This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The last section of this page ("Future of the SECI and SEE") states personal opinions and is written in first-person perspective (e.g. "I believe..." and "by my standards..."). It should either be removed or rewritten objectively and with citations.
Bl8y ( talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Done
@ Joel B. Lewis: You keep changing the lead without consensus. Please discuss the changes here that you want to make before editing the article. You cannot just simply remove a chunk of valuable information and it's source. Thank you! - Debrecenzo ( talk) 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The consensus of the article from the beginning has been to describe the participating countries as southeastern European. This has been unchallenged until March this year, when an editor started to make a point of stressing that one particular country, Hungary, is not usually called southeastern, but usually described as belonging to Central Europe. This was reverted by Joel B. Lewis, but has since been reintroduced in slightly differing versions by Perunslava and Debrecenzo plus a number of IPs, all of which possibly the same editor. Until today, not one single of the editors have tried to discuss this in the talk page in order to create a new consensus. Therefore, the old consensus is still standing. Today, Debrecenzo has started a section in the talk page with the title "Vandalism", but there is clearly no vandalism involved by any of the editors. I will reinstate the current consensus version, and I will start a RfC where I invite the involved parties and others to discuss in order to find out if there is a foundation for a new consensus. Personally, I so far remain neutral. -- T*U ( talk) 22:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is against mentioning Hungary as being a Central European country. Pincrete's suggestion to use "mainly Southeast European countries" was acceptable to the users who commented about it and the article has been modified to implement the suggestion.
Should the lede mention Hungary as being a Central European country? -- T*U ( talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see section "Is there a new consensus?" just above. -- T*U ( talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
"run by the countries in Southeast Europe"(which is rather awkward regardless) should be modified. Hungary can not be described as being in Southeast Europe, and the lede is misleading in this regard. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The last section of this page ("Future of the SECI and SEE") states personal opinions and is written in first-person perspective (e.g. "I believe..." and "by my standards..."). It should either be removed or rewritten objectively and with citations.
Bl8y ( talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Done
@ Joel B. Lewis: You keep changing the lead without consensus. Please discuss the changes here that you want to make before editing the article. You cannot just simply remove a chunk of valuable information and it's source. Thank you! - Debrecenzo ( talk) 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The consensus of the article from the beginning has been to describe the participating countries as southeastern European. This has been unchallenged until March this year, when an editor started to make a point of stressing that one particular country, Hungary, is not usually called southeastern, but usually described as belonging to Central Europe. This was reverted by Joel B. Lewis, but has since been reintroduced in slightly differing versions by Perunslava and Debrecenzo plus a number of IPs, all of which possibly the same editor. Until today, not one single of the editors have tried to discuss this in the talk page in order to create a new consensus. Therefore, the old consensus is still standing. Today, Debrecenzo has started a section in the talk page with the title "Vandalism", but there is clearly no vandalism involved by any of the editors. I will reinstate the current consensus version, and I will start a RfC where I invite the involved parties and others to discuss in order to find out if there is a foundation for a new consensus. Personally, I so far remain neutral. -- T*U ( talk) 22:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is against mentioning Hungary as being a Central European country. Pincrete's suggestion to use "mainly Southeast European countries" was acceptable to the users who commented about it and the article has been modified to implement the suggestion.
Should the lede mention Hungary as being a Central European country? -- T*U ( talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see section "Is there a new consensus?" just above. -- T*U ( talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
"run by the countries in Southeast Europe"(which is rather awkward regardless) should be modified. Hungary can not be described as being in Southeast Europe, and the lede is misleading in this regard. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)