Talk:Miloš Zeman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Milos Zeman)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Nobleman?[edit]

Is he a Zeman (nobleman)? СЛУЖБА (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's just a surname, not unusual in the Czech Republic, see Zeman. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But does it mean that his ancestors were? Zeman (nobleman) says that on the territory of Slovakia 4.6% of the population belonged to the "Zeman" class. СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It is possible, but it wasn't mentioned in association with Miloš Zeman, as far as I can remember. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank You. Seems really strange that this question is not talked about. СЛУЖБА (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It's very much the same as with a surname "Mayer" or "Bauer" in German or "Kула́к" in Russian (I may not be using the latter one right) - maybe some of the bearers of this surname had such an ancestor in the 18th century or even further (which, of course, diminishes the importance of that, as that hypothetical ancestor would be responsible for just a tiny fraction - 1/2048 or so - of our new President-Elect's genome) who actually was in that nobility rank (which isn't that impropable - the population share of zemans was pretty much the same in Cisleithania as in Transleithania) or who was at least ironically called by that name.
However it is completely without any significance to either article - this or the one about zeman class (which, I see, You should probably revert to a previous version before Your edit). --Richard Sadílek —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The differance with "Kула́к" is that "Kула́к" was not official, it was even meant to be derogatory.
Yes, 1/2048 of the genome, but probably the same Y-haplogroup and subgroup.
Why does Zeman (nobleman) say that "Zeman" is specifically Transleithanian?
I disagree with You that it is unsignificant to the articles.
You're free to revert my edit, but I don't see what's wrong with it. Maybe it's better to wait for a consensus. СЛУЖБА (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You really can't read much about a person from their surname. Most surnames have been untouched and quietly passed down for centuries. He's no more a nobleman than Delia Smith is an ironmonger. - filelakeshoe 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course, nobility doesn't exist now in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But since he's so important to Czech history and has such a sounding surname, I think it's very important. Also, it is noteworthy that he would probably have been a nobleman had not his family lost this status in some occasion. СЛУЖБА (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't read too much into a surname. There are lots of paths that lead from ancient surnames to modern individuals. Many Italians (for example) have surnames denoting noble ranks but often this means a person's ancestor worked for a particular noble's household, rather than being a noble himself. Booker T. Washington chose his surname in honor of George Washington, rather than to show that he was a relation. Besides, the "he would probably have been a nobleman" is a bit too OR: if there is an actual reference point to his noble heritage, then please add it; but otherwise, it's just speculation. Konchevnik81 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand Your point. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Member of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia[edit]

The lead should mention his original party membership as well, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clesrever (talkcontribs) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Zeman was a member of the Communist Party since 1968 to 1970. He was expelled and later persecuted by communists for his opinions. It is mentioned in the article. Mentioning only his former Communist Party membership in the lead section would be biased and POV. I'm well aware that millions of Czechs have no sympathy for Mr Zeman, but we must be fair here. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.[edit]

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
  • "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."
More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"
Extended content

METHODOLOGY:

Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.

First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space [1], grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:

I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.

To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)"[2] and "Religion: None (atheism)"[3] in article space and found five pages:

So far, the local concensus on those five pges is favoring "Religion: None", but the issue is still being discussed so it is too soon to reach a conclusion.

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.
In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)