This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Ad recent edit (15:57, 7 Feb 2004 edit)
- change the wording, which is propably quite bad english, but I'd not like to see complete rv
So, IMO, if 1997 scandal and government crises was completely omitted in Klaus pages, article was concealing importat thing, in another words pro-Klaus biased. (Compare- Kohl would certainly also prefer to omit financial scandal from his biograpy.)
(by User:Wikimol, 17:07, 7 Feb 2004 UTC, than wikinewbie, unlogged, unsigned] (signature added Wikimol 21:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Comment on the Václav Klaus entry - Looks to me like a Klaus propaganda, you should research better. He is far more than 'controversial', the scandals that forced him from power as PM, the crooks he openly supports...
IMO there should be subsection "Controversy of Klaus" or so with all scandals, strange friends, failures as prime minister etc listed, with info how reliable for NPOV each item is.
(by User:80.218.59.177 20:38, 2 Aug 2004 , unsigned)
Vaclav Klaus is not as controversial as the person tried to claim. Wikipedia reflects the knowledge and opinions of its users. It is plausible that there exist people who believe various conspiratory theories that Klaus was guilty in various scandals, but because these people are not able to use Wikipedia and write meaningful statements about their wild speculations, these wild speculations don't appear on this page. Vaclav Klaus is currently one of the most popular Czech politicians - and the most popular political arm defined by the constitution. He was responsible for the economic transformation of Czechoslovakia, and - not surprisingly - the people who were not successful or those who expected the Velvet Revolution to make the Czech society even more communist than it was before - obviously these people were inventing complaints. This era is gone; Klaus has less serious responsibilities today, the anti-Klaus people are just gone, they have lost all the battles they wanted to fight, and in my opinion they are not relevant enough to be described at Wikipedia. History will forget about them, but history certainly won't forget Klaus. -- Lumidek 15:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about adding section "A Controversial Figure" section into the article? NPOV means all sides are fairly represented and now it feels much as Klaus propaganda. It could be put here first for review and to have trail and later moved to main page. Pavel Vozenilek
Is Vaclav Klaus of German descent? Is the answer is positive, is he a Sudeten German? Meursault2004 20:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In Czechia, there is no one of 'pure' blood. Since ages, this pot in the middle of Eastern Europe got people coming in from all around. Before WW2 Czechs, Germans, Hungarians, Jews, Poles, Roma, Slovaks, Ruthenians/ Ukrainians lived in Czechoslovakia, before WW1 the kingdom of Bohemia (included Moravia and part of Silesia - today called Czechia) was part of Austria-Hungary, in the middle ages, Italians, French among many other also came in... -- Wiki-vr 14:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMO the terms vandalism and spam should be used in their general Wikipedia meaning. Offensive remarks pushing some point of view are not vandalism since their purpose is not to damage the Wikipedia; of course sometimes they deserve deletion, but vandalism should not be given as a reason. Similarly, not every link someone dislikes is spam - link to a newspaper article obviously is not spam, since its purpose is not advertizing or PR. This refers to two recent edits. -- Georgius 09:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure that Spidla was acting president? Because Czech constitution has no term "actin president". When Czech Republic does not have any president then some authorities are assigned to Prime Minister and Chair of parliament while other authorities remains unassigned.
I think that more clean is to write that preceding president was Vaclav Havel.
-- Petr.adamek 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Czechoslovakian presidents: 1918–1935: Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937) 1935–1948: Edvard Beneš (1884–1948) Prezidenti v období rozpadu státu, jejichž prezidentství bylo v souvislosti s tím později anulováno: 1938–1939: Emil Hácha (1872–1945) 1939–1945: Emil Hácha, tzv. státní prezident 1939–1945: Jozef Tiso (1887–1947), prezident Slovenského státu (po té co přijal mnichovskou dohodu a abdikoval, byl Edvard Beneš v letech 1938–1945 v exilu) 1948–1953: Klement Gottwald (1896–1953) 1953–1957: Antonín Zápotocký (1884–1957) 1957–1968: Antonín Novotný (1904–1975) 1968–1975: Ludvík Svoboda (1895–1979) 1975–1989: Gustáv Husák (1913–1991) 1989–1992: Václav Havel (* 1936) Špidla wasnt president he was Premier of Czech repulbic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.158.112 ( talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If there's an actual consensus that the interview by Fund is actually worthless by folks who better understand Klaus' life and career than I do, I've got no problem with it, but I would note that the article at the moment isn't particularly rooted in source materials, the interview appeared in a journal (with an ideological orientation similar to Klaus' own, for better or worse) with a fairly wide circulation, and contains information that isn't in the entry itself. It is of some age, though (it's from June 1990), and I'm not emotionally wedded to it being part of the entry. I'll just note that I don't personally find the interview "worthless" and leave it to the consensus beyond that. Adbarnhart 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the tag, since there are quite a few parts which clearly contain too much spin and the section as a whole doesn't represent IMHO a NPOW. For example (but not only) the 2nd paragraph of this section. Also some other controversial statements in this section would benefit from references. Rgilnitram 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(by Vonkad 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)) The whole article is IMHO a bit biased against Klaus. I don't see any outright lies, but some things aren't reported fairly.
(1) The fact that people call him "Mr. professor", is quite normal. Academic titles generally play an important role in the Czech society.
(2) I do not understand the (repetitive) notes on corruption. Especially I don't remember having seen any proofs about his corruption.
(3) The remarks on the economic reform being unsuccesful are biased. The Czech Republic is doing reasonably, relatively to the rest of the Central and Eastern European countries. Apart (maybe) for Slovenia, I don't see any significantly better performing countries in the region.
The whole thing makes an impression of Klaus as an arrogant populist. He is definitely considered to be one by some part of the Czech society, but note that it is not a majority opinion. It is not even the typical opinion of more educated, more well-off etc. people. A healthy share of the Czech intellectual and other elite supports him.
What about the millions he stole through the privatisations in the 1990s, which he then said had been made on the US stock market (from a Czceh public servant's salary)? His corruption should be emphasised more here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.56.18 ( talk) 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Ptds ( talk) 14:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I can understand if some people don't like him, but Klaus's job approval sits at 82% in the Czech Republic ( http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-about-ipcc-panel.html) and this article hardly reflects this. Present positive aspects of the man as well as negative aspects. 70.16.18.49 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I removed the trivia section about the CNN bloopers. While amusing and well referenced, I don't think it belongs to this entry (perhaps to an entry about CNN). It doesn't document anything VK did or any criticism by others, it is just a slip of a tongue. It happens in the broadcast media all the time (sadly). However, if you still feel it is a piece of relevant information, feel free to revert it back. Martin 216.165.126.11 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence begins, "A delusional free market oriented economist and a relic of the Cold War,..." This is so biased. Even if he is exactly this, it can be stated so much more effectively, "Klaus is a self-assured, yet very much out of the mainstream, free market-oriented economist. Much of his current ideology is deeply influenced by his time living under communism. He is criticized as remaining too firmly rooted in the past -- a relic of the Cold War...." Hmm. That actually is good enough for me, and I don't think it changes the meaning of what anyone has up now. Gregconquest 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Ad recent edit (15:57, 7 Feb 2004 edit)
- change the wording, which is propably quite bad english, but I'd not like to see complete rv
So, IMO, if 1997 scandal and government crises was completely omitted in Klaus pages, article was concealing importat thing, in another words pro-Klaus biased. (Compare- Kohl would certainly also prefer to omit financial scandal from his biograpy.)
(by User:Wikimol, 17:07, 7 Feb 2004 UTC, than wikinewbie, unlogged, unsigned] (signature added Wikimol 21:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Comment on the Václav Klaus entry - Looks to me like a Klaus propaganda, you should research better. He is far more than 'controversial', the scandals that forced him from power as PM, the crooks he openly supports...
IMO there should be subsection "Controversy of Klaus" or so with all scandals, strange friends, failures as prime minister etc listed, with info how reliable for NPOV each item is.
(by User:80.218.59.177 20:38, 2 Aug 2004 , unsigned)
Vaclav Klaus is not as controversial as the person tried to claim. Wikipedia reflects the knowledge and opinions of its users. It is plausible that there exist people who believe various conspiratory theories that Klaus was guilty in various scandals, but because these people are not able to use Wikipedia and write meaningful statements about their wild speculations, these wild speculations don't appear on this page. Vaclav Klaus is currently one of the most popular Czech politicians - and the most popular political arm defined by the constitution. He was responsible for the economic transformation of Czechoslovakia, and - not surprisingly - the people who were not successful or those who expected the Velvet Revolution to make the Czech society even more communist than it was before - obviously these people were inventing complaints. This era is gone; Klaus has less serious responsibilities today, the anti-Klaus people are just gone, they have lost all the battles they wanted to fight, and in my opinion they are not relevant enough to be described at Wikipedia. History will forget about them, but history certainly won't forget Klaus. -- Lumidek 15:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about adding section "A Controversial Figure" section into the article? NPOV means all sides are fairly represented and now it feels much as Klaus propaganda. It could be put here first for review and to have trail and later moved to main page. Pavel Vozenilek
Is Vaclav Klaus of German descent? Is the answer is positive, is he a Sudeten German? Meursault2004 20:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In Czechia, there is no one of 'pure' blood. Since ages, this pot in the middle of Eastern Europe got people coming in from all around. Before WW2 Czechs, Germans, Hungarians, Jews, Poles, Roma, Slovaks, Ruthenians/ Ukrainians lived in Czechoslovakia, before WW1 the kingdom of Bohemia (included Moravia and part of Silesia - today called Czechia) was part of Austria-Hungary, in the middle ages, Italians, French among many other also came in... -- Wiki-vr 14:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMO the terms vandalism and spam should be used in their general Wikipedia meaning. Offensive remarks pushing some point of view are not vandalism since their purpose is not to damage the Wikipedia; of course sometimes they deserve deletion, but vandalism should not be given as a reason. Similarly, not every link someone dislikes is spam - link to a newspaper article obviously is not spam, since its purpose is not advertizing or PR. This refers to two recent edits. -- Georgius 09:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure that Spidla was acting president? Because Czech constitution has no term "actin president". When Czech Republic does not have any president then some authorities are assigned to Prime Minister and Chair of parliament while other authorities remains unassigned.
I think that more clean is to write that preceding president was Vaclav Havel.
-- Petr.adamek 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Czechoslovakian presidents: 1918–1935: Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937) 1935–1948: Edvard Beneš (1884–1948) Prezidenti v období rozpadu státu, jejichž prezidentství bylo v souvislosti s tím později anulováno: 1938–1939: Emil Hácha (1872–1945) 1939–1945: Emil Hácha, tzv. státní prezident 1939–1945: Jozef Tiso (1887–1947), prezident Slovenského státu (po té co přijal mnichovskou dohodu a abdikoval, byl Edvard Beneš v letech 1938–1945 v exilu) 1948–1953: Klement Gottwald (1896–1953) 1953–1957: Antonín Zápotocký (1884–1957) 1957–1968: Antonín Novotný (1904–1975) 1968–1975: Ludvík Svoboda (1895–1979) 1975–1989: Gustáv Husák (1913–1991) 1989–1992: Václav Havel (* 1936) Špidla wasnt president he was Premier of Czech repulbic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.158.112 ( talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If there's an actual consensus that the interview by Fund is actually worthless by folks who better understand Klaus' life and career than I do, I've got no problem with it, but I would note that the article at the moment isn't particularly rooted in source materials, the interview appeared in a journal (with an ideological orientation similar to Klaus' own, for better or worse) with a fairly wide circulation, and contains information that isn't in the entry itself. It is of some age, though (it's from June 1990), and I'm not emotionally wedded to it being part of the entry. I'll just note that I don't personally find the interview "worthless" and leave it to the consensus beyond that. Adbarnhart 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the tag, since there are quite a few parts which clearly contain too much spin and the section as a whole doesn't represent IMHO a NPOW. For example (but not only) the 2nd paragraph of this section. Also some other controversial statements in this section would benefit from references. Rgilnitram 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(by Vonkad 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)) The whole article is IMHO a bit biased against Klaus. I don't see any outright lies, but some things aren't reported fairly.
(1) The fact that people call him "Mr. professor", is quite normal. Academic titles generally play an important role in the Czech society.
(2) I do not understand the (repetitive) notes on corruption. Especially I don't remember having seen any proofs about his corruption.
(3) The remarks on the economic reform being unsuccesful are biased. The Czech Republic is doing reasonably, relatively to the rest of the Central and Eastern European countries. Apart (maybe) for Slovenia, I don't see any significantly better performing countries in the region.
The whole thing makes an impression of Klaus as an arrogant populist. He is definitely considered to be one by some part of the Czech society, but note that it is not a majority opinion. It is not even the typical opinion of more educated, more well-off etc. people. A healthy share of the Czech intellectual and other elite supports him.
What about the millions he stole through the privatisations in the 1990s, which he then said had been made on the US stock market (from a Czceh public servant's salary)? His corruption should be emphasised more here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.56.18 ( talk) 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Ptds ( talk) 14:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I can understand if some people don't like him, but Klaus's job approval sits at 82% in the Czech Republic ( http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-about-ipcc-panel.html) and this article hardly reflects this. Present positive aspects of the man as well as negative aspects. 70.16.18.49 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I removed the trivia section about the CNN bloopers. While amusing and well referenced, I don't think it belongs to this entry (perhaps to an entry about CNN). It doesn't document anything VK did or any criticism by others, it is just a slip of a tongue. It happens in the broadcast media all the time (sadly). However, if you still feel it is a piece of relevant information, feel free to revert it back. Martin 216.165.126.11 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence begins, "A delusional free market oriented economist and a relic of the Cold War,..." This is so biased. Even if he is exactly this, it can be stated so much more effectively, "Klaus is a self-assured, yet very much out of the mainstream, free market-oriented economist. Much of his current ideology is deeply influenced by his time living under communism. He is criticized as remaining too firmly rooted in the past -- a relic of the Cold War...." Hmm. That actually is good enough for me, and I don't think it changes the meaning of what anyone has up now. Gregconquest 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |