Talk:Robert Fico

Extremely biased article

This article is absolutely biased against Fico. Actually this is the worst article in terms of objectivity I have ever read on wikipedia. Partly no sources are cited, if sources are cited, citations are one-sided and do not cover other opinions. I deleted some text that was libelous and couldn't stand without any citations. J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.164.105 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please people, stop grinding your axes. Just tell the story. I removed the stuff about "criticizing the previous policies admired by the elites" because it is repeated, and covered better under Domestic Affairs, and it is a little too specific for an overview of his life. Peace, y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.43.243 (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted the second paragraph in the summary, because it is not a summary, but a sentence about the SMERS party, not Fico. The information is repeated in the 2006 election paragraph anyways. This summary header should sumarrie Fico's life, not give detail on on event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.43.243 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Fico had made no mention of condemning Georgia, the citation leads to a site that contradicts this erroneous statement. This is a total smear peace. The whole article has no objectivity! It calls his voters lower class, uneducated villagers. Has the Central Statistics Commission of the Slovak Republic confirmed this? Absolute garbage this whole article is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.8.121 (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fico's anti-reform approach

Recently, the part of sentence

Fico's communication with the media is sometimes arrogant and evasive.

was changed to

Fico's communication with the media is arrogant and evasive.

It means quantifying word sometimes was removed, in my view unjustly. Surely the Fico's communication with media is not always as claimed. That is why I am returning the word sometimes into sentence. By the way, this whole sentence is unsourced and critical, therefore potentially challengeable, but I am sure it will be possible to source it. Anyone? --Ruziklan (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not always"? :) How many times were all the daily and weekly newspapers published with a blank front page in recent weeks? :) The style he speaks with the media, the constant demanding of "more patriotic" content, the constant cry if he gets some critics, combined with the media "regulation" and the very recent law and all the other things can fill a full section. The word "sometimes" should be changed into constant, or simply removed. :--Rembaoud (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This all might be true, but as we are in the article of living person and therefore we should comply to WP:LIVING. In the meantime I have given it a second thought and your recent addition has prompted me to re-read the policy. It says in general:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

And further in the part about public figures:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

So I have decided to remove all such material from the debated part. Anyone is welcome to take it back with proper sourcing. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. As a result whole section is more about government than abou him. This gave an idea of moving it somewhere else, to some article about Slovak government or something, where it would be more appropriate. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User the {fact}} tag instead of deleting, than looking with big innocent eyes and speaking lulz, like above all. You are A) perfectly aware what am I saying (writing), since we live in the same country B) not aware, but has a say. I do not know wich is worse in this case. Do not delete anything ever, use {fact} instead. PS: I would be intrsted, where should be the sentences about Fico's relationship with the Slovak media moved from this article. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, we are on the same side, we both want to have Wikipedia better. Having unsourced statements about high profile person (besides being against Wikipedia policy) could only attract attention of someone who really does not like it and he might mess with other editors' work inappropriately in the best case.

When I was writing about "moving something somewhere", I had in mind the remaining part of section. When you read it, you see it is much more about situation in Slovakia and government policy than about Robert Fico personally. I was trying to find some more suitable article, but given the structure of articles about Slovak politics I was unable to find better. Rather I have uncovered that governements are often characterized in their prime minister's articles what is acceptable after all. So let's let the rest of section here. However its name seems inappropriate given the content. That is why I am going to change the name to Domestic policy that seems pretty neutral and precise to me. Anyone reading the text can make his own judgement about its relationship to reforms.

By the way it is still largely unsourced but as it is in my view well describing situation I see no reason to remove anything. To have sources would be nice, if anyone volunteers to find and insert them. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be just a minute harder to find what I found and linked, and add them here, instead of this useless and unneeded debate about (what it turned out) that we are agreeing :) unless you enjoy constantly apologizing for (or wish-washing or explaining) your actions. In that case, I haven't said anything...:) --Rembaoud (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is a common argument on Wikipedia, as to whether the responsibility should be on the editors who add information to provide sources, or if the responsibility should be on editors who wish to remove information, to try and find sources before they remove it. The community consensus is clear though: The responsibility on providing sources is on those who wish to add information, not on those who wish to remove it. Ruziklan's actions, on this article, were correct. However, Rembaoud, if you would like to add more sources, please do.  :) --Elonka 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the way the information is added now is ok, although it will undoubtedly require some copyediting as it is just sum of declarations, not smooth text.

Further, assessing sentence "The current Slovak government is everything but press-friendly." is taken from letter of blogger like me (I even have a blog in the same project as Michal Hudec) or anyone else, although it was published at Euroactiv website, yet still only as a letter to Editor, i.e. not exactly reliable source.

Also I would prefer if Rembaoud stopped analyzing my motivation and judging it. I am trying to be as impersonal and as objective as possible. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're that[1] blogger. I just guessed it untill now. introduce yourself in english too ;) Or at leastm translate this:[2] for Elonka :) --Rembaoud (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is really off-topic, I just remark that I do introduce myself on my userpage including link to blog. And the article is discussing Bertelsmann plan to print important part of German Wikipedia, noted also in Wikipedia Signpost, it has nothing to do with prime minister. Better not discuss this here anymore. --Ruziklan (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonono, the Elonka's experiment part, the last section, and for Elonka, not here. Btw I think, I'll buy the Slovak version too. :) Fico's article about his relationship with the media should be copiedited and expanded, you are right. -Rembaoud (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is very subjective and I think it is wrote by some right-wing symphatize people.

BLP

Because this article is about a living person, it falls under Wikipedia's policy of Biographies of living people. The policy is clear, that anything that is negative and unsourced is to be removed immediately and aggressively. Ruziklan was correct to remove such statements. They can be re-added, but only if they are linked to solid sources. See WP:BLP. --Elonka 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

How can I work on this {Government of Slovakia} template? Several things have to be changed!-- Derim Hunt (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to Template:Slovak_government_2006-2010, click edit and do what you want ;) Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I mean - I want to change this table: Cabinet page. The party affiliations and the names of the ministers are wrong/old.-- Derim Hunt (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice, that anyboday answers.-- Derim Hunt (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

As Fico is to start his second stint as prime minister, this out of date (and poorly written) article needs a rewrite. I hope at least one editor from Slovakia is up to the task. I will begin my participation in earnest in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburgh Agreementish (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is indeed poorly written and in my humble opinion it might also partially contradict WP:LIVING. However, at this moment Mr. Fico is the most polarizing living figure in the Slovak Republic and virtually all Slovak editors will be somewhat biased. Luckily, there are extremely few Slovak Wikipedians on English Wikipedia, so this should be moot. Also, please note that the article - as bad as it is - is currently more-or less true, as shocking as it may sound to someone form a more developed country. My suggestion is to let native-english speakers improve the article by sourcing as much as possible while keeping the spirit of this version somewhat. Brutalhovno (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I rv a lot of POV text and improved the English, but keep an eye out for reversions. Quis separabit? 10:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto...i reorganised the article to match and not just a mish-mash of info. The "views on cummunism" was not true at all as it mentions nothing about communism just his view of the revolution (put it on wikiquote) + the "controversy" over cuba and venezuela doesnt say whats controversial, just that it happened. And three are ENGVAR inconsistncies\(Lihaas (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Robert Fico. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://businessneweurope.eu/storyf2152/Slovak_PM_reeling_from_bombshell_on_eve_of_elections
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203083103/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=25&nav_id=47966 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=25&nav_id=47966
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005112238/http://hnonline.sk/news/c1-26396000-slovak-prime-minister-knows-who-provoked-this-war-in-the-caucasus to http://www.hnonline.sk/news/c1-26396000-slovak-prime-minister-knows-who-provoked-this-war-in-the-caucasus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007222911/http://prisonforjournalists.com/EN/media-stories/media-rise-up.html to http://prisonforjournalists.com/EN/media-stories/media-rise-up.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090720230651/http://www.salon.eu.sk/article.php?article=969-the-fico-threat to http://www.salon.eu.sk/article.php?article=969-the-fico-threat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070423132517/http://www-8.vlada.gov.sk/index.php?ID=1555 to http://www-8.vlada.gov.sk/index.php?ID=1555

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Resignation

I am not the editting type, so I hope someone will fix this in my place. The article currently incorrectly states that he is still PM. According to legislation he seized to be PM at the moment he resigned. His appointed successor is Peter Pellegrini, but he is not Prime Minister either, since he needs to be confirmed by the National Council first. That means Slovakia has no current Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.249.97 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ficek.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Robertfico.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Robert Fico.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Robert-fico-2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking to associate Muslims with terrorism

Fico “sought to associate refugees and Muslims with terrorism”. More than 90% of people entering Europe from the Middle East are Muslims, which reflects the religious makeup of the Middle East’s population. The phrase “to seek to associate Muslims with terrorism” gives the impression that Muslims as a rule have nothing to do with terrorism, and associating them with terrorism reflects a conspiracy theory. However this is far from being the case. In Britain over the last five years, Muslim terrorists have killed 18 times as many people as have non-Muslim terrorists (36 dead and 2 dead respectively), although Muslims make up less than 5% of the population. So, on a per capita basis, Muslims in Britain account for about 350 times as many terrorism deaths as non-Muslims. Furthermore, this phenomenon is reproduced with monotonous regularity in dozens of countries. United States: In the US between 2008 and 2016 (9 years), Muslim terrorists killed 90 people and non-Muslim terrorists killed 86 people. Muslims make up about 3% of the population. Therefore in the US Muslims accounted per capita for 100 times as many terrorism deaths as non-Muslims. European Union: Between 2015 and 2020 (6 years) Muslim terrorists killed 360 people in the EU, and non-Muslim terrorists killed 17 people. Muslims make up about 5% of the population. Therefore in the EU Muslims accounted per capita for 400 times as many terrorism deaths as non-Muslims. Every year between 2015 and 2019, more than 95% of terrorism deaths in the EU were caused by Muslims, although Muslims make up only 6% of the EU population. In 2020 the Muslim share of terrorism deaths in the EU dropped to 57%. Year 2015: 150 Muslim terrorism deaths = 100% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; Year 2016: 135 Muslim terrorism deaths = 95% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; Year 2017: 62 Muslim terrorism deaths = 98% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; Year 2018: 13 Muslim terrorism deaths = 100% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; Year 2019: 10 Muslim terrorism deaths = 100% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; Year 2020: 12 Muslim terrorism deaths = 57% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; 2015-2020 TOTAL: 360 terrorism deaths in the EU were by caused by Muslims = 95% of all terrorism deaths in the EU; According to Amnesty International, the UN Development Programme has noted that the concept of preventing violent extremism “as a whole in certain (European) countries is focused on Islamist violent extremism, obscuring other forms of extremism." Accordingly Amnesty International argues that concentrating on Islam as the main current of thought inspiring terrorism is wrong because it causes stigmatization of Muslims. But when the UN Development Programme studied terrorism in Africa in 2017 it also focused on Islamic terrorism to the exclusion of all other forms of terrorism. Among the recommendations for combating extremism are: “• Supporting and amplifying the voices of traditional religious leaders who challenge misinterpretations of Islam and preach religious tolerance and inter-faith cohesiveness; … • Investing in the development of community-led governance systems providing transparent and accountable leadership of religious affairs. Such systems should include mosque management, development and dissemination of curricula by religious preachers and madrassas, and engagement with parents on teaching content;” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banderswipe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Revert

Hi Reflecktor, someone calling Ukrainians nazis and fascists and accusing them of genocide in Donbas as good old Russian propaganda does is pretty anti-Ukrainian. WP:SKYISBLUE. We don't have any source specifically saying "Vladimir Putin is anti-Ukrainian" but I dare you to remove the category from his article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You say "calling Ukrainians" but there's nothing there saying he called Ukrainian people those names, just specific Ukrainians. I'm not sure how you can compare this to Vladimir Putin because Fico isn't bombing Ukraine and trying to dismantle the Ukrainian state. Reflecktor (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, we have to draw the line as to when does being "anti-Ukrainian" stop being "obvious" for Wikipedia's verification principle. I argue it is still obvious here. I do not know why did Fico say this, likely for political purposes or out of sheer sympathy for Russia, he did say that "Ukrainian nazis and fascists started killing Russians in Donbas". He did not mention the Azov Brigade or any precise agent, just the demonym "Ukrainians". This is pure Russian harmful propaganda. I believe promoting the carefully crafted propaganda with which the murderous invasion of Ukraine has been slowly justified over the years is very much anti-Ukrainian. Specially considering he said this after the invasion had already started. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If it were to be inserted into the article based upon what "you believe" then it would be WP:OR. Additionally it fails WP:BLP. Reflecktor (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet your first comment did not bring up WP:OR because it was apparently obvious that Putin can be called an anti-Ukrainian. Again, the article Vladimir Putin does not specifically say Putin is anti-Ukrainian, but no-one is going to get that category out. I think it is objective that calling Ukrainians nazis and fascists and acussing them of a genocide is pretty gross, but when you consider they're the lies that have been used to invade them it is a clear, conscious bad-intentioned action. To be honest it is this last thing that makes me want to include the category, if it happened before 2022 we could at least say he did not think it would reach such scale.

And your unexplained mention of WP:BLP is not an argument. It's a broad policy, which part of it are you referring to? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Everything you've said here I have addressed before in my above replies to you, I don't want to have to keep rehashing this.

Regarding BLP, it states that one should "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". WP:BLPCAT also states "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources". Reflecktor (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I requested a third opinion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute about the inclusion of a category):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Robert Fico and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

BLPCAT is very clear: Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist. The category "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Europe" certainly falls within being a contentious topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. That concludes the dispute. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)