would be worth to discriminate between people born in different times - it is hardly relevant to say that Julius Caesar was born in Italy, but in my opinion it wouldn't be relevant to simply state that some Latvian born shortly before Soviet Union collapsed was born in Soviet Union (especialy if person was born after 1990 - one may argue when exactly Soviet Republic in question became independent) - so I propose to discriminate between people who died before 1990 and people who were alive at the time, to define the de facto country as place of birth for those who were dead and the modern country for those who were alive adding (then de facto) if seen necessary (in short - if the guy was dead by 1990, we say he was born in X, if not we say he was born in Y (then X)) ~~Xil...sist! 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: No consensus?[edit]

I believe this to be the case. Martintg (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through, I would say that there was just about consensus for [[City]], [[Constituent State]], [[Sovereign State]] in cases where there is a dispute (largely the ex-Soviet countries) given the response in the #Present-day country first, or vice versa? and #Definition of "country of birth" for Manual of Style purposes sections. Even though I'm not entirely happy with it, I'd be willing to support it to actually get a result and stop petty edit warring. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an appropriate time comes, we (those who took part in this discussion) will determine whether or not there is a consensus by voting between two possible alternatives: 1)a proposed solution of mentioning both constituent state and sovereign state in some NPOV form, and 2)current chaos and edit warring. Personally I came to the contrary conclusion that there is a consensus. Jhony 10:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 20 editors participating in the discussion, but only four agreed with a particular option in the proposal presented in #Present-day country first, or vice versa? and #Definition of "country of birth" for Manual of Style purposes sections. The problem with these polls is that a limited set of options were presented, totally disregarding a more fundamental choice between geographical location and political entity, and now you are suggesting only one option (the other being edit warring) be presented for a final vote. Martintg (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep complaining about no-one compromising; [[City]], [[Constituent State]], [[Sovereign State]] is a compromise. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?? This thread is about if there is any consensus and having a sufficient number of options for a vote. On the subject of consensus, could you refrain from editing the place of birth of Estonian politicians, like you did a few minutes ago here [14],[15],[16],[17] until we atleast achieve consensus here, otherwise others may think you were attempting to make a point. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not refrain from making edits. There is no policy as yet, and until then anyone is free to edit the articles however they like. You have also been busy on one of the articles, mentioned, reverting to your preferred version twice in the last week [18]. My latest edits to those articles as well as Mart Poom (where you have also been involved) were an attempt to stop the petty edit wars going on by including both views on the issue rather than making a point. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem? Another voting may be started to determine whether or not there is a consensus for using geographical locations. Jhony 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a problem. We have already had a vote, reflecting the opinions being raised with the intention to find a compromise, which we also came close to with the option 3 suggestion, adding in eg. ex. Soviet cases both the given SSR , and the Soviet Union. However as some users refuse to move their POV anywhere, they just claim another "final vote" in the hope of another outcome this time. Additional, it seems rather unclear what "the geographical location" actually means. Is "France" or "Latvia" geographical or political locations? As far as I'm concerned they are both, and so was the USSR. It appears as if Martintg by "geographical location" just meens "present political situation", something which has gathered no consensus throughout the debate. User:Maracana

Again not true, several editors have supported using geographical location for infobox purposes. User:Maracana, do us a favour and familiarise yourself with WP:SPA. Geographical location is using commonly known areas like Wales, Scotland and England for the UK; Hawaii, California, etc for the USA, etc. In the case of Estonia, this area has been commonly known as "Estonia" for almost a thousand years, from Ancient Estonia to Danish Estonia to Swedish Estonia to Russian Estonia to Soviet Estonia. Linking the info box place of birth to Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic an interested reader would only get a narrow 50 year snapshot of Estonia, while linking it to Estonia would give the curious reader the full history (including ESSR), geography, demographics, etc.Martintg (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you make clear for us what a "commonly known area" is, and where to draw the line. I don't know if you remember Jhony's example with Philippe Senderos and the Canton of Geneva, but in that example is this the "commonly known area", or are only people of the UK, USA and the USSR worthy of having country parts mentioned in their infobox?? Countries as Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc all have Bundesländer, departements etc, with high independence, centuries of history, and concerning many, independence once in history. It appears as a question about a subjective judgement on which countries have a history interesting enough to mention country parts, and which don't. Or is it a question about the country's size? There are a thousand answers blowing in the wind. User:Maracana

I'm glad this discussion seems constructive again. Now on geographical locations, I am not sure this option would be my first choice but were it to be implemented Maracana I don't think one would need any rigid rules on "where to draw the line". All that is required is a general principle and the editors would be knowledgeable enough about the specific articles they "specialise in" to arrive to a consensus on a particular article between themselves. In the case of Andriy Shevchenko for example it would be pretty clear that Ukraine would need to be mentioned but Yahotynskyi Raion wouldn't. I don't know enough about Philippe Senderos but those who follow that article would be able to decide whether Canton of Geneva is essential or redundant. The criteria wouldn't necessarily be country-related but rather individual-related. For someone like Senderos perhaps Canton of Geneva is not important but if hypothetically there was an artist famous for brilliant landscapes of Canton of Geneva perhaps you would want to indicate in his infobox that he was also born in that canton. Dkua (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Geographical location is a complete non-starter. It is entirely reliant on the individual editor's opinion (POV) on what a geographical location is, and would not only intensify the lame edit warring on people born in the USSR, but potentially spread it to other more inflamatory areas - some will say that Israel is not a geographical location, but Palestine is; others will claim the Palestinian territories are not a location, but it is all the Land of Israel. As I suggested above, the compromise position appears to be be City, Constituent State, Sovereign State, and whilst it's not my preferred option, I'd be happy to go with it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only lame edit warring going on it seems, is between yourself and User:Maracana on one side, and the rest of Eastern Europe on the other. Before User:Maracana arrived these articles were stable in regard to place of birth. I have no problem with City, Constituent State, Sovereign State in clear cut situations, however the problem is that you have not considered adequately how to apply it, particularly in the case of occupation regimes. This proposal would have Fahed Attal place of birth as Qalqilya, West Bank, Israel, since the West Bank is not a recognised sovereign state which is currently occupied by Israel. Since you appear to have an interest in Israeli articles, perhaps this is why you so strongly support this approach? This will lead to a lot of fresh conflict on Wikipedia, in my view.

I've had a thought about how to codify "geographical location", the best approach for infoboxes is City, smallest recognisable administrative area, then Sovereign de jure State if necessary for clarification. In this would cover Edinburgh, Scotland (UK is superfluous), Anaheim, California (USA is superfluous), Cayenne, French Guiana (France is superfluous) and Qalqilya, West Bank (Israel is de facto). In this way we wouldn't have to change thousands of articles since they already follow this rule. Martintg (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, in regard to the Soviet Union, the constituent republics were sovereign both in law (in the constitution), and in fact (all republics voted to leave the SU, thus dissolving the SU in 1991), thus the SU was more similar to the EU than the USA in this regard. Martintg (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your insinuation that I am a pro-Israel POV pusher just shows your total ignorance and determination to alienate editors who disagree with you on the issue of the former USSR (and by the way, there have been several other editors whom you conveniently ignored in the above discussion who support my favoured proposal). Attal should clearly be listed as being born in the Palestinian territories; the West Bank and Gaza are not part of the State of Israel; they are a special case, as they are effectively an area where no country has sovereignty.

As for your claim that constituent republics had the power to leave the USSR, it's just laughable. They clearly didn't have that right beforehand - if so, why didn't Estonia with its government in exile choose to leave the USSR before the 1990s, and if they really were free to leave, why did the Soviet Government demand a retraction, and then launch an armed attack on Lithuania when it declared independence in 1990???

Oh, and as you seem to think I have a pro-Israel POV, then I'm assuming that means you also think I think the USSR was not such a bad thing after all (as I support including it in country of birth). To the contrary, I believe the USSR was one of the worst things to happen to humanity since WWII, and I fully support the right to independence for every ethnic group on the planet. However, as much as countries like the USSR/East Germany/Rhodesia were bad/evil/whatever, the fact is that they existed and people were born in them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I have to be the devil's advocate in this, but what you are proposing here is a major change that will affect many articles. True that Israel does not have de jure sovereignty over the West Bank, but it certainly has control and thus de facto sovereignty, as this image of the areas within the West Bank that are closed or restricted to Palestinians [19]. Certainly the Palestinians do not have the power to assert sovereignty over the West Bank, thanks to Israel's military might. If the Israeli settlers had their way, the West Bank would be made an integral part of Israel. However Israel is a democracy and sensitive to world opinion so this hasn't happened. Mutatis mutandis, the situation was identical in the Baltics, too militarily weak to assert their de jure sovereignty, they were de facto incorporated into the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state that ignored world opinion. So I don't see how you could make a distinction between these two cases. Seems to me that in proposing City, Constituent State, Sovereign State, you are also suggesting a number of exceptions to this rule: Hawaii, Réunion, West Bank, but Baltics don't qualify for any such exemptions. Why the distinction? Martintg (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Either you don't read what the other debaters write; or alternatively you just don't (want to) take their opinion into consideration. However, I'll try again; for a person born in the Canton of Geneva, is Switzerland "superflous"? For a person born in Normandy, is France superflous? For a person born in Bavaria, is Germany superflous? And so on, and so on. Maybe you would create a list for us, about which countries and administrative areas are important enough. This list of course should be acceptable for all wikipedians, due to the NPOV policy (...) If you think you have seen petty edit warring the last months, I can't imagine what term should reflect the situation we'll have, may that solution go through.

By superfluous I mean that everyone knows where Scotland and California is, so we don't need to add the UK or USA. Martintg (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. But anyway, since Number 57 and I, the two only persons apparently responsible for the edit war both support a solution (the one numerous times mentioned by Number 57) which adds the geographical area, the only thing which actually seperates us from a compromise is your accept of ALSO adding the Sovereign state. Earlier you spoke about "the curious reader"; isn't he allowed to know in what sovereign state the individual was born? The horrible war alliance of Number 57 and I has made a clear step towards compromise, and your accusations of us (or me at least) being those not moving anywhere are, using a mild word, just untrue. Please clearify why you oppose ALSO, not ONLY, but ALSO adding e.g the USSR, and thereby ending this neverending debate. User:Maracana

As I have said previously, and many have agreed, I have no objection having it in the body of the text because there is sufficient space to fully explain the situation. The sticking point for me is application for infoboxes, particularly for living individuals, it is confusing to the reader to refer to defunct states, particularly if some fan wants to visit the birth place and refers to Wikipedia as a source. Thus I could be persuaded to adopt City, [[Current state]], then part [[former state]], but if it is already explained in the text, why repeat it. Martintg (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions about Reunion and Hawaii were not related to the compromise position - they were just with regards to the City, Sovereign State option. Under the compromise position there would be no difference between the Baltic States and Reunion/Hawaii - it would be Saint-Denis, Réunion, France, or Honolulu, Hawaii, United States or Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union - all of them have City, Constituent State, Sovereign State. However, for the West Bank and Gaza, there is no sovereign state to list as the third entity - no-one claims sovereignty over them.

Can we agree on this? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to having it in the body of the text. BTW, who maintains control over the Israeli settlements, the roads, water, airspace, external security and borders for the entire territory of the West Bank, or should I say the Israeli districts of Judea and Samaria, martians? Anyway, rather than engage in endless discussion, lets nut out some practical rules and exceptions to work and evolve with. Now lets start with occupation regimes: Singapore, anyone born in 1942, sovereign state Japan or ??? Martintg (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this discussion is largely about the infobox - before we move onto other things, can we agree on City, Constituent State, Sovereign State in the infobox? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to [[Saint-Denis]], [[Réunion]], [[France]], or [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]], [[United States]] and [[Riga]], [[Latvia]], then in the [[Soviet Union]]. Martintg (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "then in the" bit should be reserved for the text - the infobox has to be succinct, and including three more words would clutter it, and in most cases take it over a single line. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you do not willing to apply a qualifying "then in the" raises some questions about your aims here, given the names of some states would easily exceed the extra length of that qualifier. Martintg (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to questioning motives again? You seriously need to get over the people having an agenda thing. The fact is that infoboxes are not the place for written prose - I've said that the text is the place to point out "then in" or "now in" - look at some articles I've written from scratch (e.g. David-Zvi Pinkas or Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit) - putting the "then in" or "now in" in the infobox would not be appropriate. I don't understand why you think we need it in the infobox but not in the text. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at David-Zvi Pinkas, and I would have listed him as being born in Sopron, Kingdom of Hungary, since it and the Austrian government maintained separate parliaments, each with its own prime ministers, while the common government administered the customs union and defence matters, similar to the EU today. I really don't see why the addition of six or seven additional characters in an infobox is an issue for you, particularly if it succinctly improves clarity. Ofcourse it can be gone into fuller detail in the article. Martintg (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not to focus on one narrow situation but always consider the wider implications. City, Constituent country, Sovereign state will never fly as a universal solution (try introducing London, England, United Kingdom for example or Dublin, Ireland, United Kingdon and you will be blown off your feet, most people will think it sounds ridiculous). That's why I proposed something a but more flexible in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth#Suggested solution, and even that could be too prescriptive for some. Maracana, you say you are prepared to compromise but it's taken you over a year, and it still doesn't extend enough to be practical. Dkua (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did suggest at the start of this section that we only use the constituent state bit where controversial (pretty much the USSR situation it appears), which is part of what you also stated above, and now I would probably agree to accepting the suggestion you linked to. However, based on what he has said so far, Martintg seems to think this is a double standard, as it would involve Soviet Union being added to infoboxes as it is an area where disagreements would occur, but it is unlikely that UK would be added to infoboxes just using England, as no-one seems too bothered about it. Nevertheless, I stand to be corrected on his opinion if I've got it wrong.

Additionally, it's very sad that "Dublin, Ireland, United Kingdom" would result in being blown off one's feet, as it is factually correct for births prior to 1921, and just shows up the POV pushing of nationalist editors on the project... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could equally be said that including United Kingdom is POV pushing of loyalist editors. Martintg (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just fact. The republicans may not like it, but Ireland was part of the UK until then, and Northern Ireland still is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about Irish players' pages but I don't think there's much to be sad about. True, "United Kingdom" is correct for births prior to 1922, but a lot of things are correct, it doesn't mean I should always be sad when a fact doesn't make it into the infobox. I would agree with Martintg here that "United Kingdom" is superfluous, in the same way as you wouldn't write "Dublin, Ireland, European Union" for current births (I know it's not exactly equivalent but the principle is the same). I feel that for someone intent on making sure people don't forget that Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom the best way to contribute is to improve the "Republic of Ireland" and "History of Republic if Ireland" articles rather than insisting that it is mentioned on every page where Ireland is mentioned. I am not saying I am against including "United Kingdom" but if the majority of editors think it is unnecessary I don't believe it is wise trying to start edit wars, etc. Dkua (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with [[City]], [[Constituent State]], [[Sovereign State]] (if Constituent State is still a part of Sovereign State) and [[City]], [[Constituent State]], then part of [[Sovereign State]] (if Constituent State is not a part of Sovereign State nowadays). However I'm a bit surprised at a proposed exception for UK. UK is as superfluous as any other existing sovereign state, so if there are not any objective reasons for such an exception, early or late somebody will restart this discussion wondering why such an exception for UK and not for Spain (Belgium, ...). Personally I like both [[London]], [[England]], [[UK]] and [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]], then part of [[UK]], it looks nice and encyclopedic. Jhony 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to Dkua) The issue with leaving UK off pre-1921 Irish births is that as the Republic of Ireland is known today as an independent country, people seeing born in Ireland may assume ROI, whereas if we put born in Scotland or England, people know that they were born in the UK as they still are part of it today. Perhaps we should put "City, Constituent State, Sovereign State" up for a vote and post a notice at the WP:BIO talkpage. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues of living and dead people, as well as current and defunct states, that is not being examined adequately here. Citing Scotland, UK, is all very neat and dandy when promoting a vote on "City, Constituent State, Sovereign State", because the UK is relatively stable. But it all comes unstuck as soon as you start dealing with exceptions like countries where nothing has changed but the political regime, particularly for a living person. When a user looks at an info box of a living football player, for example, they are more interested in knowing where the place of birth is, at a glance, not what the country's regime was called at the time of birth. Martintg (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? I find it quite interesting when I see that someone was born in a country that no longer exists, or in a city which is now in a different country. There is simply no way that we can get away with writing that someone born in Lviv in 1920 was born in Lviv, Ukraine - it was Lwow, Poland. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interests in history, I have no doubt you would find that historical information interesting and is most appropriate for a topic on an historical figure. But for a football enthusiast interested in a current active player, I don't think they would necessarily share your interest in what the political regime was back when the player was born, but more likely be interested in where they were born in terms of their knowledge of current countries. For example, I would link Democratic Republic of the Congo as the place of birth for a contemporary footballer's (or coach's) infobox, since it is a full article with geography, culture, flora and fauna and history, while Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) and Belgian Congo are narrow articles only concerned with the political regime. I have to agree with Dkua here, we can't simply apply a blanket rule across all areas within Wikipedia, but involved editors must look at it on a topic by topic basis. There are too many exceptions to the rule. Martintg (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With countries which have changed name, it may be preferable to do a hidden link to the current name, e.g. Zaire than a straight link to Zaire. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing an analogy with [[City]], [[Constituent State]], then part of [[Sovereign State]], what about [[Current name]], then [[Former name]]? Jhony 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's appropriate to explain that in the text, but not in the infobox. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The addition of a mere 4 additional characters "then" in the infobox is not by any means a burdensome overhead. Martintg (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could fly (theoretically), but to me it breaks "person's address line" so to speak. What I mean by that is that [[City]], [[Former name]], now [[Current name]] was address of the person once he was born. City+State is one line logically, and you try to insert generally irrelevant information in the middle of it. For example, Kant was born in Kenigsberg, Prussa (now Russia) and it is recognizable to Kant himself, as to any researcher on Kant. But [[Current name]], then [[Former name]] creates absurd situation that Kant was born in [[Kaliningrad]], [[Russia]] (then [[Prussia]]). RJ CG (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to use [[Current name]], then [[Former name]] in case of "countries where nothing has changed but the political regime". Places where borders have shifted is another case, so nothing prevents us from defining a "[[Former city name]], [[Former country name]] (now [[Current city name]], [[Current country name]])" wording for historical figures like Kant. Jhony 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jhony's approach is reasonable in both cases when nothing has changed and when the borders have shifted. Perhaps a set of guidelines for all the situations, rather than attempt to apply a single blanket one-size-fits-all rule would work better. Martintg (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "The only lame edit warring going on it seems, is between yourself and User:Maracana on one side, and the rest of Eastern Europe on the other", please train yourself to speak for yourself rather than assume role of representative of any community. It may be hard for you, but why should Wikipedia suffer because of your personal hardships? RJ CG (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as a constituent country[edit]

As we seem to be heading down this road, perhaps we also need a definition or list of constituent countries so that we don't end up with (say) people claiming that North District in Israel or Gelderland in the Netherlands qualify. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following past/present countries with constiuent states worth noting in any place of birth statement:

Australia
Austria-Hungary
Canada
France (overseas Departments)
India
Russia (the 21 republics)
Serbia (Kosovo/Vojvodina)
South Africa (the former Bantustans)
Soviet Union
Tanzania (Zanzibar)
United Kingdom (including Ireland, pre-1921)
United States
Yugoslavia

Brazil is another possibility, but I'm not sure how important the states are within it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Israeli district of Judea and Samaria qualify as a constituent country, given there is some degree of Palestinian self-rule there? And China/Tibet/Taiwan too, which is topical at the moment. Martintg (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be happy about using Israel as a place of birth even for Israelis (settlers) born in the West Bank. I think West Bank/Gaza/Palestinian territories would just count as the soverign state (even though it's not one) as no country (excluding the Palestinian State) claims sovereignty there.

Taiwan is a slightly different issue - whether we include de facto independent states as sovereign states. I would err on the side of yes in cases where they clearly have control of their "country". I guess this would cover all the unrecognised states listed in the topic templates (e.g. Template:Europe topic), i.e. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Puntland, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

You are probably right about Tibet - should this be expanded to all Autonomous regions of China? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia is another one. I would not agree with usage of the same wording for unrecognised states as for recognised, as it would violate our NPOV policy. For example, in case of Valon Behrami, both "Mitrovica, Kosovo (then part of Yugoslavia)" and "Mitrovica, Kosovo, Serbia (then part of Yugoslavia)" are POVish. Usage of "then de facto part of", i.e. "Mitrovica, Kosovo (then de facto part of Serbia, Yugoslavia)", is a possibility. I believe it's just the case when neutrality is more important than conciseness. Jhony 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that example we might have to use two constiuent countries - Mitrovica, Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia, as both Serbia within Yugoslavia and Kosovo within Serbia were constituent countries... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that "then the de facto part of" is the POV of the worst kind, as no country or international body challenged Kosovo being part of Yugoslavia (even UN resolution 1244 refers to it as being part of Yugoslavia as late as 1999 and whole legal argument for the Western recognition relies on fact that Yugoslavia ceased to exist between 1999 and 2008, so international body should not honor it's promises to non-existing country). Valon Behrami, born 19 April 1985 in Mitrovica, was born in [[Mitrovica]], [[Socialist Republic of Serbia]], [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]] now [[Kosovo]] or [[Mitrovica]], [[Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo]], [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], now [[Kosovo]]. [[Kosovo]] article is about "The Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово), commonly referred to as Kosovo" (as copied from the article), which did not exist in 1985. RJ CG (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now I see it is POVish too, but I did not intend it as such. [[Mitrovica]], [[Kosovo]], [[Serbia]], [Yugoslavia]] solves the problem but, as we agreed to use [[City]], [[Constituent State]], then part of [[Sovereign State]] , now we should follow this kind of wording. Jhony 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and usage of "de facto" also might make an impression that Kosovo was not a de jure part of Serbia then. Jhony 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just simply have Mitrovica, Kosovo. Everyone and their dog has heard of Kosovo and knows where it is, so we don't really need the rest to locate the place, and it avoids all the angst above over POVishness. Martintg (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kant suddenly became Russian, Prophet Mohammed is Saudi now and Jesus Christ - loyal subject of Mahmoud Abbas. I hope those examples will be enough to show you that this approach is only good to elevate spirits od some Russian, Saudi or Palestinian nationalists. RJ CG (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that "we agreed to use [[City]], [[Constituent State]], then part of [[Sovereign State]] ". I remember saying that I could live with that if majority consensus is reached, but I don't like it. RJ CG (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "we agreed" I implied "the consensus is to agree". Sorry, my bad. Jhony 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, were autonomous regions of constituent states like Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo and South Ossetia constituent states itself in 80s? It seems that no, they weren't. Jhony 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory serves me well, answer is negative. There was "hierarchy" of autonomies in the former USSR but they all shared common restriction - they were not constituent members of the Union (were subordinated to appropriate SSR's authorities) and did not have legal right to cede, even in pretty toothless Soviet legal system. Kosovo's case is a little bit more complicated, as Tito's Yugoslavia was a pretty complicated maze of legal statuses, arising from perennial Balkan ethnic problems. Kosovo had all rights of constituent republic but the right to cede. So, if Southern Ossetian authorities directly answered to Tbilis's communist bonza of the day, Kosovo's communist bigman reported directly to Union authorities, but could not proclaim independence. RJ CG (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Vojvodina were strange halfway houses. Both had votes on the Yugoslav State Council (making them equal with Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia etc), but were still part of Serbia, another constituent country. I think that's why we might have to use both Kosovo and Serbia as constituent countries, as to leave either out could be seen as POV. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"we might have to use both Kosovo and Serbia as constituent countries" Either that or just [[Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo]], it does not matter much to me. As soon as we included appropriate "lord of the land" in infobox, curious user can click his/her way through to educate him-/herself on niceties of political designs of the time. RJ CG (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

I propose a straw poll (if there are any other options you wish to see add them to the list)

1 - City, Constituent State, Country (eg Minsk, Byelorussian SSR, Soviet Union)

2 - City, Present-day Country (eg Minsk, Belarus)

3 - City, Constituent State, Present-day Country, Country (eg Minsk, Byelorussian SSR, Belarus (then Soviet Union))

4 - City, Constituent State, Country, Present-day Country (eg Minsk, Byelorussian SSR, Soviet Union (now Belarus))

5 - City, Country, Present-Day Country (e.g. Minsk, Soviet Union (now Belarus))

6 - City, Present-Day Country, Country (e.g. Minsk, Belarus (then part of the Soviet Union))

7 - City (e.g. Minsk)

1, 4 or 5. --Miyokan (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. --RJ CG (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 4 for me are the same. --necronudist (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 in infobox, 4 in text. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to all. We should be looking for a compromise solutions in each specific case, such as "Soviet Ukraine" (like "British India"). We could also indicate a current geographic location (e.g. "India") if a "political entity" was controversial or led to edit warring. Let's follow geography, not politics. That would be best decision per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding what constitutes a geographical area will be far more problematic in terms of POV than using countries, which are clearly defined in most cases. As I pointed out above, some editors with POV issues will see Palestine as an area covering Israel, whilst others may see Gaza and the West Bank as geographically within Israel. Why should we compromise on facts like the existence of the Soviet Union? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, working with current internationally recognized borders is much easier - just look at the map. One could simply write "borned at the territory of modern India" if someone does not like "India". End of problem. Only currently internationally "undefined" territories then might be a problem, but they would be a problem any way.Biophys (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look here to see potential pitfalls of this approach. Half of Roman emperors became Serbs, courtesy of some over-zealous Serbian patriotic editor. Would you like to see this outbreak speading far and wide in Wikipedia? RJ CG (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any may be applicable, depending on circumstance. Agree with Biophys here. There are too many exceptions to the rule to be pursuing a single one-size-fits-all rule. Each topic area has its own issues that concerned editors understand and are best placed to make a judgement as to the most applicable form of identifying place of birth, whether it is Scottish writers or Congolese footballers or Indian politicians. Note that almost all biographical articles are stable in terms of info box, other than those recent changes initiated by User:Maracana. Is attempting to support these edits with a change to policy the right approach here? Martintg (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to all. As I have said before I think this is way too simplistic and will create more problems than solutions. A blanket, all-size-fits-all solution will not work - this has been discussed above. Dkua (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular I think option 4 doesn't make any sense: listing both former and current official names of an entity in the infobox (e.g. "Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine)" or "Ukrainian People's Republic (now Ukraine") is a huge overkill. Dkua (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that further options (5 & 6) have been added but that does not change my vote - I still oppose all of them. The reason is still the same: I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution. Take absolutely any of the options above and you will find a number of situations in which it will not work. I think there is strong value in knowledgeable editing based on a set of principles, as opposed to a universal blanket rule which can be applied by a dumb bot. Dkua (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of this discussion was to try to establish set of rules which will prevent Serbian nationalists from listing Roman emperors as Serbians, Russian nationalists from calling Kant Russian, some other nationalists from listing Prophet Mohammed as Saudi or Jesus as Palestinian and similar absurd cases. You are trying to say that some misterious "knowledgeable editing based on a set of principles" (which in Wikipedia realm often translates into "swarm attacks of nationalist cabals, organized outside of Wikipedia and intent on promoting version of history favourable to particular tribe") is better than clear-cut principle. Being raised in former USSR and familiar with Communist idea that "revolutionary consciousness" is better than law-based system and seeing disastrous consequences of this approach, I disagree with your views very strongly. RJ CG (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strawman argument. Serbian nationalists are not claiming Roman emperors are Serbian, nor are Russian nationalist claiming Kant was Russian nor are Saudi nationalists claiming the Prophet Mohammed is Saudi. You are arguing for a fix to a problem that does not exist. Martintg (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look here to see that problem exists indeed. Currently we're witnessing just small outbreak, but you're promoting policy which makes said delusions obligatory. RJ CG (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think different people will have a different perspective on the main point of this discussion. You think it was to "prevent nationalists from listing Roman emperors as Serbians" but someone else would think it was to "prevent Soviet nostalgists from listing Estonian players as Soviets". It does depend on one's perspective. Now, back to my point, I think you misunderstood it. I didn't call for "mysterious knowledgeable editing based on a set of principles", I called for knowledgeable editing based on a very specific set of principles. The reason for supporting principles rather that a universal blanket rule is because I don't think there exists a one-size-fits-all rule that works. The link you have given in response to Martintg's post is a perfect illustration of my point: none of the seven options listed above will work in the case of Maximinus Thrax (when I say "will work" I mean it will be a stable solution rather than it will be a solution that someone thinks is good). I have given my suggestions (Suggested solution and Another suggested solution) so please don't accuse me of advocating something "mysterious". Far from it, I am advocating something very tangible - not necessarily those particular suggestions of mine but something that actually works. Dkua (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dkua. I am glad you explicitly recognized biggest elephant which is permanently in the room during this discussion, but which most of participants refuse to notice - desire of nationalists to "privatize" notable persons who was born in different parts of the USSR. Recognition of fact that person XXX was born in YYY republic of the USSR has nothing to do with nostalgia. Claiming that person was born in country which either did not exist pre-1991 or had octogenarian government in exile which was recognized by camp of Cold War and ignored by other but did not control an iota of country's territory is POV-pushing (I believe pitfalls of using "recognized by ZZZ" as opposed to "actual lord of the land" were explained here repeatedly). There were no "Ukrainian Republic" post-1920 before Russians decided to disband Soviet Union, you have to come to terms with this sad fact. There was Ukrainian SSR. Now let's discuss Maximinus Thrax. I honestly don't understand how option 4 is not sufficient (well, apart from the fact that Maximinus's exact place of birth is unknown). Assuming that he was born in fictious hamlet Qwerty Minor part of Thrace which is now Greece, he was born in Thrace (now Greece). Looking at somebody with more documented origin, like Alexander Severus, he was born in [[Arca Caesarea]], [[Syria Phoenicia Province]] (modern [[Akkar]], Lebanon). Look how actual infobox follows '''4''' almost to the niceties, once we hit event sufficiently old to fuel nationalistic flames. Why not to follow this example for more recent notable persons? RJ CG (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are too political. Remember that a "country" is not the same as a "sovereign state" - there's no rule in Wikipedia that only sovereign states can be mentioned in the infobox. Take your favourite example, Maximinus Thrax - the infobox does not state "Born in the Roman Empire", it states "Born in Thrace" (which was "a Roman province" according to both Britannica and Wikipedia). That's not a politica statement, that's a fact (albeit unproven). In the same way "Shevchenko was born in Ukraine" or "Poom was born in Estonia" are not political statements, they are facts. I think you are politicising things too much. "Thrax was born in Serbia" is a false statement, "Shevchenko was born in Ukraine" is a true statement. Fighting the former is fighting for factual accuracy, fighting the latter is fighting a political battle. Dkua (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are too political. I think I'm just trying to extinguish nationalist ambitions from one small sector of Wikipedia by supporting policy which carefully distinguishes regional names and country names. I agree that "country" and "sovereign state" are different things, but all examples you came up with (BTW Maximinus is not my favourite example, as his birthplace is unknown and alleged province he was born in now divided between several states, I like Alexander Severus more) are inevitably dealing with "political entities", not "place names", so to speak. I'm not dead set on "sovereign states" (as you see, I voted for option 4, which includes both province and state), but I do have a problem with listing "Ukraine" (which is article about a country born in 1991, not a region) as birthplace of someone born in 1985. There may be point sometime in listing Galicia-Volhynia as somebody's birthplace, as currently there's no Galicia-Volhynia state and confusion is impossible. Prophet Mohammed wasn't born in the Saudi Arabia, to drive my point further. RJ CG (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your motivations but as I have said, they are often political. It's inevitable that most countries will bear the same name describing the region they cover and the sovereign state that may exist at that territory at a particular time. It does not mean that one should not use that name for a fear that some lazy chap will get confused. If you go in that direction then you should probably ban the word "Ukraine" or footnote it/put a disclaimer every time you use it. You should probably want to do something about this verse:

When I am dead, bury me
In my beloved Ukraine,...

because it was written in 1845 and someone might get confused and think that Taras Shevchenko was in fact envisaging that he would die in 1991 at the age of 177 and wrote that verse to request to be buried in a sovereign state. Here's a "maracana" way of dealing with the possible confusion: rephrase the verse to "When I am dead, bury me, In my beloved Russian Empire..." :) You should probably write to the UN and tell them that the name "Ukraine" was used illegally back in 1945 to describe one of the founding members of the United Nations because in your view the term Ukraine can only be applied from 1991. It must be obvious that back in 1945 the UN was full of Ukrainian nationalists if they allowed the name to be used. :) And clearly the chief editor of Encarta must be a Ukrainian nationalist as otherwise why would they write "Ukrainian SSR; also known as Ukraine". There's so much more you can do to "extinguish nationalist ambitions" not just at Wikipedia but at the United Nations, Encarta and in other similar places. :) Don't get me wrong, I fully support you in your desire to make Wikipedia a factually correct source (e.g. Thrace versus Serbia) but there's no need to bark up the wrong tree. Dkua (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we both know that Shevchenko meant geography, not polical entity ("Na Ukrajne miloj", not "v Ukrainskoj respublike", no need to muddy it up. And, honestly, I did not expect Stalin's ploy to even his voting chances in UN against all the American clients to be used as a serious argument here. I can only repeat my position again in vain hope to be understood this time. I don't see see usage of term "Ukraine" as illegitimate for pre-1991 events, but I do see wikilink from the "Ukrajna" word in the beautiful poem you cited to an article about "Republic Ukraine" as problematic. RJ CG (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJ CG, you push the envelope of politization too far. The article Ukraine is not about a sovereign state, it's about a country which in addition to being a country is also a sovereign state (the same is true about Estonia, Lithuania etc). If tomorrow it ceases being a sovereign state the article will not disappear, in fact it won't even substantially change, only the Government and politics and History sections will have to be amended somewhat - almost every other section including Geography, Culture, Religion, Demographics etc will not need any revision. You can't expect people to create separate articles for Ukraine (sovereign state) and Ukraine (territory), or let's say France (sovereign state) and France (territory) - that would be quite insane. Articles link to Ukraine for all sorts of reasons, for example "In 1887, ... Chekhov took a trip to Ukraine" (in Anton Chekhov); "Charles marched along the main route between Poland and Moscow ... and turned south into Ukraine in search of grain and better weather." (from Battle of Poltava) etc etc. Ukraine has been a country for at least the last 300-400 years (see Oxford English Dictionary definition, there's no need to over-politicise things. If a particular article has a specific narrow context it then becomes necessary to link to a specific state that existed at the territory of Ukraine at a particular point in time (eg Ukrainian SSR) but extending your political thinking to every article and every reference to a country (be it Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova or Italy) really is taking things too far. There's a big difference between writing that 2,000 years ago Maximinus Thrax was born in Serbia, which is certainly untrue, and writing that 30 years ago Andriy Shevchenko was born in Ukraine or Mart Poom was born or Estonia (which is very much true). Dkua (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly I remembered this quote, the man was obviously a rabid nationalist. Oth (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you he wasn't? Although I don't believe he was, majority of intelligent people aren't rabid anything, and guy was truly intelligent. I just don't see how is Keres's remark relevant for this discussion? RJ CG (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added options I have added 5,6,7 as they were discused Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5, I see mentioning both constitutive country and the the present country to be a huge overkill particular in the case if they are the same like Belarus and Belarussian SSR. If we are going further into the past (e.g. to Russian Empire) the constutive countries are very poorely definded? E.g. is it right to specify that Adam Mickiewicz was born in Navahrudak, Belarus? I guess Nowogródek, Russian Empire (currently Navahrudak, Belarus) would make more sense Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all the European Empires to consider, there will be a lot of changes to be made. I'm sure Ottawa, British Empire (currently Canada) for anyone born before 1948 will go down well with Canadian editors. How about Léopoldville, Kingdom of Belgium (currently Kinshasa, Zaire)? Martintg (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with you, that's why I proposed [[Ottawa]], [[Dominion of Canada]], [[British Empire]] (although I am not sure a lot of Canadian nationalists would have troubles with Ottawa, Empire, as Canada never had "anti-British" nationalism to speak of). But [[Ottawa]], [[Canada]] would be hugely incorrect for someone born pre-1865.. RJ CG (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think [[Nowogródek]], [[Russian Empire]] is fine for Mickiewicz, but someone born in Helsinki in 1829 was born in [[Helsinki]], [[Grand Duchy of Finland]], [[Russian Empire]] (I would even dare to utter that [[Helsinki]], [[Grand Duchy of Finland]] is enough, as it is clear from article's intro that Duchy was a part of the Empire). Yeah, some measure of flexibility, but within "City", "Lord of the land", "Current country" framework. RJ CG (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should policy be established based on this survey?[edit]

I'm uneasy about using this survey as a cornerstone of policy. Most likely it will reflect views of very small group of wikipedians, already engaged in this discussion and would not reflect broad consensus. I think if we're serious about making such a survey, we should post an announcement on all country portals, to begin with. RJ CG (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified WikiProject Biography, so hopefully we'll get some fresh input. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

This discussion has been going on for a couple of months now, and we seem no closer than where we were back when it began. With no additional involvement from other users, even after anouncement of the discussion on a number of regional xSU boards and WikiProject Biography, it appears there is lack of interest by the wider community in the proposals put forward here. Time to wrap this up as "no concensus", and try again later this year? Martintg (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the "no consensus" conclusion. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Bio wasn't notified until fairly recently, so it might be best to hold on. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst there isn't consensus on what is correct, there appears to be consensus on what isn't - everyone has opposed Options 2 and 3 mentioned above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a vote by a handful of people constitutes broad community consensus, nor can you say everyone had opposed Options 2 and 3. Martintg (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your opinion that vote as of now reflects opinion of active participants only (heck, wasn't it yours truly who raised the question originally?), but I agree with Number 57 that nobody supported 2 or 3 so far. RJ CG (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happily murdering Jews, again[edit]

It is unfortunate that people think that we need to refight the battles over the Cold War annexation of the Baltic States here. Why not include a link on every Lithuanian footballer's page about how huge numbers of ethnic Lithuanians enthusiastically participated in killing their Jewish neighbors in WWII? AnteaterZot (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Enthusiastic" support of the Nazis eliminating Jews is the result of the Nazis creating the myth of the Germanless Holocaust: complete with sympathetic Nazi German soldier "eyewitnesses" "saving" Jews from rapacious Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. Even some of the most well respected Holocaust scholars still quote Nazi statements (and repeated by the Soviets who labeled anyone fighting against the Red Army a "Nazi") intended to "substantiate" Hitler's personal "creation" of the Germanless Holocaust in the Baltics (already sending propaganda abroad through Sweden as soon as the Nazis began murdering Jews in Lithuania). Baltic history is a lot more complicated than your simplistic condemnation. Please retract your offensive comment. Whether it reflects your personal beliefs or not, it is inappropriate to the discussion. —PētersV (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PētersV, I understand your sentiments over extremely pointy example used by AnteaterZot and I may even share your position that this page is not appropriate place to discuss such issues. But I would also like to remind you that it was not AnteaterZot who started the whole "political" conversation. RJ CG (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, no one twisted AnteaterZot's arm to use that example. Pointy can be achieved in a less offensive manner. —PētersV (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Now" regarding country names[edit]

I notice that a great deal of this discussion centers around what to call a country whose official name/borders have changed. Whatever conclusions are reached on this issue - may I put in a heartfelt plea: Please do NOT say "Central X-land, now Y-land"! Far better to say "then A-land". While it is possible to find out what was the jurisdiction over a town or city at some definite point in history (e.g., the date when someone was born), "now" means....absolutely nothing, unless you can ferret out the date on which it was written. Trying to understand what "now" means at some indefinite point in the future (many indefinite points in the future) is even worse than trying to date an document by recognizing the handwriting! —Martha (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if both the name of the city and country have changed? I completely agree that the issue you raise exists, but many hands make light work for future changes to keep up with changed in territorial sovereignty--and we should not require someone to consult a map of a century ago to figure out where something was (that is, what it is today), or to have to hope an article about the "old" place exists that maps to the "current" place. —PētersV (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about incorporating a date? "Born in (town), (country) (in 2008 [town], [country])" - a bit clumsy, but informative. —Martha (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move on[edit]

I think it is time to close this discussion as I don't think it will lead us anywhere.

In fact I have realised that it was useless from the very start.

This is because the events that triggered it only affected a tiny proportion, probably 1 or 2%, of all articles about individuals born in constituent countries of larger sovereign entities. Affected were predominantly articles about sports people from Eastern Europe born in late 90s.

Hence most editors are not aware either of any problem or the existence of this discussion.

There is in fact a de facto standard for a place of birth of individuals from constituent countries at Wikipedia which is adhered to in an absolute majority of all articles, i.e.

Town (if known), Constituent country. Sometimes editors add the name of the larger sovereign entity at the end.

For example:

David Beckham - London, England
William Henry Harrison - Charles City County, Colony of Virginia
Richard Gere - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Leonardo DiCaprio - Los Angeles, California
Cameron Diaz - San Diego, California, U.S.
Ryan Giggs - Cardiff, Wales
Rajiv Gandhi - Bombay, British India
Charles Darwin - Shrewsbury, England
Edmund Ho - Macao
Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama - Tibet
Maximinus Thrax - Thrace

If we came up with a solution different from the current de facto standard because of actions affecting a tiny proportion of relevant articles this would be simply not enforceable. It would be a solution to a problem that does not exist.

In addition, the user whose actions triggered this discussion (Maracana) has stopped deleting the names of constituent countries from infoboxes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andriy_Voronin&diff=206735146&oldid=206129229), so it appears that even in the small number of articles initially affected the problem is being solved. Dkua (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but unfortunately some editors continue to remove Sovereign State (USSR) from Estonian bios [20] complaining that it wasn't a de jure occupation... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly understand how this "occupation" thing is relevant to both this discussion and that edit summary... Jhony 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dkua! I agree with you in many respects. The only minor inaccuracy I would like to call attention to can be found in the phrase "There is in fact a de facto standard for a place of birth of individuals from constituent countries at Wikipedia which is adhered to in an absolute majority of all articles, i.e. [[Town]] (if known), [[Constituent country]]. Sometimes editors add the name of the larger sovereign entity at the end." Taking into account that USA, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Brazil, UK and Russia all are confederations, one could said that it would not be entirely correct to assert that absolute majority of all articles use [[Town]], [[Constituent country]], (sometimes) [[Sovereign country]]. It would be more correct to say that de facto standard is to use universal pattern [[Town]], [[Constituent country]], [[Sovereign country]] in either one or another its modification, depending on the case. For example, in case of UK, [[Sovereign country]] is usually omitted, while in cases of Germany, Switzerland and Russia [[Constituent country]] is usually omitted, at the same time in cases of USA and Brazil both Consistuent and Sovereign countries are usually mentioned and so on. Jhony 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Distinguishing two issues[edit]

Digression into legality of Soviet Union etc[edit]

Question: Was the Soviet Union a country?[edit]

Clarifying the issues[edit]

Definition of a country[edit]

Quick polls[edit]

Present-day country first, or vice versa?[edit]

Definition of "country of birth" for Manual of Style purposes[edit]

Definition of "place of birth" for Football infobox purposes[edit]

Proposal for football related infoboxes[edit]

Other encyclopedias[edit]

Suggested solution[edit]

Outcome of this and WP:Flags[edit]

Another suggested solution[edit]

Conclusion[edit]

Give us some time time to discuss with editors from xSU[edit]

Outcome: No consensus?[edit]

What qualifies as a constituent country[edit]

Survey[edit]

Should policy be established based on this survey?[edit]

Consensus?[edit]

Happily murdering Jews, again[edit]

Use of "Now" regarding country names[edit]

Time to move on[edit]