Talk:Anže Kopitar

Pronunciation

That is not how his name should be pronounced. He is not Anđej Koupitar, which would be the Slovenian spelling of the given pronunciation. The source oversimplified it. His last name starts like British copy and his first name is [anʒe]. I guess we're not using IPA to... simplify things? For hockey fans? Zhmr (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can get a proper IPA pronounciation of his name in Slovenian, I'd be all for it. I would have done it myself, but I both don't totally understand the IPA system, and am not sure on how to say his name in Slovenian. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[an.ʒe ko.pitar]

I'm no expert, but South Slavic languages are simple. Zhmr (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I was in Slovenia a few months ago and a cab driver was talking about what sounded like "co-peter" or "koh PEET are". Eventually I figured out who he was talking about, but I had always heard it in the USA with the emphasis on the first and last syllables. Maybe a Slovenian source can clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.205 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the pronunciation (ahn-ZHEH koh-PEE-tahr; IPA: [anˈʒɛ kɔˈpiːtar]). It can also be heard pronounced at 0:06 here. Doremo (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

What about the exactly date of birth as anywhere else? AN 04:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Born Where?

Lately, two users have been reverting Kopitar's place of birth from Jesenice, Slovenia, to -- get ready for this -- Jesenice, Yugoslavia. Their reasoning for this bizarre move? Well, they claim that Slovenia was not an independent country at the time, and that those acknowledged history experts at WikiProject Ice Hockey say that places of birth should only refer to countries that existed at the time (never mind that Kopitar is a Slovenian first and a hockey player second). I, however, am strongly in favor of keeping the reference to Jesenice, Slovenia (or changing it to "Jesenice, Slovenia, then a part of Yugoslavia" or something similar) for the following reasons:

1.) Slovenia was around as a constituent republic within Yugoslavia back then. If we are listing people as being from "Toronto, Ontario" or "Glasgow, Scotland", then "Jesenice, Slovenia" shouldn't be a problem, even when talking about pre-1991 births.

2.) Referring to "Jesenice, Yugoslavia" is confusing to the general reader who doesn't know that Jesenice is a town in Slovenia. For all he/she knows, the person could have been born in, say, Serbia, and immigrated to to Slovenia later on. There's simply no indication that the person was born on Slovenian soil, which is an important fact.

3.) A reader interested in history can check out the Jesenice article and read about the details of town's history, including the fact that it was formally a part of Yugoslavia in 1987.

4.) Almost all Slovenians born between 1945 (the creation of Slovenia within Yugoslavia) and 1991 (the creation of an independent Slovenia) have Slovenia listed as their place of birth -- sometimes with "then a part of Yugoslavia" added. Here are a few examples: Denis Zvegelj, Iztok Čop, Rok Petrovič, Martin Strel, Peter Mankoč, Sasha Vujačić, Branko Oblak, Zlatko Zahovič, Luka Spik, Uroš Slokar, Sašo Ožbolt, Primož Brezec, Goran Dragić, Mitja Kunc, and many, many more. Changing this now would go against years of common Wikipedia practice for Slovenians born between 1945 and 1991.

Until a broad consensus -- one that includes Slovenian Wikipedians -- is reached, Yugoslavia should not be listed next to Jesenice without a mention of Slovenia. Please refrain from further reverts without justifying them here and addressing all four of my arguments. Have a nice day. WorldWide Update 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: if a sportsperson achieved significant results at the time when there was still Yugoslavia, it should be mentioned. If the sportsperson is active now, you should just write Slovenia. According to the present situation, when we fill in the country of birth on Slovenian papers, we always state Slovenia, never Yugoslavia. And I suppose it is the same in the other former republics. --Tone 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tone. If the person was born in Slovenia and represents (or has represented) post-independence Slovenia, then the fact that Slovenia was technically a part of Yugoslavia at the time of his/her birth is of far lesser significance than the fact that the person is from Slovenia and was born on Slovenian soil, regardless of its formal international status at the time. Finally a voice of reason here! WorldWide Update 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi WWU. In good faith, I'll ignore the condescending tone you utilized here and on my talk page.

1) I would prefer the forms "Glasgow, United Kingdom" and "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" for your examples. Provinces and States are needed in Canada and the US for disambiguation (see WP:PLACES). There are others: Japan and Australia come to mind quickly. If you can produce Yugoslavia era envelopes that are addressed in the form "street address, Slovenia, Yugoslavia", then, by all means I'll be for adding it into the bylines, etc.

2) Its says he was born in Jesenice. If the reader is interested, one click will immediately inform them that Jesenice is a town and a municipality in Slovenia

3)see 2

4) see Ante Marković, Ivan Ribar, anyone born in the former Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia, etc...

a part of Yugoslavia at the time of his/her birth is of far lesser significance Please don't revise history. No one here is denying Slovenia. Don't deny Yugoslavia. Again please understand the differences between a state (a political entity) and a nation (cultural entity). The Balkans are the textbook example used in pol sci classes. Kopitar is a Slovenian born in the state of Yugoslavia. A few years later, Slovenians became their own state (a Nation-state if you will). Understanding these concepts will help you understand what Stephen Harper meant when he recognized Quebec as a "nation within a united Canada." It is an extremely obvious statement with no new significance. ccwaters 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the debate is developing. I don't think the idea is to deny that we were part of Yugoslavia once. Within Yugoslavia, the Socialist republic of Slovenia existed and the present country is the direct succesor of it. My point was that the people we discuss now are completely unrelated to Yugoslavia, except for being born when Slovenia was a part of it. From the other side, you can say an article like: Jure Franko was the first sportsmen to win a medal for Yugoslavia at winter olympics. Here, the mention of the country is of course important. And besides, if anyone is interested in details, it is obvious from the birth year what was the country at that time. It is a part of history, so if anyone is interested in further reading, it is one click away. But I find it redundant to be mentioned in the articles without any connection to it. Again, this is just my opinion. --Tone 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I just saw that Yugoslavia is not mentioned in the first sentence of Jure Franko article. Now we can argue about that :-) --Tone 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I skimmed through a lot of political figures' bios and noticed that the country was omitted in quite of few. If that was meant to side step this very issue, then its a disservice to wiki. Anyway, The "Socialist republic of Slovenia" had no more sovereignty or international recognition than the Georgian SSR or any other Soviet Socialist Republic in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I'm fine with bylines in the form "city, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)". However I firmly hold my stance that stating Yugoslavia as the country of birth is formally correct. ccwaters 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ccwaters, I'm not sure that I can find any examples of Yugoslav-era envelopes being addressed to "Slovenia, Yugoslavia" on the Web, but that's because I don't think that there are many scans of Yugoslav-era mail on the Web period. I do remember that my family always used "Slovenia, Yugoslavia" when addressing mail from abroad and that I've seen plenty of such examples on old postcards. And you would be hard-pressed to find, say, tourist brochures for Slovenian town from that era that did not reference both Slovenia and Yugoslavia. When I say that the fact that Slovenia was "a part of Yugoslavia at the time of his/her birth is of far lesser significance", I'm not denying anything, just stating that -- in a present-day context -- that is less important than the fact that the person was born in Slovenia. That's what makes Ante Marković different: He is most well-known for his political activity in Yugoslavia, not for his present-day status -- in other words, he is a historic figure. Mind you, it's not the additional inclusion of Yugoslavia that I find problematic, but the exclusion of Slovenia (regardless of the person's nationality or ethnicity), as if no such entity existed at the time. The Yugoslav Constitution of 1974, still effective in the 1980s, specifically referred to Slovenia as a state. You say that Kopitar "is a Slovenian born in the state of Yugoslavia." That, without an additional reference, is misleading because that very same statement could apply to, say, a Slovenian who happened to be born in Belgrade -- a totally different circumstance, but you could still say that that person was "a Slovenian born in the state of Yugoslavia." WorldWide Update 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think the present version "Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia" is acceptable as it is essentially the same as "Jesenice, Slovenia, then a part of Yugoslavia," which I had before. It's not the form that's the issue here, but the substance.WorldWide Update 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, present version is acceptable. We can not omit political historical facts, but, on the other way, things must be put clear. I'm also Slovene, and it is totaly out of my mind to declare myself as born in Yugoslavia. We were always treating ourselves as Slovenes, and all 6 Yugoslav republics had their internal citizenships. But, on the other way, my 1892 born gradpa for instance always claimed himself as born in Austria - Hungary. This Yugoslavia thing obviously wasn't and isn't so popular among my family ;) Regards, Franci213.250.56.98 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on some random category at the bottom of the article and then I clicked on some random hockey player (I don't watch hockey, so they're all just names to me). It says:

born September 27, 1983 in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

So - what exactly is wrong with

born 24 August 1987 in Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia

again? I think that neither version "Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia" nor version "Jesenice, Slovenia" is equivalent to "Jesenice, Slovenia, [then a part of] Yugoslavia". IMHO, the "now" in the first expression would imply that Jesenice was not part of [Socialist Republic of] Slovenia, back then, and the omitting of Yugoslavia in second expression is historically incorrect. --romanm (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right, romanm. While I first welcomed the change to "Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia" in the spirit of compromise (it's certainly better than the totally unacceptable "Jesenice, Yugoslavia" without a reference to Slovenia), I am having second thoughts now. There is, as you've pointed out, an implication that Jesenice was not in Slovenia at the time. I now advocate the use of "Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia" instead (a version that was, coincidentally, deleted without a detailed justification). After all, Slovenia had more autonomy at the time than any Canadian province. WorldWide Update 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tone, WorldWide Update, Franci and Romanm: the diction born 24 August 1987 in Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia is completely fine and does not deny anything. In the future, please do not undo changes if they have been generally supported on the talk page as this is against WP:POINT. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the WikiProject Ice hockey regarding the policy stating that the name of the country at the time the player was born is what is used. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't justify your edit. Thanks.-- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly should I refer to? The example "Scott Walker (born 19 July 1973, in Cambridge, Ontario), is a Canadian professional" given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format does not confirm your claims. Ontario is a province, not a federative republic or a country. In addition, the current sentence is very vague as it makes it seem like Slovenia did not exist at that time or like Yugoslavia was later renamed to Slovenia or like Jesenice was previously not part of Slovenia, nothing of which makes sense. For now, I've marked it with {{vague}}. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kopitar Graffiti

Has anyone noticed that no one has been able to verify whether or not this so-called "Anze" graffiti actually exists anywhere? The photos posted on the web that I've seen claim that they are real, but no one ever gives an exact location of where the photograph was taken.

I suspect that the photographs are phony, unless someone can provide verifiable proof of their legitimacy. After all, if Kopitar had _THAT_ big a following, this so-called graffiti would be more widespread and someone would have verified its authenticity by now.

Of course, I may have missed somethinig. If anyone has verified the authenticity of the graffiti, my apologies. However, to date, I have seen no such verification. And if no verification exists, the photo of the so-called graffiti in this article should be removed. Gmatsuda 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded to my statement above about the dubious origins of the Kopitar graffiti, giving me more reason to suspect that it's phony. Should the Kopitar graffiti photos and mention of its existence be removed from the article? At this point, I vote yes. The only way it should be part of the article is its existence can be verified. Gmatsuda 08:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I say delete it. If anywhere, it belongs among an article discussing the variants of André the Giant Has a Posse. ccwaters 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do shortly! Gmatsuda 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To Do

One of the things that needs to be done to begin the process of expanding this article and improving it is to remove the trivia section and integrate whatever is appropriate from it into the main portion of the article. Trivia sections are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia (see the Wikipedia Manual of Style:Trivia). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First or second Slovenian in the NHL?

Kopitar might be the first or the second Slovenian to play in the NHL. Someone added the claim that he was the second, behind a goalie who played for the NY Rangers, but did not provide a verifiable citation. Since the lead paragraph states that he was the first and cites a reliable source, I removed the claim that he was the second to play in the NHL.

That claim may be correct; and the article from NHL.com may be reporting incorrect information. However, it is the most reliable information we have at the moment, and the stuff on NHL.com tends to be accurate. So, I think we need to leave it at Kopitar being the first until we have at least two reliable sources that contradict that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been several Slovenes to play in the NHL, among them Joe Cerne, Greg Kužnik, Matt Stajan, Ed Kastelic. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kopitar is the first Slovenia-born (ok, tehnicaly it was still SFR Yugoslavia but you know what I mean) and Slovenia national ice hockey team player to have played in an NHL game. Jan Muršak became second on 28 December, 2010. Goalkeeper Tone Gale, for whom many Slovenian media claims that is the first, played only one exhibition match for an NHL team (Chicago Blackhawks in 1967 if I am not mistaken) but never during regular season though. Players like Stajan, Kastelic etc. that played in the NHL were all born and raised in North America and their only connection to Slovenia is their ancestry (but then again most of the people in Canada/USA have an European ancestry) and were not Slovenian players. Allthough, Matt Stajan does hold a dual citizenship of Canada and Slovenia and did expressed his desire to play for the Slovenia men's national ice hockey team, but that is unlikely as the IIHF rules state that he would have first had to play/live in Slovenia for at least three years before he could change national team alligiance (he has represented Canada on WJC in 2003). OK, and there is also Greg Kuznik who played one game in the NHL and later went to play in Europe and is the current member of Slovene hockey club HDD Olimpija Ljubljana and recently he has received a Slovenian passport so he will most likely play for Slovenia national ice hockey team during the 2011 IIHF World Championship.Ratipok (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision/Expansion planned for 10th-15th January

I would like to inform you about my intention to expand the article and improve it in many different ways. I will try to address the points given by Gmatsuda and other concerns on this talk page. I will try to do at least these tasks:
1. Add more citations, sources. Some dead links have been removed in the past for a couple of Kings players, I will try to find the new reliable sources.
2. I will plan the expansion in such a way, that Trivia section will not be needed anymore. The trivia facts seem to be appropriate for wikipedia, so they will not be deleted, they will just be included in the article.
3. I will add info about his youth career.
4. I will add the honors he has received so far, for instance Youth AS game participation in 2007 and All Star game invitation in 2008.
5. I plan to change his birth place to "Jesenice, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)" - just as it is stated on many web sites, that are considered reliable source sites for Wikipedia projects.

Regarding the first/second Slovenian in NHL, I can help sort out the misunderstanding, however I am not sure if it is something that needs to be addressed in the article (your opinions, please?). I have contacted the administrator of hockeydb, which is, as we all know, a reliable 3rd party source site, regarding this question. He made an extra effort to check the claims and he found them not to be true. Gale played in a preseason game. But that's what all sources are saying so I don't think any changes to the article are needed regarding these claims. After all, there is only one person, who claims that Gale was the first Slovenian in NHL, and that's Mr. Gale himself. Yeah, the last sentence is a perfect OR, but it's true.

Regarding the graffiti, they were fake. Again, something that is not really related to the article, I'm just commenting previous entries.
Are there any more ideas? --JTrdi (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to your work on the article. Don't forget to follow use proper format for the citations! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to change the place of birth. It already matches what you mention above and follows the accepted format/style for this WikiProject. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of Slovenia will not ruin the project style you talk about, don't worry. As it stands now, the information is not entirely correct. This is easily recognized by checking a pre-1990 Birth Certificate of a person born in Yugoslavia. As I have one of those myself, I consider mentioning both Slovenia and Yugoslavia an absolute must. There are two citizenships there and it's not based on place of birth but on second citizenship of your parents. Kopitar's birth certificate (original, not the one he would get today as a copy!) is saying that he is a citizen of both Yugoslavia and Slovenia. It has very little to do with Canada examples that other people were writing. I completely understand those who don't like adding the Slovenia to the birth place, I really do, because they don't know the situation in Yugoslavia prior to 1990 and after the last 1960-1970 constitution changes took place.

Actually before hitting "Save page" I checked many American and Canadian ice hockey players articles here at Wiki and Kopitar's current place of birth doesn't follow the same format/style. It will be, after the changes, though. --JTrdi (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're supposed to according to WikiProject Ice Hockey. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW: The article currently states that he is from "Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia." What has to be changed? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there's been a misunderstanding here. No need to change this in the article. I was talking about the player's Infobox. My mistake, I should have been more precise. --JTrdi (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth

We've been through this a million times (I bet 99% of the reverts to this article is changing Yugoslavia to Slovenia). Simply put, Slovenia did not exist as an independent country on the date of Kopitar's birth. Whether it's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey article or any other article in Wikipedia, the country in existence at the time is mentioned. For example, articles about the Napoleonic Wars do not mention the country that is in existence now, but the one in existence at the time. In fact, if we're talking about Jesenice in 1803, we'd be saying "Jesenice, Austria-Hungary" (if the city existed at the time). It is clear in the article that Kopitar is Slovenian. There is no vagueness or argument about where he was born and where he is a national. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand how can you compare SR Slovenia and Austria-Hungary and why do you mention Napoleonic wars. At the time of Austria-Hungary Slovenia did not exist as a political entity but in Yugoslavia it did and it was a federative state and its inhabitants received the citizenship of not only Yugoslavia but also Slovenia. In addition, the country in existence at the time was mentioned actually. You say "Kopitar was born in Yugoslavia, of which Slovenia was a part." No one denied that.

What is the central problem here, this isn't about some ethnic war as you have assumed but about making the prose as unambiguous as possible. The phrase "in Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia" is vague indeed as it makes it seem like Slovenia did not exist at that time or like Yugoslavia was later renamed to Slovenia or like Jesenice was previously not part of Slovenia, nothing of which makes sense. The phrasing "Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia" leaves no doubt. You have been told several times by independent editors the change is justified so please don't revert my edits without discussing it first. Why don't you use formal dispute resolution methods instead? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Told by whom? I've probably made 3 edits to this article. And Gmatsuda, who has done more for the LA Kings and related articles than anyone I know, makes the same reverts. So, what are you trying to do? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you say: "We've been through this a million times"? Any way, comments on talk pages are relevant for all editors, not just for those who were present at that time and comments of all editors must be considered, not just of those who have the article on their watchlist in a given moment. I have seen much more support for the phrasing "Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia" than for the alternative. What am I trying to do? Make things clear. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, a possibility would be to omit Slovenia entirely and state only former Yugoslavia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, this really isn't up for compromise. WIkiProjects often have guidelines governing certain aspects of articles in that respective WikiProject. How many times do we have to state that WikiProject Ice hockey has a guideline that dictates that the name of the country at the time a player was born is what is used? Why do you ignore this? Please note that your continued changing of this will result in you being reported for vandalizing this article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say born in Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia or born in Jesenice, former Yugoslavia is against some guideline. You have not provided a link to that guideline nor have I been able to locate it. At the other hand, I have found an example "Scott Walker (born 19 July 1973, in Cambridge, Ontario)" that just negates your claim. Anyway, feel free to report me for vandalism to whoever you like, even Jimbo. I'm looking forward to it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the WikiProject Ice hockey guidelines. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easy, Kopitar was born in Jesenice, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia). GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, turns out that it's a Wikipedia-wide guideline...not just for ice hockey articles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gmatsuda, I really don't know what you're talking about. My apologies if that's not a case, but as you seem unable to provide a link to the relevant guideline and cite it, I suppose you're simply making things up.

WP:MOSBIO does not say anything like you say. It says: "Nationality - In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable."

The guideline also says "There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries." The same applies in the case of Yugoslavia who encompassed constituent countries too. There's no consensus.

The examples provided at the wp:mosbio page do not list the place of birth in the parentheses at all which would also be a viable option. The current state is unacceptable as it is unclear in regard to Jesenice. As can be evidenced in the comments above, this has been pointed out by other users too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've adopted the Jaromir Jagr solution; that should satisfy everyone. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should say Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia. Slovenia did exist at the time. This would be similar to noting counties, provinces, etc. The current borders are based on the internal borders of Yugoslavia. Alaney2k (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's best the way I put it; less confusing. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's the confusing version I have been objecting to all the time. The proposal of Alaney2k is clear and much better. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's here...Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth. It's a Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it, get it changed. Until then, we're stuck with it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for providing that page. First, it's not a policy but a discussion page. Second, according to the examples and comments the final point is: "de facto standard is to use universal pattern [[Town]], [[Constituent country]], [[Sovereign country]]". In this specific case, that means Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...you're right. That is a discussion page. But it was adopted as a Wikipedia-wide policy (to use the country at time of birth). I don't have time to look for it, but it's been the standard here on Wikipedia for some time. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, the final point was: "de facto standard is to use universal pattern [[Town]], [[Constituent country]], [[Sovereign country]]". In this specific case, that means Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia. If you can't agree with this, I'll open a request for comment. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. Just know that this can of worms has been opened (and closed) before. As an aside, please keep in mind that this is an article about a hockey player, not about the country he was born in. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: How should the birthplace of Anže Kopitar be stated

The current phrasing of the first sentence of the article is: "Anže Kopitar (born 24 August 1987 in Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia) is a professional hockey player." I found it vague. It makes it seem like Jesenice was previously not part of Slovenia or like Slovenia did not exist at that time, nothing of which makes sense. The phrasing "Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia" leaves no doubt. In addition, Slovenia had internal citizenship before 1991 and people born before 1991 have always been treating themselves as born in Slovenia, not Yugoslavia.

This change has been requested numerous times as can be seen in the first section of this talk page but Gmatsuda prevented it for no good reason.[1]

I have been objected on the basis that the latter phrasing does not cite the country of birth and that it is against some guideline. I think it is pretty clear from the phrasing the country of birth was Yugoslavia and as can be evidenced from the comments above, no link to such a guideline has been provided.

The guidelines of the WikiProject hockey do not object to this phrasing (example: "Scott Walker (born 19 July 1973, in Cambridge, Ontario) is a Canadian hockey player". The final point of the discussion held at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth was that "de facto standard is to use universal pattern [[Town]], [[Constituent country]], [[Sovereign country]]". In this specific case, that means Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia as I have proposed. The WP:MOSBIO does not object to this either.

My question is: how should the birthplace be stated in the parentheses of the first sentence if at all (perhaps it should be stated further down, see the examples at WP:MOSBIO)? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey is the place to bring this up. There are so many players from former Communist countries that were constituted as Federal Republics with constituent states. If we make a change here, we will have problems with players from Latvia, Kazakhstan and other locations. Moreover, none of these "republics" were recognized internationally as states in the way you claim. On the other hand, US states and Canadian provinces are recognized as such. So even though I participate in this article, I'm not going to involve myself with this RfC, since it belongs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Go there to get support to make the changes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll rather get support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Slovenia. Please don't put words in my mouths. I never said Slovenia was recognized internationally although that should be verified. However, it was a constituent country (a federative republic). BTW, "thanks" for canvassing and calling me names.[2] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At American, Canadian & UK bios? I'd prefer having those countries sub-divisions removed. For example: Mario Lemieux born in Montreal, Canada would be better then Montreal, Quebec or Montreal, Quebec, Canada. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is primarily an ice hockey-related article and should be discussed in that WikiProject's talk page. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement, as this situation effects all the NHL player bios (not to mentioned, all other bios on Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Moreover, none of these "republics" were recognized internationally as states in the way you claim. On the other hand, US states and Canadian provinces are recognized as such." This is another one of OrangeMarlin's lies (I brought up his most blatant recent lie regarding Slovenia on his talk page [3]): In reality, US states and Canadian provinces are not recognized internationally because they are internal entities and are therefore not subject to international recognition. The same was true for Slovenia within Yugoslavia. --WorldWide Update (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, for several reasons:

• The article is not property of WP Hockey and is in the scope of several other projects;
• We're talking about an individual article and that's what article talk pages are for; it's enough to notify all interested parties as I plan to do right now.
• Wikiproject Hockey has already been notified.[4] None of its current guidelines was violated (I have demonstrated that above. If you think otherwise, link&cite).
• If people there think they should implement a new guideline due to this discussion, that's their business, not mine;

Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Jesenice, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)" is clearly unacceptable for the following reasons:

1.) First and foremost, it implies that the town of Jesenice was not in Slovenia in the 1980s. While Slovenia was, at the time, one of Yugoslavia's six constituent republics and not an independent country, it existed as a federal political unit and had a fair bit of autonomy. The parenthetical reference "(now Slovenia)" implies that the town became a part of Slovenia only later, which is clearly false and grossly misleading.

2.) This is a clear example of double standards. Wikipedia, including its hockey articles, is full of references to Montreal, Quebec, Los Angeles, California, and Edinburgh, Scotland, even though Quebec, California, and Scotland are no more independent countries than Slovenia was in the 1980s.

"Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia", on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable and appropriate. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do what you guys/gals want. I thought the Jagr example would be accepted, it wasn't; life goes on. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you go ahead with what you want to do. I originally decided to participate in this discussion because I believed that Kopitar's birthplace, as currently written, is confusing to many people (did the town of Jesenice somehow move from one country to another?). It wasn't an ego trip on my part, it was a genuine desire to point out a problem with the way his birthplace is presently written and suggest a sensible alternative -- in fact, in the infobox, Slovenia is entirely omitted, so a casual reader has no way of knowing wich part of the former Yugoslavia the town is actually in. But instead, I've had the pleasure of reading that Slovenia never even existed before 1991 (of course, by this logic, Quebec and Bavaria don't currently exist either). When I strongly condemned this nonsense, I was told that I'm not being nice.

Ever since this article was created, certain users have made it their mission to delete all references to Slovenia. For instance, the same user who claimed that Slovenia didn't exist before 1991 recently deleted the description of Kopitar as a "Slovenian-born player" from the article, even though this phrase has been used in countless of articles about Kopitar [5]. Yet I am the one who's being problematic. I'm the one who's being an impulsive "Slovenian nationalist."

Throughout the past months, many of us displayed a willigness to discuss the birtplace issue, but our concerns were routinely dismissed. A small group of editors effectively declined to debate this matter at all, preferring to engage in revert wars instead.

I see that one of this article's editors -- known for repeatedly deleting references to Slovenia -- is now participating in a revert war about the preferred spelling of center/centre. The more things change...

In the next few years, we will see the first generation of high-profile atheletes who were born in post-independence Slovenia, which will render this issue moot (at least I hope so). Until then, do what you want to do -- it's not like this hasn't been the case until now. --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For some, this article has become about Slovenia/Yugoslavia, not about Kopitar. And about the athletes born in post-independence Slovenia...according to current Wikipedia standards, it will be correct in stating that they were born in Slovenia. No one is going to argue that. As I said, you obviously don't like the policy. Great. Get it changed. If your proposal is approved, I'll go along with it. If it doesn't well, sorry. But we don't have a choice but to stick with agreed-upon standards. This was never an anti-Slovenia thing as you're making it out to be. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be easier for me to accept if the policy were applied equally in all cases. It is not. There are plenty of references to players born in "Toronto, Ontario, Canada", for instance. That is perfectly acceptable, yet mentioning Kopitar's birthplace as "Jesenice, Slovenia, Yugoslavia" is not. Mind you, I do not, by any means, want references to Yugoslavia to be removed, but at the same time, there's no reason to remove or marginalize references to Slovenia. As I've stated, the infobox completely omits any reference to Slovenia in the birthplace field.

In fact, there are other inconsistecies with the enforcement of this policy. Take a look at this article on a hockey player, for instance: Darius Kasparaitis; again, it seems to be acceptable for the athelete's birthplace to be described as "Elektrėnai, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union", and the infobox to give it as "Elektrėnai, Lithuania (former Lithuanian SSR)". For athletes in some other sports, such birthplace citations are the norm rather than the exception. Yet Kopitar's article is being held to a different, far more rigid standard. --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK...like I said, propose a change to the policy and point that out. There was no need for the nasty comments posted earlier. No one here is anti-Slovenia. We're just trying to stick to policy here. That's all. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to disagree on the birthplace issue, but it's quite another thing to claim that Slovenia didn't even exist before 1991. It was this remark, which was both inaccurate and deeply offensive, that triggered my angry response. --WorldWide Update (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia existed 'before' 1991; as did Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia etc. From 1929 to the 1990's, they made up Yugoslavia. PS- I've no problem with changing the American & Canadaian biographies (from say Toronto, Ontario to Toronto, Canada). GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think it should stay as Anže Kopitar (born 24 August 1987 in Jesenice, Yugoslavia, now Slovenia). There is absolutely no reason to change it. The country at time of birth was Yugoslavia not Slovenia. The standard across all articles is to list the location as it was at time of birth. And the country itself was not Slovenia at time of birth. And if you want to really argue this topic per WP:DATE the birthplace shouldn't even be listed in the brackets at all. Moreover, at one point it was decided that the country shouldn't be listed in the lead and only the city name. The nationality is covered in the infobox and should be in the next sentence in the lead (ie ...is a Canadian ice hockey player). -Djsasso (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Kopitar, a great young hockey player. The rest of it is just not worthy of discussion. If there's a change to policy, I'll agree, if not, we're sticking with what we've got. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry exactly what part of my comment is not worthy of discussion? The part where I pointed out that the birthplace shouldn't be entangled with the birth date per an overriding Wikipedia policy? By following that policy I think I have solved both sides problems. I made it clear it was Yugoslavia at the time of his birth and that he is Slovenian. -Djsasso (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No no no. That comment was meant to support you. I agree with your comments. This arguing about Kopitar's place of birth is a waste of time. And your comment is worthy of discussion, it's just that we shouldn't even be having it. The only reason Kopitar is notable is that he's a good young hockey player. The fact that he is from Slovenia is irrelevant, only if you're writing a hockey trivia book on how many are Slovenian born. Which would be 0. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure, cause I completely agree that it is mostly ridiculous to get so worked up over something like this that was so easily solved by existing policies. -Djsasso (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So if Kopitar is not Slovenian-born, as OM claims, how do you explain this: [6]-- article upon article mentioning that Kopitar is Slovenian-born. Clearly, OM is on a personal mission here, deviating far from established practice, and I will not assume good faith where none is present. His statement that "The fact that he is from Slovenia is irrelevant" is beyond ridicoulous; if that's the case, why even mention birthplaces on Wikipedia? Why then do nearly all media articles about Kopitar mention the fact that he's from Slovenia? Is the origin of all hockey players now irrelevant, or does this apply only to Slovenia? Also, how do you explain OM's (and others') silence regrading this hockey player article: Darius Kasparitis. Why is Kopitar's article a problem, when others in the exact same situation are not? Clearly, "existing policies" are only relevant when they fit in with some editors' broader agendas. --WorldWide Update (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Broader agendas? Wow. Pot...meet kettle. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I have given up with this article; it is simply not worth all of this frustration and I will make no changes to it. In fact, even if someone changes Kopitar's current nationality, I will not fix it. If deleting all references to Slovenia makes someone's day, that's fine with me. However, it's fundamentally disingenous to pretend that what we have seen here was merely a dispassionate, impartial application of some WP policy. Numerous articles that use a different birthplace format -- and are nor reverted -- prove that quite effectively. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact is, the only reason you (and others) are up in arms about this is because it's about Kopitar, a Slovenian. If this was about another hockey player, it's quite obvious that you wouldn't care one bit (evidenced by the fact that none of you raised the issue elsewhere, even though this issue has been lingering for a long time). So please spare us the indignation. Your use of this fact as evidence is highly disingenuous. You (and others) brought this upon yourselves by assuming bad faith coming into this debate. All I cared about here was that we follow Wikipedia policy, yet you assumed that I (and others, most notably, Orangemarlin) had more nefarious intentions when that wasn't even close to being the case. Now do you understand why Wikipedia has the "assume good faith" policy? Also, did you notice that Djsasso has edited the article in such a way that, at least, to me, seems to be a solid way of solving the problem? That was some time ago. Why are you still upset? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are wondering why I failed to assume good faith, I would just like to present a few quotes from OM and let you draw your own conclusions:

"Slovenia did not exist when Kopitar was born." (NOTE: Slovenia was a constituent, semi-autonomous republic within Yugoslavia at the time. Should we presume that, say, Quebec doesn't exist nowadays? This statement effectively denies Slovenia's pre-1991 existence.)

"We've got some Slovenian nationalist getting kind of annoying at Kopitar's article." (NOTE: This was before I joined the debate and was in reference to a highly-respected Slovenian Wikipedia editor who disagreed with OM)

"The fact that he is from Slovenia is irrelevant." (NOTE: Why is the origin of other hockey players relevant then?)

"...how many [hockey players ] are Slovenian born. Which would be 0." (NOTE: What's this then: [7]? Is everybody else wrong?)

If you still feel I should have assumed good faith, well, here's a friendly warning I received on my talk page wrom a WP editor not involved in this debate: "OrangeMarlin seems to be a very offensive person, from my experience. I would not be at all surprised if such a comment was made intentionally."

After all of this, I find it hard to believe that I was wrong not to assume good faith. Why assume something that isn't there?--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask all parties to stay calm. First, I don't assume OM has anti-Slovene sentiments (especially due to this comment) although he should be more civil and prudent in what he said and get his facts straight. Second, yes, it's true that I'm interested in this article because it's about a Slovene guy. However, at least for me, it's not about pushing Slovenia forward but about making the article intelligible. WWU clearly stated what was the fundamental problem: "Did the town of Jesenice somehow move from one country to another?" As I've already said in the intro to this RfC, I'd rather see the place of birth not mentioned in the leading sentence at all than stated in such an ambiguous way as it was before. For me, the solution of Djsasso is a very positive step forward. I think it would be even more clear and would harm no one's interests if it stated "having been born in Jesenice, a town in Slovenia, which was part of Yugoslavia at the time of his birth". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps OM words were poorly chosen & WWU misinterpreted them. Slovenia did not existed at time of Kopitar's birth; meant to be Slovenia did not exist as an independant country at the time of Kopitar's birth. PS- Djsasso's solution works for me. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem having the sentence changed to "...born in Jesenice, a town in Slovenia, which was part of Yugoslavia at the time of his birth." I just threw what I did up there as a quick way to stop tempers from being so flared up. It does look like this argument has long since stopped being about this article so I would suggest that both parties leave their personal differences about each other aside and comment on fix suggested. -Djsasso (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have this conversation a year ago? ccwaters (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

High school politics/social studies will tell you that while Kopitar represents the nation of Slovenia, he was born legally within the state of Yugoslavia. That is all the lead is telling you: Biographical data in a concise fashion. Anyone looking at it with a unbiased world view would see that. If you need to point out that Slovenia has since become a sovereign state, do it concisely as a secondary point without making the lead an essay on Balkan history. Furthermore, don't go down the revisionist path and deny any mention of Yugoslavia. ccwaters (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you seem to be commenting without even reading the comments above. I don't need to point out that Slovenia has become a sovereign state or to deny Yugoslavia. It's about the clarity of text. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point about the Kasparaitis page, Eleassar. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, that just means it has gone unnoticed. ccwaters (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ccwaters, your comment shows why some of us are dubious about the approach used by the anti-Slovenia crowd (or whatever description is more appropriate). You accuse us of denying "any mention of Yugoslavia." This is a ridicoulous accusation, since many of us have expressly pointed out that we want references to Yugoslavia to stay where they are. We only wanted references to Slovenia in addition to any mention of Yugoslavia to avoid confusion. You say that Kopitar was legally born in Yugoslavia and that's that. So it's completely irrelevant that Jesenice is (and was) in Slovenia and not in, say, Macedonia, five countries to Slovenia's south? If Kopitar's origin is irrelevant, why are birthplaces even mentioned on WP? And to address your last barb, if anyone has participated in historical revisionism here, it's the user who claims that Slovenia never existed before 1991.--WorldWide Update (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying that users said Slovenia didn't exists before 1991. Its extremely obvious that he meant as an indepentant country. You are choosing to look at it from a negative standpoint, for what reason I do not know. But it was blatantly clear he didn't mean it didn't exist period. Secondly I would stop calling people here anti-Slovenian as there is no proof that anyone is anti anything. If anything looking back at some of your past edits you are erasing other countries info from articles so it quite possibly is the pot calling the kettle black. I would suggest that you stop trying to attack other editors and read WP:CIVIL as a number of people have mentioned to you in the past now. A valid way to fix the original situation has been put into the article. If you want to keep arguing I suggest you do it off Wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, this is getting funny. You state that I have been "erasing other countries info from articles" -- a total fabrication with no basis in fact -- and then you tell me that I should read WP:CIVIL. As for the user's comment about Slovenia, I provided his exact quote above; you are free to interpret it differently than I have.--WorldWide Update (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are free to interpret it any way you want. But to continue attacking him on it when he has stopped mentioning it quite awhile ago is an issue. Please cease. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said anyone here specifically wants to erase Yugoslavia. I laid out parameters for what I believe is a sane resolution, part of which is a caution against revisionism (this is an RFC, others may be lurking). ccwaters (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what the article looks like now and let us know how you like it. This is the resolution I came up with and most people in this RFC on both sides have agreed it is a good solution. You and WorldWide Update have not commented on it however, but most others have agreed it is a good solution. Eleassar has made a suggestion that my solution be slightly amended to say "...born in Jesenice, a town in Slovenia, which was part of Yugoslavia at the time of his birth.", which I don't think is that big a deal as it still clearly indicates it was Yugolavia at birth. What are your thoughts on this solution? -Djsasso (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like syntax like that. You see that all the time in wikipedia. "STATEMENT, comma, QUALIFIER ADDED BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DISAGREES". I know its often in the spirit of compromise, but the end result is usually an article that argues with itself. ccwaters (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see neither someone who disagrees nor arguing of the article with itself in this case. What I see is a short and appropriate explanation of the term Jesenice. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see what is arguing with what. Both parts of the sentence are valid. He is a Slovenian national who plays for their national team. So that part is correct. He was born in Jesenice which was in Yugoslavia at the time of his birth which is also correct. One is not the opposite of the other. Both relate to him as it indicates he lived in both countries. Yugoslavia and then the Slovenia after it became independant and are relevant to an article about him. Neither should be removed as they both make him who he is. All that needs to be agreed on is how to best include both, because removing one or the other is incorrect. -Djsasso (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that all people contributing here stop attacking each other and read WP:CIVIL. I thought this discussion was over and was waiting for people to honestly comment on my innocent and innocuous proposal to rephrase the solution of Djsasso but now I see flaming again. If we can't deal with the situation alone perhaps we would need someone to mediate. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Djsasso's latest version, is acceptable. PS- Eleassar is correct, stop the bickering. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph, and I'm thinking we should just remove that completely from the lead, something like...

Anze Kopitar (born August 24, 1987) is a Slovenian professional ice hockey player. He was the 11th overall draft pick by the Los Angeles Kings in the 2005 NHL Entry Draft. Kopitar is the first Slovenian to play in the NHL.

I would request that the infobox state Jesenice, YU as the historically correct birthplace and if a "Personal life/bio" section were to be added, use that as an opportunity to clarify the discrepancy. ccwaters (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can never make everyone happy. I think its important to leave it in the lead because just saying he was the first Slovenian to play in the NHL could lead to confusion if we list his birthplace as only Yugoslavia. If you want it separate in a Bio section that works as well, but until there is a bio section the explanation needs to go somewhere. As far as the infobox is concerned that is already how it is and no one has argued that. -Djsasso (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that explanation belongs in the lead. Like someone said, the article is about Kopitar, not Slovenian history. Its been argued whether listing birthplace in the lead is important, and apparently Bio MOS says no. That's convenient: it nullifies most of the argument there. If you argue that birthplace need to be listed, I'm strongly on the side of being historically accurate. Lowest on the priority list is adding explanation and context to political changes (thats what wikilinks are for). A secondary bio blurb section would be the only appropriate place, if any. ccwaters (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If mentioning Slovenia in addition to Yugoslavia is such a big problem for some of you (I still don't know why, but it apparently is), why not just mention Jesenice as his birthplace and leave it at that? Anyone interested in the details could click on the link and read more about the town -- both that it's in Slovenia and that it was also a part of Yugoslavia when Kopitar was born. Of course, references to his Slovenian nationality would remain. Based on past experiences, I fully expect this proposal to be shot down, and I am past caring about this issue, but it's a thought. --WorldWide Update (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a big problem, the issue was never about mentioning both but about how both were mentioned. And as of right now there is only Ccwaters that objects to the current version of things. While certainly not an overwhelming concensus I think its enough to go on for now. Since it includes people from both sides of the original issue. I don't really have much more to say on the topic, since I think its absolutely rediculous to be arguing over one sentence that really doesn't affect the article much but is important in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was saying earlier. The article has become about Slovenia and not about Kopitar. OrangeMarlin and I were talking about adherence to Wikipedia policies, not about Slovenia, Yugoslavia or their legitimacy, relevance or their importance. And I have to echo the comments above about OrangeMarlin's intentions. Once again, a reason we have the "assume good faith" rule here. If only that was followed, we wouldn't be having this ridculous squabble. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, this is beyond ironic. You criticize me for not assuming good faith, yet this is what you wrote about us yesterday: "It's quite clear that these people only care about promoting Slovenia, probably because they are from there, or maybe they're just anti-Yugoslavia, or whatever. In any case, that's all they care about. It's not about Anze Kopitar, the subject of the article. It's about Slovenia getting recognition. Sad, but true. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" Why does the "assume good faith" rule not apply to you? --WorldWide Update (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I too, see no evidence of Anti-Slovenia tendencies. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Should I break out the anti-Slovenia tendencies? :-) (totally kidding here)... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw them in concert once, oh wait. ccwaters (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we start over again (from scratch); this time avoid the finger pointing? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think we are done GoodDay. As long as people stop poking at each other. -Djsasso (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're done here, let's move to the next one: Denis Žvegelj ;) --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking to the Ice Hockey articles, so good luck at the Zvegelj article. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here... sticking to all the hockey players born in the USSR (a year or 2 left on that) and Czechoslovakia (maybe 4?)...:) ccwaters (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the proposal would be accepted, it wasn't; life goes on.(per GoodDay) If per WP:MoS all mentions of Kopitar's birthplace should be removed from the lead and the "Personal life/bio" section be used to state and clarify it, then that's what should be done. We should get rid of the Trivia section anyway, and the material from there could be incorporated in the biography section too. Comments, objections? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be a bit late, but in the original text ""Anže Kopitar (born 24 August 1987 in Jesenice, Slovenia, then in Yugoslavia) is a professional hockey player." would be the best way to put it, avoiding both the implication that Jesenice was not in Slovenia then, and is in Yougoslavia now. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft Controversy

Bourdon... 24.87.56.142 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What religion, if any, does he belong to?

About 60% of Slovenians are Roman Catholic, so I was curious to know what religion, if any, Anze Kopitar belongs to? Garagehero (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 57,4% of Roman Catholics only on paper (the census was a decade ago and today this number probably consists for ALL religions combined). Slovenia has one of the highest irreligious populations in the World and the number is gradually geting higher all the time. Concerning Jesnice (Kopitar's birh town), they also have significant populations of Easter Orthodox and Islam (2nd most after capital city of Ljubljana) although those religions are from peaple with mostly Southern Slavic ancestry that lives there. My guess would be that Kopitar doesnt belong to any religion, which is common for young people in the country.Ratipok (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Who cares what his religion or non-religion is? I wish we would eliminate all reference to religion on BLP's unless it's super relevant. The Pope being Catholic would be obvious, but that's where it's super relevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename/move article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (leaning toward consensus against a move). —Angr (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Anže Kopitar → Anze Kopitar – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EN, a biographical article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in Slovanian as its article title, nor does it use the person's legal name as it might appear on a birth certificate or passport; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Simply put, the use of "Anze" is verified by the sources used within the article, and "Anže" is not. Dolovis (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dolovis please stop opening a discussion on every individual page. You have now been asked by a number of editors to have a centralized discussion which is now going on at another page. Continuing to open one on a bunch of individual pages while that discussion is ongoing is bordering on disruptive. Oh and that is an Oppose.-DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Oppose This isn't bordering on disruptive. It is disruptive. His name is spelled with diacritics in sources cited in the article. Canada Hky (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose But only because of WP:BRD. It's had the diacritical all along, and I don't think we should be changing names of people, especially if that's how they spell their name in themselves. I would know, because he signed my Kopitar jersey.  :) I know, not a reliable source. That being said, both ESPN and NHL.com use Anze without the diacritical. I just don't want to support a new precedent where we go crazy over changing names. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Not to get all linguistic on you guys but the Slovenian alphabet has 29 letters, and ž is a different letter than z. Anze is not the same as Anže. In fact, if we were to transliterate the name in to the 26 letter English alphabet, we wouldn't spell it Anze. Moreover, the mark is NOT a diacritical, it is an actual letter. So, using an example of a formal name that uses a "diacritical", Montréal can be Montreal in English, because we do not pronounce the name of the city in the same way as someone who speaks Quebecois. The fact is that we pronounce Anže as it is pronounced in Slovenian, because ž is a letter. Therefore, I continue to oppose the change of his name. The OP is completely incorrect to state that Anze is the English version of his name. It is not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support, there's no diacritics in the english alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Dolovis cites WP:COMMONNAME. That policy states that: Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. This is one of those situations. Anze Kopitar currently redirects to Anže Kopitar. Case closed. Now Dolovis, please stop disrupting Wikipedia and keep this nuisance of a conversation centralized to the naming conventions talk page. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Umm, I don't see that quote anywhere in WP:COMMONNAME? Perhaps you are confusing it with something else? Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It is in another section farther down the page under special characters. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, which states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (my bolding). A google news archive search for "Anže Kopitar" shows that the large majority of major English-language media outlets do not use the ž (in fact, I couldn't find one source in the first 100 that used the ž). One of the claims above is that the sources in the article use ž, which would be a very persuasive claim, if it was correct. However, looking through the sources, this is what I found:

1. Non-English source, so not relevant in deciding the article title per COMMONNAME
2. Offline, can't check
3. Sports Illustrated, does not use ž
4. Non-English, not relevant per above
5. Non-English, not relevant per above
6. NHL.com, does not use ž
7. LAKings.com, does not use ž
8. Des Moines Register, was a dead link for me
9. Non-English, not relevant per above
10. Non-English, not relevant per above
11. IIHF.com, does not use ž
12. NHL.com, does not use ž
13. WHL.ca, does not use ž
14. Los Angeles Times, does not use ž
15. LosAngelesKings.com, does not use ž
16. LAKings.com, does not use ž
17. NHL.com, does not use ž
18. LAKings.com, does not use ž
19. LAKings.com, does not use ž
20. TSN.ca, does not use ž
21. NHL.com, does not use ž
22. LAKings.com, does not use ž
23. LAKings.com, does not use ž
24. IIHF.com, does not use ž
25. IIHF.com, does not use ž
26. IIHF.com, does not use ž
27. IIHF.com, does not use ž
28. IIHF.com, does not use ž

To sum up, the vast majority of sources in the article and all English-laguage sources do not use the ž. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Again it says reliable sources. As mentioned above by orangemarlin ž translated to english isn't z. Thus those english sources you are pointing to are incorrect no matter which way you look at it. Thus we default to the official spelling unless reliable sources state otherwise. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There's really no point having a requested move discussion with you when you just label any source (no matter how reliable) as unreliable when they disagree with your preferred spelling. If you really believe the sources aren't reliable, take it to WP:RSN. If you can get a consensus there that all sources that don't use ž are unreliable, then I'll happily change my vote. Jenks24 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that is the whole crux of the matter and why its being discussed in a centralized discussion and why the nominator has been asked to stop making more requests so that this very issue can be settled. But as long as he keeps spamming request for moves with requests the same argument is going to keep popping up. It's also not the only issue. It is widely believed that a name with diacritics is the exact same name as one without in regards to common name as they both use the same letters (ie diacritics are just additions on top of the common name). Another widely held belief is that diacritics don't fall under common name and only fall under WP:Diacritics which suggests neither form is preferred. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of your "examples" hardly qualify as reliable sources, in that they could never be used on Wikipedia. And you repeat some, so your list looks much larger than it really is. LAKings.com and the LATimes would be the only ones acceptable. And you get to use them once. So you found TWO sources for Anze. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mate, I just went through the all sources in the article. I have never edited this article and have added none of the sources. It's hardly my fault that the people who created this article apparently chose to use borderline reliable sources (though they look fine to; can you tell me why Sports Illustrated, NHL.com, IIHF.com, WHL.ca, TSN.ca aren't RS?) and chose not to use a diverse range. Jenks24 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per standard practice to use the real name in cases where no English version exists. If we started writing articles like news sources and the like write their stories, we would be a very different project and no longer an encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And why does this "standard practice" carry more weight than the article titles policy? Jenks24 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that the practice is at odds with WP:AT. Besides, guidelines and policies are (supposed to be) descriptive of community practice and opinion (WP:BURO). Prolog (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Another disruptive request for move. There are plenty of sources clearly showing what's the correct name of this player. - Darwinek (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support for the line of reasoning of Jenks24 and per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization. I also made a similar support to this other player Divide et Impera (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in the name of common sense and factual accuracy per my rationale in other discussions. The man's name is Anže, some people are foreign, live with it. - filelakeshoe 19:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is not merely common usage, this is wrong spelling. There's a whole lot of widely held misconceptions that Wikipedia won't repeat eventhough they can be taken at face value in many sources that are considered reliable. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this and all its kind. His name is Anže. Just because most sports writers are too lazy to go and find a ž character doesn't mean we should be. Similar issue: off the top of my head we have an article called Cesc Fàbregas (a stable title) even though most English-language media seems to neglect the grave accent. Doesn't change his name. 86.28.121.200 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from an objective source: The New York Times Manual of Style states at page 6 that "accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example).” This authoritative reference is direct on point, and clearly states that modified letters should not be used for CzechSlovenian names. Dolovis (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Kopitar is Slovenian, not Czech. You argued against the NYT as a source did not support the NYT as a source when requesting a move for Pierre Page. A more reasonable policy would be to use a person's correct name regardless of arbitrary guidelines set out by a single source. Canada Hky (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't. Dolovis (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Dolovis, could you please bring, if possible, a link to that article, and also clarify how could the spirit and logic of that article contribute to an improvement of the wikipolicy? Divide et Impera (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        • That is just one newspapers style guide on it. A number of others have the opposite stance. National Geographic, The Guardian, The Chicago Manual of Style etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
          • I see. I feel I must give some blame to the lack of a national academy that would mandate the use of a certain manual of style in all English speaking countries (US and UK in primis), and although I feel that the oppose will be more than support in these cases, I have to maintain my stance that the use of diacritics in English just creates confusion to the average reader. Unfortunately and regrettably we, as wikipedians, can't do much about this, given that there is no clear standard set among the major sources of reliable and authoritative references.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors may be interested in the policy vote at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Specific_proposals_to_change_the_wording_of_the_policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As you are well aware, the discussion you are referring to is still “going around in circles”, and it is abundantly clear no consensus to change policy will be reached, so the current policy of WP:EN and WP:COMMONNAME remain in effect. Dolovis (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The policies you refer to do not discount the use of diacritics. You should probably check your sources before throwing nonsense around. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. His name is Anže and not Anze and it should be written as such. Considering this is an encyclopedia I dont see a resons why it shouldnt be. Witch hunt..Ratipok (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anže Kopitar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 02:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. Below the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. Please be patient; it may take me a few days or longer to get through everything. -- Saskoiler (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally clear and easy to follow. I've made a few copyedits, and made a few additional suggestions. See below (Prose)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: It's a reasonably good summary of his notability, and feels like it is about the right length. There are a few items to address. See below (Neutral and Lead). Layout: The article is organized in a reasonable manner. Words to watch: No problems aside from those mentioned in Neutral below. Fiction: n/a List incorporation: No problems aside from inline citations and labels mentioned elsewhere.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a "References" section, and it contains the cited sources for the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Overall, there are a large number (53) of inline citations for this article and they are taken from reliable sources: mainstream media, official team/league publications. A few questionable sources have been noted below (re: Verifiable).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Although much of the material in the article is well-sourced, there are numerous items which need to be addressed. This includes both material which is not accurately supported by the cited sources and unsupported facts and statistics. See below (re: Verifiable).
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I found no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	For an athlete biography for a player like Kopitar, I consider the main aspects (in no particular order) to be: youth and early hockey playing; junior and professional career chrononology; international play; statistics and awards; playing style; personal life (both family and "other" interests). The first four of these (youth, junior/pro, international, stats/awards) are addressed at a reasonable level in this article. The fifth (playing style) is largely absent. The sixth (personal life) is "half present", with details about family present, but there's really nothing about any "other" interests. See below (re: Main aspects) for suggestions to improve.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article's focus is good. It avoids tangents and stays focused. The existing content is appropriately balanced, with the exception of items noted in 3a.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The bulk of the article uses encyclopedic language in an unbiased way. There are two sentences, however, which should be rewritten to avoid the appearance of bias. See below (Neutral).
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. (Over a month has passed since this nomination with only a handful of legitimate edits.) There's no evidence of recent edit-warring or content dispute in the history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are four images in this article. All are tagged with their copyright status, and all have acceptable free licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All four images are appropriate for this article. (I appreciate the fact that images are included with Kopitar playing for Mora and Slovenia.) I have removed periods from the captions because they are just sentence fragments, as per WP:CAPFRAG.
	7. Overall assessment.	Nearly two months have passed since the initial review, and several review comments have not been addressed. In its current state, this article does not pass the GA criteria in my opinion.

Items to Address

The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.

Main aspects

• Playing style
  • There are some hints of Kopitar's playing style sprinkled in the existing prose, but there's really no focused summary of his playing style to answer questions: What kind of player is he? What do other players say about him? Who are his peers in terms of playing style? Because of this, the article seems a bit out of balance. I scanned numerous other GA-class hockey biographies as rough comparables: Markus Näslund, Martin St. Louis, Paul Kariya, Scott Niedermayer, Joe Nieuwendyk, and Alex Tanguay. All of these contain a top-level article section named "Playing style" with 2-4 paragraphs of varying length.
  • Recommendation: Since "Playing style" appears to be the consensus way of presenting this information (not just in hockey, but other sports too), I suggest creating such a section and summarizing his playing style. I think there's probably some facts sprinkled through the article that could be amalgamated in such a section, in addition to potential new material.
    • Note that in source #13, there's a paragraph about "... a full game ... defensive-minded NHL coaches... " which you may find useful for "Playing style".
• Personal life
  • There's some detail in the article about Kopitar's family life (as a child, and also his wife and child).
  • Other than that, the only "other" detail is that he speaks 5 languages and enjoys football. This feels like a gap in the article. I am not suggesting you need massive amounts of material here (GA criteria simply says the main aspects should be addressed).
  • Several of those comparable articles linked above have details such as: where he spends off-seasons? Charities/philanthropy the player is involved with? Political or social causes? Business pursuits? Summer hockey camps? Endorsements?
  • Recommendation: I recommend that you add some minimal amount covering some aspects of his adult life that are not directly his playing career or family to provide a bit of balance.
    • For example, his personal website mentions a summer hockey academy (which he runs with another Slovenian ex-player). Is this worthy of inclusion?
    • His personal website also mentions charity work. Is there any media coverage about this?
    • Can any media coverage be found about his impact as a sportsperson in Slovenia? One can imagine that he must be quite a celebrity there, both among hockey fans and beyond hockey fans. Some quick google searches suggest some connection with other prominent Slovenian athletes in North America (e.g. Goran Dragic). This wikipedia article—Sport in Slovenia— calls him "one of Slovenia's most famous athletes", but unfortunately doesn't offer a citation. This article says "He is a national hero in his native Slovenia"
    • Does he have noteworthy endorsements?

Verifiable

• Dead URLs
  • The Checklinks tool shows 11 URLs that are dead. I was able to locate new URLs or archived URLs for 8 of them.
    • Can you please locate correct or archived URLs for the remaining three?
    • You may also want to check other URLs or proactively archive the remaining reference URLs.

• Infobox
  • The height and weight require inline citations. However, I don't think there's any way to cite them in the infobox. Is it worth mentioning and citing in the body prose?

• Lead
  • Re: source 1 (nickname "Kopi") - Is there a better source for this nickname? The Google translation of that page is not great, and does not seem to explicitly say that it is his nickname. (Granted, I don't speak Slovenian, but...)
  • Re: source 2 (The Hockey Writers) - Is this a reliable source? It appears to be somewhere between blog and full-blown trusted journalism. I think this fact could probably be supported by hundreds of more reliable sources (journalists), like this one?

• Personal Life
  • Mother's name is given as "Mateja" (with an 'e'), but source says "Mataja" (with an 'a').
  • Source #6 (si.com) does not give Jesenice as birthplace. We need a different source for that.
  • "Matjaž played hockey for HK Acroni Jesenice in the Yugoslav and later Slovenian championship in the 1980s and 1990s, and competed in three World Championships (in the B and C pools; lower levels) for both Yugoslavia and Slovenia in the early 1990s." ← This claim is unsupported. This URL seems to have the details.
  • Source #7 ("Jeseniški trenerji skozi čas") is no longer the same site at all, so some other source is needed to support "He also coached HK Acroni Jesenice of the Austrian Hockey League in the 2006–07 season...". Looks like the same source I gave for his playing career has the coaching detail too.
  • "...and has been the head coach of the Slovenia national ice hockey team since 2010" ← This statement needs to be reworded as it isn't precise enough. This URL] suggests he was only the national team head coach for parts of five seasons from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015.
  • Again, "Mateja" is used in article, but source #9 has "Mataja".
  • Source #9 does not support "Mateja worked at the family restaurant, Gostišče Kopitar, in Hrušica, a village about five kilometres from Jesenice." (The source doesn't name the restaurant or the village Hrušica.)
  • Source #10 does not support "When Kopitar was four, his father first taught him how to skate; Matjaž built an ice rink in their backyard in Hrušica, and Kopitar would go out there whenever he could." (The only part which is supported is the ice surface in the backyard... the rest is not.)
  • Because source #11 is dead, "... Gašper joined a junior team sponsored by the Kings. He then played for the Portland Winterhawks of the major junior Western Hockey League (WHL) and the Des Moines Buccaneers of the United States Hockey League (USHL), before turning professional with Mora IK in Sweden." is unsupported.
    • Ditto for "Kopitar's grandmother taught English ... learned to speak English from her."
    • Ditto for " After his first season in the NHL, the rest of Kopitar's family joined him in Los Angeles, first living in a house in Hermosa Beach, before moving to Manhattan Beach."
  • The citation for source #13 contains no details in the "References" section (just a plain URL).
  • Why is source #16 here? There's nothing in the text offering support. Does the video contain necessary detail? If so, I'm not sure how accessible that is, but I'm not sure about non-English video.
  • Source #17 says that Kopitar met his wife in Maribor in 2005, but makes no mention of it being during a hockey tournament. Is there some other source for that?

• European Career
  • These sentences ("In 2002, Kopitar began playing for...in 20 games for the junior club.") requires an inline citation. (I see that "Career statistics and player information" is listed in the "External links" section, but my understanding is that inline citations are needed to support statistics. I've asked for guidance over at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations.) Update: Confirmed. Inline citations should be added as the "External Links" are not sufficient for GA criteria.

• Los Angeles Kings
  • "third among rookies in scoring, behind Evgeni Malkin and Paul Stastny" requires an inline citation.
  • "He was the youngest player in the Game, nearly two years younger than the second-youngest player, Paul Stastny." ← While technically correct, this sentence is a bit misleading because Sidney Crosby (only 17 days older) was selected, but did not play due to injury. Without mentioning Crosby, it implies that Kopitar was, by 20 months, the youngest player selected, and that's false. I think it would be better to mention both Crosby and Stastny, as the cited article does.
  • Source #29 does not load for me. (It tries to... but repeatedly times out.) Perhaps replace with a better source?
  • OPTIONAL: The 2015-2016 media LA Kings media guide (PDF) is presently showing up in the references list as #4, #36, #40, and #42. There's no problem with a reference being used multiple times, but would it make sense to merge them into a single entry? You can still refer to different page numbers in various ways. One such way is shown here: Milos Raonic (See "Tennis Canada Media Guide") Note that this is not strictly required for this GA nomination as formatting of citations is outside the GA criteria.
  • "On June 16, 2016, Kopitar was named the new captain of the Kings, replacing Dustin Brown." requires an inline citation.

• International Play
  • "Kopitar scored si goals and eight points in five games during the under-18 tournament and finished second overall for goals scored and third for points, leading Slovenia in both categores;[47][48]" ← Sources #47 and #48 are duplicates (showing goal totals only). I assume that one of them was meant to show point totals to support the statistic claimed?
  • "In 2005 Kopitar appeared in three international tournaments for Slovenia; he took part in the World Juniors, U18 Championship and the World Championship. Both junior tournaments were at the Division I level, while the senior championship was at the top level." ← An inline citation is needed to support his participation in the two junior tournaments. (The senior tournament is supported by the citation in the next sentence.)
  • "Kopitar helped Slovenia reach the quarterfinals of the tournament by scoring two goals and one assist" ← The cited source does not mention his goals or assists.

• Career Statistics
  • Inline citations are needed to support the tabular statistics in "Regular season and playoffs", "International", and "All-Star Games" tables. If a single citation applies to the whole table, it can be included in the table caption. Otherwise, citations per row may be necessary.

• Awards and Honours
  • Inline citations are needed to support all of these awards. In some cases, a single citation may apply to a whole table (e.g. perhaps the LA Kings awards all trace to that media guide?), but otherwise citations are needed per row or per award year.

Neutral

• "Kopitar's dynamic offensive talent allowed him to immediately become Los Angeles' best offensive weapon, though in recent seasons, he has improved his defensive game and has also emerged as one of the NHL's premier two-way forwards.[5] Praised as one of the best players in the League, " ← The language used here ("dynamic offensive talent", "immediately become", "best offensive weapon", "premier two-way forwards") is subjective in nature and unnecessary. As described in WP:PEACOCK, it would be better to simply use facts and attribution. For example:
  • Rather than saying he's a "premier two-way forward", say that he's a three-time finalist for the Selke award which is given to the top defensive forward.
  • It's not necessary to say that he's "Los Angeles' best offensive weapon" because the lead already states that he has led his team in scoring every season except his first.
  • Rather than saying he's one of the best players in the league, I would suggest offering (sourced) quotations from reputable individuals (not his teammates, coaches, or anyone associated with LA Kings). For example, Wayne Gretzky called him the third best player in the world, after Crosby and Toews in 2014. I'm guessing other similar quotes exist.
• Keep in mind that some of this type of detail could be expanded upon in a "Playing style" section (as recommended above), and kept brief here in the lead.

Prose

• Overall
  • I've made several copyedits to address a few items which seemed straightforward. Please review and let me know if there's anything you disagree with.
• Lead
  • "...points on both occasions with 20 (tied with teammate and former captain Dustin Brown) and 26 points, respectively." ← I think it would be better to end this sentence after "...points on both occasions." They key item for the lead is that he led the playoffs both times! The details of how many points and who he tied with are already present in the body of the article, and clutter the lead. (re: WP:LEADCLUTTER).
• Personal life
  • Re: "(in the B and C pools; lower levels)" ← This is a bit confusing. Would it be better to explain it a bit more: "competed in three World Championships for both Yugoslavia (1991) and Slovenia (1993, 1994), which competed at the lower-level B and C pools, respectively, at that time."
  • Re: "He then played for ... in Sweden.[1][2] His favorite player growing up was Sergei Fedorov" ← This is ambiguous because the "he" and "his" refer to two different people. There are many ways to resolve this, but one option is to move the Gasper detail to the first paragraph.
  • Re: "when he was 13 at a European Youth Olympic Festival." ← Where? The Youth Olympic festivals are held every two years, so he could only be 13 at the one in Vuokatti, Finland, right?
• International play
  • Re: "The following year he appeared in the 2004 U18 tournament and the 2004 World Junior Championships. Slovenia competed in Division I at both tournaments, one level below the top division. Kopitar scored six goals and eight points in five games during the under-18 tournament and finished second overall for goals scored and third for points, leading Slovenia in both categories;[1][2] he had one goal and one assist in five games at the World Juniors.[3]" ← Even after I did some copyediting on these sentences, I find them somewhat confusing. Would it be clearer if the two tournaments were treated separately? e.g. "he competed at U18... he scored this... he also competed at world junior... he scored this..."
• Career statistics
  • I think the column labels (which are neither linked nor written out in full words) need to be explained using the Template:Abbr template. This includes: GP, Comp.
• Awards and honours
  • For the Selke and Lady Byng, it says "nominations". To be more accurate, I think this should say "finalist". (Many players get nominated each year simply by being on the ballot of just one voter, but only the finalists are generally deemed as notable, I think.)

Lead

• I think that some of the citations in the lead can be removed (but this may depend on how other changes are made), as per WP:LEADCITE. For example, that he is the first Slovenian to play in the NHL can be cited in the body, and does not need to be cited in the lead.

Other suggestions

• I know the 2016 World Cup of Hockey hasn't happened yet, but I think Kopitar has been named to Team Europe and I think I read somewhere that he was really excited (because he's often excluded from top international play based on being Slovenian).
• He was named Slovenian Sportsman of the Year in 2012. It is in a footer box, but not mentioned in the prose. It probably should be, no?

General comments

• @Kaiser matias: Okay, I've completed the first pass of the review. I'll check back in once the items above have been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. -- Saskoiler (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go over the article, definitely seems like you were thorough and put some work into it. It`s going to be a few days before I can properly address everything here, but I will get to it soon as I can. Most of it seems like it won`t take too much effort to resolve, so soon as I do I`ll let you know. Thanks again. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Kaiser matias: I see there's been a series of edits on the article, but no responses above yet. I wanted to let you know that I'm still around for another week or so, but then I'll be heading out on vacation for several weeks after that. Saskoiler (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, been busy taking care of some other things and just haven't had time to come back. I'm hoping I can get everything done by tomorrow, the next day at the latest. Definitely before next week though. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So have everything done, far as I can tell. If there are any specific issues please let me know, and I'll clean them up, but from what I see there are no major problems left. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Unfortunately, many of the review comments have not been addressed and remain outstanding. In its current state, this article does not pass the GA criteria in my opinion. My recommendation is to work through the review comments one-by-one, and respond to each above (inline) as you go. If any of my review comments are unclear, then let me know (inline), and I'll try to clarify. I can see that you've put some work in here, but without any inline comments, it's difficult to know which you've addressed. Saskoiler (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Saskoiler, I don't see any edits by Kaiser matias on the article since your post above three weeks ago, and only seven Wikipedia edits in total during that period. I think it may be time to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the ping to check on this as I've just returned from vacation. I agree that this should be closed after several weeks of inactivity. @Kaiser matias: There's a good base of material in this article. If the comments above are addressed and this article is resubmitted for GA status, I'd be happy to review. For now, I'm closing this nomination. Saskoiler (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anže Kopitar/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll give this a review shortly. Since last time this failed due to how long it took to get a review, I'll note the issues here and fix them myself and pass this, so long as the issues are minor. Wizardman 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome thanks for doing this. Anything you need let me know, will do what I can. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Checked lead and personal life today, as well as images and refs. So no issues with any of that, so so far so good. Wizardman 02:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumped down to playing style and made a couple copyedits to make the section flow slightly better. Also it should be renowned rather than renown. Hoping to get the two middle sections done this week. Wizardman 02:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, like the thoroughness of your review. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I got distracted by the Women in red project this month, so this slipped my mind. Nonetheless, did a read through today, and did one last week as well, and did not find any remaining issues. The only nitpick I have is that I really don't think the 2023-24 NHL season needs to be linked given how far away it is. I won't worry myself over it, and I'll pass the article. Wizardman 15:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome thanks for looking it over. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)