Talk:Miloš Havel

NPOV template

Should the NPOV template be removed or kept in-place? Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Remove No reason given for addition of template on Talk page, and no reasonable evidence of NPOV issues. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I added the template on March, 3, and commented in the summary: "the article seems only negative while the sources the article uses are also positive (e.g.http://www.apparatusjournal.net/index.php/apparatus/article/view/25/101 "ambiguity... does not allow us to paint his character simply black or white."))" As Chetsford is the creator of and so far the only contributor to the article, it is obvious he cannot see NPOV issues because otherwise he himself would amend the article (assumin good faith). WikiHannibal (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiHannibal - I do agree that it's always difficult for us to recognize our own bias so if I am unwittingly biased against Miloš Havel and have exhibited such a bias in writing the article, then I apologize. I definitely welcome any improvements to the article. Would you mind updating the article by adding RS content to make it NPOV and then removing the template? Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiHannibal - as it's been four days and you haven't followed with any changes to the article, I've gone ahead and implemented an edit by introducing the only specific objection you made in your above statement here: [1]. As the absence of this quote was, thus far, the only specific objection to the article's NPOV you've expressed I've also taken the liberty of removing the NPOV tag. If I misunderstand and this does not resolve your issues, please let me know. Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I started to look into your sources, but I could not check your sources properly. The first thing I came across is Miloš Havel as the owner of "Orbis Verlag". I doubt he was. Can we resolve this issue before moving on to improving the article? Bcs you also created the article Orbis Verlag, which is I think more important than Miloš Havel. So for the time being I deleted the sentence until we can establish the following:

1) Is the source of such info just the first page by Margry available free via your link, or do I need to look into the article itself? If so, could you specify the page number (and if possible add the quote to the notes in the article)? Because the first page says Havel owned 15% of Aktualita, not Orbis.

2) The worldcat link to books by Moravec includes titles published by Prague, "Orbis" Print. and Pub. Co.; the other source, the article by Margry, says "Orbis Ltd." None of them says "Orbis Verlag". The books by Moravec were published by the major Czech publishing company "Orbis" (e.g. 1, 2, 3), which was at that time basically state-owned with political parties deciding on what to publish. (cs:Orbis, http://www.slovnikceskeliteratury.cz/showContent.jsp?docId=1849) In any case, we might assume the publishing house "Orbis" published many books, and to single out one author (Moravec) is not neutral (it is negative). Also books by Moravec were published by other publishing houses in 1930s and 1940s.

Among other non-neutral things is, for example, and based still on that one source, that you did not mention, in some form, that "Without his decision to invest in modern studios, Czech film production of the late 1920s and 1930s would have probably continued to border on amateurism. Without his relationships with both Czech and later German officials, the field might have dwindled or come to an end during economically and politically challenging times." and "His studios in Barrandov [...] were to become part of the centralised German cinema industry, and he was forced to sell his share in the company. He remained in charge, and, according to his statements after the war and testimonies of others, did everything in his power to protect both the creative and the below-the-line personnel from forced labour in Germany. He also made sure that the studios would still be used for Czech production as well." So I am editing the sentence to reflect this opinion. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, WikiHanibal - thanks! I trimmed eight words in the second sentence of the first section as it didn't exist in the source but I think your edits look great. Chetsford (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence you removed ("and protected its staff from forced labour in Germany.") is my shortened version of the quotation above ("and, according to his statements after the war and testimonies of others, did everything in his power to protect both the creative and the below-the-line personnel from forced labour in Germany."), which is in the source. Could you please comment on the problem with Orbis Verlag? It would be great to have an English apge on the company but I am afraid the current version of the article, and the connection to Havel, are not true. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)