Talk:Václav Klaus

Video on MSN Czech President Steals Pen

http://video.in.msn.com/watch/video/czech-president-steals-pen/1juqwx327 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.220.81 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I hope nobody minds that I launched a brand new talk page. The previous one imho did not meet its purpose and did not reflect the current state of the article - apart from the latest posts, that had remained untouched, though.

Bias: How to solve the issue?

This is by far the worst wikipedia article I have ever come across. It is loaded with weasel words and the vast majority is biased and without sources. It's absurd that there were citation needed tags over a year old. All this crap should have been removed instead of discussing it here. I removed the majority of unsourced portions and modified lots of the questionable language. This article is simply unacceptable. I'm going to be checking this article weekly now. Do not add baseless remarks and slander. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid.

For those of you who are apparently confused, I recommend you reread the following:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page."

--Elysianfields (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the discussed article matches hardly any principles, that are to be respected while posting comments on this site. Now, it appears to be more a complaint page of the people, that strongly dislike Václav Klaus and/or any right-wing activity on the Czech political stage.

Seconded. I'm reading the article for the first time. It feels anti-Klaus. Toby Douglass (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest all uncited statements, assumptions and speculations be cleaned up (which would compress the article to the minimum) so that we can start adding relevant information, supported by references and cited sources, and mentioning just facts, not opinions. The articles simply must be neutral, if there is any effort present to carry out the meaning of the word "encyclopedic". It is not a proper place, where opponents of any person should spit nails and slander or, on the other hand, where backers should praise them.

In addition let me express an important note aimed namely at the Czech users: Articles on English Wikipedia are read not only by the Czechs, but also by the rest of the World, by the people who know nothing about the Czech Republic and the political situation there. This means that although you are free to air your personal complexes here, an article on a Czech president gives opinion on the whole country to a foreign reader. Do not force these unwarped people to think the Czech Republic is just a kind of "banana republic", not worth mentioning at all. It is not true, you know it. They don't. And I doubt this pack of inconsistent and biased information makes any good to them nor to any other reader.

--Black&White (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. It has already came to my mind the article is biased before. That it makes a bad image (while IMHO untrue) of whole Czech Republic is a good point. -- Rikapt (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not political propaganda. That goes for you as well as those who dont have the same political thought as you. EvilEuropean (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly. This is why the article should not include bias and unreferenced facts and accusations. I tried to remove the most blatant ones while giving maximal effort to remain neutral. Hope I haven't failed totally and would welcome if others help to improve the article too - either by rewording biased sentences or providing citations. -- Rikapt (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have today had to revert an edit which kept in a source that I had added, but made it appear as if that source was saying something quite different than what it did. The result were sentences that were heavily anti-Klaus apparently backed up by a source. This sort of thing is, in my view, vandalism because it appears to make a source state something quite different than what it did. It's like having a sentence which says, "Travel faster than the speed of light is impossible.", attributed to Albert Einstein, then replacing the sentence with, "The Moon is made of cheese" — but leaving the Einstein attribution intact. By all means, other points of view can and should be added to the article. However, bring your own sources. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear wikisociety. I am new to this tool and therefore I do not dare to make direct amendments to the article. But I would like to ask those of you who have respect to the philosophy of wikipedia to help to sort this issue out. Development in Czech foreign affairs is indicating that Vaclav Klaus is going to get a lot of publicity and lot of media pressure for his controversial steps in delaying the Lisboa Treaty ratification process. I believe that curious people from many countries will turn to wikipedia for unbiased information. It would be quite hurtful, if this attempt to demean this politician was effective. Success of this vandalism would only strengthen this sort of behavior. Many thanks to anyone who reported biased content in this article before. Cipisek101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.139.145 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Klaus the economist" is very biased. I think it would be best just to delete it. "Klaus was the principal shaper of the Czechoslovak economic transformation." Is the last sentence that is more or less OK. The rest, phrases like " In fact, the voucher privatization has become viewed..." I think this kind of manipulative statement shouldn´t be on Wiki.Jarub (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of the problems in this article can be resolved by citations and atributing opinions to specific notable people. --Red King (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read the contribution of - Black&White (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 - again. He had an absolutely true point, unfortunately it is so up today. There has been no substantial change or revert to all these bias against Klaus since that time. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-election

I have tried to bring some more naturalistic English to the re-election section, but two points of fact need to be cleared up.

• I wasn't quite sure, from the original wording, what the problem was with the the 8-9 February ballot. Seemed to be implying that it was "stolen" or something, so I've reduced the whole, biased thing to one, vague word: "problematic". At some point, we need to give greater coverage to this first ballot. From the sound of things, it probably deserves an entire paragraph of its own, where various, cited opinions could be given.
• The allegations about the ODS "buying" or "coercing" the election really need to be cited. I've toned down the original language, but even so, it's something that needs citation.

CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes I've made to the section following the above note have mooted the point about the word "problematic". The word no longer appears in the section. However, if anyone has greater details about the balloting process, and can cite them, please include them. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating article

As far as the Czech Republic Project is concerned, this article would fairly obviously be of high importance. Klaus is indispensible to any encyclopediac knowledge of the modern Czech Republic. I've placed the quality at "Start" level simply because it needs review by editors who are native speakers of English. A lot of the sentences seem to be constructed well, on first read, but in subsequent attempts, the meaning of the author isn't clear at all. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Klaus is indispensable, so I promoted him to Top. Among general biographies, I'd say Mid - he's a head, but of a small state.

BTW, you might want to shorten your sig as shown above. --Malyctenar (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Russia-Georgia war

Hi there. There has recently been a disagreement between Klaus and his ministers regarding the 2008 South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia. Here are the sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Klaus know the European Economic Area?

The Organisation of European States already exists for those who just want a Free Trade Area: it is called the EEA (European Economic Area) and Norway is part of it.

So if Klaus doesn´t like the European Union (EU) I don´t know why he wanted to join the club. If he just wants a FTA then the Czech Republic could have joined just the EEA like Norway.

The reason is that Klaus just want to boycott the European Union from inside...but he must remember that all the European Treaties have been finally signed by the most Europhobic British including Thatcher who signed the Single European Act, Major the Maastricht Treaty which gave birth to the European Union and the European Currency and Economic Union.

There is no obligation to be part of the club: if you don´t like it LEAVE, fucking bastard.

The fact is that Klaus was actually opposed to Czech Republic joining EU and he wanted to just join EEA and failing that, since Czech Republic already joined EU, he wants to work within EU to reverse the trend to become the United States of Europe. He is for Free Trade and economic integration and against political, financial, social and cultural integration of Europe. To me his position seems very consistent in this regard. This like it or leave it type of thinking is not very democratic in any sense, and since this actually becomes a part of the official policy of EU recently, you might see a source of opposition to such policies from someone who spend his life under the rule of communism. Aralin (talk)

Return private properties and lift the Benes Decree

If Vaclav Klaus really believed in Capitalism, Liberalism and private property he should return the private properties which were stolen to million of Czech citizen by the Communist Government just for their ethnic origin.

There are thousands of Czech citizens of German origin living in Germany whose properties were confiscated by Benes the same way as Cubans suffered from Fidel Castro.

If Klaus believes in Democracy, Liberalism and Capitalism, he SHOULD return these private properties to their legal owners and recognize again as Czech citizens to those Czechs now living in Germany. Klaus should be thinking just about individuals with equal rights, not making distinction just for their ethnic origin.

Repect human rights and private property!!

This is a very sensitive topic in Czech Republic. The ownership of land and property by Czech citizens of German origin was a basis for Hitler to argue in Munich and be granted by England and France in Treaty of Munich the right to a large part of land in Czech Republic on the border with Germany. This land is a hard to cross mountain belt around the country, which had all the fortifications and was indispensable part of defense of the country. Many argue that if Czech Republic was not betrayed and did not lose this part of land, the World War II would basically end with a border battle between Czech Republic and Germany, which could go either way. Large part of the military industry Nazi Germany used in WW II was in Czech Republic and they got it for free thanks to Munich Betrayal as it is known in Czech Republic.

So you cannot reasonbly expect that Czech Republic would want to put itself willingly back into this position ever again. In face every treaty we sign, like joining the EU has explicit agreement to keep Benes decrees in place. Also if we talk about human rights, what about respecting actual human right to live? If the germans did that, they would never lose that property in the first place. The property was not confiscated because of ethnic origin, but because of collaborating with occupying country during war. A country which committed genocide in the course of the occupation during the same war. And it was not confiscated by the Communist Government, but by a democratically elected government years before the communists even came to power.

Your statements are so devoid of fact and full of misrepresentation and bias as is the entire article about Vaclav Klaus. Aralin (talk)

Actually, what can be reasonably expected is that the Czech Republic should either respect basic human rights or be treated as an international pariah state. Since under the ironically Nazi-like government of Vaclav Klaus, the former is clearly not going to happen... 75.76.213.106 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Klaus is, thank goodness, not the head of government. The president has for the most part only a ceremonial role with little real power.—Emil J. 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

does this say what the author intended?

In Critique of anthropogenic global warming , in third para: "and asked for readers opposing the term "scientific consensus", saying that... "

meant to say "asked for readers to realize he opposed the term...." Or what? Carlw4514 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion: Atheism?

Is there any source for the claim that Václav Klaus is an atheist? I heard he attends holy masses of the Hussite Church. (Or, at least, declares himself a member of the church.) --Liberal Nationalist 12:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Nationalist (talk • contribs)

In this czech magazine Týden is : "Také Václav Klaus, sám člen Československé církve husitské tehdy (Also, Václav Klaus, himself a member of Czechoslovak Hussite Church).... http://www.tyden.cz/rubriky/domaci/papez-v-cesku/vlazne-prijeti-a-ateismus-cechu-pisi-svetove-agentury_140667.html , but this need better source...--H11 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the information in the infobox, since my source - Czech magazine Týden - cites the ČTK (Czech Press Agency) and the APA, (Austrian Press Agency). It is possible to find out more, but I consider these sources reliable enough. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I Ask Consensus for a Substantial Rewrite of this Article by a Native English Speaker

It is very clear this article was not written by someone who speaks English as a first language. Contributions by non-English speakers should be welcomed and encouraged, however, in view of the high standards of grammar and syntax necessary for an encyclopedia, composition should be done only by people with a native command of English. There are so many grammatical deficiencies in this entry that it would take months to edit if we vet each through the talk page. For efficiency, I ask consensus for approval to engage in a major revision of the mechanical structure of this entry, while leaving all facts untouched. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting shouldn't need lots of discussion, unless you have somehow changed the meaning of the content. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

When it’s a controversial entry – such as Klaus - and there’s lots of copyediting there’s a need for lots of discussion. I always exercise an overabundance of caution to avoid being accused of “disruptive editing” when I make edits to controversial entries. I want to make sure all contributors feel their opinions are being respected and the editing is occurring in good faith prior to it starting. This is my personal editing style. You may have a different one. Neither is right or wrong, just different. I hope you choose to be tolerant of mine as I am of yours.

Re your “unless you have somehow changed the meaning of the content” comment; please AGF. Thank you, I appreciate your contributions. Nothughthomas (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing in my post that assumed you were going to do anything bad, so please stop implying that I was accusing you of anything untoward, as I was not. What were your thoughts on restructuring this article? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't imply that I was implying that you were accusing me of anything untoward. I was not. Let's not let a noticeboard issue spill across here. Thank you. My thoughts on restructing this article are detailed in my opening message. Best Regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "unless you have somehow changed the meaning of the content" is actually what you said, in a slightly different form. You wrote "For efficiency, I ask consensus for approval to engage in a major revision of the mechanical structure of this entry, while leaving all facts untouched." You have not detailed how you wish to restructure this article. How are you planning on doing this? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we are having some communication issues that eclipse this entry. If you have a genuine interest in this entry, and Vaclav Klaus, it would be wonderful to continue this discussion with you. As it is, your immediate materialization in any entry in which I attempt to participate is either a massive coincidence or belies something else. I'm interested in discussing the Vaclav Klaus entry with persons interested in the breadth and quality of wikipedia entries about Czech politics. I'm sorry I can't provide what you're looking for here. Best Regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell us what structural changes you are planning on making. You have not stated this as of yet. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tbsdy lives - I'm not going to engage you in a confrontation. Following me from entry to entry won't change that. I'm here to contribute to wikipedia, not have a gladitorial bout. Please email me directly if you have any questions, however, I can't respond to you on discussion boards any more. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange answer from someone who was willing to do a total rewrite of this article. However, from your response I take it that you will not be making any structural changes to this article. If you do decide to do so, then please advise us of what you have planned. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm more interested in maintaining a productive edit and discussion atmosphere here than making the edits I discussed, even though I think they're still necessary. If I have to bow out of this entry moving forward because of some communication issues we're having I'm willing to do it for the benefit of the community. Thank you again for your contributions. Nothughthomas (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]I would like to know what changes you wish to make also? mark nutley (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

None at this point. I am earnestly attempting to disengage from entries User:Tbsdy lives is confronting me in to maintain WP:CIVIL, thus far without much luck. Please feel free to contact me directly if you need additional information on what my original issues with this entry were. Thanks much. Nothughthomas (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have issues with this article, there should be no reason why you can't detail them here. I am not opposed to you making changes, but they sound like they are to be substantial so it's only reasonable to ask what sort of changes you have planned and the issues you have a problem with. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason. This entry, specifically, is too important of a resource to be dragged into the issue you have with me and are battling out across 5 different entries concurrently. I can't risk this entry to this. It's too important. Please stop doing this to me. I'll do whatever you tell me to do, just please leave me alone. Nothughthomas (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please detail what issues you have with this article. That is all I'm asking. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy - once again, I will not engage you in any discussion in any entry any longer. Especially this one. It is far too important to let a personality conflict disrupt it. Please. I don't know what else to say to you. Within minutes of me posting a noticeboard complaint against you began following me from entry to entry, engaging me in a very aggressive manner. I know this is a virtual environment but I'm a real human being. I deserve to be treated like one. Please stop doing this to me. Nothughthomas (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article talk page. It is designed to discuss the article's subject matter. If you have specific issues with the article, please let us know what these are. If you don't have any issues, or you wish to discuss something about myself that is not article related, then the best mechanism to use is my user talk page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]If you wish to get a consensus from other editors you really need to outline your proposals here, if you feel tbsdy is harrasing you then make a complaint to an admin. mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A noticeboard complaint is what caused him to become enraged and follow me from entry to entry in the first place. That's why he's here at Vaclav_Klaus for the first time in his wikicareer. I'm trying to promote the idea that disengagement at this point may be the best medicine and will be taking a few days break to allow things to cool down. I don't want to be WP:BAIT'ed and say something I might regret, nor do I want to risk this entry, which is very important; much more important than me, anyway. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now now Nothughthomas, you wouldn't want to assume bad faith... please, AGF. Now, if you could please outline what changes you want to make to this article, that would be great. Otherwise, unless you have something else to discuss about the subject matter, please leave this talk page alone. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. I said simple copyediting. That's it. Simple copyediting. That's the first message. What more do you want of me? Why are you doing this to me?Nothughthomas (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what you said. You said that you wanted to make "a major revision of the mechanical structure of this entry". If you just want to do copyediting, then go right ahead. If you wish to make major structural changes, it would probably be best to outline them here first. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please. Please. Please stop. I said "mechanical structure" (mechanical structure=parantheticals, punctuation, spelling, grammar). What more do you want of me? I can't do this. I just can't. You've brought me to tears. Please stop it. Please. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to everyone who had to read this. If there's anything I could have done to stop it I would have. I've just had a heart tremor (I'm okay, I just needed to pop a medication I'm on) and am now going to have to more firmly enforce my wikibreak. I'm trembling now from this experience and I just can't risk my health over this. I'm not strong enough to do this. I strongly encourage another contributor to please do a mechanical fix on this entry. Thank you and goodbye everyone. I'll still be checking my email so encourage my wikifriends to keep in touch that way. God bless. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]User:Tbsdy i would request you refrain from any further comments towards User:Nothughthomas until such a time as this conflict is looked into. Thank you --mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no probs. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

largest center-right political party?

Civic Democratic Party, the Czech Republic's largest center-right political party. - It was when Klaus was the chairman and later under Mirek Topolánek. Now it has approximately the same popular support as TOP 09. --Dezidor (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC) It is not the truth. ODS (Civic Democratic Party) is largest center-right party. Top09 is smaller. 81.90.174.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC).

Where is the story of the stolen pen?

where is the story of the stolen pen? --188.161.164.2 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the story of the stolen pen? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Pen-pinching-Czech-President-an-internet-hit/tabid/417/articleID/206928/Default.aspx

The story is not worthy of publishing. The pen is traditionally a gift so was his to take. 118.209.72.232 (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It made a considerable splash on world news. The commentators I heard suspected that the 'gift' story was a diplomatic glossing over of a potentially embarrassing incident. However, it was offered as an explanation, and this should be included (in NPOV form) in the account here of the incident. Koro Neil (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question. It was removed twice by other editors. See my response below. DubiousIrony ^yell 19:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A thorough refutation of Pen-Censorers and their actions

On April 14th this video was posted to YouTube, showing the subject of this article pocketing a pen during a state visit to Chile while Sebastian Pinera looks on. The video became an internet hit and was widely covered in international media.

• On the morning of April 14th an editor added to story to the article and was reverted by Anthony Rubin who wrote "remove "pen stealing" incident, sourced to a blog entry". Yes, it was sourced to a blog entry. Still, the blog was syndicated on Yahoo! News with clear link to a Reuters story for more details. Instead of reverting the very new user's contribution, why not assume good faith and instead add another, better source?
• Later that night, I—independently—created the article 2011 Chilean Pen Theft. It has since been expanded on and contributed to by many editors, but as many new articles do it suffers from a lack of inbound links. I decided to start fixing this problem by adding a short mention of the event to the Václav Klaus article. I sourced Time (1) and the Kansas City Star (2) and the UK Telegraph (3). My contribution was reverted. The editor did not even think to explain why or include an edit summary. I urge the editor to read the guidelines at WP:EDITSUMMARY. When you revert a good faith edit without an edit summary (something me and many editors reserve only for vandalism) you're essentially saying "your contribution to this article was so clearly and obviously worthless that I don't need to give a reason for undoing it: every single reasonable person will understand why".
• On April 15th I re-added the information to the article. I don't do edit wars, but since the editor who reverted my contribution failed to provide a rationale for doing so I felt it was justified. Soon after, Anthony Rubin reverted my edit, writing "Sourced? Yes. Notable? No." I take great issue with this statement and would appreciate if you gave me some of your time so I can thoroughly refute it.

Notability: this story has it

• Notability: this story meets and exceeds the General Notability Guidelines.
  • Significant coverage. I count 561 articles about this event on Google News.
  • Reliable. CNN, Time, CSM, ABC News are just some of the sources that are actively used in the main article.
  • Sources. Valid secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS as demonstrated above.
  • Independent of the subject. Check.
• Reliable sources? meets and exceeds per above rationale.
• Satisfy WP:NEWSEVENT? IMO yes, although you can debate the finer points. While it can be argued that the event does not have lasting historical significance, it does satisfy the "widespread international coverage" requirement and analysis. Moreover, it satisfies all other criteria: duration of coverage, depth of coverage and diversity of sources.
  • "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" from WP:NEWSEVENT
  • "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" from WP:NEWSEVENT on lasting effect
  • See also: notability is not temporary
• Finally, many, many statements in the article do not have anywhere near the level of coverage by the kind of reliable sources that this event has received. This article has eight {{citation needed}} tags. Many statements are only backed up by a brief mention in a Czech-only website. Yet when three separate editors add a two sentence mention of a incident covered by Time, CNN, ABC News, CSMonitor and over 500 other articles (not even counting non-English media!) you revert it with a WP:VAGUEWAVE at policy, calling it non-notable? Are you serious? DubiousIrony ^yell 20:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS; the appearance of the event on news articles (most of which are probably copies of the same news article) does not make it notable. As for WP:NTEMP, that leans against listing this incident, as this incident's notability clearly is temporary. Can one imagine a real encyclopedia (online or print), such as Brittanica, mentioning it? I think not. I don't see how it could possibly qualify under WP:NEWSEVENT, but that's not the proper guideline in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to your concerns on Talk:2011_Chilean_Pen_Theft#Should_be_deleted. I'd like to mention that we are obviously reading WP:NTEMP very differently. It states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". I'm not really sure how to rephrase it to show what I understand it to be, so I'll just try to repeat it: once an article has received ongoing coverage (check), from reliable (check), independent (check), diverse (check) sources it does not need ongoing coverage to remain notable. Which particular part of WP:GNG and WP:NEWSEVENT does coverage of this event violate? You say WP:NEWSEVENT does not apply. The subject is an event that has been widely reported in the news. That is a news event. DubiousIrony ^yell 08:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Although I disagree with calling it theft, I think it should be kept in the article. It made waves almost as high as Klaus' refusal to sign Lisbon Treaty. This is the kind of thing people remember, and there should be a direct wikilink on Klaus' page to factually accurate and neutral article covering the issue (I hope that 2011 Chilean Pen Theft will have this attributes in near future). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I came to this article yesterday while researching additions to the article "List of international political sex scandals". When I read the section "Personal life", I got a very bad taste in my mouth where it states that Klaus's second extramarital affair "was treated by both the press and the public with remarkable sympathy".

Today, I decided to flag the article for "Weasel Words" and write an explanation on the Discussion page. What a pleasant surprise--according to the "Bias: How to solve the issue?" section, this article has a history of problems with "Weasel Words".

Regarding the specific problem in the "Personal life" section of the article:

1. I have lived in the Czech Republic for the last 20+ years, including when the story about Klaus's second extramarital affair broke. It was NOT "treated by both the press and the public with remarkable sympathy".
2. The article cites "Hejma, Ondřej (5 February 2004). 'Klausova milenka: Je to génius' (in Czech). Mladá fronta DNES (Czech Republic)" as the reference for the "weasel words". Most readers of the "Vaclav Klaus" article probably cannot read the cited article because it is written in Czech. The cited article is an interview in a pub with Klaus's second girlfriend, Klára Lohniská! Of course, it is sympathetic! Moreover, the cited article appears in the "Revue" section of Mladá fronta DNES's website; this section is Mladá fronta DNES's contribution to tabloid journalism. In other words, the citation is garbage.
3. For every biased fluff article that claims to show "remarkable sympathy" for Klaus's second extramarital affair, I can produce a reference to show displeasure with Klaus's infidelity. How about Czech political analyst Michal Semín's comment: "Moralizování z úst člověka, který se dopouští nevěry, je bezobsažné. Pakliže jde o opakované selhání, mělo by se přemýšlet o rezignaci" [translation: "Moralizing from the mouth of a man (Klaus) who commits adultery is empty. Given his repeated transgressions, he should consider resigning."]

Proposed Fix

The original author should remove the weasel words. Otherwise, after a month, I will remove them myself. ProResearcher (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User ProResearcher, you can´t expect anything like sympathy or empathy for any head of state (except for Václav Havel) from Czech tabloid press. Rather you can expect antipathy, hidden attacks, and attempts to make the person ridiculous ("je to génius"). And MF Dnes is nothing else than tabloid press, even in its print edition. There is scarcely any really serious newspaper in the Czech Republic. So please do not take any news or comments from Czech tabloids for granted, as a source of reliable information giving you the right to sharply criticize e.g. Václav Klaus or Petr Necas. Maybe you have lived in the Czech Republic very long, but how good is your knowledge of the sad Czech history, traditions, mentality, the Svejk phenomenon, the moral collapse during World War II and the long period of communist rule, the obvious tendency for self-pitty etc.? And "Czech political analyst Michal Semín's comment"? I don´t give a penny for such comments from people who want to get the status of VIP. What about extramarital affairs of JFK, Bill Clinton, Mitterrand, Jacques Chirac, Louis XIV and Henry VIII? Some of them, maybe not all, were still great statesmen. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Refused entry to the Australian parliament

Breaking story.[6] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No great story, no problem for Václav Klaus. -- Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange behaviour

User 87.110.42.8(talk) suggested that "Václav Klaus died on 22 December 2011", then reverted it himself. What is this? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Vaclav Klaus ethnic German?

The surname "Klaus" is Germanic not Slavic

There are many Czechs with German ancestry like the players Jan Köller and Patrik Berger

Thank you

Humanbyrace (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Klaus is not ethnic German. Modern theories of nationality, of ethnic origin do generally not accept arguments that somebody with a German-sounding name must necessarily be ethnic German and not a Czech or Frenchmen or American. By the way, Klaus´ mother had a Czech-sounding surname, as far as I know. Jan Koller (not Köller) is "very Czech" in his way of life, and I am not sure how far in the past his "German ancestry" can be traced. Etc. etc. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

until 1946 there had been many Germans living within the Czech lands for centuries. Many Czechs have some German/Austrian ancestry (and most Germans living in the Czech lands had some Czech ancestry). But just because you have a German great-great-grandperent and may have a German-based name, does not mean that you are German and not Czech. in the end the thing is that categorising people by ethnicity is not allways that easy - but in the case of culture and nationality V. Klaus is Czech without any doubt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.114.106 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

and i'm pretty sure (i don't know for fact) that Klaus would call himself Czech16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.114.106 (talk)

You can't make a statement about someone's ethnicity based solely on your analysis of their surname. The only difference between "Karel Kreuzer" and "Karel Krejcár" is that someone in the latter's family at some point decided to change the spelling of the surname, just because they didn't doesn't make them ethnically anything one way or another. The surname may have been unchanged for generations. Could most British people be considered "ethnic German" because of the Saxons? - filelakeshoe 16:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 Amnesty

My contribution, deleted today by another editor, was the following:

"Although this amnesty was widely criticized in the Czech Republic, often for political reasons in connection with the campaign for the ongoing presidential elections of January 2013, it was also reminded that Klaus´ predecessor Václav Havel dispensed three amnesties while Czechoslovak and later Czech president (1989-2003). Havel´s first amnesty of January 1990 was the largest post-war one. Some 23,000 people, or two thirds of then 31,000 prisoners in then 15 million Czechoslovakia, were released from prison."

In my opinion, this statement was correct. There was a reliable source for the second part of this statement. The first part (concerning the criticism of Klaus´ 2013 amnesty) is also a commonly known fact. My intention is to place the statement in the article again. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Havel's amnesty is irrelevant, the situation in the early 1990's was totally different. It could be mentioned in a hypotetical stand alone article about the 2013 Amnesty, but it is irrelevant for this article, which is about Václav Klaus. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that the amnesty was criticized: ...often for political reasons in connection with the campaign for the ongoing presidential elections of January 2013... is questionable and POV, as it was criticized from many points of view. The most widely cited reason of criticism was president's stop to large and long running unresolved court cases regarding high profile and publicly known economic delicts. At least from what I can see in the media. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My view is that a comparison with Havel's amnesty may be drawn. A comparison was made in the source, and I have now only cited this source. There were some other voices saying that Havel released mostly political prisoners, while Klaus released economic criminals. However, in 1990 Havel very hastily released a great number of real and dangerous criminals. He was sharply criticized by some for his notorious idealism in this case and at that time. As to other implications of Klaus´ amnesty, I don´t go into details, because this would be quite futile. We don´t know exactly who was really released, if there were many economic delinquents among the released persons and who they were. Do you know these details, user Vejvančický? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Several big financial fraud cases" have been stopped "because court proceedings have lasted for more than eight years" (BBC). The mass pardon included some of the well known court cases, here are some of the names: František Chvalovský Tomáš Pitr, Karel Srba or Petr Lukeš, who is called a "president's friend" in the media [7], [8]. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic now has to resolve complaints against the amnesty by senators and lower Czech courts. Those are the most important and up-to-date facts. Havel's amnesty is given undue weight, because the comparison is unimportant in the context of this event. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See also this article (published by The Economist blog): "But it was another provision, known as the Article II, that has triggered a heated debate in the media, public protests, a vote of no confidence in parliament, and two constitutional complaints. With his amnesty, the president also stopped ongoing criminal proceedings that have lasted longer than eight years under one condition, which is that defendants face at most 10 years in jail. This category happens to include several notorious embezzlement and fraud cases that signify the wild post-communist overhaul of the economy in the 1990s, which was spearheaded by Mr Klaus." --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alma Mater

listing Cornell University as Klaus' Alma Mater doesn't seem correct to me. His official biography says he was there in 1969. He doesn't have any Cornell awarded degree. Igor Klimeš (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, alma mater is "a school or college from which an individual has graduated or which they have attended," which suggests that listing Cornell might be justifiable. But I'm not sure about the meaning of the word "alma mater" in the context of English language. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxford advanced learner's dictionary 7th edition says: "The school, college or university that somebody went to". Which also is not a 100% clear statement. In my understanding either enrollment to a full programme or the achievement of the academic degree justifies the Alma Mater reference. In this article it is referring to a visit not longer than one or two semesters, to my reckoning this doesn’t qualify. But it will probably need native English speaker to solve. Igor Klimeš (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Václav Klaus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624230526/http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus.shtml to http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501000000/https://www.ufm.edu/cms/es/honorary-doctoral-degrees to https://www.ufm.edu/cms/es/honorary-doctoral-degrees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404031958/http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1261666.php to http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1261666.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419000000/http://www.lrp.lt/lt/prezidento_veikla/apdovanojimai/apdovanojimai_256/p40.html to http://www.lrp.lt/lt/prezidento_veikla/apdovanojimai/apdovanojimai_256/p40.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501000000/https://www.ufm.edu/cms/es/honorary-doctoral-degrees to https://www.ufm.edu/cms/es/honorary-doctoral-degrees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624230526/http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus.shtml to http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Breivik

Since he inspired him where can it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.163.253 (talk • contribs)

Firstly please provide some sources, the one you added here doesn't mention Klaus. I also don't think we should be giving too much weight to "who Klaus inspired" in the article on Klaus, especially if we're going to be selective and only mention mass murderers, which isn't particularly WP:NPOV. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/norwegian-gunman-sought-weapons-in-prague seems to corroborate, if it's an RS. And, usually people inspired by and vice versa are mentioned (in an infobox too), so it would be biased if the negatives are left out... 86.159.163.253 (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Václav Klaus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006195045/http://recolumns.blogspot.com/2010/10/vaclac-klaus-exposed.html to http://recolumns.blogspot.com/2010/10/vaclac-klaus-exposed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104202706/http://www.fundacionfaes.org/en/documentos/gotagota/show/00786 to http://www.fundacionfaes.org/en/documentos/gotagota/show/00786
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040317235547/http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus_projevy.shtml to http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus_projevy.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Trikolora

Hi User:Bedivere.cs, you added some references in the infobox and categories to Tricolor, but the party is not mentioned in the main text of the article. Could you clarify what these additions mean? Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)