Talk:Sergei Pareiko

Place of birth

The "Place of birth" issue was discussed for months back in 2008 and we were unable to achieve consensus back then for a globally applicable guideline, (see: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth). In the years since then the default defacto style is to list Estonia rather than Soviet Union as place of birth, the view of the majority of people editing Estonia related football articles being that the geographical location is more useful to a reader than listing a defunct state that ceased to exist when that football player was a child. I guess we should write a style guide to formalise this defacto standard so that we do not have this problem again. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue has to do with aplicable policies to be applied in all cases, and Estonia is not a world exception. Also, it is not trouth that the usage os Estonia ever gained consensus, it is just that several users edit-warred over a long period to keep that edit, and others ended up being indifferent. As well seen, only Estonian users defend this, and all other users agree with historical acuracy as way to go. You (Estonian editors) may challenge Soviet sovereignity, but the fact is that between 1945 and 1991 Estonia was indeed part of the Soviet Union, and we can have all the feelings about that as we want, that doesn´t change that fact. The worste possible argument basically is to use a country of birth (Estonia in this case) for a period when the country linked didn´t existed as such. It is like saying that Moctezuma II was born in modern day Mexico...

This discussion should be moved to a place where more editors could express their views and where a princible to be applied in future could be created regarding this birthplace issue. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You say "it is just that several users edit-warred over a long period to keep that edit", this is simply untrue. That article has always had Estonia as the birthplace since the day the article was first given infobox[1]. If you are going to make stuff up and not be honest about the history of this article, then I think there cannot be a good basis for discussion. This is not the place to push personal political viewpoints or promote the Soviet Union. We are dealing with BLPs of young players, this is a style issue and the infobox states "Place of birth", not "Country of birth", geographically that place is Estonia. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Really weird that it came up again. There has been "Estonia" everywhere for a long time. I can guarantee, that atleast 99% of articles about Estonians have that. And I'm sure that there will be always users who will remove Soviet Union no matter what, so the edit war would last forever. Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn´t matter at all how much time an edit was in place, as many wrong edits are often found on WP, so that is not an argument. Also, the risk of edit-warring isn´t an argument either, as we certainly aren´t going to be hostage of possible vandalisation of articles... What you need is to demonstrate where is the logic in saying that a person born before 1991 is born in a place that only existed afterwords (Estonia clearly says: "Independence restore 20 August 1991").

We agreed a long time ago to use in infobox only city+country, with no provinces, territories or whatever, and we were quite flexible by allowing the use of republics in Soveiet case (exemple: Estonian SSR), so anti-Soviet editors would somehow be satisfied... But you don´t appreciate your exception, but you want it all. Well, no. I am from Serbia, I would gladly see Serbia in infoboxes, but I use allways Yugoslavia, as that was the country back then... After all, who cares? Why are you making such a big deal about this? I understand you peoople basically hate the USSR, but dear fellows, we are not going to be unencyclopedic just because something is unpleasent for you. You are not exception, and no one is. All biographies should use the place of birth existing at time of birth, and not some other one... Get out of this drama and move on. FkpCascais (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time in a different discussion, when I post this, but there still are various differences between cases like Serbia/Yugoslavia and Estonia/Estonian SSR/Soviet Union:

• Estonia was under Soviet occupation, which was not recognized by most Western nations de jure. According to international law, Estonia is in fact the same state it was in 1918-1940 and never ceased to exist, but was only occupied during 1940-1991.
• Most people in question have little to do with the Soviet Union since they became famous in independent Estonia and only lived their childhood in the Soviet Union.
• It is perfectly clear to absolutely everyone where a person was born if they see "Estonia" in the infobox. If the ruling state was the same state that existed in Magadan and Baku, then the place of birth becomes more vague (like Tallinn, Soviet Union...). Estonia is not only an independent country, it is a distinct geographic region with clear borders separating it from its neighbors.
• There has been a standard about this for several years now. Note that we don't (and I don't) write Tallinn, Estonia in the infobox for a person born in 1916 or 1850 - we write Tallinn, Governorate of Estonia, and often Russian Empire and usually in the brackets "now Tallinn, Estonia", but this is more common for people born in the less known Governorate of Livonia. The reason we don't write simply Estonia is that these were the internationally recognised borders at the time, although the same argument for the geographic region would hold and I don't see much wrong with just Estonia in their infobox. But as told, Soviet occupation definitely wasn't internationally recognised, merely by a handful of states that were mostly part of the Warsaw Pact. H2ppyme (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais states: "We agreed a long time ago to use in infobox only city+country", where is this agreement, can FkpCascais provide such a link? There are plenty of exceptions, for example there is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles, etc. I see no reason why we cannot have something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@H2ppyme,

1-I am aware of the occupation, and that not all countries recognised it, however, in practice, schoolary maps all showed Estonia within Soviet Union even in the countries which oposed occupation. Basically, in practice all countries accepted the occupation, and could do little about it... Estonian territory during this period was effectively accupied by Soviet troops, and was in control of the Estonian SSR under USSR. Suposing Estonia existed as free independent country during this period just because some countries didn´t recognised the Soviet occupation doesn´t reflect the actual situation. Tallinn, and all the territory of Estonia was part of Estonian SSR, and not some imaginary independent Estonia. FYI, we even use partially recognised puppet states like IS Croatia, Vichy France, or Manchukuo in infoboxes, so not much of an argument by saying that not ALL countries recognised it...

2-The place of birth is one specific thing, and has absolutely nothing to do with what and where the person was famous afterwords...

3-Soviet Union, or Estonia are equally recognisable. Even if not, people´s unknolledge can´t ever be used as encyclopedic reason. If people don´t know where is Tallinn, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union in 1982, it is their problem. Encyclopedia serves exactly to be precise and educate others. After all, the links to the articles are there. And no, geographical units were never heard before as a thing to be used in infoboxes. General consensus is to use city+country at time of birth. Wikipedia favours specific criteriums, rather than vague concepts like "geographical units".

4-For the same reason you write Tallinn, Governorate of Estonia, Russian Empire (and Russian Empire should allways, not sometimes, be included while it had its jurisdiction under Gov.E) you should writte Tallinn, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union for the 1945-1991 period. Fully recognised, or not, it was in fact accepted, and Estonia in fact appeared only as independent in 1991. State without territory (or with its territory occupied and recognised) can´t be a "counyry of birth". Also, bracketts (today whatever) have no consensus, and generally are not to be used.

@Martin Tammsalu, I will try to find you discussions on this, but whenever the issue appeared at Footy Project there was this consensus I talk: city+country. I don´t opose at all having a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. FkpCascais (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that according to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, Scotland (even without ", United Kingdom") is used as a place of birth although the British rule is considered to be legal by all countries. A similar manual of style definitely should be used for the Baltic states. And just to inform you, it is still Tallinn in English with two N-s in the end, regardless what you can read on Russian or Soviet maps. H2ppyme (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no H2ppyme, I have no knollwdge of Russian whatsoever, I only tend to writte Tallin instead of Tallinn because the languages I use most are Portuguese and Spanish, and they don´t use double n. And don´t be unfair with me, I was not refering to Soviet maps, be real, pick whatever American map having Soviet Union and what you´ll see in most of them is an entire URSS colored in same color with internal borders showing the internal SSR´s. But I don´t remember seing even one with clearly separate Baltic states showing them as independent.

I participated in numerous discussions about this issue obviously because I work in many biographies of people born in former Yugoslavia. Many users were changing Yugoslavia to the new countries, and the vast majority of the established editors opposed that. As a way to balance things I even proposed using the Yugoslav Republics (same case as with Soviet ones, the SSR´s) in between as way to satisfy both sides, but even that was rejected with the argument: "Only city+country at time of birth! No provinces, republics, current states or anything else!" And the majority agreed on this, and if you all notece most biographies from Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia follow this. Even the brackets saying (current Xland) were described as undesired. Now, as many USA and UK born biographies use their states in between (exemple: Los Angeles, California, United States) for the Soviet Union cases this was somehow allowed, despite many editors beleaving that even in Soviet cases having only city+Soviet Union would be enough. I really think we should move this discussion somewhere where more editors could participate, so you all could see that many editors do feel this is a consensus about this. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Nationalism_in_country_of_birth_.28again.29. Apologies for my tone there, but some of you were acting a bit agressively back then. Notece how most editors agree and not only one disagreed with me, or aproved your edits. To finish, I just want to say to all of you that I only involved in this because the changes you want to introduce could have a boomerang efect into other cases (rest of URSS, and many more cases around the world) and I really would hate to see all people edit warring over birthplaces and replacing former states with current ones... It has nothing to do particularely with Estonian case, I would have had exactly the same response to any other case in the world. I really hope you all understand this and don´t think I support Soviets or dislike Estonia. :) It is pure manual of style I stand for here. PS: I corrected all Tallinn´s back. Sincere apologies for that. FkpCascais (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are mis-representing the situation by claiming "the changes you want to introduce". Do you not understand that this article and other Estonian football articles have always had Estonia as the place of birth from the very beginning, this has been the concensus for these articles from the beginning. It is you who is wanting to introduce changes by having Soviet Union instead. Look at all the Scottish players like Cammy Bell, their places of birth is listed as Scotland, not Scotland, United Kingdom. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of biographies of people born in Soviet Union say Soviet Union. This is indeed standard for all other similar cases but Estonia, and all because Estonian users make a big deal of this and insist on it, however you don´t have any consensus on that, you basically "pushed" the edit. That is hardly an argument, and it doesn´t matter if certain edit was in place for 2 months or 5 years, if against consensus it should be corrected. And it is not me, but from what I saw, all other editors who are not Estonians don´t agree with you. Btw, Scotland existed as such for the time period used, Estonia didn´t existed as such for the time period you want to use... ´Between 1945 and 1991 the Estonia to be used is Estonian SSR as that was the one that existed. You have to use a country that existed indeed for the day/month/year in question. That is why for cases between 1945 and 1991 Tallinn is in Soviet Union, and basically the best we can do is to allow you to include the administrative unit existing in between the two and in this period, which would then be Estonian SSR. The only possible argument in my view for you would be to use some sort of Estonian Governament in Exile, but even then, you can´t apply it for cases of place of birth, as it didn´t had a territory, and without territory you can´t have people being born there... FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That seemed like a fair discussion... I find this edit where the user reverts consensus - this is a lie! He reverted the edit, that was done opposing the long-standing consensus for people born in Estonia. I also find it questionable that you discussed the issue in the football section, that of course none of us really care about and never read. Furthermore, you call people to create a principle about these cases, a principle that should be created totally without our partiticipation. Now think for a bit - are you really trying to be "neutral" or just have a secret agenda that you wish to push through? And to inform you further, I know how Tallinn is written in Spanish, but in English it is still with two N-s. H2ppyme (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think FkpCascais has trouble grasping the difference between de jure and de facto. De facto, Estonia was a part of Soviet Union. De jure, the incorporation was not recognized (Stimson Doctrine in the US) and Estonian Government in Exile existed throughout the Soviet occupation. This is the basis for the modern scholarly viewpoint, i.e. Republic of Estonia has existed continuously since 1918.

Also, I agree with Martin that this is not the place for this discussion. We should create either Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Estonia-related articles, notifying all people of resp. wikiprojects of the discussion (which should happen on resp. MOS talk page), thus creating a general guideline for this matter.

--Sander Säde 07:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...or is it Sander Sade who is having trouble grasping that people can´t be born in Exile Governaments without territory? You need a phisical place to be born, not some papper state... I moved the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Country_of_birth.2C_for_historic_.28and_current.29_bios.2C_part_II. Note there was a very similar discussion just few sections up. Now gentleman, please expose your views there. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It appears you don't understand at all what we're talking about. --Sander Säde 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought of not saying nothing more here without presence of other neutral editors, as you are starting to make it personal and being in the line of personal attacks. But I will unswer this to you: No, it seems that it is you who doesn´t understand that the fact of the Soviet occupation not being recognised by some countries has in practice nothing to do with phisical place of birth. Estonians born between 1945 and 1991 within Estonian SSR were born in Soviet Union, and most world countries recognised the situation as such. So beside "de facto" it is also "de jure", despite the "de facto" part being way more important for this context as people simply can´t be born in a country without territory... God!... Btw, most countries in the wold accepted Soviet occupation, so not much of an argument either... Also, I am fed up of you insulting other editors (some of you said the same argument of unknolledge to other users as well) while all you know to do is to use unconvincing unappliable arguments and to use countries of birth in wrong time periods... FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Double-sigh. Let me explain it once again. By modern scholarly view, Estonian occupation and incorporation to Soviet Union was illegal and never de jure recognized besides a few countries. Most countries did not recognize the incorporation (not "some" like you once again wrote) There goes your de jure part.

If you want to use "phisical" place (what is with all the bad typos all the time? They make understanding you rather hard), then that would be Estonia. "Physical place" means geographical area, not political control.

And lastly, "between 1945 and 1991". So what country are we talking about 1940-44? Was legality of the German occupation in any way different from the legality of Soviet occupation? If you want to go with Soviet viewpoint (as you do with the whole Estonian SSR idea), then it should be Estonian SSR from 1940 to 1991?

--Sander Säde 05:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming the Estonian desirable side of the story is "modern-day scolarly view", but in fact it isn´t. See the resolution of the European Parliament, which did not aproved Estonian motion for a resolution acknowledging the 48 years of occupation as a fact, but only acknowledged Estonia's loss of independence lasting from 1940 to 1991 and that annexation of Estonia by Soviet Union was considered illegal by Western democracies (again, "Western democracies" is only part of the World, and the resolution is clear about your "loss of independence"). On the other side, Russians claim they "liberated" you, and that is not what I stand for, so don´t exagerate about my "siding" position.

To answer you about the period during WWII, I beleave there was a Directorate of Estonia, right?

Regarding "place of birth (as physical)", there is widely estableshed use to have cities (or towns, villages, etc.) and independent countries to define where a person is born. FkpCascais (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, excellent - we have an article about this, I forgot - State continuity of the Baltic states. What resolution do you mean, [2] from 1983? And re: "phisical" - see Physical geography and Political geography. Physical geography does not deal with politics or countries. --Sander Säde 08:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what FkpCascais is talking about This 2007 resolution of the European Parliament also explicitly acknowledges 48 years of occupation [3]. Look, I am sorry that Estonia defeated Serbia in football, but is that any justification for his behaviour here? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no, it has nothing to do at all to anything personal. I even have a very nice friendship with User:Pelmeen10, and in life I only met a few people from Estonia but were all incredibly nice. Also, I have no special simpathies whatsoever for Russia, and much less Soviet Union. As I already said, I just came out of a long mediation where I had to defend the monarchist POV of the Chetniks against the "Soviet favourites" Partisans POV.

The main issue here is that you guys are opening the Pandora box here. Weather you want to admit it, or not, there has been a long standing agreement to use Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia as birth place in infobox for footballers. Perhaps Estonian footballers passed unnoteced with this rule, but for the rest you can easily check this out. We start articles by saying right in the lead that a player is Slovakian (exemple) anyway, so it has only to do with infobox. I do understand the difference of the Baltic States complexity over this, but to be honest, I still don´t think it is worth giving you the state of exeption, and it will undeniably lead for all others wanting to change it as well. And you guys only want to fix Estonia, and it is not you who will be around when all others starting wanting to have their case treated as special. That is the problem here, and that is why I still see enough reasons to keep USSR as place of birth in infobox even for Baltic States. FkpCascais (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are opening any Pandora's box, this style for Baltic articles has been in existence for years before and after the discussion of it was held at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth in February 2008, and after everyone became aware of that Baltic style during the discussion it did not lead anyone outside the Baltic topic space wanting to change it. So I don't think you need to worry about it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but still, I am not sure what exactly you stand for here. For exemple, my impression is that you defend the use current states for all cases. Also, within Estonian users some of you are even questiong what "place of birth" means, giving the geographical place excuse, as if there was no certainty that in every single encyclopedia city+country are actually used. It would be much easier for all of you to defend historical accuracy for all cases, but to say that historical accuracy for Baltic Staes case during the period of Soviet occupation is a specificity. Does this sound logical? FkpCascais (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Tammsalu, of what "Baltic style" are you talking about? I checked footballers from Latvia national football team, they all have got city, Latvian SSR, USSR (now Republic of Latvia). I checked footballers from Lithuania national football team, most of them have got city, Soviet Union or city, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union. Also, I checked presidents of both countries, Latvian - have got Nītaure, Latvian SSR, Soviet Union (now Latvia), Lithuanian - Vilnius, Soviet Union (now Lithuania). So this mythical "Baltic style" applies only to Estonians and is in fact "Estonian style".Oleola (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oleola, as you actively participated already in this discussions, could you please accept my invitation to express your view on the subject in a specific thread dealing exactly about this issue here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Country_of_birth.2C_for_historic_.28and_current.29_bios.2C_part_II. FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Tamsalu, I also invited all interested editors to participate at the discussion in Estonian Wiki Project: [[4]]. As you can see, I did it despite knowing that many may not agree with me on this, but I think it was fair to do it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)