Jump to content

Talk:Sandis Ozoliņš

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sandis Ozolinsh)

Birth-place

[edit]
  • There was a small public scandal recently in Brussels regarding Belgian officials who were thinking that current Latvian citizens have been in fact born in USSR and had been issued valid USSR birth certificates. As it turns out, it is illegal to write USSR as a birth place because that automatically denies the continuum of the present day Latvia which was re-instituted on the grounds that there has never been a legal USSR regime in Latvia -- the way it is recognized by the international society. Although the annexation of Latvia was made to look legal, there were a couple of points breached that made it illegal. Therefore, legally the country named Republic of Latvia had never ceased to exist. See this article: Article in Latvian. This made me to think whether the way Latvian born people in Wikipedia announced as born in USSR is facto-logically correct. As long as there is no practice to specify, i.e., that people who were born in France from May 1940 to December 1944 were born "in Nazi Germany" there also cannot be a practice to do otherwise for the countries occupied by the Soviet Union. The birth-place of anyone born during that time in the current territory Latvia is Latvia (geographical place name). This is 100% official, it is written so everywhere in all personal ID documents and other places where person's birth place is registered. In no place, other than the USSR issued birth certificates (which have been rendered illegal since 1990) does it say otherwise. So please stop interfering with these changes unless you have valid proof that Latvian SSR should be used instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Getadagnis (talk • contribs)
  • As Lvivske mentions, law doesn't over rule actual fact that during that time it was called the USSR. And it is standard to label birthplaces on the encyclopedia as it was at the time of their birth. At the time of their birth they were born in what was called at the time the USSR. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read history books. At the time of their birth it was generally known as the Republic of Latvia occupied by the USSR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read history books from the time period. They generally refer to it as the Latvia SSR of the USSR. -DJSasso (talk)
You have either read history books on that period or contemporary books. Care to cite what exactly you mean? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have to go down this road again? I'm sure we've written a novel's worth already on this argument, just use a bot to change 'Estonia' to 'Latvia' and be done with it. I'm getting sick of this POV pushing, it's getting very battleground'y--Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Words of gold from the editor who has battled for the USSR as the birth place of the Baltic citizens for years. You are free not to take this road.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Battled for years? What?--Львівське (говорити) 15:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me freshen up your memory. Ever since this edit in 2009 you have changed Leo Komarov's birth country to the USSR for five times. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During that time I assumed good faith ignorance of history. Now it's just blatant POV pushing.--Львівське (говорити) 15:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Nothing in your crusade has changed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske your obsession with proving USSR legitimacy is getting absurd. It is not. And also there is no practice in official documents for the past 22 years to say that people who were born in Latvia under Soviet Occupation were born in Latvian SSR. Not to mention that such action would contradict the law. It also doesn't say Latvian SSR on Sandis Ozoliņš NHL profile. This is completely your POV to think that the fact that this country was somehow related to USSR is more important than its geographical name. Naming it "Latvian SSR" is only a mistake that has appeared on Wikipedia because of amateur actions. Please stop changing the name back. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am concerned about this is because the way Wikipedia shows the birth-place is inspiring people to write "Latvian SSR" as their birthplace in other documents, too. I also used the same practice until learning that the name is considered unofficial and that geographical place name "Latvia" is the only official way to refer to the country at the time. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand the difference. The name of the state back then was de facto "Latvian SSR", however this name has never been recognized by UN and most of the international society and hence is officially "unofficial", this is why de jure it was still Republic of Latvia (Citation: "The Declaration stated that, although Latvia had de facto lost its independence in 1940, when it was annexed by the Soviet Union, the country had de jure remained a sovereign country as the annexation had been unconstitutional and against the will of the people of Latvia. Therefore it resolved that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 were illegal, and annulled the declaration on the accession of Latvia to the Soviet Union of 21 July 1940" On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia). So de jure at the time the name of the state was still "Republic of Latvia" as is the name of the state now. However, the name of the country in both cases is "Latvia" and the nation was "Latvians". "Republic of" and "SSR" are the only things that have changed and that are under dispute. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to point out that the two major English speaking countries (as Lvivske has argued elsewhere that contents of the English Wikipedia should be "relative" to the English speaking-world), both the US and the UK, were among those who never recognized the annexation of Latvia into USSR neither de facto nor de jure. In the US it is documented in the Welles Declaration which "initiated a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Soviet control over these three states." Also see Baltic–Soviet relations: "A majority of Western world governments did not recognize the Soviet annexations of the Baltic states de jure, though some countries did recognize them de facto." This means that all the official documents in those countries even at the time of occupation had to refer to the country as "Republic of Latvia" or "Latvia". 159.148.87.183 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understand this at once. This is how it looks on paper. Sandis Ozoliņš was legally born in free Latvia (because the Soviet Union occupation of Latvia has never been legal and recognized, as mentioned above). Unknown time after his birth he was given an illegal Soviet Union citizenship. Between the time of his birth and before the Soviet citizenship he is a legal citizen of the Republic of Latvia, then this right is illegally taken away from him. This is the legal view on this. Everything else is POV. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the point above, then you disagree with the legitimacy and continuity of the Republic of Latvia (independence declaration of which states that during the Soviet period "the country had de jure remained a sovereign country as the annexation had been unconstitutional and against the will of the people of Latvia." On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia) and you should take those concerns elsewhere. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat, this not some legal conspiracy theory, this is the mainstream view on this and the reason why everybody in Latvia (and I assume other two Baltic states as well) since 1990 have Latvia set as their birth-place in all newly issued birth certificates by both Republic of Latvia and European Union. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have also established that Latvia in of itself was not a sovereign state at the time of Ozo's birth. The USSR, however, was a sovereign state – of which he was a citizen and national team player for.--Львівське (говорити) 20:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you established that? What part of Sovereignty#Sovereignty_and_independence do you not understand? --Nug (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like how we are basing arguments on wikitext you literally just added. No POV pushing there at all... Resolute 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I attempt to base my arguments on reliable sources, highly reliable scholarly ones where possible. I've not seen anything remotely similar from your side. The view that the USSR held sovereignty over the Baltic states is a minority POV, held by official Russia, therefore presenting place of birth as the USSR for the Baltic states as a fact is in fact pushing minority POV. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna guess what the International Ice Hockey Federation's media guide is going to say his birthplace is? Oh, and for the record, we most certainly have not established that infobox person requires city, administrative unit, sovereign state. Viewing the discussion in the most favourable to your side possible, it was no consensus. Resolute 21:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't change the Infobox, might as well redefine sovereignty to meet your POV, eh? --Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just reflecting what the mainstrean view is in reliable sources, and scholarly sources are more reliable than the views of sports bodies in the field of state sovereignty. It seems rather tendentious to claim the IIHF got it right but the NHL got it wrong in the absence of any other evidence. The bottom line is that claiming that the USSR had sovereignty over the Baltic states is basically parroting the nationalist POV of the Russian government, since they are the only ones continuing to make this claim. Also Template:infobox person clearly states city,administrative unit, sovereign state, so I'm not sure how Resolute can claim it has not been established. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Sovereignty#Sovereignty_and_independence says that all three countries were in fact sovereign states illegally annexed by USSR and the Template:infobox person guideline states that the name of the "sovereign state" should be used then I don't see where's the problem? The bottom line is that Sandis Ozoliņš (same as other Baltic athletes at the time) was born in a sovereign state Latvia that at the time was illegally occupied by USSR. The consequences of that is that he was given an illegal USSR citizenship that was annulled as soon as the legal authorities were given back the power. I am not a lawyer and less alone a court so I don't know how much reason there is to say that he was born in either "Republic of Latvia" (de jure) or "Latvian SSR" (de facto by some countries and general knowledge of world population) but seems certain to me is that the geographical name "Latvia" is correct in both cases. It is also the common practice in Latvian and European Union institutions to refer to the birth-place of all persons at the time this way. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does say use sovereign state. You know what the USSR was? A sovereign state. It is standard in encyclopaedic articles to list the birthplace at the time of their birth and not the current name. At the time of his birth he was born in USSR territory. Whether illegally occupied or not is irrelevant. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The USSR was a sovereign state, but not in the foreign countries it occupied for a period, like Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria and so on. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the template that keeps being pointed to as proof that it should be Latvia does not make that distinction. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get your point, it says 'sovereign state' and the Soviet Union had no sovereignty over the territory in question. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off that is disputed by many countries as you are well aware from the endless discussions you guys have forced on this. Secondly the comments on that template are a MOS issue showing how to list out the birth place only and not a comment on the sovereignty of any country. Thirdly this isn't even the template being used on the article. My point is that the argument that this is how the template says to do it is not a good one due to many reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sovereignty is disputed only by the government of Russia. No other modern disputers have been reported in the discussions. I don't see the difference between a MOS issue and the question of sovereignty. The MOS is a guideline on how to choose the birth country. The hockey player template does not specify that, but we need a guideline from somewhere. If you have a better one, go ahead and present it.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation: "The Declaration On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia stated that, although Latvia had de facto lost its independence in 1940, when it was annexed by the Soviet Union, the country had de jure remained a sovereign country as the annexation had been unconstitutional and against the will of the people of Latvia." Understand this at once. This is how it looks on paper. Sandis Ozoliņš was legally born in free Latvia (because the Soviet Union occupation of Latvia has never been legal and recognized, as mentioned above). Unknown time after his birth he was given an illegal Soviet Union citizenship. Between the time of his birth and before the Soviet citizenship he is a legal citizen of the Republic of Latvia, then this right is illegally taken away from him. This is the legal view on this. Everything else is POV. It is your POV that the fact that USSR was a more "significant country" at the time is more important than the actual truth, that the occupation was illegal and legally Latvia was not incorporated in USSR. This is a legal fact and a lot of things in the modern world depend on this. Including the legitimacy of the current Republic of Latvia. 80.232.217.165 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're glad you agree that Latvia was a part of the Soviet Union, from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and address all he says. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or playground for kids? How can someone keep changing the article ignoring all evidence and common practice without even trying to support his views with any hard evidence? 159.148.87.183 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latvia was not a legal part of the Soviet Union. Latvia from 1940-1991 was a sovereign country where Soviet Union practiced illegal activities interfering with the legal rights of the Republic of Latvia and Latvian people. The legal discussion about this ended on this conclusion more than 20 years ago. Please, get your facts updated. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed in the many discussions this has been in over the last month. It isn't relevant to his birthplace if the occupation was legal or not. It was a fact of life. He was born in Soviet territory which is what the birthplace is trying to show. The reasons it was under Soviet control are simply not relevant to this page and listing of a birthplace. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Check your facts before you write something like that. The territory was of a sovereign country Republic of Latvia. Latvia has never been Soviet territory. When Soviet Union invaded Latvia between June 17-June 20 1940 it violently changed the existing government of Latvia to a new one that then voted for the incorporation of Latvia into the USSR. This act alone makes the integration of Latvia into USSR non-existent. At the time Latvia was called Republic of Latvia and the territory was that of the Republic of Latvia. Soviet Union was a foreign opressor that was present in the territory backed by a military force and violence. There are no international laws that I am aware of that would call an illegitimate foreign opressor any rights for the title "sovereign country". This is completely and utterly wrong. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They controlled the territory either way. Just because something was illegal didn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it happened illegally. People referred to it as part of the USSR. Mail sent there was addressed as part of the USSR. Athletes competed for the USSR etc etc. Illegal or not they were part of the USSR during that time. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that of a POV. Because people across the Atlantic like to keep things simple and call all the Soviets "Soviets" doesn't change the legal truth. Because there are people who knew at the time that Latvia was not part of the USSR and there were those who thought it was. It just happens so that the governments of North America were also among those who understand that it wasn't. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides "controlling a territory" has nothing to do with the rights for the title of a country. It's just absurdly incorrect POV. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with rights for a title of a country. We use the common name for things on Wikipedia not the official title. The official title is explained in the article itself. So when people go to the actual Latvia page etc they can read about the situation there. But on unrelated pages like this one we use the commonly accepted phrasing. Secondly please stop reverting. There have been discussion across the wiki on this subject already and yes consensus matters, its how wikipedia works. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to see that discussion? Common name that is now used is obviously "Latvia". Without "Republic of" and "SSR". 159.148.87.183 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key is that it is based on the time of their birth. Obviously someone born now would be just Latvia. As for those discussions there are a number. Wikipedia_talk:HOCKEY#Baltic_states_dispute, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Baltic_states-related_articles#RfC:_Is_it_desirable_to_consider_that_the_Baltic_states_have_existed_continually_since_1918.3F, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive170#Leo_Komarov_and_others, Template_talk:Infobox_person#RfC:_country_of_birth would be the main ones. But there have been a few spread over various player articles lately as well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The thing is that I was born in 1984 in Latvia as well. I have also lived in London, UK where I was registered as born in Latvia. This is because Latvian SSR was just "playing" a country on the political stage, it was not a real country. "Latvian SSR" was part of the "Soviet Union" as a country founded by the Soviets. But this country didn't have any territory, or people, or any legitimate right to exist. The territory and people since 1918 uninterruptedly have belonged to the Republic of Latvia which has never been part of the Soviet Union. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso is correct. We don't give a bleep as to why Latvia was a part of the USSR, when Ozolinch was born. We're only concerned with showing that it was a part of the USSR at that time. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares what you care about or don't. "Latvian SSR" was a not a real country. It was in no way a sovereign state as required by info-box guidelines. And your cannot be born in a fictional state. Your birth place is a territory that has a legal owner. That territory is called Latvia and that legal owner at the time was called Republic of Latvia. I repeat - Sandis Ozoliņš was born in a sovereign country Republic of Latvia. All evidence has been posted here many times. After that he was illegaly given Soviet Union citizenship and he was illegally representing Soviet Union as a hockey player. Do you read what I write at all? 159.148.87.183 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get someone with competence to participate in political matters as this one in this discussion? Because the current advocates of the legitimacy of naming it "Latvian SSR" are not even trying to support their point with reason. This is seriously getting painfully absurd. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC) How is "We don't give a bleep" an argument? 159.148.87.183 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is most people have stopped debating because extreme nationalist POV pushers such as yourself have worn out most of the other people involved in the debate. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How constructive of you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More constructive than the one you just made. At least I told him why many people weren't making better arguments at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No less constructive than all the edit warring going on. I have no problem personally with dropping SSR and just linking to "Latvia, Soviet Union" or "Soviet Union (Latvia)", but I'll admit that after this little battle has moved between at least four forums, I am doubting consensus for anything is likely to be achieved. Resolute 16:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best for the Wikipedia you faced the lack of even a remote prospect for a consensus. Just face it - one of the sides is convinced the other is a bunch of nationalist liars, trolls, and POV pushers, and the other side thinks their opponents are historically illiterate. Both sides feel their opponents completely fail to address their arguments. Editors would have saved a month of their lives by just agreeing to disagree at no consensus and the appropriate return of articles to their last stable versions. We can still do that and save more time, because the situation is not about to change. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree personally. I think the dispute is mostly confined to this article and Komarov. Would you like to propose that we all agree to disagree and set the articles back to pre-dispute versions, or should I? Yet another sub-section at the WT:HOCKEY thread should capture most of the principles of this dispute. Resolute 16:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just suggested WP:NOCONSENSUS at the Baltic MOS talk page. If you think the WP:HOCKEY is the correct place to suggest that again, please go ahead, I'll be with you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will be tragic, that our readers are deprived of accuracy, because Baltic nationalists want to re-write their past :( GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia were a part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you reach a consensus here if people are not participating in the discussion? And when they do they are ignoring what the discussion has been about. This whole "Latvian SSR, Soviet Union" thing appeared in Wikipedia rather recently, I think 3 to years ago and has stuck here contrary to the practice in real life. It is clear that it was introduced on Wikipedia by someone who wanted to be smart and informative yet didn't have a clue about history and the story behind it all. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give a bleep as to why Latvia was a part of the USSR. We're only concerned with showing that it was a part of the USSR, at the time of Ozolinch's birth. Why are you trying to deny readers this info? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking a question. My goal is in no way to deny readers any information. You can put all the information about Soviet Union in the info-box how you like. Just not as a birth place. Because it simply isn't so. In legal terms Latvian SSR never existed (and Latvia was never part of Soviet Union). And whether you like it or not, but things like this in this world are defined in legal terms because there is no other way how to avoid confusion. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't give a bleep about why or how it was a part of the USSR. It was a part of the USSR at the time of Ozolnich's birth & that's what should be shown in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Latvia should be shown under the annexation occupation of the USSR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be shown as such, as that would be inaccurate for our readers. Latvia was 1 of 15 Soviet republics from 1940 to 1991. A fact that can't be changed by revionist sources. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is trying to change that and there is nothin inaccurate in the state continuity of the Baltic states and the occupation of the Baltic states.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the Baltic states did not maintain there independance from 1940 to 1991. For our readers sake, we shouldn't be promoting revionist history. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is claiming they did. Just that they continued as occupied and illegally annexed states.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't give a 'bleep' about how or why they were a part of the USSR. We're only concerned with that they were a part of the USSR. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point of view is based on the fact that what general public think about the history of Latvia is more important than the legal truth. I definitely agree that the USSR played an important role in Ozoliņš as an athlete's life and that this should be documented as thoroughly as possible. However, when you're saying that we have to be "accurate for our readers", please understand that this means accuracy also in other matters as well. You are being inaccurate when saying that Latvia was one of 15 Soviet republics. I am too tired to repeat myself why. But this is a very important legal fact that has consequences. Such as the legitimacy of the current Republic of Latvia. Please understand this, too. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the Baltic states were 3 of 15 Soviet republic, from 1940 to 1991. I won't agree to revising historical facts & depriving our readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know the status of the Baltic states better than you do. They also continued as occupied and illegally annexed states, which you will not get to erase.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latvia and Latvian SSR is not the same thing. Just as much as America and the United States of America is not the same thing. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry gentlemen, but I'm not going to agree to depriving our readers of historical facts. Revionism is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seem rather comfortable in 'depriving our readers' of the state continuity of the countries under Soviet annexation occupation.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered by the attention ;) but you're not even scratching the surface with me. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How I see the problem is that it has stuck within the limits of the info-box. The most correct way both based on legal and general truth would be to specify both facts. That on one hand the legal truth is that he was born in Latvia (which is currently his official birth place, officially) and on other hand he was born in Latvian SSR, USSR. It is unacceptable to say that he was born in USSR, because this is legally untrue and causes confusion in real life for people who see this. It is also uninformative to not mention USSR because it is an important historical aspect. It is also unacceptable to write anything in between, like "Latvia, USSR" because while "Latvian SSR" was part of the USSR, Latvia legally was not. Since I am a newbie to Wikipedia, I am not aware of the common practice in cases like this but my solution would be add another line in the info-box. One for the legal truth, the other for the historical truth. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to convince others with your argument. I'm not changing my position on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know where and how, so I will have to leave it for this discussion. 159.148.87.183 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can see you are having a hard time understanding the arguments, let alone tackling them.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm flattered by the attention. Meanwhile, I only hope the 2 of you (like me) will respect Resolute's advice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you are not just cherry picking historical facts but also editors' pieces of advice as he also suggests to drop the stick and settle at no consensus.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be taking part in edit-wars. Again, so far, you haven't convinced me of your position. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have to convince you on what is legally true and commonly acknowledged? I am representing here the view on this matter of the Republic of Latvia, the EU, the US, the UN and other international bodies. Congrats on the false sense of power but I suggest that you stop flattering yourself with comments like the previous one and look first for information not just assume that you're right. This applies as a general advise on life. Thank you for the wasted time on this! 159.148.87.183 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you won't be taking part in edit wars after having edit warred every Baltic hockey player bio your way... unless they get returned to their last stable versions, perhaps? BTW, you have not convinced a single editor here.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you have convinced me with your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Recommend the article be unproteced & Lithuania restored as Ozolinch's birth country. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no silent consensus for that. That opinion was clearly rejected at the RfC. What is being discussed is a compromise. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, for the sake of peace, agreement at something seems even more important than what is agreed upon. Hence, I suggest DJSasso to follow GoodDay's balanced decision and behaviour and not to whip up strife again.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not whipping up strife. Suggesting we agree on the compromise. What you are doing is targeting a specific editor which is of course whipping up strife. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]
  • "Ozolinsh" should be regarded as a nickname (assumed name) because in the Latvian documentation and passports the very popular Latvian surname is always spelt as Ozoliņš, or, if diacritics are unavailable, simplified to "Ozolins", never as "Ozolinsh".
    • Wikipedia naming convention is that articles are named after the most common English spelling, even if that spelling is different from the person's native language. And in this case, English-language newspapers/websites almost always use Ozolinsh, not Ozolins. Andris 13:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is sad that one may want, or be forced, to follow what is merely a common error ("Ozolinsh"). Why do you worship anglicisation and ignore Latvian grammar? Weren't decades of russification of Latvia already enough? The main page should be Sandis Ozoliņš, and you could redirect to it from OzolinSH.
            • His passport and birth certificate mean nothing to wikipedia, only common use in ENGLISH. By your logic, we should move Alexei Zhitnik to Oleksiy Zhytnyk, and Ovechkin to Aleksandr Ovechkin, and Grabovski would become Mikhail Hraboŭski. --Львівське (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reason "Ozolinsh" became the preferred spelling in English is because at the time he started establishing himself as a hockey player, it was in the Soviet Union, where his name was spelled in Cyrillics. "Ozolinsh" was the transliteration of the name into English from Russian. Over time, it has become common that former Soviet republics are asserting the spellings from their own languages. I believe, on his Dinamo Riga club where he now plays, the name is spelled without the "H".Djob (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The KHL club, in which Ozoliņš currently plays, is based in his native Latvia, thus surname on his back is spelled as it is spelled in his passport - Ozoliņš. If it was any other KHL club, it would be spelled "Ozolins". Gragox (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any KHL team includes diacritics on the surnames on the backs. I know that Lev Poprad, even though it is in Slovakia, spells the Slovak and Czech names without diacritics.109.107.200.146 (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian National Team

[edit]

A couple of weeks ago he became the General Manager of Latvian NT. Someone should probably add this to the article. I can't find an Engish source though. [1] Mrkarlis (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.apollo.lv/portal/sports/articles/232721
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sandis Ozoliņš. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sandis Ozoliņš. 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) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandis_Ozoliņš&oldid=1209308942"