Wikipedia

Talk:Nina Dobrev/Archive 2

< Talk:Nina Dobrev
Latest comment: 6 years ago by IJBall in topic Interestingly she states she is of gypsy decent
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Opening paragraph again: nationality, residence, citizenship, etc.

Latest comment: 10 years ago66 comments8 people in discussion

As per WP:OPENPARA "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Clearly Dobrev was living in Canada when she became notable. Is she a citizen? Tons of websites seem to think so but I do not know what constitutes a reliable source in entertainment related articles. I did find this tweet from her which states "Im Canadian. We have healthcare for all. If you dont have insurance go to...". At the very least she considers herself Canadian which given the fact that we have reliable sources indicating that she moved to Canada when 2-years-old should be enough to use "Canadian actress" in the opening paragraph.

OPENPARA goes on to say "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." Which states very clearly that we should not put "Bulgarian born" in the opening paragraph. Nor should we mention that she was Bulgarian if she no longer is a citizen of that country. Those are non-debatable points and are clearly laid out in that Wikipedia guideline. If she maintains her Bulgarian citizenship and a reliable source can be found to support that claim then a new discussion can ensue as to how to add that information into the opening paragraph.

For now, she is Canadian -- that can go in. That she was born in Bulgaria should not be mentioned. Is she still a citizen of Bulgaria? If reliable sources can be found (and verified) that support that claim then we can discuss what to do with that information. SQGibbon (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:: Yes, she is citizen of Bulgaria. By Constitution she is citizen of Bulgaria. I was quote a book, which say that she is Bulgarian and Canadian. NOT JUST A CANADIAN! NOT JUST A BULGARIAN! BULGARIAN and CANADIAN! Because she became notable in Bulgaria and Canada. And by OPENPARA she is Bulgarian and Canadian. I don't know from when Twitter is use like encyclopedia or reliable source. How you found that beyond this profile is real Nina Dobrev? I can show you many videos in YouTube, in which Nina Dobrev say "I'm Bulgarian". Forgive me if it's not the reason, but I think that you and some other editors here are just a canadian nationalists, whose believe that everybody is Canadian and ignore the different opinions, which say that is not correct. May be I make a mistake, but I'm feeling that. JanHusCz (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Read WP:AGF. Related: I am not Canadian. I am not pro- or against Canada. I rarely give Canada a second thought. I know next to nothing about Bulgaria and am positive I would not be able to find it on a map. I am neither pro- nor against Bulgaria. I'm pretty sure I've never even thought about Bulgaria in my life. I also do not know who Nina Dobrev is nor do I care. The only thing I care about is making the best encyclopedia that can be made while following the guidelines and policies put in place by my fellow Wikipedia editors.
2) Please read WP:OR. You reading the constitution of Bulgaria and determining that she is a citizen of Bulgaria is the very definition of original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Period.
3) The little check mark next to her name on her tweet means that Twitter has verified that that account belongs to the actual Nina Dobrev. She identifies as Canadian. She has lived there since she was two. She became notable while living in Canada. These are all facts and support stating at the very least that she is a "Canadian actress" in the opening sentence.
4) I see from the discussion above that there were claims of existing reliable sources that support the claim that Dobrev is still a citizen of Bulgaria. We were unable to verify the claims or that they are from reliable sources. We need to have a reliable source that can be verified that establishes she is Bulgarian. Without that it should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph that she is Bulgarian.
5) We do not mention place of birth in the opening paragraph. If the conditions in #4 are not met establishing that she still holds citizenship in Bulgaria then not only can we not mention that she is Bulgarian but, as per WP:OPENPARA we cannot mention that she was born there, ie., nothing like "Bulgarian-born"
6) You claim "Because she became notable in Bulgaria and Canada." This is not true. She did not become notable during the first two years of her life while living in Bulgaria. She became notable after having moved to and settled in Canada. I realize that as you are not fluent in English that you probably did not mean this phrase to be interpreted like this -- I am only remarking on it in case anyone else reads this and does not understand the issues involved.
7) Summary. "Canadian actress" is appropriate for the opening sentence. "Bulgarian Canadian actress" might be once reliable sources are produced that can be verified. "Bulgarian-born" is not appropriate regardless of what sources are produced as it is in direct violation of WP:OPENPARA. For now the appropriate action is to have "Canadian actress" and that's it. The very second we have the sources for her Bulgarian citizenship then we can discuss how to incorporate that information like possibly "Bulgarian-Canadian actress". SQGibbon (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

::You claim: "We need to have a reliable source that can be verified that establishes she is Bulgarian". Read, please: "Art.25 (3) No one shall be deprived of Bulgarian citizenship acquired by birth". What you want more to prove that she is Bulgarian? Somewhere in Talk page one of editors say that The Constitution is not reliable source, because nowhere is saying "Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian". I want to ask: Where in WP:OPENPARA is saying "Nina Dobrev is Canadian"? Nowhere, because also like quotes from Constitution, it's just a dеfinition. If Constitution is not reliable source, what is reliable source? Some site in Internet? Actually "Vampire Diaries", which bring a popularity of Nina is american movie, and now she live in USA. Is this mean that she is American? I don't think so. Actually she lived in Sofia, Toronto and USA. But she hasn't triple citizenship. And Bulgarian is not only by birth - by notability is also, because she resident in Sofia until 2 years old and after that - in Sofia and Toronto. That is the reasons, which proved double nationality of Nina. Sumatro (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use the constitution as a source, as that is the very definition of original research. You will need, as has been stated several times before, proper, reliable, verifiable sources adressing Dobrev's citizenship specifically. None have been provided, so far. Nymf ([[User talk:Nymf|talk[[) 11:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You always talking about OPENPARA, but I think you don't understand what is wrote there. To help you, please, look the bolding text: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.". Nina is a citizen of Bulgaria and Canada. In Wikipedia exist article Bulgarian Canadians, where is saying everything about this cases. JanHusCz (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. When the readers click Bulgarian Canadian, they go to article, which include full information about the Nina's case. Quote from Bulgarian Canadians:

"Those can include Bulgarian Canadians living in Canada for one or several generations, dual Bulgarian Canadian citizens, or any other Bulgarian Canadians who consider themselves to be affiliated to both cultures or countries. Some Bulgarian Canadians might be born in Bulgaria, Canada or other countries with ethnic Bulgarian population.". I think that it's the best variant, because unite all. Sumatro (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

How an article in Wikipedia defines "Bulgaria Canadian" has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. What matters is what WP:OPENPARA states and whether we have reliable verifiable sources and that we avoid original research. Also, the line quoted from the constitution states that "No one shall be deprived of Bulgarian citizenship acquired by birth" does not cover the fact that she might have voluntarily relinquished her citizenship as a Bulgarian for any number of reasons (like possible tax issues). We just do not know what has happened or what decisions she has made. We need a reliable and verifiable source that states specifically that she has retained her Bulgarian citizenship. SQGibbon (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Finally someone to agree with me. There are many similar cases, and these article are beginning with "He/She is Greek American, ...Russian Canadian, ...German American" and others. It's not broke the rules of Wikipedia. It's just a different cases - people with more than one citizenship. If everybary are agree, we can save this version like "Bulgarian Canadian actress..." JanHusCz (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If a verifiable and reliable source can be found that states she is still a Bulgarian citizen that does not require any original research then we can discuss how to add that information to the opening sentence. It is really that simple. Reading the Bulgarian constitution and determining that Dobrev is a Bulgarian citizen is the very definition of what we are not supposed to do on Wikipedia. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia policy on original research "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." What you are doing is taking material from one source, the Bulgarian constitution, combining it with material from other sources, stating that Dobrev was born in Bulgaria, and reaching a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of those sources. SQGibbon (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For second time, if somebody not saw that: This is quote from the book of Anna - Maria Yordanova "From East to The West. 100 popular people from Eastern Europe in Western Europe and America", Publishing house "Orel", Sofia, 2012, page 132 - 135. In the book are published the biographies of 100 people from Eastern Europe (Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Greece, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine), include Nina Dobrev (p. 132 - 134) The Original version:

Translated to English, 2012:

JanHusCz (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And comment from user 88.203.216.79 / [1]. Source: DEUTSCHE WELLE: She is not Canadian actress. She is Bulgarian by nationality and ethnicity and just was lived in Canada. See this project of DW, which I was quote before time - http://www.dw.de/flashcms/beruehmtebulgaren/bg/bg_beruehmtebulgaren_popup.htm - 21 Famous People of Bulgarian nationality outside Bulgaria (12-13, Nina Dobrev; pic.№20), international project of Deutsche Welle, section: Bulgaria, DW Bulgarien, authors: Yordanka Yordanova, Maria Ilcheva, Dariya Popova - Witsel - DW international projects, © 2012 DEUTSCHE WELLE JanHusCz (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The dw.de link does not appear to state that Dobrev is a Bulgarian citizen, only that she was born there. This is based on Google's translation service which I know is not reliable but since you did not provide a translation I had to make do. As for the book, I have been unable to find any mention of it on the internet using either the translated title or the original language one. We need to be able to verify it and make sure that it is a reliable source. Just because something is mentioned in a book does not mean it is a reliable source. But at least these are a start. SQGibbon (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Obviously you are understand nothing. Over mosaic of DW link is wrote "Кои са най-известните българи в чужбина" - transl. "The most famous Bulgarians in the world". And the name of DW's project is "21 Famous People of Bulgarian nationality outside Bulgaria". I don't understand what is the problem with the book - There are Publisher, Publish house, Year of publishing, place of publishing, the pages from the book about Nina, the quote from the book - we have it all! What other you want? JanHusCz (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That DW.de link is not reliable (being born in Bulgaria and being a Bulgarian citizen is two different things), nor are either of those sources verifiable. According to Google, the book does not even exist. It has been months now since you said you would assist in verifying it. It seems to me that you both (Sumatro and JanHusCz) seem to drop the issue as long as it does not state that she is Canadian, which makes me suspect that you are not looking to improve the article at all. What is up with that? Nymf (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the book is that we have been unable to verify anything about the book. Lots of books that are published do not meet WP:RS, especially for BLP info. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What about asking her on Twitter? Something like "Are you Canadian, Bulgarian, or Canadian-Bulgarian"? --Chiya92 10:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC) ::Nymf, I think that you have a problem with reading. In DW is saying "Bulgarians", not "born in Bulgaria". Read carefully, please! I'm not talking about other editors, but I have only one drem - Wikipedia to say the truth. About the book - only one, which I say, include all that I say until now, is identification number - 9789540900220. And I don't know why in Internet has no result. I'm not a publisher JanHusCz (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have problem with reading, at all. I believe you may have a problem understanding the policy of what constitutes as a reliable source, though. See WP:RS and especially WP:VERIFY. Nymf (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For me Bulgarian Canadian is perfect. In many interwiers Nina said "I m Bulgarian", "I m proud to be Bulgarian"... Look the Categories in article - Categories: "1989 births" "21st-century Canadian actresses" "Bulgarian emigrants to Canada" "Bulgarian film actresses" "Bulgarian television actresses"... I m Serbian. If I will emigrate in Canada and receiving a Canadian passport, I will stay Serbian, because I m from Serbia, my mother and my father is Serbs. but because i have canadian passport, but was born in Belgrade, i will have double citizenship. Nina Dobreva is also with double citizenship. Stop to hate each other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The most interesting thing is Qwyrxian and Nymf says "She is Canadian", but Nina's natives names are on Cyrillic script. My question is "From what time Canadians write on Cyrillic?" Whatever you respond, no one convince me that it's not a product of maliciously attitude of some Americans by Eastern Europe, who not understand that Cold war is ending before 25 years and who know nothing about the Balkans and Eastern Europe, but who comment like "experts". Actually people from Eastern Europe are made some of the greatest american discoveries, and I don't understand why in your continent think some popular people from Balkans and other parts of Europe to be Americans or Canadians. I don't understand why you full ignore this part of the world. Yes, Nina is beautiful. Yes, Nina is talant actress. Yes, Nina is great girl. But Nina is Bulgarian girl with double citizenship, not Canadian. Understand it and go to learn Geography! Don't bring the problems of American education in Wikipedia, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I realise that you and these other Eastern European accounts/IPs on here is very nationalistic, but that does not mean that you can bypass policies and guidelines, and it certainly does not trump proper sourcing. Nymf (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:::In Twitter Nina Dobrev say "I'm Bulgarian". It's important, because she consider herself Bulgarian. Sumatro (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Still does not address citizenship. Nymf (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::In quote from Twitter, the question is from what nationality is she, and Nina answered "I'm Bulgarian". After she consider herself Bulgarian, I think that our dispute is finished. She is Bulgarian Canadian. JanHusCz (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's probably the best source I've seen so far. Nymf, can you please explain why you don't think that addresses citizenship? Generally, nationality and citizenship are synonymous. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It is a better source than the rest, but from the look of it, she does not address the nationality part, but rather the "Russian" part of the question (which would refer to ethnicity, given her Eastern European looks). For example, there are lots and lots of American people who consider them Irish or Italian. That does not mean that they have Irish or Italian citizenship, but rather that their ethnicity is Irish or Italian. Since WP:OPENPARA says that we should not emphasize on ethnicity in the lead, I believe the source does not cut it. Nymf (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Bulgarian Canadians explains my reasoning further. Nymf (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, the sources says, "Are you Russian nationality?" and she replies "No! I'm Bulgarian." Are you saying that to be valid she must state "I am of Bulgarian nationality; I was born in Bulgaria, and, though I moved to Canada and also became a Canadian citizen, I retained my Bulgarian citizenship." That's simply unreasonable; I don't think that standard would be met by any person in Wikipedia. It's pretty near WP:OR for you to argue that "Well, she said Bulgarian (in response to a question about her citizenship), but it wasn't really clear, and seemed to be more about her ethnicity". As long as we are certain that that account is controlled by her (not a spoof/fan account), then I believe that we need to accept that as evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not see her response as a statement of citizenship. Is she Bulgarian by nationality or ethnicity, sure, and she said as much. Has she retained her Bulgarian citizenship? That does not seem at all clear from her Tweet. And while for many people nationality and citizenship are synonymous (especially, apparently, in the US) it is not always the case for everyone else. It is a complicated issue but I'm assuming that WP:OPENPARA was created with the intent of preventing lists of nationalities in lead sentences of biographies like English-Scottish-Irish-German-American if the person is a US citizen but can trace their family back through all those countries. If she is a dual-citizen (ie, has not renounced her Bulgarian citizenship) then writing "Bulgarian Canadian" would be perfectly fine. If she has not retained her Bulgarian citizenship then I think it runs afoul of the point of that particular guideline in WP:OPENPARA. As for what would constitute evidence, even just an interview with a reliable source where she mentions her dual-citizenship. I don't think that's a particularly onerous thing to require. SQGibbon (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, there is an inherent duality of interpreting tweets, as they are short in nature, both space and thought wise (you admit this yourself, as well). I don't think I am at fault for questioning these things, nor is it OR. See the archives of Talk:Demi Moore/Archive 1 and Talk:Demi Moore/Archive 2 where a tweet was dissected extensively, over the course of 3 to 4 months. Nymf (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In the quote from Twitter, the question is about her nationality, not about ethnicity. And she say "I'm Bulgarian". She can't lose Bulgarian citizenship according to Constitution (Art.25(3)). By the Law she is Bulgarian. Now she also said: "I'm Bulgarian!". What you want more? May be Nina must to show you her passport?--JanHusCz (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

JanHusCz is absolutely correct here. The question was very explicitly about nationality. She answered Bulgarian. Any attempt on our part to say, "Well, she said her nationality is Bulgarian, but I don't think she really meant 'nationality'" is pure original research. As for the "dual citizenship comment in an interview", in fact, that is an exceedingy onerous thing to ask--while other stuff exists is not a valid argument, you also can't hold this one article to a standard not used anywhere else on Wikipedia. If a person states that they have a certain nationality, we can't simply ignore that. In fact, even if we had a source that said that she was wrong, we'd still include her own claim along with the refutation in a second source. Finally, as for the nationality = citizenship issue, it's a pure red herring. As explained in Nationality, "It differs technically and legally from citizenship, although in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state and all citizens are nationals of the state." The modern exceptions are very narrow, and tend to involve disputed/awkward cases, like some US extra-national territories, and the China/Taiwan problem. And even if we thought this was relevant here, WP:OPENPARA doesn't talk about that! MOS talks about nationality, which is exactly and only the question Dobrev was responding to. At this point, I cannot see any reason to exclude "Bulgarian" from her opening sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"In fact, even if we had a source that said that she was wrong, we'd still include her own claim along with the refutation in a second source." I believe this is a key point. The opening paragraph and especially the lead sentence should not be based on how someone self-identifies especially if it is not clear that they are using the same words in the same way that Wikipedia does. The main body should have that information where it can be explained in further detail with whatever disclaimers and caveats need to be supplied. It also also makes no sense to bring up how Wikipedia defines "nationality" and then assume Dobrev was following that definition. As has been demonstrated on this talk page people clearly have different ideas about what "nationality" means. Further, tweets are by their very nature informal and breezy lacking in the kind of nuance that we're looking at here. Might she have meant that she is a citizen of Bulgaria? Sure! Might she have meant that she feels a connection with the place of her birth? Sure! Might it have been merely a way to maintain/enlarge her fan base? Sure! It is impossible to suss out what she meant to any reasonable degree based on this tweet. Off-the-cuff remarks (which is what tweets often are) should not be accepted uncritically as reliable. SQGibbon (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The question was explicit, "What is your nationality?" In order to not include the info, you must assume that she misunderstood the question. That's not a reaonable approach. Also, your first point very very much worries me. You are saying that a person's self-identified nationality isn't how we should base the lead sentence. In that case, how should we do so? What other source other than the person's claim will suffice? I can't think of any evidence that could possibly, in fact, be offered, since we aren't allowed to use official government paperwork. To take a celebrity at random, the lead sentence of Jerry Seinfeld states that he is American. Later in the article we have a verified reference stating that he was born in the US. But, as far as I can tell, we don't have any evidence other than that. We don't know if he abandoned his US citizenship for tax purposes (as was asserted would be possible for Dobrev wrt her Bulgarian citizenship, which, as far as I know, no one actually doubts she had at at least one point in her life), or for political reasons, or simply on a whim. I don't see any link to an article that investigates his nationality, nor to an interview in which he states explicitly that he is a US citizen. Nymf and SQGibbon, you are essentially proposing rules that would make it impossible to ever indicate nationality, since you're saying that a person's open, public, self-professed response to the question, "What is your nationality?" is not an acceptable source. Remember, for years, I've been on the "no, we don't include Bulgarian because we can't source it" side. But now, we have an exact source stating in exact words that she is a Bulgarian national.
And if you really want to go down this road, I'm going to have say that we need a source that explicitly and unambiguously states that now, as of 2013, she is a Canadian national. That she hasn't abandoned it, that she even became a citizen in the first place (it is, after all, possible to reside in Canada indefinitely as a permanent resident but non-citizen). Can you, or anyone provide that evidence, for Dobrev, or, in fact, for any BLP on Wikipedia? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The more I look at the tweet, the more clear it becomes to me. The person asks if she has some kind of relation to Russian nationality, e.g. if she is ethnically Russian ("relation" is the keyword here, meaning if her parents or grand parents were Russian). The person does not actually ask her what her nationality or citizenship is. Nymf (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems we need outside help. Nymf, SQGibbons, would you prefer I take this to WP:RSN, or go for an RfC on this page? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
An RFC seems reasonable. Nymf (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are several important points that should be noted:

1. She consider herself Bulgarian

2. In her Tweet Nina Dobrev said "I'm Bulgarian", not Bulgarian-Canadian. May be (it's my opinion) the article must beginning "Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian actress..." or "...is Bulgarian actress, living in Canada". But the second example is not full correct, because now she live in Atlanta, USA and I think that must stay only "...Bulgarian actress". Because in "Early life" we learn that she was moved to Canada.

3. You talking about the article Bulgarian Canadians and may be you are saw the explaining of this concept, I mean "...some Bulgarians are not Canadian citizens, others are dual citizens.". Nina was born in Bulgaria in 1989 and was moved to Canada in 1991, which mean that she is part of the last generation Bulgarian immigrants in Canada (after 10th November 1989), which are bulgarian citizens, born in Bulgaria, but not always be Canadian citizens. Actually in the most cases they are only with Bulgarian citizenship. If she has Canadian citizenship also (We are not sure)- yes, she is Bulgarian Canadian

4. I do not understand the standpoint of User: Nymf: "...kind of relation to Russian nationality, e.g. if she is ethnically Russian ("relation" is the keyword here, meaning if her parents or grand parents were Russian)". Actually "nationality" and "ethnicity" are two different categories, for example: In Russia are many ethnic groups (Kalmyks, Yakuts, Tatars and others), which are Russian by nationality, because these people are born in Russia, the most of them are with Russian family names, but not by ethnicity. Or how was say one professor: "The nation is ethnic group with state and army" :)

5. The most important is from what nationality is consider itself the person. For example Elena Paparizou was born, raised and living in Sweden, but she consider herself Greek (her parents are Greeks), not Swedish or Greek-Swedish. The band "Antique", which made her popular, is also created in Sweden, but Elena say "I'm Greek".--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the question Dobrev received, it was specifically if she had any "relation" to Russian nationality. I am guessing it is a language barrier, as having a relation to someone who has Russian citizenship bears no meaning whatsoever. If you are related to someone who is ethnically Russian, it does, however. Either way how you interpret it (citizenship or ethnicity), it was not a question about Dobrev specifically, but rather about her parents, grand parents, etc. Nymf (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. So far one Tweet has been provided where she has said that she is Bulgarian. This does not mean she does not also consider herself Canadian, especially given the casual nature of Tweets and the constraint placed on how long a message can be.
2. A link was provided above to another Tweet where she stated that she is Canadian. Not Bulgarian, not Bulgarian-Canadian, nor Bulgarian living in Canada. In fact, that Tweet was actually part of a campaign to get people to sign up for insurance and would be an example of a more formal Tweet. But all of this is mostly irrelevant according to WP:OPENPARA where what matters is where she was living, her permanent residence, when she became notable. She spent two years in Bulgaria and was not notable. She then lived at least 16 years in Canada which is when she became notable. For the purpose of Wikipedia and the lead sentence at the very least she is a Canadian actress. Where she was born and the status of her citizenship re: Bulgaria and Canada are properly discussed in the main body of the article. If it can be shown using a reliable source, and without using original research, that she retained her Bulgarian citizenship then it might be appropriate to mention that in the lead: "Bulgarian-Canadian actress".
3,4,5 etc. It's also important to understand that with respect to Wikipedia in general and the lead sentence in particular, that the technical definitions used by Wikipedia do not always align with how people use those words. SQGibbon (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:::In Tweet Nina said that she is Bulgarian by nationality. Simply and clear. Everything else are just interpretations, some of which (like Nymf's opinion by "parents, grandparents, grandgrandparents and others parents  ) is not relevant on that dispute. Bulgarian Canadian is absolutely correct in this case, by me. --Sumatro (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC) :::: False. You've got some serious issues acknowledging one's statement. And Bulgarian Canadian doesn't mean she's Bulgarian. It means she's Canadian which I totally agree.--Rebelheartous (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Quote from "Struma": "Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian"- Усмихнатата, красива и позитивна българка Нина Добрев/The smiling, beautiful and positive Bulgarian Nina Dobrev --Sumatro (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) ::Great! It's verifying and reliable source, which say that she is Bulgarian. Now, we have this source and Nina's Tweet, when she say "I 'm Bulgarian". I hope Nymf to be happy. --JanHusCz (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Native newspapers are obviously going to report people who were born in Bulgaria as Bulgarians. For example, the article on Olga Kurylenko makes it very clear that shes does not carry Ukrainan or Russian citizenship, yet native newspapers calls her Ukrainan and Russian ([2], [3], [4], etc). You cannot use that to source citizenship. Nymf (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

::::"Struma" is serious newspaper and can use like reliable source. Your opinion about "native newspapers", which you say, is absolutely wrong and looks too abusive. Your example with Kurylenko is too different, because she was born and has citizenship of Soviet Union, which today doesn't exist and she is with mixed descent. I know nothing about Ukrainian Law and I cannot comment other by this case. But it's not relevant on our dispute. In Talk page are presenting many sources (include Nina's Tweet), which say that Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian. JanHusCz (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is relevant and proves my point regarding citizenship, ethnicity and newspapers. Qwyrxian, any chance you have some time over for that RfC you mentioned? Nymf (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me say this as politely as possible: how bout you drop the ridiculous attitude? At this point, we don't need an RfC. We have two reliable sources: her own direct statement about her nationality, and the explicit statement of a newspaper. You don't get to say "Oh, that's a Bulgarian newspaper, that doesn't count." That type of attitude, when it occurs in areas of discretionary sanctions, is actually grounds for an immediate block. That's abssolutely no different from saying "US newspapers can't be used as sources for information about events that happen in the US because they're obviously biased in favor of the US". Such a position has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy, and is not acceptable. I'm going to boldly fix the article to say "Bulgarian Canadian", because we have 2 distinct reliable sources that both meet WP:RS. If you want to revert, fine, but you take it to WP:RSN or somewhere other noticeboard--the burden now lies on you to argue that two normally completely acceptable sources somehow don't meet our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
How about that reading comprehension? I'll just remove the article from my watchlist. Have fun dealing with the vandals (in case you are trigger happy, I do not mean the people who partook in this discussion). Nymf (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
How about the Wikipedia policy on WP:CIVILITY? Can't the lack of that get one blocked as well? There are two big problems here (well, three, when you throw in the civility issue). One is that it's not at all clear that either of these sources (one a tweet and the other very much a puff-piece -- the fact that both of these were very informal does legitimately call into question whether they are reliable sources) are using "nationality" to mean the same thing as citizenship. It turns out that throughout the world people use that word to mean different things including citizenship, being born somewhere, race, ethnicity, and so on. Neither of these sources makes clear what is meant. As you are no doubt aware this is a very common occurrence on Wikipedia where we mean one thing and non-Wikifolk mean something else. Like with the word "notable". How many times have you had to explain to a non-Wiki-experienced editor that we have a technical definition for "notability" that does not necessarily match the common meaning of the word? The other issue is that, with the exception of you, everyone arguing for inclusion of "Bulgarian" in the lead sentence have been single-purpose accounts who have only made edits to articles related to Bulgaria. This does not mean their edits run afoul of Wikipedia policies or guidelines but for any experienced editor it is a huge red flag waving in the wind that calls for extra vigilance on our part to make sure a nationalistic agenda is not being pushed on Wikipedia.
I don't generally deal with adding content to articles (I patrol new changes looking for vandalism, nationalistically inspired edits, politically motivated edits, MOS concerns, and so on) so it could be that I'm taking too narrow a view of what constitutes nationality for the lead sentence. But if one of the purposes of WP:OPENPARA is to prevent people adding every single ethnicity to a biographical article that can possibly be found in the subject's past then I'm not sure where that line is drawn. If you have experience in dealing with biographical articles, especially GA or ideally FA ones, then perhaps you could explain to us the finer points of the issue? Very generally speaking when there is ambiguity with regard to information in the lead sentence we do not mention the contentious point in the lead sentence but wait to discuss it in the main body in order to explain the nuances. SQGibbon (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:CIVILITY, and was attempting to keep my message within it's bounds--my first draft was far less polite and more direct. The fact is, the two of you are now the ones violating Wikipedia's policies by conducting original research in attempting to figure out what a source "really means", despite the fact that the direct, explicit statement of both sources is that the subject is of the Bulgarian nationality. You're essentially setting a standard that could never be met, and I would argue that if we applied your standard, we would have to remove nationality from 99% of all lead sentences. I would warrant that we don't have any explicit statement anywhere stating that, oh, Jennifer Anniston had US and only US citizenship either now or at the time she became famous...and yet that is what you are asking for here, for Dobrev. And, based upon the response to these sources, a source where Anniston said, "Oh, yes, I'm an American" would not be enough, and a source where she answered the question, "What is your nationality", "American" would not be enough. You're setting a standard that cannot be met, and isn't met on the vast majority of other biographies (living or otherwise). You are correct that the purpose of WP:OPENPARA is to not allow the inclusion of non-critical ethnicities...but our sources here don't talk about ethnicity, and it's pure OR to argue, "Well, they said ethnicity, but we all know they didn't really mean ethnicity." Note that I would consider this matter quite differently if we had a source of any type stating or implying that she is only of Canadian nationality. But we have 1) 2 sources that say she is also Bulgarian, and 2) every reason to believe that she would likely also have Bulgarian nationality unless she took deliberate steps to remove that nationality, which we have seen not a single piece of evidence to support. When both the explicit sources and the implicit "rationale" align, I don't see how we can continue to keep this out. Finally, I just want to say that before these two most recent sources appeared, I believe that we were correct in keeping out Bulgarian, since we never before had a specific statement of nationality--I'm in no way trying to argue that we were historically wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"The fact is, the two of you are now the ones violating Wikipedia's policies by conducting original research in attempting to figure out what a source "really means", despite the fact that the direct, explicit statement of both sources is that the subject is of the Bulgarian nationality." Wait a second, are you saying that we are violating Wikipedia policy simply because we are questioning the validity of some sources on a talk page? Since when is critically examining the reliability of sources on a talk page a violation of Wikipedia policy? Can you point out that policy or guideline?
"You're setting a standard that cannot be met, and isn't met on the vast majority of other biographies (living or otherwise)." This is not true. Please read WP:OPENPARA. We do not need a definitive statement of citizenship from a reliable source in order to put in the lead something like "Dobrev is a Canadian actress" because we have plenty of sources that indicate she had been living in Canada as a Canadian for some 16 years when she became notable. That is sufficient for stating that she is Canadian. She spent the first two years of her life in Bulgaria, which is worth noting, and she might be proud of and even claim Bulgaria as her ethnicity and/or heritage but that is not the same as claiming citizenship which I think we need since the other criteria listed in WP:OPENPARA are not being met.
"it's pure OR to argue, 'Well, they said ethnicity, but we all know they didn't really mean ethnicity.'" No it's not. Questioning what a source means is not original research. We have a guideline for dealing with Twitter specifically because it can be problematic. And we do not accept everything a reliable source states just because they say it. The New York Times is generally considered a reliable source but if there's something that is clearly opinion or reporting a rumor or any of many other possible caveats then we might not include that information. As editors we are called upon to give some thought to what our sources state and if their sources are reliable or not. Otherwise Wikipedia would merely be a collection of quotes from sources instead of a critically assembled summary of what reliable sources state.
If an ambiguous Tweet and an ambiguous puff piece from a source whose intent with that piece is to appeal to Bulgarian nationalism (by claiming Dobrev as one of their own) are sufficient for establishing citizenship then fine, I'm on board. Questioning the weight people are giving to those sources is not original research nor is it unreasonable. SQGibbon (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if my opinion looks abusive or not civility, but I think that the only one problem of users SQGibbon and Nymf is Bulgaria. This point of view broke the Wikipedia rules by WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPOV. SQGibbon: "...everyone arguing for inclusion of "Bulgarian" in the lead sentence have been single-purpose accounts who have only made edits to articles related to Bulgaria." - sorry about the question, but from what nationality is you and do you edit articles related to your state? The most articles of all editors are related to their motherlands. It's not strange. It's not nationalistic. Wikipedia is need by users from other states, which can verify the information, because nobody know everything. For example if I want to edit article about Armenia, I will must to use Armenian literature, Armenian sources, armenian newspapers and will work together with users from Armenia. User Nymf: "Native newspapers are obviously going to report people who were born in Bulgaria as Bulgarians" - this is so wrong and so abusive... no comment. I don't want to be a judge, but dispute lose the right focus. Qwyrxian and JanHusCz are absolutely correct. We have two reliable sources, which say that Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian (In tweet Nina Dobrev said by nationality: "I'm Bulgarian"). That is the facts. And please, save savoir-vivre in discussion! --195.24.37.106 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above nearly all of my edits are reverting vandalism, POV-pushing, MOS issues and the like -- I rarely add content to articles. As far as me pushing a nationalistic agenda please feel free to peruse my edits and if you find anything that even remotely looks like me pushing my home country then I will concede the point. And yes, we do rely upon people who are knowledgeable about a subject to help shape articles pertaining to that subject. But we also see, every hour of every day, people pushing agendas like nationalism, politics, their favorite sports teams, celebrities, royal lineage, and so on. It is exhausting dealing with people who only use Wikipedia to promote their cause. When you have a group of editors who only edit articles relating to a certain subject (Bulgaria) and only edit articles that are tangentially related (Nina Dobrev) to that subject (Bulgaria) with the purpose of promoting that subject (Bulgaria) in that article (Dobrev) then that looks suspicious. These people are not editing her article because they love Vampire Diaries but because she was born in Bulgaria. Do you not see the difference? This is the only subject matter they are editing on Wikipedia. Even if you could find examples of me pushing my country you will also find tens of thousands of edits from me that have absolutely nothing to do with anything related to my country -- that's a huge difference. All experienced editors have seen this kind of POV-pushing over and over again; it is a real problem. There is no question that the two sources have stated that Dobrev is Bulgarian, the issue is what is meant by that claim? Is she still a citizen of Bulgaria or is it her ethnicity? That pertinent piece of information was left out of those sources but is the only thing that matters with regard to what goes in the lead sentence. Discussing her Bulgarian heritage should happen in the main body of the article -- there is no question about that.SQGibbon (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
SQGibbon, the first source asked her nationality, and she answered "Bulgarian". WP:OPENPARA says, "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." She said her nationality is Bulgarian. The only way to say that the requirements of that guideline are not met is to assume that when she answered the question about "nationality" she didn't mean "nationality". Note that citizenship doesn't even factor into the question, because that's not what our guideline requires. I don't understand how you can justify the exclusion--it's like you're saying that you know better what she meant than what she herself said.
Having said that, to the IP (195), your statements are 100% out of line and are nearly enough to get you blocked (if you had an account). No, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't make edits just about their "motherland". Hell, I don't even feel like I have a motherland. And I edit about subjects all over the world, many of which I know almost nothing about. For example, I have never seen or heard of Dobrev outside of this article--I never seen any of her TV shows or movies. I, and I'm sure, SQGibbon, edit articles on people and subjects from dozens of countries. So you need to take your (195's) nationalist attitude to another website, because it has absolutely no business here whatsoever. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me add a little to my response to SQGibbon: you said her Twitter statement is ambiguous. Please explain how "What is your nationality" "I'm Bulgarian" is ambiguous. Particularly in light of the clarification that OPENPARA doesn't require that we establish citizenship, only nationality. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The relevant section of WP:OPENPARA does not actually state that nationality is an acceptable criterion for including that information in the lead. It says "citizenship" (which in Dobrev's case her being of Bulgarian citizenship has not been established) or "national or permanent resident" (she was not a national or permanent resident of Bulgaria when she became notable). There is nothing here about nationality being an acceptable criterion. (It is worth noting that the text in OPENPARA is slightly ambiguous for point 3. It mentions citizenship (which can be mentioned as per point 1) and ethnicity (which should not be mentioned as per point 2) and nationality which is not specifically mentioned either in points 1 or 2.)
Furthermore, the very next point, which is about things that should not be mentioned in the lead, states "ethnicity" and "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This means the facts that she was born in Bulgaria, that her ethnicity is Bulgarian, and that her previous nationality was Bulgarian should not be mentioned in the lead sentence. It is reasonable, though, that if her Bulgarianness meets any of the points in the paragraph above then it would be allowable to mention it. The only one of those points that might qualify is her citizenship which has not been established.
OK, so now when Dobrev was asked about her nationality what might she have meant? The OED lists several relevant definitions (and remember, the OED is a descriptive dictionary) "3B. A group of persons belonging to a particular nation; a nation; an ethnic or racial group." and "3A. National origin or identity; (Law) the status of being a citizen or subject of a particular state;". What this all means is that when someone claims country X as their nationality they might be referring to citizenship or they might be referring to their ethnic or racial groups. Citizenship cannot be uncritically inferred from that claim. In fact to assume that she meant "citizenship" when she said "nationality" strikes me as an example of OR -- claiming to know what she meant with that tweet. Our position is that we cannot know how she was using that word therefore it does not belong in the opening sentence. If in the main body we want to mention that she identifies as Bulgarian and Canadian then that's fine (we have tweets to support both claims). SQGibbon (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Um....are you reading a different guideline than I am? I know you're not, because you've quoted it. Here it is again: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" (emphasis added). Dobrev stated that she is a Bulgarian national. The criterion is met. You don't get to make an argument about what she did or did not mean. She answered the question directly and explicitly. You keep harping on citizenship, but that is only one of the possible meanings there, and the guideline says it explicitly. If OPENPARA meant "Citizenship, or, in some cases, nationality" it would say that. You have no evidence that "Bulgarian" is a former nationality, or that she did not mean "nationality" when she answered "What is your nationality". Again, you are asking for the impossible: no one would ever make a statement to the effect of, "I was born in Bulgaria, and thus I was a citizen of Bulgaria. Then, I moved to Canada, and gained permanent residence in Canada. LAter, I also acquired Canadian citizenship, but I never gave up my Bulgarian citizenship, as this is not required under either Canadian or Bulgarian law." Yes, sure, a politician might have to say something about that if the legality of their status was in question, but an actress giving interviews is never going to state something so obtusely. And I would argue that if that is the standard you want to hold, you'll need to obtain a wider consensus, because then we should probably strip the nationality out of every person who does not make such an explicit statement--including those people who've resided primarily in one country, because, I mean, who knows--maybe they did secretly go to another country and obtain a second citizenship--maybe they even abandoned their home country citizenship for tax purposes? She was asked the question. She answered it. You are assuming that it's more likely that when she said nationality, she meant ethnicity. Well, I don't believe you get to make that assumption, and if you wish to do so, I think you'll need to take the matter to either WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Does "national resident" equal nationality? Admittedly I do not believe I've ever heard the phrase "national resident" before so it might. Or are you interpreting that as "citizen, national, or permanent resident" (with the Oxford comma)? If the latter case I would expect it to be written as "a national". If it means "national resident" then I don't think it applies here as she is clearly not a resident of Bulgaria.
"You don't get to make an argument about what she did or did not mean. She answered the question directly and explicitly." This is wrong on both counts. I am not arguing she meant anything specific at all; you are claiming that she meant something very specific with her claim. She did not answer the question explicitly because as I showed using the OED, "nationality" can mean several different things and those differences are relevant here. I have no idea what she meant. If you think she meant something specific that would qualify her using these criteria then it's up to you to demonstrate that she meant that thing.
"And I would argue that if that is the standard you want to hold, you'll need to obtain a wider consensus, because then we should probably strip the nationality out of every person who does not make such an explicit statement" This is wrong. The guideline gives several ways to meet the requirements with the easiest being where someone was living when they became notable. But in cases where there is ambiguity then we would need something more concrete.
"You are assuming that it's more likely that when she said nationality, she meant ethnicity." Where do you get this? I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that "nationality" has several different meanings and that I have no idea what she meant. You are the one assuming she meant something that meets the criteria laid out in OPENPARA for including "Bulgarian" in the lead.
Let me try to summarize my position in a more organized manner:
Citizenship. Is she a citizen of Bulgaria? Maybe. She claimed that her nationality is Bulgarian. Unfortunately "nationality" can instead of citizenship mean race or ethnicity. Without further clarification we cannot know which definition she meant. Fail, but this could change with a reliable source that confirms she kept her Bulgarian citizenship.
National resident. She is not a national resident (whatever that means exactly) of Bulgaria. Fail.
Permanent resident. She is not a permanent resident of Bulgaria. Fail.
Ethnicity should not be emphasized. Her ethnicity is Bulgarian. This should not be mentioned. Fail.
Previous nationalities should not be mentioned. Bulgarian is a previous nationality. It is left open if this applies to nationalities that are still in effect. Fail/Maybe.
Country of birth should not be mentioned. She was born and lived in Bulgaria for two years but now lives in Canada/US. Should not mention her place of birth. Fail.
What it all comes to as best as I can tell is that citizenship is the only criterion that would justify inclusion of "Bulgarian" in the lead sentence. "Nationality" can mean citizen, race, or ethnicity but it's only "citizen" that would meet the criterion for inclusion. We do not as of yet know which of these she meant. The only other possibility I see is if "national resident" or "national" means something different than what I understand but so far that point has not been established. SQGibbon (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::Oh, Oh, Oh! That discussion is just infinite! What mean "She not mean nationality. Maybe she mean ethnicity, or race, or nation...". Just unbelievable! In tweet The Nina's answer is absolutely clear "Nationality - Bulgarian". Your interpretations about nationality are non-sens. Why you think that Bulgarian is previous nationality? From where you know that she has Canadian citizenship? I do not see a source, which confirm that theory. Actually her tweet show that Bulgarian are present nationality. And more - according to Constitution of Bulgaria (26(3)) Bulgarian is her present nationality, because she can not lose her Bulgarian citizenship. By Law she is Bulgarian from everywhere! OK, you say that Constitution is original research and cannot use here and search a source, where is saying "Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian". And now we have these sources (absolutely sure and reliable sources), which prove that. Before, you said that nowhere is written by Bulgarian nationality or hasn't source, which confirm that she is Bulgarian and because of that it must be only "Canadian actress". Now we have these sources but I see opinions like "She not mean nationality", "Bulgarian newspapers going to report people born in Bulgaria as Bulgarians". In previous comment you talking about the POV-pushing and nationalism like occurrence in Wikipedia. About that you are right and we often see that unpleasantly phenomenon. Many of comments here prove that here exist some kind of Pro-Canadian POV-pushing. Look at all Talk page! Here are presenting more than these 2 sources. All of these sources - books, sites, newspapers - said that Nina Dobrev is Bulgarian and no one that is Canadian. What you want more? It is not honestly by me. The fact that I edit articles related to Bulgaria doesn't mean that I'm nationalist. I'm against nationalism and every harmful ideology. JanHusCz (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You are grossly misquoting me. I do not deny that she claims Bulgaria as her nationality. What I pointed out is that the OED lists two relevant definitions for nationality, one is citizenship and the other is ethnicity. If she meant citizenship then adding "Bulgarian" to the lead sentence is in line with with relevant guidelines. If she only meant "ethnicity" then the relevant guidelines indicate "Bulgarian" should not be mentioned. The question becomes which one did she mean? Do you know? I have absolutely no idea and based on that one tweet I do not see how anyone could know what was going through her mind when she made that tweet. That's what this whole thing comes down to, it's that simple.
"Many of comments here prove that here exist some kind of Pro-Canadian POV-pushing. Look at all Talk page! Here are presenting more than these 2 sources. All of these sources - books, sites, newspapers - said that Nina Dob" Let me get this straight, disagreeing with you on the reliability of sources and your interpretation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines means that I am using Wikipedia to promote Canada? Once again, feel free to look at my edits. Not only will not find anything related to promoting Canada you will not find any edit I've made promoting any country. SQGibbon (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
SQGibbons, I don't know what to say any more. If you want the guidelines to change, then please request that they be changed--to me, there is no question that you are adding something to the guidelines that is not there, by stating that a statement about citizenship is the only statement we could use to clarify this, and that's not what either the guideline says or how Wikipedia articles are edited in practice. If you still somehow think I'm wrong, please take it up at an appropriate noticeboard, as it seems clear to me that we're not getting anywhere here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
How about this, if you want the guidelines to change so that we include ethnicity and/or that we accept all possible interpretations of tweets to support any claim whatsoever then you should go to the relevant pages and attain a new consensus. My position is clearly the one in line with the guidelines at WP:OPENPARA. She claimed a nationality of Bulgarian. "Nationality" has two commonly used meanings. Only one of those meanings meets the criterion at OPENPARA. Do you know which definition of "nationality" she was using? If she meant "ethnicity" then by OPENPARA we should not mention it. I fail to see the confusion or difficulty here. SQGibbon (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::I mean that every time, when some editor found a source, which say that Nina is Bulgarian, you immediately ignore it with absolutely meaningless arguments, as "nationality is not mean nationality", "The Bulgarian newspapers doesn't count" and others, which show that here exist Canadian, North American or Anti-Bulgarian focus, contrary NPOV. In previous comments you say that New York Times is reliable source, but Struma is not. What is your explaination? The only one difference between these newspapers is that NYT is American, Struma - Bulgarian. Your reference of OPENPARA is not exactly relevant in this case, because Bulgarian is her present nationality, not previous. Beside that the definition there is too commonly by me and is also not relevant. This article is too different case. How much times i must to say that nationality and ethnicity is two different things. For example - In Bulgaria beside ethnic Bulgarians, live also Armenians. Armenians was coming in Bulgaria in the beginning of 20th century as refugges, running by genocide in Ottoman empire. After that part of them stay and living in Bulgaria until today. If you ask some of them 'What is your nationality", he/she will answered "I'm Bulgarian, but by ethnicity am Armenian". They are Bulgarian citizens, but are from Armenian ethnicity.JanHusCz (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean that every time, when some editor found a source, which say that Nina is Bulgarian, you immediately ignore it with absolutely meaningless arguments, as "nationality is not mean nationality" I never said that. Yet again you are misquoting me.
"The Bulgarian newspapers doesn't count" I never said that either. Yet more misquotes.
which show that here exist Canadian, North American or Anti-Bulgarian focus, contrary NPOV. Since your examples are false then this does not follow. But even if I did say the things you say I did your conclusion would still would not follow. On Wikipedia we are always investigating the reliability of sources. This does not mean we are anti-anything, just that we are following Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Also, did you look through my 30,000+ edits on Wikipedia? If I had some kind of pro-Canadian/North American or anti-Bulgarian bias surely it would be evident in more that just this one talk page. If you cannot provide concrete examples of a bias on my part then you really need to stop these false accusations.
In previous comments you say that New York Times is reliable source, but Struma is not. I never said that. In fact what I actually said is that sometimes the New York Times is not a reliable source. You misquoting me is becoming a very bad habit of yours and it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume you are editing in good faith when what you are doing is basically lying.
Your reference of OPENPARA is not exactly relevant in this case, because Bulgarian is her present nationality, not previous. OPENPARA is the only guideline on Wikipedia that deals with mentioning nationality in the opening paragraph/lead sentence so it is entirely relevant. As for Bulgaria being her present nationality that is what we are trying to determine without employing original research or mind-reading.
How much times i must to say that nationality and ethnicity is two different things. The Oxford English Dictionary is the standard and most respected dictionary of the English language. Where it disagrees with you then I will believe it, especially given that English is clearly not your native tongue nor are you fluent in it. The rest of your example is completely 100% irrelevant to this issue. Dobrev left Bulgaria before she was 2 years old so even if in Bulgaria the English word "nationality" only ever means "citizenship" there is absolutely no way she would have picked up on that usage at her age. Impossible. Instead she had to have learned that word while living in Canada which means, as per the OED, it could mean citizenship or ethnicity. SQGibbon (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Really? How can explain this: SQGibbon, 17:55, 3 December: "Nationality" can mean citizen, race, or ethnicity...We do not as of yet know which of these she meant.; Nymf, 17.47, 30 November: Native newspapers are obviously going to report people who were born in Bulgaria as Bulgarians. SQGibbon, 3 December, 0.46: ...when someone claims country X as their nationality they might be referring to their ethnic or racial groups. It looks as you just abusive the editors, which are not agree with your opinion. And I said that here exist something, which seems like kind of Pro-Canadian POV (nothing about you - here you are misquoting me. ), because of that examples and too strange and impossible criteria by using sources. You want to find a source, where is written: "I'm Nina Dobrev. My nationality is Bulgarian. When I say Nationality, I mean citizenship. I'm from Bulgarian ethnicity. When I say ethnicity I mean exactly ethnicity, not a citizenship or nationality" or maybe her passport, which is just absurd! We have two reliable sources, which prove that she is Bulgarian. It is sufficient. P.S. That discussion is so longer, that can to apply by Guinness Records  JanHusCz (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. You attributed statements to me that I did not make like "nationality is not mean nationality" which I did not make. You even quoted me here which demonstrates very clearly that I did not say that but instead questioned how we can know what she meant by "nationality" since there are two common meanings for that word.
It looks as you just abusive the editors, which are not agree with your opinion. Where have I been abusive? Have I misquoted you as you have done to me? Have I threatened any other editor? What have I done? I did point out that everyone (except recently Qwyrxian) who supports the "Bulgarian-Canadian actress" edit appears to only be editing Bulgarian articles and inserting Bulgarian information into those articles that are tangentially related (like this one). These are easily verifiable facts. I have not actually accused anyone of pushing a nationalistic agenda though I have noted that the behavior is suspicious.
that here exist something, which seems like kind of Pro-Canadian POV (nothing about you - here you are misquoting me. I did not quote you at all! I paraphrased your statement. Given that you were talking to me and questioning my neutrality it was entirely reasonable to assume that your "here exist" statement referred to me. Are you claiming that you were not referring to me with that one statement but just decided to insert it at random in your post directed to me as a comment about someone else?
You want to find a source, where is written: '"I'm Nina Dobrev. My nationality is Bulgarian. When I say Nationality, I mean citizenship. I'm from Bulgarian ethnicity. When I say ethnicity I mean exactly ethnicity, not a citizenship or nationality" or maybe her passport, which is just absurd! In the vast majority of cases in dealing with biographies we do not need such explicit sources. In this case, because of the wording of WP:OPENPARA and Dobrev's particular life story we do need something that makes the situation less ambiguous. This is standard for Wikipedia. I do not see the problem. Yes, it might be difficult to find the exact information you are looking for but this happens all the time. I have been involved many times with many different articles trying to find a reliable source to back up what I thought was a pretty obvious claim but being unable to do so had to agree with the editor who removed it in the first place. This is how Wikipedia operates.
We have two reliable sources, which prove that she is Bulgarian. We have two sources that claim her nationality is Bulgarian. We know that "nationality" can mean "citizenship" or "ethnicity". Which one was meant is debatable and the entirety of this discussion hinges on that. Again, how do you know which one she meant? Just answer that one very simple question and this whole thing goes away. SQGibbon (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Two quick points: I wholeheartedly agree with SQGibbon that JanHusCz's comments are unacceptabe. In fact, they're bordering on being a personal attack, because they accuse SQGibbon of POV-pushing without any evidence. I totally believe that SQGibbon is acting in good faith, and is simply attempting to make the article conform to his interpretation of our policies and guidelines. I believe his interpretation is wrong, but that doesn't mean that he isn't acting with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. You (JanHusCz's) comments, on the other hand, are not in the best interest of Wikipedia--you're exhibiting a battleground mentality, have asserting that of course everyone edits to promote their own national interests, and have implied some sort of operational cabal fighting to promote Canada. All of this is directly harmful to this discussion, and needs to stop immediately. If you really do believe you have evidence of improper behavior on SQGibbon's (or anyone else's part), please gather diffs and take them to a noticeboard like WP:ANI.

As for SQGibbon's final point (which one did she mean), I point out that, again, you are asking for a distinction which is not required by the guideline in question. OPENPARA does not require that we establish that she meant citizenship. Nationality is one of the things OPENPARA says we should include, whatever nationality means. All we have to establish is that she meant "nationality" when she answered a question about nationality. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

To try to keep things short (as is not my wont), OPENPARA does not actually list nationality as one of its criteria. It says "citizen, national or permanent resident". "Nationality" is not mentioned at all (except in the subheading without further context). When Ms Dobrev claims to be of Bulgarian nationality the question becomes is this actually relevant? On the surface, no, since nationality is not one of the criteria listed. If by "nationality" she meant citizenship then it is applicable. If instead she meant "ethnicity" then the guideline states specifically that we should not mention it. I do not know the history of this guideline and if they specifically chose not to use the word "nationality" because of its ambiguity but such a decision would make sense to me. Anyway, the point remains, we do not know which one she meant therefore we are unable to properly interpret her statement and thus the requirements needed in order to mention "Bulgarian" are not met. SQGibbon (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's been a NPOV dispute template on this article for a few months now but it looks pretty neutral to me. I see there was a big discussion which involved a lot of ad hominem but it looks like it's either been resolved or everyone just gave up. So could we remove the template now? Littlecarmen (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You will have to ask the herd of socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive), that managed to bully their way to this version. Nymf (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  Done It's not there now. "...ask the herd of socks" was the funniest thing I've read all week. THANKS, AstroU (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Marriage

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There does not appear to be anything in the article about her being married to anyone. Should the infobox be updated accordingly? --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 21:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also nothing in the Ian Somerhalder article about them ever being married, only dating. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 22:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Because she is not merried for ian Nsapoundjiev (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev never been merry for ian Somerhalder that's why Nikolay V.Sapoundjiev (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And Nina Dobrev will never be married for Ian Somerhalder ever Nikolay V.Sapoundjiev (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Vampire Diaries entry date range

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the point of coding the date range for Vampire Diaries in the "Television" table as "2009-2015, 2016-", instead of "2009-1016" or "2009-"? The only way I can see that as reasonable is if she left the show in 2015, and then returned in 2016. I changed it to the first option, but it was changed back without comment. There is another copy of that date range which presumably needs to be updated as well in the lead. Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nina Dobrev. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dobrev's father

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nina's father is Kamen Dobrev, not Konstantin Dobrev! Her mother tells her in an interview with the Bulgarian newspaper "24 Hours", here's a link: www.24chasa.bg/mnenia/article/6349785 ! From there Nina is Kamenova, not Konstantinova! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.124.102 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed name?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any source stating that she had officially changed her name? If not we should indicate that she is "better known as", instead of implying that she has changed her name. LK (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nina Dobrev. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly she states she is of gypsy decent

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • Support inclusion Why can't this be included? The statement can't be more clear cut:

https://twitter.com/ninadobrev/status/270610260060950528

I think it should go in. As soon as I did, it was reverted with the excuse 'she does not say she is of gypsy ancestry for example.' ??? - Which clearly she did. It is nothing to be ashamed of and this is her official Twitter. Many other celebs have used twitter to describe their ancestry and the links are used in wiki. Reaper7 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply having a particular ancestry is not sufficient, or every biography in Wikipedia would claim that the subject is African. And even a person stating that they have a particular ancestry is not sufficient. I list eight different ancestries in my own makeup, but I would never mention seven if asked what I was. Meters (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it should not be included, because it is highly ambiguous – she did not say "I am of gypsy decent" or "My ancestors were gypsies". One of the dictionary definitions of gypsy is "a nomadic or free-spirited person" – in the context of that tweet, it's certainly not clear: she may mean "gypsy" in that way... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nina_Dobrev/Archive_2&oldid=950842194"