This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
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.
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. -
filelakeshoe01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.
(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.
"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.
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.
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)reply
I have just modified 3 external links on
Miloš Zeman. 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:
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.
I have just modified one external link on
Miloš Zeman. 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:
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.
I've noticed a minor disagreement over the leading image of the article. It looks that there are two pictures of Mr Zeman preferred by two groups of editors. None of the images is particularly controversial or dishonesting, in my opinion. Please, could we determine consensus in a discussion instead of blind reverting? See also more images at
commons:Category:Miloš Zeman.
Vejvančický (
talk /
contribs)
09:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
What Vejvančický said. I'm finding the edit wars about "resting expression" pretty lame. Both photos have neutral enough facial expressions. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
11:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
This image is much better, the other one is closer to present but in much worse quality of capture. Adolf Hitler wikipedia page also don't have portrait in 1945, but the one taken more professionally. --
Mujdeda (
talk)
19:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Regarding
this edit by
User:Cimmerian praetor, I'm not sure I'm happy with the resulting text. The edit basically removed all political content from the section and left material sourced by Blesk, which is not a reliable source. I agree that the unsourced material should have been removed, but what is left seems to put
undue weight on NPOV tabloid gossip, over Zeman's actions when a politician. Unless a source can be found for the rest (which I will look for now) I think the whole lot should go.
Jdcooper (
talk)
17:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Blesk may be tabloid, but in the sourced article he is quoted directly. Therefore it is a good source as far as the quotes go.
If you want to search further, I remember him raising the same points during his speech to the general assembly of the Council of Europe. Needless to say, given that concealed carry is banned in most of Europe, his audience was puzzled to say the least. Good luck searching.
Cimmerian praetor (
talk)
20:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Yeah nothing came up, but I'm sure any sources would be in Czech anyway, which I can kinda read but not search for. The same events are mentioned on various other articles though, just without specific mention of Zeman, so I'm sure they are no hoax.
Jdcooper (
talk)
21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
If you have sources and you'd like to improve the article, please do so. I think the reason for this is that such views were more relevant to his time in the Chamber of Deputies than to his time as president, and both this and the cs.wiki article are pretty lacking on details of his career as a deputy and his premiership - which shouldn't be the case either. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply