Talk:Operation Dragoon Ride

Deleted Editorializing
I've removed the following from the article:
 * "despite contradictory reports the Kremlin-financed news websites ... and despite pro-Russian stance of the Czech president, Miloš Zeman" WP:EDITORIALIZING
 * Replied below. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Official U.S. state media Radio Free Europe is not WP:RS (neither is official Russian state media Russia Today). BlueSalix (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "After the arrival of the convoy to Prague-Ruzyně on 30 March 2015, the commander Tim Payment said in an interview for ČTK (the national public service news agency of the Czech Republic) that "...[the convoy] received unbelievable support everywhere they stopped over."[13] Jiří Vyvadil, the head of the group Friends of Russia, a former Social Democrat senator, and one of the main organizers of protests against the convoy, was one of the very few people who actually attended demonstration at Ruzyně barracks on 30 March 2015, and left the spot after being verbally attacked by the supporters of the convoy.[14] More than 20,000 people visited Ruzyně barracks during the stay of the convoy, while only a small group of protesters attended demonstration in front of the Embassy of the United States in Prague.[15] Tomáš Vandas, chairman of the far-right non-parliamentary Workers' Party of Social Justice, was a speaker during the protest at the embassy.[15]" WP:NOTNP
 * WP:NOTNP? Could you elaborate? It is a referenced material explaining what actually happened in the Czech Republic during the stay of the US convoy in the CR. Those events were widely discussed in the media and summarize the most important facts surrounding the presence of the convoy. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The long dialogs of quotations and intense commentary you've inserted are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a documentary magazine article. BlueSalix (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Russian state-sponsored media such as Russia Today brought different reports and focused rather on protests against the convoy." WP:OR
 * Have you checked the articles by Russia Today? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Official Russian state media Russia Today is not WP:RS (neither is official U.S. state media Radio Free Europe). BlueSalix (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka visited the convoy in Prague on 31 March 2015, as well as Martin Stropnický, the Minister of Defense, and Karel Schwarzenberg, a politician and former Czech presidential candidate. Both Sobotka and Petr Pavel (Chairman of the NATO Military Committee), have pointed out that various reports about the "divided [Czech] nation" were just a "media fiction".[20]" WP:RS - not sourced to reference
 * Can you read Czech? Rozdělený národ? Mediální fikce, řekli Sobotka s Pavlem mezi dragouny, says the title. English translation: "Divided nation? Media fiction, said Sobotka and Pavel among Dragoons." The source is Mladá fronta DNES, a mainstream Czech newspaper. I wouldn't say it is a totally independent source, as it is owned by 2nd richest Czech and current finance minister, but it is entirely safe to use it as a citation for this claim. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. Your translation is not accurate (intentionally or not); it misses the underlying subtext of the article and applies a literal meaning to the tulánek colloquialism. BlueSalix (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what is "the underlying subtext of the article" and what is "tulánek colloquialism"? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - BlueSalix (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC - Ill-Mannered Protestors Outnumbered by Cheering Throngs Chanting "America!" ... is U.S. Government a RS for this claim?
Background: The following line is among various recent, substantially similar, additions to this article:
 * The opponents were, however, largely outnumbered by supporters of the march, despite contradictory reports the Kremlin-financed news websites and other media brought to the public.

The line in question, declaring the "opponents were ... outnumbered ... despite contradictory reports the Kremlin-financed news websites" is, ironically, sourced to a U.S. Goverment-financed news website, Radio Free Europe, [] The deleted line (which I've replaced), indicating there were an equal number of pro- and anti-protestors is sourced to the Prague Post which, TTBOMK, is not "Kremlin-financed." Questions for Comment: (a) In articles about protests against a government or regime, should official declarations from the regime itself minimizing the size or motivation of the protests be elevated to statements of fact on WP when neutral RS indicate something substantially different? (b) Which version of the article is a better encapsulation of events? BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is version 1 of this part of the article (NPOV version):
 * Here is version 2 of this part of the article (U.S. Government version):

Support Version 1

 * I support the NPOV version and oppose weasel words, as per WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:RS. I do not believe the U.S. Government is a RS for information about protests against the U.S. Government. BlueSalix (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Version 2

 * I'm just a random ip editor but given the option between these two proposed versions, number 2 is clearly the better variant. The other option would provide undue weight to one side of the issue and as such not conform to the basic idea of wiki being NPOV, since the public reaction in the Czech Republic was overwhelmingly positive – a fact easily backed up by various media reports & in fact sourced in the current version of the article. Personally, I would even go a step further to reflect the reaction of the public, opening the paragraph with something along the lines of "The reaction of the Czech public to the convoy was generally positive" rather than beginning the public reaction section with what ultimately proved to be a minority opinion at best. Though I'd rather not edit it while this thing here is going on I guess? 89.176.87.169 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your proposal, 89.176.87.169. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The day Wikipedia ceases to accept the ideas of a 'random ip editor' is the day Wikipedia loses its identity. Cheer up! :) Banedon (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I had to choose between these two options only I'd take version 2. It's longer, goes into more detail, includes more sources and contains opposing viewpoints. However it's true that version 2 is also less than ideal. It can be clean up, but most importantly it can be reorganized. The first couple of sentences should summarize the rest of the section (that reactions were generally positive but that there was opposition), and the paragraphs following it divided into the two different camps of thought. Banedon (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended Comment
In your initial edit, you forgot to say there were mentioned both supporters and opposers in the source. You talked about a "wave of opposition" but you cited sources before the date the convoy arrived to the Czech Republic. I just updated your incorrect and biased statements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "wave of opposition" is a direct quote from Prague Monitor ; it is not something I "talked about." The article, as currently written after I reverted your last deletion, says "people assembled in Wenceslas Square on March 28 to express both support and opposition." I think you need to step back and AGF here. We strive to be objective and exemplify a NPOV on WP, presenting material from RS and avoiding weasel words. Also, the RfC question is not a place for this debate. Kindly move your (and my) comments down to the appropriate section, below. (EDIT - nevermind, I handled the AGF move into Extended Comment) Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you added to the article is an outdated information from before the convoy arrived to the Czech Republic. There was a public discussion before the convoy arrived about public protests against it, but after the convoy crossed the Polish-Czech border, the protests (convened mainly through social media) showed to be highly exagerrated., . "Massive (pro-Russian) propaganda on social networks and elsewhere produced something opposite than intended," said Martin Stropnický (Czech Defence Minister) to ČTK. The protests were marginal and negligible, as many mainstream media noted, and the main organizers (Czech communists and neo-nazis among them) were sometimes even publicly ridiculed. Blesk, the most widely read Czech newspaper (tabloid) wrote on 30 March 2015: "Akce odpůrců konvoje končí fiaskem, Američany v Česku přivítali lidé... ("The protests end in fiasco, Americans are welcomed by people..."). I've restored more up-to-date revision. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I also noticed a difference in our editing. I've expanded the "Protests" section and I integrated your additions into it, as it is fair to note that there were opinions opposing the transit of the US convoy through the Czech Republic. You, on the other hand, reverted my edits completely, including multiple reliable sources, to reinstate outdated and biased revision suggesting that there were "only protests" and omitting the fact that in reality, most of Czechs welcomed the convoy enthusiastically. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also add that I'm willing to collaborate on further improvements of the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the protestors were largely outnumbered by crowds welcoming the convoy can be referenced by hundreds of reliable sources, both in Czech and English language. You have reinstated outdated and incorrect revision that doesn't reflect what was the reaction to the convoy in the Czech Republic. Have you checked more up-to-date articles published by the same media outlets you cite (Prague Monitor), i.e. Thousands of supporters welcome US army convoy (30 March 2015) or Thousands welcome US army convoy in Czech Republic (Prague Post, 29 March 2015)?? The Economist article has subtitle "Czechs welcome an American army convoy despite their president's support for Russia". There are many more sources (other than Radio Free Europe and the video convicting some of the Russian media of lying, published by aktuálně.cz) bringing evidence that Russian media lied to Russian citizens about the public reaction to the US convoy in the CR:, or about the lies published by recently established pro-Russian Czech media . I understand that you fight Western media bias, and it's great, but here you are completely wrong and I'm going to revert your outdated and incorrect additions to the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As for your "...there were an equal number of pro- and anti-protestors is sourced to the Prague Post" - please note that the article was published on 28 March 2015. The US convoy entered the Czech Republic on 29 March 2015 and it was clear almost immediately that the number is far from being "equal", as many sources points out. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:RS. Russia Today and Radio Free Europe/Voice of America are not RS. I really don't know what else to tell you. Sorry BlueSalix (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, see WP:BIASED, just cause a source has an obvious bias doesn't make it any less a reliable source, Therefore, RT and VOA are both sources, with varying degrees of opinion as to whether they meet WP:IRS (YMMV). Now the question is how much weight both such sources should be given in this article.
 * Now there is this one from Stars and Stripes (newspaper), which is positive, but a U.S. military related source; there is a neutral source, Newsweek that provides a balanced image of the response. Were there supporters of the road march, yes (as shown in this The Economist source); this can be verified from multiple sources. Were there protesters of the road march, sure.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)