Talk:Katrin Siska

Fair use rationale for Image:Katrinsiska.jpg

Image:Katrinsiska.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Singer?

from Category talk:Estonian female singers

Katrin Siska is not a singer , she plays keyboard instrument.But she does not sing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.39.41 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Estonia vs Estonian SSR

Estonia did not gain independence until 1991. Siska was born in 1983 when Estonia was officially known as Estonian SSR and was part of the Soviet Union. Estonia was part of the Soviet Union from 1940 until 1991. Until gaining its independence in 1991, Estonia was administered by and a subordinate of the Government of the Soviet Union. Therefore it is necessary to have her listed that she was born in Estonian SSR, Soviet Union. It is the same thing when you have people from Germany. If they were born prior to German unification, it needs to be listed whether they were born in GDR (East Germany) or in FRG (West Germany). Norum 10:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And here we go again...

Please familiarize yourself with (first and foremost) State continuity of the Baltic states, and then discussions at [1], [2], [3].

And if that is not enough, let's go with the sources of the article - say, IMDB, "Katrin Siska was born on December 10, 1983 in Tallinn, Estonia.".

--Sander Säde 13:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IMDB is not really a reliable website, even by Wikipedia standards. So let's say a person was born in a pre-WW II area in Poland, which after the war became a part of the USSR. You don't write that the person was born in the USSR, but Poland, because that's how it was when the person in question was born. Therefore, since Siskia was born in 1983 and at that point Estonia was not an independent country, but a soviet republic. Had Siskia been born after 1991, then you could write that she was born in Estonia. New Foundland did not become a part of Canada until 1949. It was part of the British Empire until then. So It's the same as if you wrote that someone born in New Foundland before 1949 was born in Canada. Norum 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am bound to notice that you don't really address the situation of Baltic States/Estonia at all - did you read the linked article? This is not an "one size fits all" situation - every country/area has its own unique history. And truly, I do not understand why some people feel the need to politicize this, instead of using the area name - Estonia - which has been the common English name for this area for 100+ years.

Out of 16 articles about Katrin Siska in different languages, this is the only one using USSR/ESSR. So, a challenge/proposal - find a solid source (peer-reviewed scientific article-level) claiming that Katrin Siska was born in USSR - or - find an extremely solid source (scientific monograph, higher court decision) stating unequivocally that the occupation of the Baltic States by Soviet Union was legal and Estonia stopped existing from 1940 to 1991. Good luck with the latter - despite 5+ years of searching, closest thing found so far is Belgium marital court decision from 1950s...

--Sander Säde 07:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it was annexed or illegally occupied, it does not change the fact that it was within the borders of the USSR. For example, Poland was partitioned at the end of the XVIII century by Russia, Prussia and Austria. It didn't regain independence until 1918. So you can't just write that someone was born (anytime during the partitions) in Poland, since Poland was non-existent during that time. Also, during the Soviet times...were Estonians (or for that matter, anybody from all the other republics) allowed to have their own passports? No, they had to use Soviet passports because they were a part of it. Norum 10:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So... let me get this. No sources that support your viewpoint. No court decisions that support your viewpoint. You are right, because you know you are right. Got it. --Sander Säde 12:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No sources? Are you calling a historical fact that Poland was partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Austria a myth? Are you saying that Poland never gained independence in 1918? Are you claiming that the people living in the republics of the Soviet Union were able to use passport from their own republics instead of a Soviet passport? If you are calling a historically proven fact as no sources to support my view point then yeah, you are obviously the smarter one....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_passport Norum 22:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about Poland. Or Prussia. Or Austria. Or some other country. This is about Baltic states. Please find a solid source supporting your claim that occupation of Baltic states by Soviet Union stopped the continuity of these countries. Or stop such edits.

Passport of any kind does not validate or legalize occupations (frankly, even the idea is laughable).

Really, already the fact that none of the other language articles about Siska don't use that "USSR/ESSR" nonsense should be enough already to see that you err in your claims.

--Sander Säde 08:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the Baltic States were incorporated into the USSR. A fact is a fact. End of story. Norum 10:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the occupation is considered illegal and Baltic states are considered to be existing continuously since 1918 according to the international law. And unlike your "fact", it is backed up by multitude of sources. End of story.

Why is it so hard to back up your claim even with a single source? Single, good source. That is all I ask. You do realize that right now your edits can be considered vandalism, since you are adding totally unsourced claims to BLP articles, right?

--Sander Säde 11:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Show me an Estonian SSR passport they I will believe your story....lol... Tybet has been occupied for what, 60 years now? Its citizens are officially nationals of the People's Republic of China. I am aware that the Baltic states were occupied, but it doesn't change the fact that officially they were citizens of the Soviet Union. Norum 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So. No source again. How long until you can find a source to back up your claims? --Sander Säde 15:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude, what the heck is wrong with you? Are you now questing Chinese occupation of Tibet? You want me to find sources backing up the fact that China is occupying Tibet. You know what? If you wanna a source for a documented historical fact, go find it yourself. Norum 01:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, "dude", I am glad you are admitting that you are completely unable to back up your claims about Baltic states, and that your edits, in effect, are vandalism. Hopefully this is resolved now, and you will no longer add misleading/invalid data to BLPs. --Sander Säde 07:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just requested that you and your pal Jaan be warned for war edit. Also...hmmm, kinda funny that your pal didn't revert Dainius Zubrus yet. It has been like that for years and surprise, surprise, your pal Jaan didn't have anything agaisnt it.

--Norum 14:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all You haven't requested anything. It's You who is editing against current consensus. You have been provided with links to discussion on the matter like Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth. Edit warring isn't the way to turn the consensus.

About article Dainius Zubrus please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the fact that there can be articles showing birthplace this way doesn't mean that it is the correct way.

-- Klõps (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not worry, I have. Norum 20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner - I was out of the internets.

Re: edit warring. As far as I can see, only one in danger of violating 3RR is you. You also may want to read Wikipedia:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions - namely, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." Since you have been not able to find any sources whatsoever to support your claims, I guess it applies to every user who reverts those changes... See also WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE for further policies that apply to the current situation.

--Sander Säde 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So first you reverse correct information, then you claim I have np souced proof for historically known facts and then suddenly I am the bad guy?...lol Norum 01:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read the linked pages? For you to claim your version to be correct, you have to be able to give it a source. Saying it is a "historically known facts" is not neither a source nor a fact (see the definition of fact, "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience."). Which is something I've been telling you all along. Let me give you some sources showing that your claims are invalid - or at least very highly controversial.

• D. Zalimas, Legal and Political Issues on the Continuity of the Republic of Lithuania, 1999, 4 Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review 111–12.
• Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. M. Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-2177-3.
• Van Elsuwege, Peter (2003). "State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States". Leiden Journal of International Law (Cambridge Journals) 16: pp.377–388. doi:10.1017/S0922156503001195.
• Ziemele, Ineta (2005). State Continuity and Nationality: The Baltic States and Russia. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-04-14295-9.

I eagerly wait your response, which by now must certainly include a wide breath of solid scientific sources to support your claim.

--Sander Säde 07:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, since you are requesting scientific sources for proven historic facts. You are questioning things that have been proved to happen. Let me guess, next thing we know, you will be questioning the October Revolution, or either WW I or WW II.....since you seem to know more than actual historians, why don't you come up with the proof that you are waiting for so eagerly? Why don't you find something that proves that the Baltic States were not part of the Soviet Union. Cheers mate. Norum 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As I have given you already three scientific sources showing that Baltic states were not legally considered to be a part of the Soviet Union, "mission accomplished".

And you have apparently no idea what you are talking about, since I am only asking for a source showing that Soviet occupation of the Baltic states was legal, the people born during Soviet occupation in the Baltic states therefore should be considered Soviet citizens, and the Baltic states legally a part of the Soviet Union. Why is it so hard to find such a source - I am sure that by now you must have scrounged Google Books and Google scholar for it.

--Sander Säde 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am right and all of yous are wrong, please check Leo Komarov. He's the best example as of the way it should have been written. Norum 02:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)