Talk:Vladimír Špidla

Comments

NPOV dispute

"... Stanislav Gross whose government will however not differ much from the previous one and was officially appointed on August 4. After a short hesitation Špidla accepted nomination to the European Commission.

Špidla is considered a part of CSSD's left wing (though he's strongly anti-communist); in foreign policy, he has always been strongly pro-European and supports further integration. His generally accepted image is a man of personal integrity and honesty (putting him at the top of Czech politicians) but a dry technocrat who couldn't communicate his undeniable statesman's vision to the public and wasn't even able to keep his own party in line as his predecessor did. His acceptance of the commission post was criticised as a "golden parachute", ousting the previous comparatively popular commissary appointed by his own government, but also as running away from his battle to steer the course of CSSD and Czech politics."

PROPHECIES IN WIKIPEDIA (viz Gross and his government) ? PHRASES FROM (antiCSSD) MEDIA, such as "golden parachute" ? And "...was criticised... " BY WHOM, WHAT ? Have you thoroughly read everything regarding to NPOV of wikipedia contributors ? Will YOU try to make more NPOV revision OR not ? Radoneme OCT 4, 2004

1. Re Gross and his government: will not differ much, as in does not in composition and program.
2. Golden parachute as a convenient, generally used shortcut term.
3. Was criticised, yes, by anti-CSSD media or political oopponents as well as pundits with some claim of impartiality; dissenting voices, even with an obvious agenda of their own, can't be ignored.
4. Yes, I have read the NPOV instructions thorougly (though of course hardly every single sentence ever written on that topic).
5. I don't see how to re-phrase this material so that you would consider it "more NPOV"; make some concrete suggestion and we'll see whether we can agree on that. --Malyctenar 05:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I just arrived on this page and the above paragraph also struck me as insufficiently neutral. The parts I think are subjective value judgements are:

"His generally accepted image is a man of personal integrity and honesty"

"putting him at the top of Czech politicians" -- suggesting a particular subjective characterisation of other Czech politicians)

"a dry technocrat" -- would everyone agree with this?

"his undeniable statesman's vision" -- would everyone agree with this?

"wasn't even able to keep his own party in line" -- this needs some references to back it up

"criticised as a golden parachute" -- this part is totally fine as long as it has a reference to such criticism, plus an attempt to present the other side of the argument too.

Randywombat (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)