User talk:Jaan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Country and nationality

Hello. You have used the following edit comment at several articles: "The infobox should reflect the birth country, not the occupation regime". Where have you got this idea from? A consented Wikipedia-policy? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth country is birth country. Occupying country cannot be the birth country. Feel free to fill in the blanks with an occupied country of your choice, for instance, people born in Prague 1939-1945 cannot be listed as born in Germany, although the city was factually part of the country during that period. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for selfreverting. Much appreciated. :o) Secondly, when it comes to my question, you have not answered it. I tried to search for an answer, and the closest I came was this discussion dating back more than three years. I can see there is no real consensus, but there seems to be some de facto standard of using town and constituent country as place of birth.

Anyway, I think we have agreed on the two articles in question, and I was not aware of WP:OPENPARA for biographical articles. Thanks for letting me know. I do think though, that you are, generally speaking, being less constructive by deleting informations from articles that should have been saved, but not in the opening paragraph, naturally.

And to answer your post: I do not see it like you do. Wikipedia is about reliable sources and neutral point of view, and I think place of birth in biographical infoboxes should be based on what is written on the persons birth certificate – which is a reliable source and neutral point of view. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked through for the edits in question, if having to do with "where" people were born during what is commonly seen as the occupation of the Baltics, country should probably be something along the lines of "Estonia (under Estonian SSR)" and not USSR; the German occupation did not annex, so there's not the same issue. If it would be helpful, I can look through history and comment specifically. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Pēteris, I think there is a difference between what can be written in the infobox and what can be elaborated within the article itself. The infobox must be precise without explanations. The best thing for the infobox in my opinion would be the factual Estonian SSR, since that is written on the persons birth certificate. No need for USSR, which is implied by using SSR, and we do get the Estonian bit too. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Philaweb, I appreciate the agreements.

Re:being less constructive by deleting informations from articles that should have been saved - I have only tried to delete information where it is repeated somewhere else in the article, as in the infobox or the main body. Where not, please restore it.

Re: place of birth in biographical infoboxes should be based on what is written on the persons birth certificate - just come back with an example of a person of your choice who was born in Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Sudetenland, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Memel Territory, the Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, Danzig-West Prussia, Wartheland, or the "General Government" territories. Would you propose to accept the birth certificates issued there in 1939-1944? ('factual' and all?) --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above, there is a difference between an infobox and the content of an article. Referring to a birth certificate in the infobox of an article is short and sweet. The details are for the article itself. This is my answer, since I have little time for talk and more for writing articles, which I do on da.wiki. If anyone opens a thread somewhere for consensus-building, I would be more than happy to participate. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Being you both do a good job at focusing on content away from the madding crowd, a mini-consensus would have a good chance of going farther. Too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say. It seems to me we have the "administrative" place of birth (no implication for or against legitimacy) versus "current" and that including both, clearly labeled, might be of assistance. "Place of birth", for example, has been used to insist the Estonian defense minister was a Soviet-born Soviet citizen, not born in Estonia. Just thinking out loud. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vecrumba that beyond formalism, birth certificates by illegitimate authorities quickly lead to absurdity. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What I really hate about this project are people being political about even the simplest of things. Which is also the reason why I do not contribute much, since most of what I do is at risk of being shot down, not because I am plain wrong, but because someone has a political agenda. I am very sorry, but noone was ever born in "Estonia" from 1945 to 1990, unless of course they popped out of their mothers womb in the lobby of the Estonian mission in Washington DC. That is a fact, rest is politics...

Perhaps the compromise could be, that "infoboxes" are for these kind of facts, and the editorial space within the rest of the articles are for representation of facts based on reliable scholarly sources in all colors and shapes? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there was no sovereign Estonia on the territory of Estonia 1945 to 1990—that sovereignty was vested elsewhere. How to represent that in terms of territorial control? That Estonia is independent again makes it easy to observe "Estonia (current)", but what if Estonia were still under the Estonian SSR? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Recall that independent Estonia was officially "Republic of Estonia" and dependent Estonia was officially "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic", then simply "Estonia" would be the logical middle ground. Afterall, since the article History of Estonia treats "Estonia" as a geographical entity, we should use the geographical term for place of birth as well for biographical articles for consistency sake. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact not. Template:infobox person requires a sovereign state, and that is either Estonia or Soviet Union. So no middle ground, just a matter of sovereignity. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not withstanding the fact that the international community never recognised the sovereignty of the USSR over the Baltic states and regarded the SSR as puppet states, internally after the soviet constitutional reforms of 1944 the the USSR became, at least on paper, a voluntary union of fully sovereign socialist republics. In fact Belarus and Ukraine SSRs were granted UN seats. So the template's guidance that birth_place be "Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state." is some what problematical in case of the Baltic states within the USSR. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you have reached the core of the problem - the infobox should reflect the reality, not something only on the paper. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jaan, I've been reviewing a handful of your changes and some do not make sense. For example, Otto Struve, born in Russia, emigrates to the USA, and you delete "American"[1], Regina Spektor, born in Russia, emigrates to America, you delete "Russian"[2]. More examples, Rudolf Nureyev where you change it to "British dancer", then you change it to "Russian dancer" with the edit comment "Sorry, apparently he was a Soviet citizen until 1982"[3]. What was he between 1982 and 1992? Paul Felix Schmidt born in Estonia, moves to America, you call him Estonian[4], Michael Roos, born in Estonia, moves to America, you call him American[5]. Could you explain some of the thinking behind this, I must be missing something here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing WP:OPENPARA. The country of birth should normally not be reflected in the opening. Otto Struve was a subject of Russian Empire when he became a notable astronomer. Regina Spektor was an American citizens when she became notable. A closer check revealed Nureyev was still a Soviet citizen even after escaping the country (people persecuted by a state are tough to list as its national). The opening is not supposed to discuss the changes in the person's nationality, only the nationality when the person became notable. Schmidt represented Estonia as he became a notable chess player. Roos was an American citizen when he became a notable footballer. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but Otto Struve made his first scientific discoveries (thus achieving notability) in the USA. In regard to the Soviet citizenship of Nureyev, wasn't his nationality noted in his Soviet passport? And what about dual-citizens? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality means the state or country, doesn't it (not to be confused with ethnicity)? Dual citizens are still normally more connected to one or another country. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality was identified in terms of territory, not ethnicity. The official category of nationality was intended to give Soviet citizens an identification with units of government below that of the Union itself, being the republics or autonomous districts. So an ethnic Russian who was a citizen of the pre-war independent Estonian state would have had "Estonian" as his nationality in his Soviet passport, while ethnic Estonians imported into Estonia after 1940 by the Soviets would have had some non-Estonian nationality recorded in their passports. This all fits with the constitutionally enshrined notion that the USSR was supposed to be a union of sovereign soviet republics. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if that's correct then feel free to change it to Russian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltic Germans

In regard to Jaan's revert[6] to the Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve article, not withstanding the fact he was born in Holstein, I think piping "Russian" to Russian Empire when describing Baltic Germans as "xxxx was a Russian astronomer" is problematical, in that ethnically, culturally and linguistically these people were not "Russian" per se. As an empire expands its realms, people along with own systems of law, education and culture, became subject to imperial rule but they did not lose their identity. Russification came relatively late to many of the outlaying provences, for example the separate Finnish Army was only only abolished in 1901, the Volga Germans lost their exemption to military service in 1876 and Baltic German autonomy in justice and adminstration, as well as the language of education was not changed from German to Russian until 1880 . This paper discusses German identity within Imperial Russia[7], I don't think we should be russifying these people 130 years after Tsarist Russia first unsuccessfully attempted it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that we should be more accurate on the background of individuals when known. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:OPENPARA, ethnicity or birth country does not belong to the opening, just the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. There is no such country as 'Baltic German'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA states citizenship mainly applies to modern day cases, which makes sense since in multi-national empires of 100 years ago people were considered "subjects" rather than "citizens". Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve died some 20 years before any attempt to Russify Livonia began, prior to that Baltic Germans strongly identified with their culture and language as the paper I cited shows. Being born in Holstein, what evidence do you have that he "naturalised" (the concept didn't exist in the 1800's ) as a "Russian citizen"? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth, that's called a straw man. The purpose of the opening paragraph is to give relevant geographic context to the topic (person). The man we are discussing became a notable astronomer in Dorpat and spent most of his career as the director of the Pulkovo Observatory. The fact that he was born in Germany is irrelevant for the opening as: '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.'

Let us develop a policy similar to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom specifically for the Russian Empire! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

At that time Dorpat, with its German language university, was the centre of German culture and scholarship in the Baltics, and enjoyed extensive administrative autonomy before 1880's. Developing a policy similar to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom is a good idea. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The administrative autonomy is of primary relevance here, regarding that probably no-one would contend people who became notable as subjects of the Grand Principality of Finland or Congress Poland called, respectively, Finnish or Polish, regardless of their ethnicity or birth country. Now the trouble is that the Baltic Germans did not have an autonomous state but three provinces. My suggestion is to present people subject to either the autonomous Governorate of Estonia, Governorate of Livonia or Curonia to be presented respectively, as Estonian, Livonian or Curonian. For example, I have talked to the director of the Karl Ernst von Baer House and he says the scientist used to refer to himself as an Estonian (estländisch). However, military and naval officers of Russian Empire and other people who clearly acted as Russian nationals (like Struve) should be an exception to this. The bottom line is, the policy is to open with nothing else but the country or state the person belonged to when she or he became notable. The main body has plenty of room for the birth place, ethnicity, and previous nationalities. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Estonian, Livonian or Curonian are probably the best solution for the period. Note the existence of the Holy Roman empire, we don't call people living within that empire "Holy Romans" --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning here misses an obvious thing: being Baltic German noble was much more important for making a career in the Russian Empire, than being Estonian, Livonian or Curonian by place of birth. Since the place of birth given as adjective might be easily taken for nationality or ethnicity, such edits have also a great misleading potential. GreyHood ^Talk 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Still, the policy is not to detail social position, ethnicity, sexuality other than the state or country in the opening. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Than in the case of Baer it should be Russian Empire only, without any need of further details. Being born in Estonia, rather than in the other Baltic province for example, was not that important career point compared to being Baltic German noble (actually such people were often known as just Germans in Russia). And you seem to misinterpret the policy, by the way: it states that stating an ethnicity is undesirable in case the ethnicity was not particularly important (Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability). Baltic Germans were a very specific group in the Russian Empire, and ethnicity is highly important in this case. It is wrong to eliminate the mentioning of ethnicity totally, and it is even more wrong to present it like if Baer was ethnically Estonian, for example.

My suggestion is to use the phrases "Russian of Baltic German ethnicity" or "Baltic German Russian" piped to the Russian Empire, and give Estonia, Livonia or Curonia as a place of birth in brackets alongside the birth dates, which is a normal practice for well-developed articles with good lead sections. Please avoid your practice of replacing Baltic German with Estonian per WP:OPENPARA, it is pretty much misleading and lacking important bit of information. GreyHood ^Talk 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Von Baer was notable as a polymath scientist. His ethnicity was of background importance. Therefore it should not be emphasized in the lead. The Russian Empire was not a country but encompassed a number of autonomous states, just like most empires. For example, 19th century Indian or Canadian people were not British, just like 19th century Czech or Croatian people were not Austro-Hungarian. The same applies here.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Russian Empire most certainly was a country, and its Baltic governorates were fully integrated parts equal to other governorates, nothing like colonies here. Ethnicity being of secondary importance compared to the scientific achievements is not a good reason to remove the mention of ethnicity completely, to replace it with "Estonian" ethnicity or to claim that particular place of birth was more important than ethnicity. The only suitable solution is to mention all the relevant information (place of birth, ethnicity, and nationality). GreyHood ^Talk 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see you have not heard of the Baltic autonomy. Let me cite the wikiarticle: 'Similarly to guberniyas of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, the Baltic Governorates until the end of 19th century were not a subject to the common civil and administrative laws of the Russian Empire...'. Let me add the Congress Poland here and you should see that your proposal to designate all 19th century Baltic Germans as Russian would logically urge a need to do the same with the Finnish and Polish people from the same era. Was that what you had in mind? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Ethnicity being of secondary importance compared to the scientific achievements is not a good reason to remove the mention of ethnicity completely... - I am just following the guidelines...

Re: to replace it with "Estonian" ethnicity - Estonian is not an ethnicity. Why would you claim anything like that?

Re: to claim that particular place of birth was more important than ethnicity - It's not I, it's the WP:OPENPARA that claims so. I just apply it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for Baer = estländisch, the contemporary German term for Estonian is estnisch, not estländisch (cf эстонский - эстляндский), the latter referring to the area of the guberniya, not ethnicity. Despite the fact that you linked the Guberniya of Est(h)onia, 'Estonian' alone is POVish and cannot stay.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The limited autonomy of the Baltic governorates until mid-19th century and peculiarities in law system (which was a common thing to find in many governorates on the Russian periphery) is a minor point here. The autonomy and specific laws btw. were largely based on the old feudal rights of the Baltic German nobility. Again, this is not the reason to disregard the ethnicity or to misleadingly represent it as "Estonian" ethnicity or nationality instead of Baltic German and Russian.

I'm against stressing Russian nationality for those Poles, Finns, Baltic Germans, Estonians etc. who were little known outside there native lands and were not prominent in the Russian military or science, not studied or taught in the Russian universities, not lived for long in Saint Petersburg or other Russian cities or not traveled widely throughout Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already cited you the exceptions from the guideline. I've already said that the place of birth should be given in the infobox and in the brackets near the dates of life, not as an adjective.

Estonian may be easily (and in fact, most likely) read like ethnicity or nationality if the reader doesn't follow the link. This is kind of obvious.

You apply the policy in the wrong way, disregarding the exeptions and the specifical circumstances of the case. GreyHood ^Talk 14:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltic German is ethnicity, not nationality. Stating the ethnicity is straightforwardly against the WP:OPENPARA guidelines. You just need to come up with a state or country here. All I am trying to do is to state Baer's national identity as he himself referred to, which was estländer or estländisch (not estnisch). Again, my goal is not to present it as Estonian. 'If the reader doesn't follow the link', Baltic German 'may be easily' read Baltic German and therefore just as misleading. So that really does not count as an argument. Estonia became a country in 1918. For the previous period, the name in English denotes the province. If Estonian is a bad translation for you, then propose a better one. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The brackets are part of the opening statement and therefore should not contain the birth place. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not mix up to questions: 1) What was von Baer's nationality? 2) Was he notable for his Baltic German ethnicity? Answering these upon the guidelines should bring us closer to the solution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Note the Miacek's comment above and please not ignore obvious things. 1) Baer was a subject of Russian Empire, self-identifying as born in Estland, which doesn't necessarily mean ethnicity or nationality. 2) Baltic German ethnicity was a notable point of his biography and should be mentioned in the article, not removed altogether (as was the result of your edit) and not replaced with an adjective Estonian (which is more likely to be taken by readers as ethnicity or nationality rather than a place of birth).

I could accept not mentioning "Baltic German" in the intro if the ethnicity is prominently featured in the subsequent sections of the article and not misleadingly replaced with "Estonian" in the lead section. GreyHood ^Talk 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last point was fair enough. I'll try to fix that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits do not take into account Miacek's point on "estländisch" vs "estnish" nor the ambiguous nature of the "Estonian" adjective. Also it is not particularly good style to link to the German wiktionary. Sorry, but so far it is not a solution. GreyHood ^Talk 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Both estländisch and estnisch translate as 'Estonian'. The only way to distinguish them is with piped links. And that's exactly what I have done. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The only way is to drop the usage of the adjective at all, write Governorate of Estonia in the intro, and move self-identification to the latter part of the biography. Having Estonian as nationality in the infobox might also be problematic. GreyHood ^Talk 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. German may also mean either the ethnicity or the nationality. That does not mean we need to stop using the word at all. A fortiori, I have added citations from a couple of medical journals which feel perfectly comfortable with using the term 'Estonian Karl Ernst von Baer' even without the courtesy of piped wikilinks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltic German means only ethnicity for the lack of Baltic Germany. And there is no reason not to use less ambiguous wording if we can, and please note that there are two users already who find the current wording ambiguous (again, it is kind of obvious ambiguity with such adjectives). Medical journals are not a good source for ethnicity, since they discuss Baers scientific heritage rather than finer points of his biography. GreyHood ^Talk 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No ambiguity with piped links. That's what they are for. Don't underestimate the reader in order to make a point. And don't try to make it look like a special case - it's not. German, American, Russian - all may denote either the ethnicity, origin, or nationality combined with possibly other ethnicity and origin. To an ignorant reader, Baltic German may read just as ambiguous - a German from in the Baltic region, the Baltic States, a Baltic person living in Germany, and many more interpretations. That's where the piped links help. In addition, I dismiss your sorry attempt to undermine the competence of science history researchers who have published in peer-reviewed journals. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not many readers actually go via all piped links, especially those that are seemingly known and understandable. And the adjective is more likely to mean ethnicity or nationality in most contexts, while the place of birth is usually given as a proper noun or phrase. Alongside removing actual Baltic German ethnicity this increases the possible misleading effect. Sorry, this is inappropriate. Either we have "Baltic German (Estonian by place of birth) or we have just Governorate of Estonia without pipe. GreyHood ^Talk 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point out the guidelines are against mentioning ethnicity and birth place. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why mention Estonia at all if the guidelines are against it ;) ? You read them in strange way. Cite the relevant points of guidelines please. The clause of 3rd clause of WP:OPENPARA has enough exceptions applicable in this case, and by the way this guideline actually was written mostly to deal with the ethnicity of children of emigrants to America and unhelpful overstressing the sexuality by some LGBT activists, that is the cases when ethnicity or sexuality are really marginally important. In the case of Baer you misapply the guideline or apply it in too strict way. The strict application could be conditionally tolerated, but not when at the same time you misleadingly present those people as "Estonians", which they were only by place of birth and which should have been stated in less ambiguous way. We must not fail WP:NPOV and must not mislead readers. GreyHood ^Talk 18:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is to mention the person's nationality. Estonian confuses no more than German for, let's say, an ethnic Swede with a German passport. There is no other certain way to know whether the adjective means ethnicity, origin, or nationality than to follow the piped link. What neutrality issues are you after, goes beyond me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See my point on nationality below - nationality could mean anything, though most likely citizenship. And your insistence on adjective and piped link when we can easily present the facts in less ambiguous, clear and direct way is counterproductive.

You are on WP:3RR with Otto Struve page, so I kindly ask you to self-revert. And unless we find some consensus on changing your highly problematic practice of Baltic German removal alongside with undue Estonisation of Baltic Germans, I'll bring this issue to neutrality noticeboard. GreyHood ^Talk 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. I agree with your suggestion to change the nationality to Russian and you start to threten me? I have made two reverts back to American. The two latter one just trimmed the American from it (as it is against the guideline to list multiple nationalities). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And I do no 'Estonianise' anyone. All I do is try to replace ethnicity with nationality other than Russian. And I have received no help in it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted the edits of several other editors, fully or partially, over the same issue, which is 3RR. I do not threaten anyone, I'll just uphold guidelines and try either to facilitate the achievement of consensus, or to bring the issue to larger audience so that to find a common solution or mediation. GreyHood ^Talk 19:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality reads: Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state, usually determined by their citizenship, but sometimes by ethnicity or place of residence, or based on their sense of national identity. So in our case nationality could mean Russian, Baltic German or Estonian, and Estonian claim in fact is rather weak since estlaendish is different from estnish, and self-identification doesn't necessarily mean national identification in this case. GreyHood ^Talk 19:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you now saying Baltic German is a nationality after all? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just cited you the definition. GreyHood ^Talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:OPENPARA works with biographies of living people, but with historical (i.e. dead) people it does not work well. This is because the criteria described by WP:OPENPARA is using the modern concept of citizenship which is not applicable to many old European empires. For example Martin Luther was from Electorate of Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire, should the lede state he was a "German", a "Saxon" or a "Holy Roman"? If we adopt Greyhood's argument that the Russian Empire was a country then we should call him a "Holy Roman". If we adopt Jaan's argument, then we would call him a "native of Saxony". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem not so much with the Russian Empire, but with a misleading replacement of "Baltic German" with "Estonian". If Jaan would at least use Governorate of Estonia instead of "Estonian", the issue would be mostly solved. Place of birth should not be confused with ethnicity. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines work well with all kinds of people. The point is to keep fans of different social groups (ethnicity, birth country, origin, religion, sexuality, you name it) from polluting the opening statement with trivia. The policy is to assign the country, state, or other form of national group the person belonged to when she or he became notable. Simple. Period.

Re: Greyhood: Estonian claim in fact is rather weak since estlaendish is different from estnish?? Of course it's different, that's the argument. The article will reflect the well-sourced fact that von Baer identified himself as an Estländer rather than Russian or Baltic German. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline talks about the modern cases and helps to deal with the situations when ethnicity is really marginally important. In the case of Baltic Germans, the ethnicity (important or not per se) was certainly more important than being "Estonian" or "Curonian" etc. We should not use guidelines to produce effects contrary to their spirit (removing "unimportant" "trivia" information but replacing it with even less important and as well "trivia" information), and we should not produce misleading wording, which is a separate question to the discussed guideline. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline is to assign a sovereign state, not to conveniently replace it with a social or cultural identity of a random author's choice. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "strict" application of the guideline on Otto Struve, insisting that he was either Russian or American but not both, is counterproductive. Both bits of information are important, and we should not make guidelines a joke by applying them in such manner. GreyHood ^Talk 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My application is not strict. It's just application. If you had serious arguments we could make an exception. So far I just have not countered them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks at Milla Jovovich

Hey Jaan. I had removed the wikilinks to America as per the manual of style here which states, in part, "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, nations, languages, religions, and common professions." "America" seems a clear-cut case of something to not link to. The basic idea of wikilinks is to link to things that people might not be familiar with but it is assumed that anyone reading the English Wikipedia knows what America is. I didn't revert your edit because this type of wikilinking is prevalent throughout Wikipedia even though it contradicts our community agreed upon guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am with the point, but United States are linked there to disamiguate from American. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. However, "America" does not need to be disambiguated like that. Whenever the nationality is listed as "American" it's understood that this means "The United States of America". There is no other nationality that is called "American" and no one is ever listed by continent. I'm curious if there is any kind of community consensus one way or the other on this topic. SQGibbon (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This applies indeed in the infobox (I think I will even fix this), but not in the regular text, where it does not necessarily mean nationality. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mina' real name

Hi Jaan, =Bring it to the talk page first=
Done. Regards --109.208.230.102 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

?

Are you related to Priit P.?--Galassi (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Pärn is a rather common family name in Estonian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. Am a fan.--Galassi (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri/Vyborg

Umh... Regarding your comment in Talk:Continuation War.. "...became part of the Russian RSFSR in 1940, Finnish occupation regarded illegal by Finland herself." Care to provide evidence for either of the claims? First the town was not joined into Russian RSFSR until 1944, in 1940 it was joined into Karelo-Finnish SSR. As for the second one i would like to see evidence of it - please do note that Vyborg is not in East Karelia which was occupied. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Georg Hackenschmidt, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Swimming and Catch-as-catch-can (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Era of Stagnation

You're view is not mainstream, the facts you've added are simplistic.

You are both wrong; yes, its true, the economy grew under Brezhnev, but economic growth decreased, and nearly stopped; that's what stagnation means...... And no, the Soviet economy didn't just suddenly stagnate, the Eighth Five-Year Plan ((1968-1971) was the most effective/productive in Soviet history.... The problem with consumer society in the Soviet Union was as follows; the government put much more emphasize on capital goods then consumer goods - while, of course, major problems would still occur. The problem was not management, per see, but wrong policy. For example, chronic shortages were not a common site in Cuba in the 1980s; the reason is simple, the government's policy was more consumer friendly + the country always had consumer goods, the Soviet Union gave them it as part of an economic plan to develop socialism..... The Brezhnev era started with big hopes; but the lack of proper leadership, the establishment of a gerontocracy (which in turn led to political corruption) and the lack of reform led to stagnation. It did not just happen, and under Brezhnev there were still plenty of people who believed in communism (probably the majority of people did)..... "Sharp reduction of growth" is simplistic, and totally biased; its not an analyse, its just an answer by a guy who has probably never had an objective view of the USSR ever. Lost its moral authority???? How in gods name could that be proven??? What is clear from Soviet history is that many people still believed in communism, the majority did when Gorbachev came to power..... "waste", "Incompetent management"???? are you kidding me! Alexei Kosygin has been hailed by several people as a gifted administrator; lack of reform is not the same as mismanagement....

I'll start work on this article soon; if you want to know more about the stagnation, read Leonid Brezhnev and the History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982) article, they are both GAs and objective. --TIAYN (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You do know that the Occupation of the Baltic states only says the Western bloc said it was an occupation. You do know that the Eastern Bloc and other communist allies, or regimes friendly towards the USSR, did see otherwise, right? I mean, I believe it was an occupation, but there does not exist only one view on that subject, even if the Western World tries to portray it that way. Russia still doesn't refer to it as an occuption, China has never referred to it as an occupation.... The Western Bloc is not synonymous with the world, the rise of China has proven that. --TIAYN (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Prague Offensive and Estonian POWs

Please see Talk:Prague Offensive#Estonian POWs -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Julius Kuperjanov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Soviet occupations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soviet republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are you sure the Russian Civil War began in 1918 and ended in 1920? B-Machine (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The cited encyclopedias are absolutely positive about this. The Russian Civil War article in Encyclopaedia Britannica begins with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Volunteer Army's campaign in the Kuban steppes, and the Allied Intervention. The article leaves no question about the end of the war either: "The Red Army eventually battered Wrangel’s forces, whose rearguards held out long enough to ensure the evacuation of 150,000 soldiers and civilians by sea from the Crimea. This ended the Russian Civil War in November 1920." Encyclopedia Americana's 'Civil War' chapter in the 'Russian Revolution and Civil War' essentially states the same, just in less detail.

Now, let's look at the bare facts themselves. The Russian Revolution was not a war itself but a coup, neither was its follow-on Kerensky–Krasnov uprising. The following three months were politically restless, with the Bolsheviks consolidating power in some regions and nationalist states declared in the others. However, the Ice March, the first military campaign in the war, started only three months after the revolution.

Regarding the end date of the war, elements of the Ukrainian and basmachi insurgencies lasted even into World War II. However, the defeat of Wrangel effectevely ended the White campaign, the backbone of the anti-Bolshevik war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. B-Machine (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam

Hi Jaan, you may be interested in Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. Cheers, Nug (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gentry

Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

You made two reverts to the article Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. With the first revert you should have made a comment in the edit history (and you ought to have started a conversation on the talk page). Before you made you second edit you most certainly should have commented on the talk page as to why you thought that the edit you were reverting was inappropriate. I suggest that you do so now, otherwise if user:Alexander Pastukh makes another similar edit to the page, you will have nothing to show a passing administrator that you have rational reasons for reverting the edits and have tried to reach agreement with user:Alexander Pastukh. In general you should put a meaningful comment on any edit that you make -- commenting on the what is wrong with the content not what is wrong with the behaviour of the other editor -- and if you have to revert more than once you should comment on the talk page why you are making the revert. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)