Talk:Ibiza affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"fabrication of the video"[edit]

There's a line in the article that reads as follows:

"Austria's newspaper of record, Wiener Zeitung, linked Germany's political activist group, Zentrum für Politische Schönheit, to the fabrication of the video, in view if its prior activity as well as the suspicious behaviour on Twitter, the group being the first to follow a new account that was the first in tweeting about the initial publication of the video."

I don't speak German so I can't read the linked article, but the word "fabrication" in English carries implications that the video is fake in some way. Is this what the Wiener Zeitung article is saying? If so, it should be made more explicit, since nothing else in the Wikipedia article implies that the video's content is not an accurate depiction of the meeting. If it doesn't, this verb should be changed to something more neutral, like "creation." --Jfruh (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Lets go with "creation". Alexpl (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I had the same thoughts / concerns and independently changed to creation yesterday Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV still applies[edit]

This is not the place for anyone to put forward their own interpretations, whether for or against the FPÖ. Somebody had added a statement in the lead that FPÖ wants to suppress the free press. That's a good example of what we can not say. And no, finding sources in which commentators make that interpretation is not enough to make that claim (although that could possibly go into Reactions, but then it needs to be made clear it's an opinion). Most of all, keep in mind that WP is not news. We do not want to be first with any news, nor first with any interpretations. We should of course have an article on this scandal, but it should be factual, not editorial. Jeppiz (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesnt sound like ist is classical news. Just name the WP-author and give a Link to the relevant edit, so that the sources can be checked. If the source is cited incorrectly, the statement has to be removed, if the source is a commentary, editorial or another opinion piece, it should also be removed. Alexpl (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately user MarvellingLiked keeps disrupting the article by inserting their own analysis over and over again. Apart from violating NPOV and BRD, the fact that the user also labels it as a minor edit makes me suspect it is intentional vandalism. If is editing in good faith, now is the time to read up on Wikipedia policies. Any further disruptions will be reported. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey. I'm sorry if it broke any rules. I assumed it wouldn't fall under WP: NPOV as it has been described repeatedly as such by multiple major news outlets (and the original articles that broke the story) in non-opinion style articles, so I wasn't aware it would be a violation in this case. I'll read up on the rules again. Just wanted to apologize if it is.MarvellingLiked (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi MarvellingLiked. No worries, but please remember that the fact that we have a source for an opinion does not make that opinion a fact, and we cannot present it as a fact. I'd also recommend reading up on what counts as a "minor edit" as many edits you marked as minor certainly aren't minor. Don't worry about this, though! Jeppiz (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not notable in ENGLISH-language Wikipedia[edit]

Okay, I'm being a little provocative, but to argue for a simple rule of thumb: If it's notable enough to English-speaking wikipedia readers, then there must be English-language sources that can be quoted. I don't *really* doubt this issue is newsworthy -- but I am profoundly concerned about and opposed to the growing use of non-English language sources on the English-language wikipedia. It makes no sense to me that Wikipedia is so (rightly) focused on sources, but then allows people to provide those that no one can check. Readers who can handle the German references can read the article in the German-language Wikipedia. By way of forcing the matter, which is really getting out of hand, could someone who knows how to do so please petition to remove the article for lack of notability... in the English-speaking world. Ta. alacarte (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

So just to get this straight, the article about the scandal that caused the collapse of the current Austrian government, triggered a snap election, resulted in the removal of a minister against their will, and generally led to unprecedented happenings, is not notable to you? Colonestarrice (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to replace the sources written in German with articles in English. Alexpl (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Foreign-language sources are are expressly permitted, and this is not the place to be arguing for a change in policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What is Strache smoking?[edit]

Is Heinz-Christian Strache smoking a hand-rolled cigarette at some point in the interior shots of the video? A marijuana blunt? EllenCT (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Russian" girl.[edit]

According to this source, the girl from the video was in fact a Bosnian student paid to for the role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolai.Loskov (talkcontribs) 04:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thats already in. See this edit. Alexpl (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)