Talk:Robert Fico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Slovakia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Slovakia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Fico's anti-reform approach

Recently, the part of sentence

Fico's communication with the media is sometimes arrogant and evasive.

was changed to

Fico's communication with the media is arrogant and evasive.

It means quantifying word sometimes was removed, in my view unjustly. Surely the Fico's communication with media is not always as claimed. That is why I am returning the word sometimes into sentence. By the way, this whole sentence is unsourced and critical, therefore potentially challengeable, but I am sure it will be possible to source it. Anyone? --Ruziklan (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not always"? :) How many times were all the daily and weekly newspapers published with a blank front page in recent weeks? :) The style he speaks with the media, the constant demanding of "more patriotic" content, the constant cry if he gets some critics, combined with the media "regulation" and the very recent law and all the other things can fill a full section. The word "sometimes" should be changed into constant, or simply removed. :--Rembaoud (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This all might be true, but as we are in the article of living person and therefore we should comply to WP:LIVING. In the meantime I have given it a second thought and your recent addition has prompted me to re-read the policy. It says in general:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
And further in the part about public figures:
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
So I have decided to remove all such material from the debated part. Anyone is welcome to take it back with proper sourcing. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. As a result whole section is more about government than abou him. This gave an idea of moving it somewhere else, to some article about Slovak government or something, where it would be more appropriate. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
User the {fact}} tag instead of deleting, than looking with big innocent eyes and speaking lulz, like above all. You are A) perfectly aware what am I saying (writing), since we live in the same country B) not aware, but has a say. I do not know wich is worse in this case. Do not delete anything ever, use {fact} instead. PS: I would be intrsted, where should be the sentences about Fico's relationship with the Slovak media moved from this article. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, we are on the same side, we both want to have Wikipedia better. Having unsourced statements about high profile person (besides being against Wikipedia policy) could only attract attention of someone who really does not like it and he might mess with other editors' work inappropriately in the best case.
When I was writing about "moving something somewhere", I had in mind the remaining part of section. When you read it, you see it is much more about situation in Slovakia and government policy than about Robert Fico personally. I was trying to find some more suitable article, but given the structure of articles about Slovak politics I was unable to find better. Rather I have uncovered that governements are often characterized in their prime minister's articles what is acceptable after all. So let's let the rest of section here. However its name seems inappropriate given the content. That is why I am going to change the name to Domestic policy that seems pretty neutral and precise to me. Anyone reading the text can make his own judgement about its relationship to reforms.
By the way it is still largely unsourced but as it is in my view well describing situation I see no reason to remove anything. To have sources would be nice, if anyone volunteers to find and insert them. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be just a minute harder to find what I found and linked, and add them here, instead of this useless and unneeded debate about (what it turned out) that we are agreeing :) unless you enjoy constantly apologizing for (or wish-washing or explaining) your actions. In that case, I haven't said anything...:) --Rembaoud (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is a common argument on Wikipedia, as to whether the responsibility should be on the editors who add information to provide sources, or if the responsibility should be on editors who wish to remove information, to try and find sources before they remove it. The community consensus is clear though: The responsibility on providing sources is on those who wish to add information, not on those who wish to remove it. Ruziklan's actions, on this article, were correct. However, Rembaoud, if you would like to add more sources, please do.  :) --Elonka 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the way the information is added now is ok, although it will undoubtedly require some copyediting as it is just sum of declarations, not smooth text.
Further, assessing sentence "The current Slovak government is everything but press-friendly." is taken from letter of blogger like me (I even have a blog in the same project as Michal Hudec) or anyone else, although it was published at Euroactiv website, yet still only as a letter to Editor, i.e. not exactly reliable source.
Also I would prefer if Rembaoud stopped analyzing my motivation and judging it. I am trying to be as impersonal and as objective as possible. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're that[1] blogger. I just guessed it untill now. introduce yourself in english too ;) Or at leastm translate this:[2] for Elonka :) --Rembaoud (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is really off-topic, I just remark that I do introduce myself on my userpage including link to blog. And the article is discussing Bertelsmann plan to print important part of German Wikipedia, noted also in Wikipedia Signpost, it has nothing to do with prime minister. Better not discuss this here anymore. --Ruziklan (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonono, the Elonka's experiment part, the last section, and for Elonka, not here. Btw I think, I'll buy the Slovak version too. :) Fico's article about his relationship with the media should be copiedited and expanded, you are right. -Rembaoud (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Because this article is about a living person, it falls under Wikipedia's policy of Biographies of living people. The policy is clear, that anything that is negative and unsourced is to be removed immediately and aggressively. Ruziklan was correct to remove such statements. They can be re-added, but only if they are linked to solid sources. See WP:BLP. --Elonka 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)