Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (miscellaneous) (section)

===Discussion (Baltic bios)===
Note that this is ''only'' about what to link. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

:Why open this before [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question]] has concluded? Even that discussion you started parallel to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Baltic birth places and linking]] (initial post by me). This looks like [[WP:forum shopping]]. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 19:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::My question at MOS:GEOLINK, was about what to link or not link. My questoin was <u>not</u> about altering the 2025 RFC decision or amending MOS:GEOLINK. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Starting a new discussion just because editors are unwilling to operate strictly within the parameters you've set, does not seem appropriate. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 19:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::That's not why I began this RFC. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::And there was also [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: How to link Baltic birth/death places, 1940 to 1991]] which was shut down. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 19:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::I shut it down per advice by {{ping|Szmenderowiecki}}, as its scope covered  (example:"then part of..." option) areas beyond just linkage. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:There is a best-of-both-worlds solution, which should've been brought up in the December 2025 RfC.
:Why don't ya'll just add both de jure identifiers and de facto identifiers, possibly with a note explaining the irregularities. For example, the birth place of {{tq|Vilnius, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic}} should be changed to {{tq|Vilnius, Lithuania (de jure)/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union (de facto)}}, along with an explanatory note that {{tq|Lithuania regained its de facto independence in 1990. The [[Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania]] restored state continuity throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet occupation}}.
:Proposed explanatory notes for use:
:* Estonia: {{tq|Estonia regained its [[de facto]] independence in 1991. Throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet [[Occupation of the Baltic states|occupation]], Estonia's de jure state continuity was preserved by diplomatic representatives and the government-in-exile.}}
:* Latvia: {{tq|Latvia regained its [[de facto]] independence in 1991. The declaration [[On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia]] restored and asserted state continuity throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet [[Occupation of the Baltic states|occupation]].}}
:* Lithuania: {{tq|Lithuania regained its [[de facto]] independence in 1991. The [[Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania]] restored and asserted state.}}
:Have a nice day.[[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-67161-8|&#126;2026-67161-8]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-67161-8|talk]]) 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::This RfC is not about explanatory notes at all. They can be used (or not) independently of its outcome. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 21:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::EFNs are being discussed at [[Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: Footnote in infobox birthplace]]. I would say, though, that the "de jure" status is disputed. From the Soviet perspective, Lithuania was both de jure and de facto part of the Soviet Union. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I've just crossposted my comment in there.[[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-67161-8|&#126;2026-67161-8]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-67161-8|talk]]) 08:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I will be monitoring this discussion as an uninvolved administrator, following [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]]'s request at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]]. GoodDay, I invite you to briefly read [[WP:RFC|our RfC formatting guidelines]], as the current format breaks the automatic transclusions. The RfC question should be signed (or at least timestamped with ~~{{void}}~~{{void}}~), and neutrally worded, without making references to policies or guidelines that might support some answers. These can be elaborated on separately, for example in an additional heading providing background context or in your own !vote. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:I made adjustments to the 'RFC question'. Would appreciate advice on wording. Should I keep or remove mention of the 2025 Dec RFC? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::I also made a bit of an adjustment to note1, which was kind of snarky; it still might be better if it was just removed and GoodDay put a vote with a rationale focused on the problem, or had a background about why this is an issue. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 20:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::It wasn't meant to be snarky (the note), but I thank you for re-writing it. I would be grateful, if you'd re-do the questionaire. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Seconding these options. Writing an initial !vote that explains your rationale is a common practice in RfCs, and so is the alternative of a standalone background section, separate from the RfC question. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::As pointed out in the earlier discussions I've linked above, an option "[[Panevėžys]], then part of [[Lithuanian SSR]], Soviet Union" should be included. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 21:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::I explained above, why I didn't include that option. That option would've went beyond the scope of this RFC. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::In the earlier discussion, that option had some support, which is why it should be included. As explained to you already, the RFC did not specify a particular format, only that the SSR and Soviet Union should be included. This was confirmed by @[[User:Beland|Beland]], who closed the RFC. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 21:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::This RFC is about linkage. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The RFC is not neutral if the options are artificially limited. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::The option you wanted included, was excluded because  it went <u>beyond</u> the scope of this RFC, per advice from another editor. PS - ''If'' I'm given clearance to add your option? I will do so. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::From what I understand, there is a disagreement about the intended scope of the RfC. To make sure we're on the same page, do you both agree that this RfC aims to decide on specific details of the decision achieved at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes]]? And the disagreement is on whether this RfC addresses it in part (only being focused on the linking style) or in full, am I correct? Has there been prior discussion about how a follow-up RfC was to be structured? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, I agree on the aim. If the choice of options is limited, then this RFC is only partial in that it does not address whether {{code|City, SSR, Soviet Union}} (with the preferred linking) or {{code|City, then part of SSR, Soviet Union}} (or some other variant) should be used. I am not aware of a prior discussion. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 21:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:I would like to add this following information for consideration. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Estonia%2CSoviet+Estonia%2CEstonian+SSR&year_start=1920&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false]
:That shows how many times Estonia, Estonia SSR and Solviet Estonia are used in literature and period publications, by years. 
:I believe that it shows clear data, how in this example Estonia was used a lot lot more often than Estonia SSR and Solviet Estonia combined. 
:There have been many arguments about using period correct names, then this data should be one of main criteria choosing period correct name. Just because Estonia SSR was on map, does not mean it as a name was commonly used, as per linked data. Also judjing by period ussage using only Estonia SSR does does violate [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] and [[Wikipedia:UNDUE]]
:There are also many other ways to show period correct status and modern day status, like in [[Crimea]] example. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 19:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::A previous RFC already decided which names to use. This RFC is just asking how they should be linked.-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 23:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::There are new options in this RFC, so I assume, its only fair to add new data into considerations, especially since there were many arguments about common names in period. It just shows how poorly executed was last RFC. I will respect this RFC decision, but it doesn't mean, that this topic has consensus [[Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS]] and [[Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE]] [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 07:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
{{od}}I'm willing to add the option the other editor wants. If given clearance to do so. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:As the RfC has just started and there hasn't been substantial voting yet, I am giving you clearance to do so. An alternate suggestion I may offer, although it is not a requirement, is to pause the voting and allow a few days for editors to suggest additional options, then restart the RfC anew. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::Additional options have been requested. I'll add them in & notify the 'two' suryer commentors of the update. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::[[User:Beland|Beland]] has pointed out a previous discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question]], which brought forward additional options. Do you wish to either continue the conversation there, or use the current state of that conversation as a basis for the RfC options? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Have it here, as I've added those options, too. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:Absolutely disingenuous. None of these options use the word occupied. If the USSR is mentioned at all, it should be "then occupied by the USSR". Otherwise, where are the options for simply Panevėžys, Lithuania? 
:Extremely biased "poll". [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-64380-6|&#126;2026-64380-6]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-64380-6|talk]]) 17:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::I agree. The RFC options were framed in a way that excluded the most defensible neutral position from the start. Where is the option for simply "Panevėžys, Lithuania"? The United States and most Western democracies never recognized the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states - this wasn't some fringe position, it was the official legal stance maintained continuously from the Welles Declaration in 1940 until independence was restored in 1991. Baltic diplomatic legations operated in Washington throughout the entire Soviet period. Under this interpretation, which was held by the majority of Western nations, Lithuania never ceased to exist as a sovereign state. Excluding this option from the RFC while offering multiple variations of "Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" predetermined the outcome toward the Soviet/Russian legal interpretation.
::The inconsistency with Wikipedia's treatment of other unrecognized entities makes this even more glaring. Wikipedia consistently uses "Richmond, Virginia" for people and institutions from the Confederate era (1861-1865), not "Richmond, Confederate States of America" - despite the Confederacy exercising de facto control at the time. If de facto control by an unrecognized breakaway government doesn't warrant changing location designations, why should de facto control by an unrecognized illegal annexation? The RFC should have included "Panevėžys, Lithuania" as an option, or at minimum "Panevėžys, Lithuania (then under Soviet occupation)" - which would acknowledge the historical reality without adopting the Soviet legal position that Western nations explicitly rejected for 50 years.
::It's also worth noting that the previous RFC did not reach real consensus. The closure stated that Option A was "most popular" - but popularity is not consensus per WP:NOTAVOTE. The closer acknowledged "competing interpretations of neutrality, clarity, and accuracy," which indicates genuine disagreement on policy grounds rather than consensus. The arguments grounded in international law and WP:NPOV were never properly weighed against raw participation numbers. And the RFC was initiated by User:Glebushko0703 (now blocked), who had already made mass edits to "SSR" format before starting the RFC - hardly a neutral process. Building a new RFC on top of that flawed foundation doesn't fix the underlying problem. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::It doesn't matter who opened an RfC as long as it was completed and closed property – which was the case here, confirmed by subsequent discussion, for all I know. So it's time to [[WP:DEADHORSE|respectfully step away from the horse carcass]] and instead constructively work on filling out the details – which is what this RfC is doing. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion]] [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::::"'''A''' since it was under soviet rule"
::::Does this seem like a discussion to you? Is this vote as worthy as the others? [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Seugsahn}} you should place your "A", in the survey subsection. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Seungsahn]] should clarify, but I think they were quoting a vote from the 2025 RFC, rather than casting a vote in this one. [[User:Indrek|Indrek]] ([[User talk:Indrek|talk]]) 09:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::RFCs do not have to be "closed".  They should stay open for as long as necessary to get an answer.  If the answer is patently obvious, then nobody should waste time writing an official statement of what everyone else already knew.  This is documented in [[WP:RFCEND]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::"Panevėžys, Lithuania" was ruled out by the RFC which is linked to from this RFC's introduction. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Im amaised also at that, as the most neutral would be mentioned both entities and status at that time. Somehow such option is never considered or offered in survey. In fact you don't even need to search for USA examples when there are plenty here in Europe, with far less nuances and legality questions. Yet there are users who push for only solviet narative. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 10:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Feel free to suggest options that haven't been discussed yet. Note that a footnote that would explain the disputed status has already been proposed at [[Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: Footnote in infobox birthplace]]. [[WP:AGF]] requires that we assume other editors have non-nefarious reasons for doing what they do, even if we don't agree with their positions. Editors are allowed to have a specific point of view. When I collaborate with editors who challenge me because they come from a different point of view, if we work for understanding and look at reliable sources, articles come out with stronger sourcing and we create a version we all find fair and neutral. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 11:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::What about [[Crimea]] option? stating de-jure and de-facto control? Im shure there was extensive RFC for it.
:::::Like "Internationally recognised as Latvia territory occupied by USSR (see [[State continuity of the Baltic states]])"?? Add links where needed. Its neutral, it gives facts, and Baltic situation require it. But im shure there will be people who will talk about maps, de-facto controll, too much text and so one, jsut to keep solviet union there. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 17:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|And the RFC was initiated by User:Glebushko0703 (now blocked), who had already made mass edits to "SSR" format before starting the RFC - hardly a neutral process.}} For an account that has been created a mere two days ago you are surprisingly familiar with wiki processes and things that happened months before your account creation. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 17:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I'd appreciate if we could focus on the substance of the arguments rather than speculating about my account. The point stands: the RFC was initiated by a now-blocked user who had already made mass edits prior to starting it. Whether that concern is raised by a new account or an established editor doesn't change its validity. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::I would agree if there weren't massive news reports in the Baltic countries and reddit posts that tell people to come to those RfC and "control"* the English Wikipedia (*that word was used in at least one of the news articles). This violates [[WP:CANVASSING]] policies and is something that the closer of an RfC needs to be aware of (which you probably already know given your familiarity with wiki processes). You are also not the only new account in this RfC who doesn't have any contributions anywhere on Wikipedia outside the Baltic birth place question. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Baltic birthplace is sensitive topic in Baltics, its a bit foolish to expect that there wont be any new editors, or reapearing ones when it has gained mainstream media attention in all 3 Baltic states. Like it or not, it will generate new editors, who will want to join topic and there is no way to figure out if they are here on there own wish, or someone asked them. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Tbh I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot with this behavior. The more you push, the harder the pushback. This kind of behavior has even the potential to alienate people who'd usually be sympathetic towards you and your cause under different circumstances [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20260130210700-GoodDay-20260130202100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Bushranger-20260130224400-Birth_place_parameters_in_infoboxes_of_Lithuanian,_Latvian_and_Estonian_persons.]. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 18:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::And would your opinion would be in this matter? Please provide neutral opinion on this matter. One that could be acceptable for most. 
::::::::Also RFC are not popularity contest, but argument based. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 18:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|Please provide neutral opinion on this matter. One that could be acceptable for most.}} Then are you actually asking for ''my'' opinion if you only want to hear a "neutral" opinion? And why would a "neutral" opinion need to be one that is acceptable for most? A third party expert could give their neutral opinion in a court, but that neutral opinion may not be liked — neither by the accusing party nor by the accused party —, because the neutral opinion might come to the conclusion that both parties are in the wrong.
:::::::::Note: I have already voted in the Survey section. 
:::::::::<small>At this point I also note that you are a new account who doesn't have any edits outside the Baltic birthday question and who also appears to be quite familiar with wiki processes despite being a newbie.</small> [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 18:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Since wikipedia is place for neutral data sharing, and pushing single point of view is against policies, you should probably re read wikipedia policies.
::::::::::Ahh how nice, if you would have taken an deeper look at my account you would find that i have made really many policies mistakes at start, because i had no idea what Im doing. Lucly university student council role, did help me to adjust to speak more policy based than feeling based. And since we are pointing things out, I do wounder why you are so against term "Occupied" when it is internationaly recognised fact, see [[State continuity of the Baltic states]], is it because by your own words, you are from russia? You are entitled to your opinion, but please here provide arguments for and/or against it. So far your opinion of rest of variants beeing to "cumbersome" does not hold to well against [[Crimea]] example and Im shure it had its own fights in RFC. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 18:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Editors are allowed and expected to have non-neutral opinions. This is actually helpful because readers have non-neutral opinions, and it's necessary to look at any disputed topic from multiple perspectives in order to make sure that our text isn't taking a stand that any of them feel is non-neutral, and to make sure we're giving an overall fair description. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 19:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm against "occupied" because this is not how those places are referred to most of the time when they are being talked about outside of the Baltic states themselves. Furthermore, several adverb have been suggested above, so simply for the sake of pragmatism, to not have another debate over which adverb is the most "accurate", most "neutral" one, I'd opt for an option that doesn't use any adverb at all, therefore my preferred phrasing would be "city, then part of xSSR, Soviet Union" with xSSR being a link to the corresponding article. This "then part of xSSR" is also the option that I've seen being used on German wiki for example, so it seems like a good middle ground. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 20:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Also me being from Russia means I was born there. However, I have not lived there since the 1990s. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 20:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ahh I see.... So using simply Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania should be enought, since these were terms used to reffer to them outside strict political setting. So what are we going to do now? Now there are two terms used, unofficial common name and official used only in specific context. 
::::::::::::As for being from russia, just an mention, like you mentioned my account age. All is fine ^^ [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 20:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The previous RFC decided that Society Union should be included. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 23:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::This isn't about "pushing" or "causes" - it's about whether Wikipedia's treatment of the Baltic states complies with WP:NPOV given their unique legal status under international law. The arguments stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who makes them or how many people care about the issue.
::::::::[[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::[[Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content]]. So, what BerzinsJanis asked of me above[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#c-BerzinsJanis-20260201182400-Nakonana-20260201182100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#c-Nakonana-20260201184600-BerzinsJanis-20260201182400] is not necessarily what WP:NPOV means. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 18:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::If you have concerns about WP:CANVASSING, those should be raised through the appropriate channels, not used to dismiss arguments in this discussion. The same could be said about the original RFC - there was documented off-wiki canvassing on both sides, including editors who were later blocked. None of this changes the substantive point: the RFC was initiated by a now-blocked user who had already made mass edits, and the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law remains inadequately addressed.
::::::As for new accounts engaging with this topic - the Baltic birthplace issue has recieved significant media coverage recently, which naturally draws attention from people who care about accurate historical representation. New editors becoming aware of Wikipedia discussions through news coverage and choosing to participate is not inherently improper. I'm here making policy-based arguments supported by verifiable sources. If those arguments are wrong, I welcome a substantive rebuttal. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::What I'm doing ''is'' an appropriate way to address canvassing issues per [[WP:MEAT]]: {{tq|In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion.}} I'm not aware of canvassing regarding the original RfC. The now blocked user was blocked for personal attacks iirc, not for canvassing.
:::::::{{tq|status of the Baltic states under international law remains inadequately addressed.}} — why does it need addressing by the English Wikipedia though? Crimea also currently has a status of it not being accepted as legit part of Russia, yet wiki Commons is currently applying Russian [[freedom of panorama]] laws on contributions from Crimea instead of the more restrictive Ukrainian freedom of panorama laws. Wiki p rojects don't always do what you expect (or demand) them to do. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I do want to remind that RFC is not a popularity contest and actual voting is discoridged if possible. Also if you look at [[Crimea]] info box you will find this text '''"Internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia (see Political status of Crimea)"''' claiming that Crimea is accepted by Wikipedia as being part of russia, is clear missinformation and pushing single point of view. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I was talking about wiki Commons[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Simferopol_-_train_station_-_Feb_2011.jpg#c-JWilz12345-20220721020900-TentingZones1-2022-07-03T13:41:00.000Z][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Simferopol_Railway_Station#c-Ellywa-2022-02-17T23:31:00.000Z-Files_in_Category:Simferopol_Railway_Station_2][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Simferopol_Railway_Station#c-Yann-2015-02-16T12:58:00.000Z-Files_in_Category:Simferopol_Railway_Station]. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::On WP:MEAT - noted, but these comments are in a discussion shaping a new RFC, not a vote. Arguments here should be evaluated on their merits regardless of account age.
::::::::On "why does it need addressing" - because this is literally what this discussion is for. We're here to shape a new RFC on Baltic bios infoboxes. If the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law isn't relevant to that RFC, what is? The Crimea/Commons example doesn't establish that Wikipedia should ignore internationally recognized legal distinctions - WP:NPOV is a core policy of this project and applies regardless of what other Wikimedia projects do. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::In fact this RfC doesn't need to be "shaped", it's already well underway and will have an outcome of some kind. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 19:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:Would the following not be neutral enough? Considering the [[State continuity of the Baltic states|Baltic states were de-jure existing]] throughout the occupation. 
: - [[Panevėžys]], [[Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic|Soviet-occupied Lithuania]] [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-57214-4|&#126;2026-57214-4]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-57214-4|talk]]) 02:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::<small>{{ping|Chaotic Enby}} I moved the IP's post to 'here', as it was located ''above'' the 'survey' sub-section. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)</small>
:::Thanks a lot. Noting that this is a follow-up to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes|the previous RfC]], which offered a "Panevėžys, Lithuania" option. There was consensus there that "Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" was preferable, and the current RfC is only to figure out the specific linking and wording to implement that option. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 11:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
I know this RFC covers Baltics bios, only. But I'm hoping whatever is decided here, will be applied to bios of all people born and/or died in all ''15'' Soviet republics. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
<small>IMHO, this "not a vote" notice should be deleted, as it may cause tensions. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC) </small>
:I've moved your comment to the discussion section, to not have it above the RfC question itself. Not commenting on the merits of the suggestion. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, that would make a lot of sense, unless options F or G are chosen. (They would be inapplicable to other SSRs.) [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::Baltic states in solviet union are a bit special (They were never part of it de jure and almost no state recognised there occupation) compared to other solviet republics, to whom you can make arguments about there legality in solviet union. Trying to push for the same solution seams ood at the best, pushing some narative at the worst. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 10:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::In principle yes, but it depends on the chosen option. A to E would work equally well for all. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::From offered variants I say '''F''' is the best then '''E'''. Im still amaised why there are no offers like Latvia, then occupied by solviet union. Especially since no one disputes the occupation fact, and only few countries in the world recognised it. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 11:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Option E, would be better suited for the 'body' of the bio, IMHO. Options F & G are a mess. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I agree with BerzinsJanis. The Baltic states represent a unique case that cannot be treated identically to other Soviet republics. Unlike the Ukrainian SSR, Belarusian SSR, or other constituent republics, the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was never recognized de jure by the majority of Western nations.
:::Applying the same infobox format used for republics whose Soviet status was internationally recognized to countries whose annexation was explicitly deemed illegal creates a false equivalence and raises serious WP:NPOV concerns. The RFC did not adequately grapple with this distinction, and treating the Baltic situation as identical to other SSRs does appear to advance a particular historical narrative rather than reflect the nuanced international legal reality. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::The Baltics aren't special, IMHO. But of course, you & I won't likely ever agree on this matter. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::This isn't a matter of opinion or what either of us personally believes. The non-recognition of the Baltic annexation is a documented historical and legal fact. 
:::::The Baltic states kept functioning diplomatic missions in Western capitals throughout the Soviet period. This distinct legal status is extensively documented in the article [[State continuity of the Baltic states]] and is not comparable to the status of other Soviet republics. Whether the Baltics are "special" isn't a matter of IMHO - it's a matter of verifiable historical record. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::We're not going to agree on this matter. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I notice you haven't addressed the substantive point. The distinct legal status of the Baltic states isn't something we need to "agree" on - it's documented fact supported by decades of international state practice and extensive reliable sources. If you believe this documented historical record is incorrect or irrelevant to the infobox question, I'd welcome a policy-based argument explaining why. Simply stating we won't agree doesn't engage with the WP:NPOV concerns raised.
:::::::This was precisely the problem with the original RFC - these substantive legal and historical distinctions were never adequately addressed, with participants instead treating it as a matter of preference rather than policy. I'll leave it to other editors to evaluate the arguments presented here. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Each editor has their own interpretations. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC) 
:::::::::The non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states by most Western nations for fifty years is not an "interpretation" - it is documented historical fact. Interpretations vary; the historical record does not. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::You're bringing up arguments, that have already been made. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Arguments being previously raised is not the same as arguments being adequately addressed. Throughout this discussion, you have responded to documented historical facts with "IMHO," "we won't agree," and "each editor has their own interpretations" - none of which engage with the substantive policy concerns raised. With respect, if the response to sourced, verifiable facts is simply to express personal opinion without policy-based counterargument, I'm not sure continued participation in this discussion is productive. I remain open to hearing an actual rebuttal to the points raised about the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::If you are not being able to agree that Baltic states were illegaly occupied by solviet union. You should not take part of decision for this topic. If this is you stance, then you are directly pushing solviet union point of view!!! [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 17:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|If you are not being able to agree [...] You should not take part of decision for this topic.}} This is not how Wikipedia works. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 17:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, its is not my opinion, but internationaly recognised fact that have its own wikipedia article [[State continuity of the Baltic states]] its the fact that should be taken in account for this discussion. If an editor simply wants to ignore it, or pretend its not a well documented fact, the said editor should not take part in a discussion where its an important point.
:::::::::My understanding, is that wikipedia aims to provide netural accurate information, ignoring important facts, or making missleading comments (not aimed at editor at question) about them is definetly not how Wikipedia should work. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 18:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I guess Britannica is pro-Soviet/Russian because it says Mikhail Baryshnikov was born in the USSR.[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mikhail-Baryshnikov] [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Britannica is not bound by WP:NPOV. What other encyclopedias choose to do is not a policy-based argument for what Wikipedia should do. The point remains: the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized de jure by most Western nations, which distinguishes them from other Soviet republics. This distinction has not been addressed. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::The point is we have our own manual of style, just like Britannica has its own manual of style. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::In that case these people for example shouls have there birth place changed to city, Nazi Germany, since they all were born in place while under Nazi Germany occupation. 
:::::::::::[[Tatyana Adamovich]]
:::::::::::[[Anatoly Glushenkov]]
:::::::::::[[Vasily Shuteyev]]
:::::::::::[[Vasily Melnikov]]
:::::::::::Wikipedia manual of styles is quite flexible, but some users are pushing for quite narrow interpretation of it. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::The infoboxes of some biographies already mention Nazi German occupation (e.g. [[Miloš Zeman]]). That does not mean we endorse Nazi Germany's actions. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Assuming you raised these biographies in good faith, I would expect Wikipedia to treat people born in an occupied territory during a hot war quite differently to people who were born in an occupied state during a far more protracted cold war. But I would also expect those biographies to mention something in the body text along the lines of {{tq|“'''Early life''': X was born in Y Oblast in 1942, while the territory was under Nazi occupation.”}} <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 23:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Do you mean that births and deaths during the first Soviet occupation (1940-1941), or during the second Soviet occupation but before the end of the war (1944-1945), should be treated differently from those after the war, between 1945 and 1990/1991? [[User:Indrek|Indrek]] ([[User talk:Indrek|talk]]) 06:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I was giving a rationale for why Nazi occupation might be sensibly treated differently to an enduring Soviet occupation. As for the initial Soviet occupation, I don’t have a good answer to that, and I could see good reasons to go both ways. And I am very much not an expert, so it’s probably best that I don’t take too strong a stance on the specific. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 09:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I raised them to show that there is currently no consistently applied style, for example [[Tatyana Adamovich]] doesnt even mention Solviet union, just Russia. While [[Anatoly Glushenkov]] mentions birth place as both Russia and Solviet union. 
:::::::::::::This sugest there is no single practice across bibliograpfies. Before imposing a single style to Baltic states it would be helpfull to clarify what are principles to for such cases. 
:::::::::::::Additionally, common English-language usage appears to differ significantly [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Estonia%2CSoviet+Estonia%2CEstonian+SSR&year_start=1920&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false (see Ngram data comparing “Estonia”, “Soviet Estonia”, and “Estonian SSR”)] (Latvia and Lithuania show the same tendencies) which may be relevant under [[Wikipedia:COMMONNAME]] considerations. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 07:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Those articles are incomplete and imperfect. Is a consistently applied style not what we are working towards here? That is why I suggested the differentiation between temporary and extended occupations.
::::::::::::::I don’t personally see how that ngram data is useful here, but maybe I’m missing something. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 10:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I brought up the Ngram data for the same reason I raised the other examples, to show that there is no same applied style, and that actual language usage differs.
:::::::::::::::Ngram is relevant under [[WP:COMMONNAME]] because it reflects how terms are used in english sources over time. If the data shows that Estonia is used far more frequently than Soviet Estonia or Estonian SSR (and Latvia and Lithuania show the same pattern), this suggests that usage of these countries are generally used by their state name rather than by the Soviet name.
:::::::::::::::That seems relevant when we are discussing how to describe birth places or political entities in biographies. If the wast majority of English language sources use one form, that should at least be considered before imposing a single uniform style that forces to use only Soviet qualifiers while at the same time removing any other names.
:::::::::::::::Ngram is not proof on its own, but it does provide evidence of usage. If we are aiming for consistency, it would be helpfull to first clarify what principles/rulles we are applying COMMONNAME, usage in reliable sources orand tother info, rather than standardising one formula only for selected cases.
:::::::::::::::And honestly I do not understand this reasoning behind wish to keep only solviet names while excluding modern names. It seems like a really narrow application of policies. There are many examples on wikipedia where naming follows common usage rather than strict historical odities, so it is unclear why in this case policies are interpreted so narrowly. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 10:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That we use "Estonian SSR" etc. in infoboxes in these cases has already been decided in an earlier RfC. You continually act as if you don't know that, but of course you do. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I know there was previous RFC about this and that it supported using Estonian SSR in infoboxes. I am not saying it did not happen. But that RFC had a lot of problems, and I think policy was applied in too narrow way there.
:::::::::::::::::My point is not to ignore the result, but to question if it really follows [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and how english sources write. If most sources simply use Estonia much more often than Estonian SSR, then that should at least be looked at, at some point. 
:::::::::::::::::Consensus is not something fixed. It can change. Im saying that maybe the policies were read too strictly in that discussion, and that in many other cases on Wikipedia naming follows common usage, not only strict historical wording.
:::::::::::::::::This can be discussed again in future. Right now I am just pointing out problems with it and asking what rules we are really following here COMMONNAME, usage in sources, or just keeping old decision no matter what.
:::::::::::::::::If there are no problems with the previous reasoning, then it would be helpful to explain why these concerns do not apply. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 12:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::There were at least 3 attempts to overturn that RfC, all failed. "Consensus can change" is not a defence for refusing to accept the consensus that has been found. Maybe after a few years have passed and if new information has been provided (unlikely since the issue was thoroughly discussed before, but who knows), the RfC decision will be revisited and possibly revised, but for now you would show more respect for your fellow-editors and their precious time by accepting the consensus as it stands and ''not'' venturing off-topic into already settled questions all the time. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 15:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Two of the challenges were mine from earlier when I did not know any better, so those can be set aside. That leaves one chalange. 
:::::::::::::::::::My point is: how exactly were [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and actual English language usage weighed in that decision? What policies were folowed here. 
:::::::::::::::::::Im not ignoring RFC, im asking for policy based explenation why ngram data is not applicalbe and policy based ansver why such narrow rules (use only x SSR, Solviet union), for infobox are imposed. If the matter is considdered fully settled, then it would not be difficult for you to not mind give brief policy based explenation, how [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Estonia%2CSoviet+Estonia%2CEstonian+SSR&year_start=1920&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false (ngram)] data shows that, for exmaple, Estonia is used far more frequently in English language sources than Estonian SSR or Soviet Estonia — was evaluated and why that evidence was considered insufficient under [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and why its forbidden to use both modern and old names, when thats done in wast majority of rest of eroupes infoboxes. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 16:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::The RFC didn't address article titles, only the infobox. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 17:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Editors have identified several problems with Google Ngram, [[WP:NGRAM]]. Not saying they all apply to this discussion, but we should be wary of using Google Ngram in general. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 17:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::While it is problematic, many of said problems should not reflect on 1939 to 1991 period. No new self published books can be added to it, and most UN protocols will use solviet name schema. It however does show, even with its all problems, that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were common names, even if say only half of data is accurate, they still are in common usage and should not be ignored. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 17:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::You are still doing it. If you want to try overturn that settled RfC, you may take it to the admins, but this is ''not the place'' to have that discussion. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{outdent|5}} Hi! To clarify, admins do not have additional power around starting or overturning RfCs. However, such a discussion is still off-topic here, and should be held in a separate thread, if at all. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 10:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{small|Oops, sorry if I spread misinformation. My understanding is that [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE|CLOSECHALLENGE]]s for RfCs go to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|Administrators' noticeboard]], hence the reference to admins. My understand this also that this has already happened in this case (and the closure was upheld).}} [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{outdent|1}} Yep, that's accurate! It's an administrative matter, although from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) participation isn't limited to admins only. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 11:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::@[[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is policy for how we name articles. If you want to rename [[Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic]], then you should discuss doing so at that article’s talk page. (I do not recommend doing so.) Otherwise I don’t see much relevance for common name or Ngrams here. You should try to stay on topic, to avoid [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disrupting]] the discussion at hand. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 09:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks for pointing me to the Manual of Style. As I understand it, MOS:Biography "Birth date and place" section does NOT specifically address what to do when a birth country was under illegal occupation that was never recognized de jure by most Western nations. In the absence of specific guidance, WP:NPOV should take precedence. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 18:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::It also says Dalia Grybauskaitė was born in the USSR.[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dalia-Grybauskaite] Somehow there is only outrage at Wikipedia. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Britannica doesn't actually list only Soviet Union, it has both countries listed. --~~[[User:Xil|<b style="color: #FFBA13">''Xil''</b>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> 18:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::@[[User:Mellk|Mellk]] Your reasons why did you choose to not include that fact? for the reference link to mentioned [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mikhail-Baryshnikov article] [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 18:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I suppose you are referring to where it says "now Vilnius, Lithuania"? But per the infobox documentation we do not include the modern-day location. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Obviously the Soviet Union did not agree that its annexation was illegal, even if it was not recognized by its enemies. That non-recognition is objectively true, but the fact that the Soviet Union administered these territories is also objectively true. Pointing out the fact of Soviet control is not a moral endorsement of that act, it's an important piece of context our readers need to know. The task here is I think to represent the unusual situation concisely and with regard to due weight. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 19:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you - this is a fair point and I appreciate the substantive engagement. I don't dispute that Soviet control is relevant context. My argument isn't that Soviet administration should go unmentioned, but that presenting Baltic birthplaces in the same "City, SSR, Soviet Union" format as other republics implies a legitimacy that was explicitly rejected under international law. The occupation itself is also an important piece of context our readers need to know - and the "SSR, Soviet Union" format obscures rather than communicates that. A format like "Tallinn, Soviet-occupied Estonia" would acknowledge the de facto Soviet control while also reflecting the de jure continuity that most Western nations maintained, and would accurately convey to readers that this was an occupation, not an ordinary administrative arrangement. This seems more consistent with WP:NPOV. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Why are we only interested in the positions of "Western nations" anyway? The US-led bloc also recognized "[[Captive Nations]]". [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 19:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::OK, you can respond to the survey and advocate that option. There is also another RFC that asks if we should accomplish the same goal with an explanatory footnote. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 19:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::There's other birth/death places of bio infoboxes, that include other former countries, like Yugoslavia & Czechoslovakia. But, that's for down the line. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::To summarize the position I've outlined in this discussion: the Baltic states occupy a unique position under international law. Their Soviet annexation was never recognized de jure by most Western nations for fifty years, they maintained diplomatic missions throughout the occupation, and this is extensively documented in our own article [[State continuity of the Baltic states]]. This fundamentally distinguishes them from other Soviet republics and means applying an identical infobox format raises serious WP:NPOV concerns. The original RFC did not adequately address this distinction. I note that throughout this discussion, these substantive arguments have not been engaged with. The responses I've received have consisted of personal opinions ("IMHO," "we won't agree," "each editor has their own interpretations"), questions about my account age, references to what other Wikimedia projects do, and suggestions that raising these concerns constitutes "pushing." Not once has anyone provided a policy-based rebuttal explaining why the documented legal status of the Baltic states is irrelevant to how Wikipedia presents their history in infoboxes.I believe any new RFC on this topic must explicitly address this legal distinction rather than treating the Baltic states as identical to other Soviet republics. I'll leave this on the record for the RFC framers and closers to consider.[[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::FWIW, Gigman is no longer blocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::The argument about state continuity in the Baltics was in fact made in [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes]], so I don't see how it could be considered that they haven't been "adequately engaged with". I think it would be more fair to say the choices there were somewhat binary, but that's why participant suggested adding a footnote and that triggered a followup RFC, and that's also why "administered by" etc. are choices offered in this RFC. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Their Soviet annexation was never recognized de jure by most Western nations for fifty years}} — just out of curiosity: what about non-Western nations? [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 21:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:I am reminding everyone that this discussion is not the place to rehash arguments about [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes|the previous RfC]], and that such continued back-and-forth may be seen as disruptive by other editors. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*I have collapsed the "vote" above by {{u|Seungsahn}}. Every comment and response by them has been LLM generated and cannot be engaged with in earnesty. Though I am leaving up comments already there with substantial engagement. Seungsahn, if you want to contribute here do so in your own voice; we are not here to entertain undisclosed chatbots. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 09:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:Do you have any proof these comments are LLM-generated?  I don't think they are.  [[user:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#c20;text-decoration:underline">sapphaline</span>]] ([[user talk:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#236;text-decoration:underline">talk</span>]]) 09:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::The bioler plate LLM cruft was clear as day. To further verify I checked the responses at [[GPTZero]], [[Undetectable.ai]], [[Copyleaks]] among others. He verdict is pretty clear for dishonest LLM usage and I am afraid this cannot be engaged with earnestly. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 09:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:GPTZERO|LLM-detection tools aren't an ironclad proof, or proof at all.]]  [[user:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#c20;text-decoration:underline">sapphaline</span>]] ([[user talk:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#236;text-decoration:underline">talk</span>]]) 09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::Sure but we do not need 100% "ironclad proof". When you have enough experience dealing with LLM cruft and the biolerplate nonsense and hallucinations generated by them, you can substantially tell when that is the case as here. And when multiple tools and judgment tell me that is the case, it becomes pretty clear what has been done. [[WP:MANDY]] of course can never be defence for editors employing LLMs and then denying them. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 09:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::You obviously don't have enough experience dealing with LLM cruft. Your gut feeling is no proof at all. — [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 18:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::You may refuse to see what is clearly there in front of everyone others won't, that the editor in question is still running around with boilerplate LLM cruft is all that needs to be said about this. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 04:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::Im shure you are aware that there might be false positives. No LLM or group of LLM can be 100% correct about detecting LLM. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 09:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:@Gotitbro: I wrote the comments myself. Accusing other editors of using AI without evidence is not constructive and borders on a personal attack per [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:NPA]]<nowiki>. So far most of the responses to my contributions have been personal accusations (that my account is too new, that I'm using an LLM), rather than any engagement with the substance of my arguments. If you disagree with my position, address the policy reasoning. Please uncollapse my comment. </nowiki> [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 09:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::Highlighting dishonest LLM usage is not a personal attack, neither is noting a new user (though I did not point this out at all) handily wading through contentious topics and obscure noticeboards all the while using LLMs, especially when that user is coming from recent sanctions. If you do not come with clean hands do not expect others to not be wary. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 09:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::AI detectors have well-known problems with false positives, especially for non-native English speakers - e.g. this Stanford study [1] found they misclassified over 61% of essays by non-native speakers as AI-generated. You've now collapsed two of my comments without once engaging with what I actually said. Please address the arguments or leave my comments alone.
*:::[1] https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-detectors-biased-against-non-native-english-writers [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 09:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::I would obviously waste no time in engaging with chatbot responses. Do non-native speakers also generate bulleted, essay, flowy responses exactly like ChatGPT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seungsahn&diff=prev&oldid=1335667174], do non-native speakers also make unabated use of em dashes exactly like LLMs, do non-native speakers also show very proficient familiarity with enwiki policies (though of course without knowing how they actually apply as LLMs do not know one thing from the next) despite barely beginning to edit. If the answer to all of that is no, which it is, you [[WP:MANDY|should know that absolutely no one is buying the MANDY here]]. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 10:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:Apparently someone reverted you. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Gotitbro}} I don't think an RFC is the proper place to 'claim' someone is using LLMs. If you're convinced someone ''is'' using LLMs? then your concern should be brought to administrators. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::Other editors should fully know when subjected to LLM cruft, the exact reason we make no consideration of AI generated nonsense for consensus (e.g. RfC) and templates like {{t|Collapse AI}} exist. An ongoing discussion is the most apt place to being it, sorry. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:As the discussion moderator, I believe the original !vote should be left intact – it will the responsibility of the closer to judge how relevant it is to the conversation, and to weigh or discount it appropriately. However, @[[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] is reminded that [[WP:BLUDGEON|conversations should not be bludgeoned]], and that relitigating an already closed RfC can easily verge into [[WP:IDHT|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 09:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::Noted, thanks. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 09:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::Seungsahn should also be reminded that Wikipedia does "''de facto''", not "''de jure''". The problem with ''de jure'' is that it's inherently not [[WP:NPOV]]: it depends whose ''jus'' you go by. However much we might not like it the fact is that the Baltic States were incorporated into the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world did nothing about it. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::Unfortunetly its not always the case see info box [[Crimea]], also there are multiple policies as use modern names and geolinks and others that give some choice in this matter. And that assuming that every article follows them. While I would prefere using only Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as places of birth, there are good arguments to use them with solviet union, hell there are good argument to not use solviet union liek Names Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were commonly used terms [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3N6F-DqxI link to 1989 news video] and not Latvia sssr or solviet union. The biggest problem is that many editors does not want to discuss what showing only solviet union is damaging to Baltic states. Including usage of LLM that harvest data from here. I believe such details about occupation are important to include in info box, or in its foot note. Im more than willing to discuss how it should look like, i'm willing to make compromises to it. [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 10:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::Thanks, I am aware of that. However ignoring the fact that a significant and well-documented dispute exists is not informative for the reader.
*:::As for "the rest of the world did nothing about it" – that's not accurate. Most Western countries maintained non-recognition of the annexation for the entire occupation, the Baltic states kept functioning diplomatic missions throughout, and the Welles Declaration was never rescinded. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 13:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::Inserting [[WP:COATRACK]] mentions of disputes into tangential places is not informing the reader, it is pushing a viewpoint. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::It is a mainstream "viewpoint" not some random factoid, it would be [[WP:DUE]] to reflect it --~~[[User:Xil|<b style="color: #FFBA13">''Xil''</b>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> 18:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::There are a million mainstream viewpoints behind every link on this article. If the viewpoint of the footnote is so extraordinarily mainstream that the way the link itself is written is misrepresentative, then we should reinvestigate whether we should rewrite it. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 00:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::I'm not aware of any policy that favors ''de facto'' over ''de jure''. When there's a mismatch between the two, deciding whether to ignore one or neither comes down to how important and relevant the discrepancy is, and policies like [[WP:DUE]]. Hardly any laws are fully followed or even fully enforced, and when that matters (and shows up in reliable sources) we should say so. For example, [[Legality of cannabis]] maps out where laws are enforced, where they are not enforced, and where recreational use is legal. But on [[Free trade area]] and [[List of countries by tariff rate]] we don't mention smuggling, even though it's a way of ''de facto'' bypassing tariffs. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 21:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads up. The RFC is approaching its end & when the template expires? I'll be heading to [[WP:Closure requests]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:There is no set end to RFCs. They end when editors have stopped discussing and !voting. You can stop the bot from removing the rfc tag. [[WP:RFCEND]]: {{tq|To extend a current RfC for another 30 days, and to prevent Legobot from automatically ending the RfC during the next month, insert a current timestamp immediately before the original timestamp of the opening statement with either <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (name, time and date) or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date).}} [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::I would really advise against extending this RFC. Participants are just repeating arguments that have already been made, and the usual 30 days have been long enough to get a good sampling of opinion. We need to come to resolution on this so we can free volunteer time for other article improvements. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, let a fearless closer have fun with this one once the template is expired. I deeply admire the brave people who dare to close such tricky issues. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:Quick bump to prevent bot from archiving this thread. [[User:Indrek|Indrek]] ([[User talk:Indrek|talk]]) 07:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)