- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is ample evidence that Korolev got a Canadian citizenship. Korolev's family has a permanent home in Toronto, Ontario. It is normal to call this person a "Russian-Canadian". What do people think of this? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Since it appears he gained Canadian citizenship it is correct to refer to him as Russian-Canadian. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Appears doesn't mean he had. Do we have a reliable source which actually states he gained his citizenship? A permanent home could be permanent resident status and not citizenship, and inferring that it means he got citizenship is original research--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- There's already a reliable source cited in the article. Epbr123 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It's AFAI notice not as common to use the hyphenates here (mostly just "Canadian"...) as it is in the U.S., but if he did have citizenship (haven't checked the link), it's apt. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
He obtained Canadian citizenship back in 2000, but, the most important part is, he never played for team Canada. He only represented Soviet Union/Russia. Not to mention the fact that he went back to Russia after his NHL career was over.
As for his family having a permanent home in TO...do you think they would be living in Canada while he was playing back in Russia (since 2004)? Norum 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- If he obtained Canadian citizenship, that's a done deal. Who cares for whom he played? We are not discussing his alleged team allegiance. We're discussing his nationality. Someone who is a Canadian citizen is a Canadian national. Ravenswing 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, it's ethnicity. I have swedish and british citizenship, but I am swedish, not british. Norum 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- No in this case we are talking about nationality not ethnicity. And yes it is very common for families to live across the ocean while players play on another continent and then the players rejoin them during the off season. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Do we call Jim Belushi an Albanian - American actor, just because he's got an honourary albanian citizenship? Or do we call Bruce Willis or Sandra Bullock German - American actors because one of their parents was German and they were actually born in Germany? We can say that Korolev was a "naturalized Canadian" or that he had a dual citizenship, but its pointless calling him Russian-Canadian. Norum 12:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- But we do it for a great many people Michael J. Fox, Alex Trebek and I can list hundreds more if you would like. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It would help, I figure, if you used an actual parallel situation. Korolev was not an "honorary" citizen; he was a naturalized citizen, and chose Canadian citizenship. That being said, the way such things are handled is a matter of settled consensus. If you want to overturn that consensus and seek to debar mention of naturalization from articles, this is not the venue to do that. Ravenswing 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I agree, a similar situation might be more appropriate. I'm not sure about the words "Soviet/Russian" as an alternative. For Slovak persons or Czech persons, I've not seen Czechoslovak/Czech in a lead sentence. In any case, I am open to using the words naturalized Canadian, but not sure how that fits well gramatically in the lead sentence. I do think it is important to mention, as he did choose to become a citizen, and he will be buried here. I think this indicates a will from him and his family to indicate this. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the case was settled in order to change the wording in the article. Norum 07:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- With only you objecting I think that is pretty much the definition of consensus to change. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Wikipedia is always in development. Nothing is ever final. If there is a better, short way to put it, I am open to it. In this case, Korolev himself expressed that he wanted to be considered a Canadian. And Russian is there and first, as I think it should be. In other cases, where Canadians have emigrated to other countries, it's been put as Canadian-American in the lead. In other cases, Wayne Gretzky comes to mind, where he has expressly defined himself as a Canadian, not a Polish-Canadian, or Ukrainian-Canadian, or Canadian-American, where the citizenship and ethnicity has not determined what the lead sentence says. Since it is defined by consensus, rather than by strict rule, it's not going to go by straight logic. And there is certainly enough consensus here. As someone else has said, if you want to develop some rules for editors to go by, there probably is a place elsewhere in Wikipedia to do so. I think any rule would probably be developed that would be in agreement with what was done here. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is slightly different with Gretzky as it was his grand parents that came from interwar Poland, but his father was already born in Canada. Norum 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Best example - Alexander Steen. He can actually be called Swedish - Canadian due to the fact that his father, Thomas Steen is Swedish and his mother is actually Canadian. Case closed.
Norum, you are going to have to accept that Korolev got Canadian citizenship to become a Canadian. There is no evidence that he needed it to work in Canada. He did not get one while living in the United States. He's a landed Canadian. He made a permanent home with his family in Canada. Russian by birth, but became Canadian. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
- So we could remove Russian from the first sentence. It would be possible to put Russian in the last sentence along with the citizenship. But it would be clearly wrong to favour one over the other. His ethnicity is clearly Russian, but his nationality was Canadian. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
you can put a cow in a field of sheep to live but it and its offspring will always be a cow no matter how long it lives there.
Alaney... think for once. How can you remove "Russian" from the first statement if he had BOTH Canadian and Russian citizenship? Norum 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- That's funny. That presupposes no genetic experiments. :-> At any rate, it's irrelevant. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
So you think a cow living among sheep is a sheep then? A pig born in a stable is still a pig, not a horse.
It is all about genetics.....lol...anyways, do as you want. Bottom line is, Wikipedia provides false information... Norum 15:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You keep calling it false information. But its not false...he was a Canadian national of Russian ethnicity. Nowhere is that false information. Just because it isn't presented how you like it to call undue attention to the Russian side of things does not mean its false information. -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
And he also was a Russian national. So removing Russian and only leaving Canadian would be false information. Norum 03:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
And even though he had dual citizenship....people still consider him Russian, not Canadian. Norum 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Which we aren't doing. We clearly have it Russian/Canadian. So both nationalities are listed. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
See, this is something Americans and Canadians don't get. Just because he had a canadian citizenship, does not make him a Canadian. Thats the kind of false information Wiki provides. Everybody still thinks of him as of Russian, not Canadian. anyways..do what you want. Norum 03:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Obtaining Canadian citizenship DID make him a Canadian, legally, and demonstrably "everyone" doesn't "still think of him as Russian." But that's long since ceased to be the point, and you're repeating yourself several times over on a point long since settled, in accordance with the MOS, with pertinent Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and indeed with international law. There's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based forums that permit it. It runs "It's not that I don't understand you. It's that I don't agree with you. What about this distinction is so hard to grasp?"
Now, yes, a spin through your contribution list shows that your activity on Wikipedia is overwhelmingly devoted to such nationality battles, your fervor which you frequently express in personal attacks in edit summaries (and in the edits themselves). You have, however, been around Wikipedia long enough to grasp an important principle: that this encyclopedia runs on consensus, that sometimes consensus runs against you, and that when it does, the only thing to do is lose gracefully and move on. What about this is so hard to grasp? Ravenswing 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
So, according to you, Rudolf Hess was an Egyptian, just because he was born in Egypt. See, thats the differnece between us and you. We see things as they really are. We count ethnicity as to determine who you are, not nationality. Nationality is a thing that can be obtain through proper procedures. Heck, I could marry a japanese woman and obtain Japanese citizenship if I wanted. Now
if I did obtain Japanese citizenship, would that make me Japanese? No, it would not. I would be a Japanese national, but not Japanese. It is because the reason I stated earlier, ethnicity. If North Americans can't see simple things like that, then I am sorry, I just can't help you understand it. And yes, I have been here for ages and I strongly believe that Wikipedia has it wrong when it comes to this subject. Norum 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You mean that we're more civilized here, and not only believe that someone can become Canadian or American through intent, but recognize that our laws are written to allow it? Instead of countries like, say, Sweden, which operate from jus sanguinis? Why, sure, I can agree with that. It's probably why the likes of Korolev want to become citizens of North American countries rather than, oh, certain European countries, because here they're far less likely to be treated as foreigners all their lives. (Rudolf Hess, by Egyptian law, was not an Egyptian citizen, making that straw man as flawed and hollow as your other ones.)
So stipulated. But may I ask you something? From what factual basis are you attempting to argue how we ought to describe citizens of our countries? You're even admitting openly you do things differently in your (non-English speaking) country than we do here, and no doubt the practices of your own national Wikipedia reflect that. As it happens, the entire English-speaking world operates on some variation of jus soli, so I rather expect we have a handle on how our own countries view nationality. Wikipedia does not, in fact, "have it wrong." The English Wikipedia has it exactly right in terms of the countries involved. If what you're arguing is that (say) Canadians have no right to consider naturalized citizens "Canadian," my answer to you is that you are not yourself a Canadian, and you have no say in the matter. Ravenswing 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be avoiding to answer my question suspiciously.... if I were to marry a Japanese woman and, i were to apply for a Japanese citizenship.....so once I would obtain it, would that make me Japanese? No, because I would still be a Swede. Id have a japanese passport, but I would still be a Swede, not Japanese. Norum 07:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Your straw men dance all over the place without having a connection to the laws of English-speaking countries, the customs of English-speaking countries, the practices of English-speaking countries or how the English Wikipedia treats the same. This article, and this issue, has nothing to do with Egypt, Japan, Sweden, Middle-Earth, Narnia or Mars. If you have any questions regarding this article not already settled by unanimous consensus (other than your sole dissent), feel free to pose them. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ravenswing 09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fine, then instead of Japanese citizenship, insert Canadian or American. Answer that. I could be holsing a US or Canadian citizenship, but I still would be a Swede with a foreign passport. Norum 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Id still be a Swede with a US or Canadian passport (not like I would really need it, but anyways), not an American or Canadian. And if you check all the newspapers and articles about the crash where Korolev died, itlists him as a Russian player, not Russian/Canadian. Norum 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, well, that's your POV, anyway, but wishing something very strongly doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it or how often you refuse to answer other people's questions. Since you have nothing new to contribute, I expect this debate is concluded. Ravenswing 18:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you keep insisting that a pig born in a stable is a horse, so be it. Norum 02:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
