Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles/2012 archive
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Biographies
Some ideas for the draft - I will use Estonia only as an example, as obviously the history of Baltic states varies to smaller or larger extent, depending on the period. Everything here is very much up for discussion, so feel free to add ideas or raise important points. --Sander Säde 08:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is definitely worth working through by historical periods. "X" rule/hegemony/etc. has always been a problem: the waxing and waning of foreign powers over Baltic territory means very few (major) places have been known by only one name. I do agree on 1918- sticking to country, not Ostland, not SSR. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've been doing some reading and appparently the formal name for the territories during both Swedish and Russian rule was Duchy of Estonia and Duchy of Livonia. I've updated Template:History_Timeline_of_Estonia to refect this. During both Swedish and Russian rule there was continuity in the local rule of Baltic German aristocracy. During Russian rule these duchies contained a single governorate, in contrast to Grand Duchy of Finland which contained a number of them. So I think for the Swedish/Russian period it would be correct to say Vändra, Duchy of Livonia --Nug (aka Martin Tammsalu) (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Birth and death place: Draft A
General principles
Use the name of the settlement as it was known at the time, but mention the current name. I.e. "Arensburg, Bishopric of Ösel–Wiek (now Kuressaare, Estonia)". Another possibility is to reverse the order for clarity, ie. "Viljandi, Estonia (then Fellin, Livonian Confederation)".
Ancient Estonia
For people born before the Northern Crusades and Danish Estonia (for example, Lembitu), use the county and "[[Ancient Estonia]]" or "[[Ancient Estonia|Estonia]]", e.g. "Sakala County, Estonia".
The Middle Ages
Use an appropriate name for the area, i.e. Danish Estonia, Bishopric of Ösel–Wiek, Terra Mariana etc - but mention the current names, i.e. "[[Kuressaare|Arensburg]], [[Bishopric of Ösel–Wiek]] (now Kuressaare, [[Estonia]])"
Estonia in the Russian Empire (1710 - 1918)
Use the appropriate governorate, but mention "now" location, i.e. "Vändra, Governorate of Livonia (now Estonia)" or "Narva, Saint Petersburg Governorate (now Estonia)".
Republic of Estonia (1918 - current)
For the whole period use "Estonia" as the sovereign state.
If, for some reason, the occupation by the German Empire, the Soviet Union or the Nazi Germany needs to be mentioned, use it in parenthesis - "Tallinn, Estonia (at the time under German occupation)", but it is generally advisable not to use this.
Birth and death place: Draft B
General principles - place of birth and place of death
- Article content. Use the name of the settlement with its current name and sovereign state, i.e. "X (was born/died) in what is now Tallinn, Estonia". This goes for all articles where the person was not born or did not die in sovereign Estonia. If historical geographical locale has any relevance to the article beyond place of birth and place of death, then elaboration should be placed within proper context.
- Infoboxes. Use the name of the settlement with its current name and sovereign state – with an explanatorial reference, i.e. "Tallinn, Estonia{{ref|behaviour *|*}}", and an explanatorial note at the end of the infobox {{note|behaviour *|*|Current name and sovereign state}}". This goes for all articles where the person was not born or did not die in sovereign Estonia.
A one-size fits all solution with no POV's attached. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 16:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Observations
It is common sense and practicality that the name of the sovereign nation or district accompany the name of any particular city. That also means, specifically, that from independence on (1918), only "Estonia", "Latvia", and "Lithuania" are valid state names, not Ostland, not SSR. Anything else pushes the historically fringe POV that Nazi or Soviet control was legitimate. We don't list "Vichy France" as the country for someone born in Lyon in 1941. "Ostland" or "SSR" are equally POV. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Another observation: The standard worldwide definition of "Place of Birth" used for passports of living people is the current country name, for example see United States passport#Place of birth:"The name of the country is the current name of the country that is presently in control of the territory the place of birth and thus changes upon a change of a country name." Thus Kaia Kanepi's passport, regardless of which country's passport she held, would list her place of birth as Tallinn, Estonia. Only in Wikipedia do we have people insisting on using defunct state names as places of birth for living people. --Nug (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Another observation: Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. In case of the Baltic states this sovereignty was resumed after the end of the occupation in 1991. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- This definition is rater unpractical here, as during theses cases, no country had 'supreme, independent authority over a geographic area'. The Soviets had factual control while the people born in the Estonian territory were Estonian citizens by birth, with their Soviet passports null and void. Russian military bases remained in Estonia until August 1994, so according to your definition, it would be questionable to use 'Estonia' as the sovereign country until that. And which country would people born during the Occupation of Japan be born in? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jaan, the argument with military bases does not work: the US still has military bases on territory of Germany, or, e.g. Cuba, and that has no effect on the sovereignty of the domestic governments over their territories. Regarding Japan occupied territories, during the war, the territory occupied by some powers are deemed to be under its provisional control, so, independently on their subsequent faith, they belong to the old sovereign. Regarding the Baltic states, there were no war, and the USSR claimed it acquired these territories permanently. Of course, almost no state recognized that claim de jure, so that case falls into a gray zone. However, before early 1990s, serious many authors were speaking about secession of the Baltic SSR's, not about termination of occupation. Therefore, your analogy with Japan is totally wrong. I would say, the analogy with Austria would be more correct: it was absorbed by Germany forcefully and illegally, this act was recognized only by some states. Later, when political situation changed, the great powers decided that Austria had became a victim of occupation. We have somewhat similar situation with the Baltic states now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Paul, the absence of war is irreverent, since Soviet actions were still in breach of bi-lateral treaties and thus in breach of international law. Nor is your analogy with Austria correct, since from the very first day the international community considered the Baltic were occupied, not some kind of retrospective determination of "occupation". --Nug (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- From the very first day, no "international community" existed, and remaining "Western democraties" had much more important things to do. The Baltic issue was not ignored just by few remaining neutral states (the US, Vatican, and few others). The absence of war is relevant, because permanent de facto sovereignty was claimed by some power, and this sovereignty was deemed permanent (not conditioned on termination of some hostilities, signing some treaty, etc).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deemed permanent by who? --Nug (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the annexing state. See Edelstein. Do not claim you are unfamiliar with that work: we discussed it in details previously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nazi Germany also deemed their annexations permanent too, we don't state someone's place of birth as Prague, Greater German Reich for someone born in Prague in 1942. --Nug (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, Prague was not a part of Germany. It was an autonomous protectorate. Austria was a better example. However, the problem with Austria was that during the war, in 1943, the Big Three decided that that territory was occupied by Germany, thereby retrospectively nullifying the US own decision to recognize Anschluss. Later, during the post-war period, this point of view gradually prevailed. All your analogies are too artificial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nazi Germany also deemed their annexations permanent too, we don't state someone's place of birth as Prague, Greater German Reich for someone born in Prague in 1942. --Nug (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the annexing state. See Edelstein. Do not claim you are unfamiliar with that work: we discussed it in details previously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deemed permanent by who? --Nug (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- From the very first day, no "international community" existed, and remaining "Western democraties" had much more important things to do. The Baltic issue was not ignored just by few remaining neutral states (the US, Vatican, and few others). The absence of war is relevant, because permanent de facto sovereignty was claimed by some power, and this sovereignty was deemed permanent (not conditioned on termination of some hostilities, signing some treaty, etc).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Paul, the absence of war is irreverent, since Soviet actions were still in breach of bi-lateral treaties and thus in breach of international law. Nor is your analogy with Austria correct, since from the very first day the international community considered the Baltic were occupied, not some kind of retrospective determination of "occupation". --Nug (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jaan, the argument with military bases does not work: the US still has military bases on territory of Germany, or, e.g. Cuba, and that has no effect on the sovereignty of the domestic governments over their territories. Regarding Japan occupied territories, during the war, the territory occupied by some powers are deemed to be under its provisional control, so, independently on their subsequent faith, they belong to the old sovereign. Regarding the Baltic states, there were no war, and the USSR claimed it acquired these territories permanently. Of course, almost no state recognized that claim de jure, so that case falls into a gray zone. However, before early 1990s, serious many authors were speaking about secession of the Baltic SSR's, not about termination of occupation. Therefore, your analogy with Japan is totally wrong. I would say, the analogy with Austria would be more correct: it was absorbed by Germany forcefully and illegally, this act was recognized only by some states. Later, when political situation changed, the great powers decided that Austria had became a victim of occupation. We have somewhat similar situation with the Baltic states now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am astounded that you are able to define my definition without having at least tried to understand what I have written in Draft B. Try to read it again, slowly, and see whether you do not end up with a different scenario. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Philaweb, if you want historical accuracy in the inbox, you cannot go halfway and stop at a point convenient to your argument. You are confusing control with sovereignty. As Mälksoo states on page 191 of his book Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR:
- "Since the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union in 1940 occurred without any justification under international law and a significant part of the international community did not give the Soviet conquest a formal recognition, the USSR could not get a legal right of possession of the Baltic States, from which it follows automatically according to the international law, meaning that the occupation regime lasted until Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained independence in 1991"
- Sovereignty requires the legal right of possession, without legality it remains mere control. Regardless of what ever foreign regime of control was imposed upon the Baltic people, sovereignty remained vested in them as the supreme authority, it was never transferred to the Soviet Union. If someone breaks into your home and occupies it, you don't lose ownership of your home, you still retain legal ownership regardless of whether they repaint and redecorate it. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Philaweb, if you want historical accuracy in the inbox, you cannot go halfway and stop at a point convenient to your argument. You are confusing control with sovereignty. As Mälksoo states on page 191 of his book Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR:
- Nug, I am first of all trying to achieve consensus. "Historical accuracy" is exactly what has been edit warred over, so I am not sure the easiest way to achieve consensus is going that way. And I do know all the arguments, I have read them on numerous occations the last four to five years. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has made very clever observations in his post at his talk page, especially: "...it would certainly be possible to make a case for the same practical solution you favour, while at the same time rejecting your reasons for it". Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 16:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- As usually, Nug seems to mix the issue of the international recognition of territorial changes and sovereignty. If sovereignty is conditional on international recognition, then we have to conclude that no state can exist (i.e. to possess sovereignty over its own territory) before first international treaty is signed that approves its sovereignty. In that situation, it becomes unclear how can an international treaty be signed with an entity that does not exists so far. Obviously, that is nonsense. When some country claims sovereignty over some territory, it obtains it, however, foreign states may recognize or not recognize this claim. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, FPoS observation was indeed clever, but uselessly vague and somewhat evasive, as I had asked him to articulate the "at least one or two equally legitimate opinions that are possible beyond the two that have been edit-warred over". The problem is this insistence on a "one size fits all" solution on Baltic topics when other projects have specific guidelines, despite the uniqueness of the Baltic case. The implication of Philaweb's proposal is to have Tallinn, USSR, (since the Estonian SSR did not have "supreme, independent authority over a geographic area" either) which is clearly unacceptable. Hardly conducive to consensus building. --Nug (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my world, a draft does not equal insistence. Don't we want to discuss things first? That way FPoS's observation might come true, you know. There are no such implications. If you read it once more, you will see that "sovereignty" regulates "what is now" in the article content and the explanatorial reference in the infobox. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well it that case you need to explain your case more fully, vague guidelines will only lead to more conflict as people will have differing interpretations. --Nug (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my world, a draft does not equal insistence. Don't we want to discuss things first? That way FPoS's observation might come true, you know. There are no such implications. If you read it once more, you will see that "sovereignty" regulates "what is now" in the article content and the explanatorial reference in the infobox. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nug, I am first of all trying to achieve consensus. "Historical accuracy" is exactly what has been edit warred over, so I am not sure the easiest way to achieve consensus is going that way. And I do know all the arguments, I have read them on numerous occations the last four to five years. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has made very clever observations in his post at his talk page, especially: "...it would certainly be possible to make a case for the same practical solution you favour, while at the same time rejecting your reasons for it". Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 16:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
And as Jaan points out, who had "supreme, independent authority over the geographic area" of Japan between 1945 and 1952? --Nug (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding Germany, I already explained you a concept of debellatio. Just look in the archives. Regarding Japan, Emperor nominally existed in Japan even during that period. The American authorities took deliberately provisional control over Japan, and they planned to transfer permanent sovereignty to the Japanese themselves. Therefore, the question is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- But until permanent sovereignty was transferred, the USA never the less held sovereignty temporarily during that period. --Nug (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with Japan and Germany, if I understand that correctly, was as follows: to do what they wanted to do in those countries, the Allies had no choice but to take sovereignty over them. However, they didn't want to do that. As a result, they put forward the idea of occupatio sui generis: they took provisional control over a territory that had no actual permanent sovereign. Situation with the USSR was directly reverse: they claimed permanent sovereignty, and they did not plan to return it. Frankly speaking, it is hard to provide more irrelevant example than Japan, thus, two other aspects that were totally different in Japan and Estonia were as follows: the US didn't issue US passports for Japan citizens living in Home Islands- the USSR granted Soviet citizenship to all Estonians; to come to Estonia from abroad, one had to pass Soviet border, and no border control existed between Estonian SSR and other parts of the USSR. In contrast, travel to and from post war Japan was not regulated by US domestic law, and all Japanese needed to have a visa to enter the US.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- But until permanent sovereignty was transferred, the USA never the less held sovereignty temporarily during that period. --Nug (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, in Lithuanian Wikipedia we had a discussion (in lt:Aptarimas:Andrius Kubilius - [1]) and have reached an agreement that it is best to leave just the name of the town, without the name of the state. Whoever will not know where the tows is, will use the internal link (and let's face it - in many cases such readers use "Lithuania" and "Latvia" as synonyms anyway)... That prevents all the problems with edit wars "Lithuania"/"Lithuanian SSR"/"USSR". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I stated above, the place of birth for BLP should be based upon "The name of the country is the current name of the country that is presently in control of the territory the place of birth and thus changes upon a change of a country name." The International Civil Aviation Organization has a list of current places of birth to be used in passports here. It is the the most neutral and verifiable way of handling place of birth for living people. --Nug (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, Hannibal was born in Tunisia, Tigranes the Great was born in Turkey? What relation does Aviation Organisation has to the history articles?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think Hannibal is a BLP. This discussion is related to how do we handle the place of birth of living people like Maret Ani. --Nug (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion is about a MoS on Baltic states-related articles, and can also be about place of death, as the two drafts also states. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 18:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and the point of creating a MoS on Baltic states-related articles is to end the constant disputes over the place of birth for living people like we have seen in Maret Ani. --Nug (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion is about a MoS on Baltic states-related articles, and can also be about place of death, as the two drafts also states. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 18:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think Hannibal is a BLP. This discussion is related to how do we handle the place of birth of living people like Maret Ani. --Nug (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, Hannibal was born in Tunisia, Tigranes the Great was born in Turkey? What relation does Aviation Organisation has to the history articles?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ах, боже мой! "SSR" applies everywhere else in the former USSR but not to the Baltic states, where the USSR exercised control but no sovereignty. If we are to bring up other examples (Tunesia and Turkey), then the example that applies is that we don't list "Vichy France" as the country for someone born in Lyon in 1941. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bad example. Was "Vichy France" an official name? No. The official name was "French State". Moreover, Vichy France emerged as a result of the WWII, and it ceased to exist before the war ended. Therefore, the status of this territory, as well as of the Northern France was intrinsically provisional, and was conditioned to the outcome of WWII (maybe, had the outcome of the WWII been different, anyone born in Lion in 1941 would be considered to be born in Vichy France). In contrast, there was nothing provisional in the status of the Baltic states within the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Baltic SSRs emerged as a result of the M-R Pact and ceased to exist as an outcome of the Cold War. Therefore the status of these territories were also intrinsically provisional while de jure recognition was withheld. De facto recognition is by definition a provisional measure. The recognising state takes note of the factual situation, but reserves the right to withdraw recognition or to judge continuity at a later date as many countries did after 1991. --Nug (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- MRP did not stipulate formation of the Baltic states, and nothing implied provisional character of annexation of the Baltic states during Cold War. In contrast, during late 1980s, the discussion of the fate of the Baltic republics took place in a context of secession (which would be impossible if they were seen as occupied territories). In addition, the decision about permanent/provisional character is made not by some third states. The territorial changes can be recognized/non-recognized by third states, but are not a subject of their approval.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- You would be correct if you considered the territory of the Baltic states as terra nullius, however these countries were internationally recognised (and full members of international bodies such as the League of Nations) and in international law there is a very strong presumption for continuity and against extinction. It does not matter if the SU believed their acquisition was permanent, approval of that acquisition by third states is central because these third states also recognised the Baltic states as full sovereign nations prior to the actions of the SU. The international community recognised the Anschluss at the time and thus Austria became extinct, even though that recognition was withdrawn after WW2. On the other hand there was never any general recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states, thus they never became extinct. Thus De facto recognition was a temporary measure pending full de jure recognition which never came. Nor does it matter if discussion of the Baltic states took place in a context of secession in the late 1980s, because the majority of countries finally accepted the Baltic thesis of continuity, that is a verifiable fact. --Nug (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I would like you to provide reliable sources to support the following statements:
- "approval of that acquisition by third states is central".
- "The international community recognised the Anschluss at the time and thus Austria became extinct"
- Then we can move further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, see the chapter titled "International Recognition of the Anschluss and of Austria's Extinction" on page 343 in Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law by Krystyna Marek[2], stating:
- "There can therefore be no doubt that the German seizure of Austria and, consequently, the extinction of the latter, achieved international recognition."
- Later on page 346:
- "The position of Austria prior to the outbreak of the Second World War may be summarised as follows: a) there was an effective absorption of Austria into Germany; b) that absorption had achieved international recognition; c) no organ, however rudimentary, of the Austrian State was left to assert and carry on her legal continuity. The extinction of a state could hardly seem more complete"
- In the case of the Baltic states, the USSR only achieved a), while it failed to achieve b) and the continued existence of Baltic diplomatic representatives made c) not applicable. You are basically arguing that only a) is important while ignoring b) and c), however scholars like Marek argue all three factors are important.
- And yet even with Austria's extinction, the international community withdrew their recognition with the outbreak of WW2, and the Austrian state was resurrected at the war's conclusion, underlying the power and importance of international recognition in the question of whether states maintain continuity, become extinct and be resurrected. --Nug (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, see the chapter titled "International Recognition of the Anschluss and of Austria's Extinction" on page 343 in Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law by Krystyna Marek[2], stating:
- Firstly, I would like you to provide reliable sources to support the following statements:
- You would be correct if you considered the territory of the Baltic states as terra nullius, however these countries were internationally recognised (and full members of international bodies such as the League of Nations) and in international law there is a very strong presumption for continuity and against extinction. It does not matter if the SU believed their acquisition was permanent, approval of that acquisition by third states is central because these third states also recognised the Baltic states as full sovereign nations prior to the actions of the SU. The international community recognised the Anschluss at the time and thus Austria became extinct, even though that recognition was withdrawn after WW2. On the other hand there was never any general recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states, thus they never became extinct. Thus De facto recognition was a temporary measure pending full de jure recognition which never came. Nor does it matter if discussion of the Baltic states took place in a context of secession in the late 1980s, because the majority of countries finally accepted the Baltic thesis of continuity, that is a verifiable fact. --Nug (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- MRP did not stipulate formation of the Baltic states, and nothing implied provisional character of annexation of the Baltic states during Cold War. In contrast, during late 1980s, the discussion of the fate of the Baltic republics took place in a context of secession (which would be impossible if they were seen as occupied territories). In addition, the decision about permanent/provisional character is made not by some third states. The territorial changes can be recognized/non-recognized by third states, but are not a subject of their approval.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Baltic SSRs emerged as a result of the M-R Pact and ceased to exist as an outcome of the Cold War. Therefore the status of these territories were also intrinsically provisional while de jure recognition was withheld. De facto recognition is by definition a provisional measure. The recognising state takes note of the factual situation, but reserves the right to withdraw recognition or to judge continuity at a later date as many countries did after 1991. --Nug (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Quickpoll 1
If noone opposes, let us have a quickpoll to see whether a certain proposal is viable amongst editors.
- It is way too early to be conducting polls, as the issues have not been fully discussed by all the participants and may in fact have a polarising effect. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Question: Do you want ""settlement/town"" only as "place of birth/death", and no further geographical locale, as part of MoS for Baltic states-related articles?
Yes
- I suppose, I have to write "Yes"..? Well, the poll question does seem to be wrong - at least at this time... I wouldn't say that I "want" this option. However, I am "almost certain" that, if this discussion is going to end up with any consensus, this is going to be the option chosen (unless a very significant part of the participants is going to be banned, blocked or chased off for one reason or another, leading to a complete victory of one side). I would expect it to be an option that no (almost no) participant really likes. I am quite sure that everyone (almost everyone) would prefer one option of "Vilnius, Lithuania", "Vilnius, USSR" or "Vilnius, Lithuanian SSR" to "Vilnius", but I also suspect that every participant will prefer "Vilnius" to at least one of those listed options. Thus, given that it is extremely unlikely that everyone will agree on any other option, either everyone will - eventually, almost certainly not now - agree to drop the mention of the state, or won't agree at all. I would prefer the first option, feel free to disagree. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
No
- Philaweb
- Whereas for Latvian, or other Wikipedia project with limited audience, this approach may work, it is hardly appropriate for English Wikipedia. A reader do not have to do independent search of where the town/city was situated, and what state entity it belonged to. The very issue seems totally artificial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- While "Yes" solves a "problem" by eliminating choices in dispute, I believe this is the wrong question. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment
Please follow WP:common usage. If someone asked in the former Soviet Union "Where (what place) this person was born?", the common answer would be "He was born in Latvia, USSR" (or in Georgia, Moldavia, etc.). Telling "he was born in Latvian SSR" would sound very strange. One should simply check WP:common usage in English language sources and do not claim this to be an exemption from rules. My very best wishes (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Quickpoll 2
- What do you list as the country of birth/death for an individual:
- The name of the sovereign nation?
- The name of the
occupying powerillegitimate/illegal controlling authority?
- Choice #1 is NPOV, #2 is not. "Estonian SSR", "Latvian SSR", "Lithuanian SSR", "Vichy France", and "U.S. Occupied Japan" all fall under #2. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The idea to group these four examples together is POV per se. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well if we eliminated the examples and specify choice 2 as "occupying and/or annexing power", would that be a legitimate question? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand you. "Annexing power" - what does it mean? The US annexed Texas, the USSR annexed Bessarabia, India annexed Goa - should we write "Goa" or "Bessarabia"/"Romania" without mentioning of the larger state entity these territories became parts of?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am sure you are aware these examples are invalid for the 'occupation annexation' of the Baltic states. I am sure you are aware what prof. Mälksoo wrote us. Feel free to reword to reflect his actual meaning better. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mälksoo wrote that the events we discuss have little legal effect on the present status of the Baltic states. However, he noted that the political realities of 1940s-80s cannot be ignored. For example, the only passport people born in 1945-90 had was the Soviet passport. --Paul Siebert (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is not correct, Mälksoo states on page 149: "Baltic passports and seamen' IDs continued to be honored by States which did not recognize the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic States." And Marek writes on page 406: "the personnel of these Legations still enjoy full diplomatic privileges. Moreover, they continue to transact normal business, such as the protection of their nationals and the issuing of passports". --Nug (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mälksoo wrote that the events we discuss have little legal effect on the present status of the Baltic states. However, he noted that the political realities of 1940s-80s cannot be ignored. For example, the only passport people born in 1945-90 had was the Soviet passport. --Paul Siebert (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am sure you are aware these examples are invalid for the 'occupation annexation' of the Baltic states. I am sure you are aware what prof. Mälksoo wrote us. Feel free to reword to reflect his actual meaning better. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand you. "Annexing power" - what does it mean? The US annexed Texas, the USSR annexed Bessarabia, India annexed Goa - should we write "Goa" or "Bessarabia"/"Romania" without mentioning of the larger state entity these territories became parts of?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well if we eliminated the examples and specify choice 2 as "occupying and/or annexing power", would that be a legitimate question? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The idea to group these four examples together is POV per se. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, what is POV per se regarding my little quiz? In no case were the SSRs or Vichy France legitimate authorities. You simply declare something is biased and that makes it so? We are only solving "what country" for three current countries for a specific period of time during which they were controlled by an illegitimate authority. What's the problem with dropping "SSR?" They were never legally part of the USSR. The USSR declaring my parents were USSR citizens and traitors for defecting does not make it so, they continued to use their Latvian passports until their death or becoming naturalized citizens of another country. My personal impression is that you're once again pursuing your less than a real occupation/too long to be just an occupation personal POV. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be glad to discuss styles for the other cases you mention in their appropriate forums, if you have stylistic policy changes to suggest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) To Jaan's question, as of their initial declarations of independence, the birthplace country of anyone born in Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia is "Latvia", "Lithuania", or "Estonia". There's no controversy to solve here. The only POV issue here is editors wishing to inject "SSR" as a euphemism for "under Soviet control, everybody knows it, there's no denying it" for the Soviet era. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly place of birth was indicated in official biographies of these people and in publications about them? Let's simply follow WP:common usage. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly open to that, although I would be uncomfortable if that create an artificial bifurcation where post-Soviet Russian sources indicate X was born in name-your-Baltic SSR while non-Russian sources indicate X was born in name-your-Baltic state--that rather going back to the official "you can't occupy what belongs to you" issue. That just brings the age-old "part of the Soviet Union" schmutz to yet another whole class of articles rather than nipping the issue in the bud. Just saying. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- One should look how their place of birth was described in modern (not Soviet) English language sources and in their national (Estonian, Latvian, etc.) sources. Their own biographies (as published in RS) are important because this is in a certain way a matter of self-identification. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- If someone self-identifies as being born a Soviet citizen, that is their choice and we are done. In all other cases I don't see any benefit to indicating that XYZ territory was under control of an illegitimate regime for those born there during that time period. We should endeavor to avoid dueling sources scenarios. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I think in formulating this we ought to also reflect the current practice in existing articles, particularly as it relates to Estonian BLPs (I'm not sure of the extent of uniformity with Latvian and less so Lithuanian BLPs), as it reflects a de facto standard, the point of this style guide is to make that standard de jure across all Baltic related articles. Perhaps PhilaWeb's alternate rule could be merged with the original rule that reflects the status quo within most articles? --Nug (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, the proposal to use the birth/death country as stated in the majority of modern mainstream sources sounds like a compromise to me, as certainly the result would be a mix of different states for different biographies for the same period. The downside would be a number of arguments on the applicable sources and their interpretations but at least we would have a common basis for the arguments. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me also point out that different topics have different manuals of style, like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Nationality_.28biographies.29 for instance. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, the proposal to use the birth/death country as stated in the majority of modern mainstream sources sounds like a compromise to me, as certainly the result would be a mix of different states for different biographies for the same period. The downside would be a number of arguments on the applicable sources and their interpretations but at least we would have a common basis for the arguments. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I think in formulating this we ought to also reflect the current practice in existing articles, particularly as it relates to Estonian BLPs (I'm not sure of the extent of uniformity with Latvian and less so Lithuanian BLPs), as it reflects a de facto standard, the point of this style guide is to make that standard de jure across all Baltic related articles. Perhaps PhilaWeb's alternate rule could be merged with the original rule that reflects the status quo within most articles? --Nug (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- If someone self-identifies as being born a Soviet citizen, that is their choice and we are done. In all other cases I don't see any benefit to indicating that XYZ territory was under control of an illegitimate regime for those born there during that time period. We should endeavor to avoid dueling sources scenarios. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- One should look how their place of birth was described in modern (not Soviet) English language sources and in their national (Estonian, Latvian, etc.) sources. Their own biographies (as published in RS) are important because this is in a certain way a matter of self-identification. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly open to that, although I would be uncomfortable if that create an artificial bifurcation where post-Soviet Russian sources indicate X was born in name-your-Baltic SSR while non-Russian sources indicate X was born in name-your-Baltic state--that rather going back to the official "you can't occupy what belongs to you" issue. That just brings the age-old "part of the Soviet Union" schmutz to yet another whole class of articles rather than nipping the issue in the bud. Just saying. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)