Jump to content

Talk:Edin Džeko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Country of birth

[edit]

Ok, I'm tired of running around user talk pages. Ok, Dzeko was born in Sarajevo in 1983, which at the time was in SFR Yugoslavia. Following the naming conventions policy, he should be listed as being born Sarajevo, SFR Yugoslavia. If people want, I wouldn't mind putting it as SFR Yugoslavia (now Bosnia and Herzegovina), but that's just me. No more warring, discussion here. Another revert and I may block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFRY (now, Bosnia and Herzegovina) agreed. Thank you.--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: I could (grudgingly) live with that. I have no objection against putting it as "SFR Yugoslavia (now Bosnia and Herzegovina)" if this is consensus (at least for all the football players' infoboxes in order to get some kind of uniformity). In fact this might spare us from explaining this over and over again.
But I really don't understand why there should be exceptions (without wellfounded reasons which I don't see in this case): We have a rule (WP:Proper names) which applies in this case. At least three editors (including myself have tried to explain the rules to him. By ignoring this (at least that is how I understand this) and constant reverting the country of birth he may get an exception to the rule. What should I tell the next one who "fails to understand" WP:Proper names? A candidate would be Martin Reim‎ where I'm afraid that I have to explain to another user why it should be Soviet Union and not Estonia. Should I say: "Yes, it's against the rules, but if you make yourself a big enough problem you can ignore them?" --Jaellee (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need the (now Bosnia) bit in the infobox; it would make it unwieldy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is hardly an exception to the rule of Wikipedia. As I've explained time again the political importance of the change, but more importantly the change is necessary because the players themselves relate to being born in Bosnia and Herzegovina vice SFRY. Second we came to an agreement that it seems like we can all live with and now that's not good enough for you.--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he disagrees, we haven't come to an agreement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what the players think doesn't change the facts; someone born in Tallinn in 1965 might like to think they were born in Estonia, but they were born in the Soviet Union. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To express myself more clearly: I don't care whether we write Bosnia and Herzegovina or SFR Yugoslavia oder Bosnia and Herzegovina (former SFR Yugoslavia) as long as we do it in the same way for every player (or person) in Wikipedia. To avoid confusion for the reader who has a reason to expect similar structured articles, there are rules about how to do certain things (e.g. the WP:proper names rule).
Okay, there are exceptions for every rule, but until now I have not seen any valid argument for this case. I have never doubted that these players have Bosnian passports now, that they are playing for the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team and so on. What the players feel is completely beside the point - Wikipedia is about facts, not about feelings. But even then I do not get the connection between being Bosnian and having BaH as country of birth. There is even someone (Zlatan Bajramović) playing for the national team who was born in Hamburg, West Germany, so what is the problem?
What I understand from User:Stlunatic071's arguments is that he somehow seems to confuse the country of birth with the Nationality of the player. The other thing I get is something like "proper Bosnians are not born in SFR Yugoslavia". If I understood this wrong, maybe somebody could enlighten to me. From my point of view neither a valid reason to grant an exception from the rule. --Jaellee (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one provided the argument of these players holding a Bosnian passport as the main point of concern over CoB shown as SFRY. The point here is that under any reasonable definition of CoB is that stating Bosnia and Herzegovina is valid, SFRY is also valid, however due to the sentiment value, player's point of view (which I might greatly matters as the profile is their property until they sign a release otherwise, especially in case of Ibišević), and in accordance to all diplomatic documentation. Now, in regards to your quote about proper Bosnians not being born in Yugoslavia, no one is arguing that they weren't born in Yugoslavia, however as indicated in the language used "Country of Birth" this is open to scrutiny under reasonable accepted definition's of the term and in this case their country of birth should indicate Bosnia and Herzegovina. In order to stop the arguing over this nuance I agree to show CoB as SFRY (Now, Bosnia and Herzegovina).--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no (now XXX) in the infobox; this can go in the text though (see Moshe Kol as an example of how it should be done. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed indentation to have some more space)

@Number 57: The example of Moshe Kol is fine with me. As one can see in the article's history my edits in the last time were only concerned with the country of birth in the infobox.

@Stlunatic071: I do not understand what you are saying. The passport was only mentioned as example; is is you who is always mentioning "diplomatic documentation" as proof that they are Bosnian. To repeat myself again: I never doubted that these players are Bosnian now.

From the next sentence I understand only that you would consider BaH and SFRY both acceptable countries of birth, but that you would prefer BaH "... due to the sentiment value, player's point of view (which I might greatly matters as the profile is their property until they sign a release otherwise, especially in case of Ibišević), and in accordance to all diplomatic documentation." What does this mean? That the rules should be changed for reasons of sentiment? Wikipedia is about facts not about feelings. A profile (what profile? do you mean the article?) which is their property until they sign a release otherwise? What are you talking about? The opinions of the players about anything cannot change any facts.

Next sentence: "... no one is arguing that they weren't born in Yugoslavia, ..." This really baffles me. If they were born in SFRY what is the point in replacing SFRY by BaH?

From the next sentence I gather that you are interpreting country different. This makes sense to me but I hope that I'm not over-interpreting something. For this I can only refer to the discussions here or here or as an example this. If we are opening this can of worms again, then a discussion on this talk page is pointless and it should be moved to WP:FOOTY. --Jaellee (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure how to make myself clearer since all that I've been doing is repeating the same thing over and over. So, for the sake of finding common ground, perhaps I should use the example of Palestine. I see that there are Israelis who were clearly born in the land referred to as Palestine at the time and now Israel, and their country of birth is indicated not by the name of the country born in but the name of the mandate. Now, I'm not bringing this up so now we can go back and forth on the evermore seeming "paradox" of Palestine or Israel, but merely trying to use an example that perhaps satisfied both sides of that argument. I think we can all live with SFRY (Now, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Thank you.--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no paradox. It does not say Mandate Palestine (now Israel); it just says Mandate Palestine. The (now XXX) should not be included in the infobox, but should be in the text. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the time I've been trying to explain this (what Number 57 explained above) to Stlunatic071, obviously without success. I don't know what else to do. --Jaellee (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing clear about the Moshe Kol example, because The Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina are two nearly completely different issues here. Also, if you look back at my comment I did not say it says "Mandate Palestine (now Israel), "Mandate Palestine" or anything but what I said, which is "I see that there are Israelis who were clearly born in the land referred to as Palestine at the time and now Israel, and their country of birth is indicated not by the name of the country born in but the name of the mandate." The mandate being, the one drafted after the "Great War" and officially referred to as British Mandate of Palestine. My point there being, a nation called under it's mandate name!? That would be like naming Bosnia and Herzegovina today as "OHR's Mandate under Dayton Accord's of Bosnia and Herzegovina" as the country is clearly a different one than the one recognized by the UN in 1992 and the Berlin convention one hunderd years earlier. Furthermore, if an a mutual agreement was able to be made in that case I don't see why this much less complex issue is being made such an issue by some of you? Take a look at the infobox of Kemal Ataturk. This is perhaps the best example of what we all seem to be gravitating towards, then I don't see why we can not do the same for Bosnian and Herzegovinian footballers. I think it still won't make it right for many, but referring to their country of birth in the form of SFRY (Now, Bosnia and Herzegovina) is something that we can all live with. --User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand the above: Yes, names for a "country" (however that is defined) do change over time. The rule for country of birth is to use the name that was valid at the time of birth, whatever it is. What is the problem with a mandate name if it was a mandate at the time?--Jaellee (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we've crossed the bridge of "misunderstanding" what is the definition of country of birth. Great! What rule are you talking about? Wikipedia rule? Because I hold American citizenship and nowhere on my documentation does it say country of birth Yugoslavia, it says Bosnia and Herzegovina and I was born relatively long before the break-up of Yugoslavia. This is true in case of all Bosnians no matter what their ethnicity may be. There is no problem with the mandate name at all, it is what it is, the problem is that the name of the mandate is used as country of birth vice Palestine as it ought to be.--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm talking about a Wikipedia rule (WP:Proper names). In your case your country of birth would be listed as SFR Yugoslavia. It's your privilege to think that this is a stupid rule and you might also want to take steps to change it (perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Proper names how such a rule can be changed - I don't know exactly the proper way to do this). But discussing this here is surely the wrong place. My concern is just to reach a degree of uniformity in the articles, whatever the rule in detail says. --Jaellee (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would love to be able to engage into a discussion about changing the overall ruling on Wikipedia on this, I'm afraid it wouldn't be that simple, but I also believe that since Wikipedia administrator's have been given special ruling power's when it comes to issues related to Balkans that shows further commitment for a better Wikipedia by the Wikipedia team. However, in the case of all Bosnians and Herzegovinans, I believe that I've presented a strong enough argument on this page and others to apply the the change albeit a compromised change. Now, I've never stated that WP:Proper names is a stupid rule, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. On another note, I'm almost at disbelief that you said "It is your privilege to think...". It is my privilege to think!? What is this a Totalitarian, Apartheid, etc... forum? If that's the case, well I don't know what's the point of further carrying this conversation. Please do explain as I don't think that's the case, but I've been wrong before. Last but not least, while I'm not nearly as concerned about related issues concerning Wikipedia profiles outside of Bosnian and Herzegovinian interest's I think it's more valid to say that the argument's provided on behalf of the same, creates a platform for righteous claim's, for valid claim's to perhaps further modify and expand the WP:Proper names so it wouldn't further create issues like these.--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - sometimes it is not easy to avoid misunderstandings. What I wanted to say was that regardless of your opinion of this rule, it has to be applied. (The "think" was used in the meaning of "believe". I have the feeling that everything going on from there like "Totalitarian, Apartheid, etc... forum" is based on a misinterpretation). The Wikipedia rules are not made by administrators, they are based on consensus. I still don't see why there should be an exception Bosnian and Herzegovinian interest's I think it's more valid to say that the argument's provided on behalf of the same, creates a platform for righteous claim's, for valid claim's to perhaps further modify and expand the WP:Proper names so it wouldn't further create issues like these.
Sigh - sometimes it is not easy to avoid misunderstandings. What I wanted to say was that regardless of your opinion of this rule, it has to be applied. (The "think" was used in the meaning of "believe". I have the feeling that everything going on from there like "Totalitarian, Apartheid, etc... forum" is based on a misinterpretation). The Wikipedia rules are not made by administrators, they are based on consensus. I still don't see why there should be an exception for Bosnia and Herzegovina - in that case Croatia, Slovenia etc. have to be treated in the same way. This would mean either a major violation of the rule or change for WP:Proper names which cannot be decided here. --Jaellee (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what's the point of the second to the last paragraph? No need to make major changes as the rule states the following: "...it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." So, I think making a change from SFR Yugoslavia to SFRY (Bosnia and Herzegovina)is perfectly within the rules. I still believe that country of origin should be Bosnia and Herzegovina, but coming to the aforementioned solution to the issue is something that I believe we can all live with.--User:Stlunatic071 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But given the amount of times that different editors have opposed your proposal, it clearly isn't. The infobox is for place of birth, not place of birth (and what it's now called). There is nothing wrong with just leaving it in the text. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thus far I've been going back and forth about this without citing the rule, but rather common sense among other valid and true statement's. Editor's who've opposed this change have been "throwing" the rule around as "Holy Grail" so perhaps now that we're all on the same page and the rule state's exactly what I'm arguing for, with hope others will have the fortitude to come forward and understand that changing country of birth from SFR Yugoslavia to SFRY (Bosnia and Herzegovina) is the right thing to do.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For over a week I (and other users) have tried to to explain how things are done here. I'm sick of explaining it over and over again (obviously without success) and I don't think that repeating it will help in any way. I don't see how this dispute can be resolved. --Jaellee (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You and what editors? More importantly, the rule was quoted and now that's not good enough. Perhaps you are right, this can't be resolved, let's allow incomplete information populate the article's and who care's about the "five pillars", right?--Stlunatic071 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" says SFR Yugoslavia in the infobox and I think everyone agrees to that. I merely suggested adding Bosnia because I didn't know how often this comes up. I don't edit this stuff. If what's generally done is just a basic original location, then that's fine with me. I'll agree with the others that the infobox should just say SFR and leave it at that. I think having it in the text should be fine. We don't even have a background section here. Is it really that much of a difference to you, Stluncatic? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you read that? It clearly says: "...first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." Perhaps, I don't understand something here? Please explain. Thank you.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Ricky81682 and Jaellee don't seem to understand is that SFR Yugoslavia stands Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, this was a federation of Republics, which had their own coat of arms, soevereignity in accordance with the SFRY. The correct should be and as it was displayed on Yugoslavian passports as SR Bosnia-Herzegovina. As it is explained on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Bosnia-Herzegovina which says Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Serbo-Croat: Socijalistička Republika Bosna i Hercegovina, Социјалистичка Pепублика Босна и Херцеговина) was a socialist state that was a constituent country of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Thus proving Stlunatic in this one guys. Please adjust the wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.198.156 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why are you people reverting the changes? SFR Yugoslavia supranational country just like United Kingdom, when we look up David Beckam than it says Full name David Robert Joseph Beckham Date of birth 2 May 1975 (1975-05-02) (age 34) Place of birth Leytonstone, London, England Height 6 ft (1.8 m)[1] Playing position Midfielder England, not UNITED KINGDOM, please educate yourselfs with a constituent country here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country

It is completly just to change the place of birth to SR Bosnia-Herzegovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.115.211 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all that keep bringing up how: "Status of England is irrelevant in this case" and similar "arguments", check: Talk:David_Beckham/Archive_3#David_Beckham.27s_Nationality and that ought to clear it up for you. In fact, now that all can read this information from the David Beckham talk page, we should be discussing whether country of birth should say Bosnia and Herzegovina or SR Bosnia and Herzegovina and stop with this SFRY non-sense.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous, they bring no arguments at all and now they have blocked the page from editing. Please provide clear arguments or change the place of birth to SR Bosnia-Herzegovina or ad least add that apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.219.224 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International goals

[edit]

The template shows 12 International goals, but in the list there are only nine. Can someone update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.166.11 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VfL Wolfsburg career statistics

[edit]

The provided text in the article brings Dzeko's tally total to: 44 goals in 59 appearances. "Dzeko finished the 2007-08 season with 8 goals and 7 assists in 17 games started. He ended the 2008-09 season with 26 goals and 10 assists in 32 league matches. In the DFB-Pokal he had 6 goals in 2 matches, and in the Uefa Cup had 4 goals and 2 assists in 8 matches." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.71.207 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics for Wolfsburg are now completely missing from the infobox, this needs to be corrected Thelostlibertine (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer of the Year

[edit]

Edin Dzeko is definitely "not" the German Footballer of the Year 2009. There was no election till yet. --KingOfRay 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.163.218 (talk)

Pronunciation

[edit]

How is his surname pronounced? Is it ZHECK-o or ZECK-o or ZEEK-o or what? Spiderone (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced "['dʒeko]". :) 212.233.143.236 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Club

[edit]

Current club is NOT Manchester City. Despite what City fans would like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.117.195 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for games played/gaols scored

[edit]

In the Club statistics page of the article it says Dzeko played 61 matches and scored 25 goals for City, but in the sidebar it says he only played 45 and scored 16 goals. There is a similar error for his time in Wolfsburg. Are some of the matches not suposed to be counted in the sidebar or is this a mistake?

This is not a mistake, the infobox lists only domestic league matches. It says at the bottom the infobox: Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of ... --Jaellee (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, did not see that Xzpx (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Adding Cyrillic lettering for player name

[edit]

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's rules for names, but Bosnia recognizes Latin and Serbian Cyrillic as official alphabets. Bosnian language is also written in both Latin and Serbian Cyrillic. However, I have noticed that the Cyrillic name in parentheses is only used for Bosnian Serbs (see Zvjezdan Misimovic). Should we use Serbian Cyrillic alphabet for all Bosnians or continue with current practice of using it only for Bosnians of Serbian nationality?Xzpx (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic is not only Serbian alphabets. Bosniaks using Cyrillic too.Pogled u nebo (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Xzpx: and @Pogled u nebo:, you are both right, and all article under Bosnia and Herzegovina scope should have both scripts included. However, this is not compulsory, it simply depends on editors and their habit, and availability of Windows tools on their desktops' toolbars.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edin Džeko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edin Džeko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edin_Džeko&oldid=1257712383"