Talk:2018 Czech presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Czech presidential election, 2018. 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: 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) 07:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential" candidates[edit]

Should we include the list of "potential candidates"? This has been added and removed a couple of times now. My view is that this section does not add any understanding or knowledge of the election for readers. Most of these people were only included because of one off-hand comment about "considering" running from many many months ago, and they never did anything further towards a candidacy. I would say that all politicians are always "considering" running for president. If the nominations are now closed they are no longer potential candidates. If we can find any evidence at all that they made any more meaningful actions towards campaigning they should be merged with the "withdrawn candidates" section. Jdcooper (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Drahoš is considered the front-runner in the second round"[edit]

Quote from the lede, a bit misleading and speculative, in my opinion. I understand that Zeman's defeat in the election is a dream of many Czechs, but I can cite articles/analysis stating that their (Zeman vs. Drahoš) chances to win are equal, i.e. [1] [2] or many articles stating that Zeman is clear favorite in the whole election.[3] [4]. We should not project our dreams and wishes to an encyclopedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely doesn't project my dreams (not even my opinion as I believe that Drahoš' result will be disappointing for him). It came from opinion polls. Since April 2017, almost all opinion polls for the second round showed Drahoš leading and many journalist called Drahoš as a front-runner as a result. The mentioned paragraph itself was made to project opinion polls results.--Bedivere.cs (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Drahoš was slightly preferred by some opinion polls up to early November 2017 is something entirely different than saying that "Drahoš is considered the front-runner in the second round". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldN¨t entirely say "slightly" as August and September poll showed him leading by 10 points but I agree that I should have used a different statement. I will change it.--Bedivere.cs (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Total votes vs valid votes[edit]

Denoting 5,177,238 (total votes) as 100 percent of votes is an obvious mistake: dividing votes cast for the candidate by this number doesn't result in correct percentage of votes for the candidate. Instead, valid votes - 5,148,141 are 100 percent, dividing by this number results in correct percentage.Illustr (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a total row, totalling the cells above it. The total of the votes cast is 5,177,238; the total of the percentages is 100. See Slovenian presidential election, 2017#Results or Moldovan presidential election, 2016#Results. Number 57 11:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, I've learned arithmetic from books, not from Wikipedia. 5,148,141 was taken for 100 percent and percentages are counted from this number.Illustr (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't cited Wikipedia as a source. I've showed you how we display totals. Number 57 12:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I showed you, that this is a wrong and misleading way to do this.Illustr (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't showed that it's wrong. It's a total row and it correctly shows the totals of the columns above. Number 57 12:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't correctly show totals of percents. 5,148,141 was taken for 100 percent, not 5,177,238, dividing votes cast for a candidate by 5,177,238 results in wrong percentage of votes for that candidate, dividing it by 5,148,141 results in right percentage of votes.Illustr (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The percentages add up to 100. That's what's in the total row. Number 57 12:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But putting 5,177,238 and 100 percent side-by-side gives a clear impression, that it is 100 percent, which is wrong. And not mentioning a base number 5,148,141 anywhere in the table is not informative to say the least.Illustr (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it does give that impression. Number 57 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it did give that impression to me, and my POV is not reflected in the article, so I believe the article is not NPOV.Illustr (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add number of ballots issued, 5,180,290, from which turnout (61.92%) is computed. So, provided that these two more numbers added, the table would be complete in my view.Illustr (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In standard psephology turnout is calculated from total votes cast, not ballots issued (see the definition at the IDEA Voter Turnout Database in the glossary: "The total number of votes cast (valid or invalid) divided by the number of names on the voters' register, expressed as a percentage.") – ballots issued should not be added to the table. Also, you don't seem to understand NPOV – this is not an NPOV issue. Number 57 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

volby.cz calculated turnout based on the number of ballots, given to voters 5,180,290/8,366,433=0.6192, not on total number of votes cast 5,177,238/8,366,433=0.6188. The fact is that the table gives wrong impression to at least one man and is incomplete.Illustr (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unfortunate that they do it that way, but readers would expect to find turnout calculated in the standard manner. Number 57 14:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They also seemed to truncate percentage of votes, not to round up, but I should rely on data from volby.cz, because we should rely on citing sources, not finding the truth.Illustr (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For routine calculations we don't need to rely on the sources, we can recalculate it ourselves and put in the correct figure if a source is wrong. Number 57 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The standard manner". Readers may not expect anything in particular. We could defer to the sources that we have and use a footnote to clarify how the figure is calculated? Jdcooper (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea and it will create problems with consistency across election articles if turnout is calculated differently. Number 57 14:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I separated valid and invalid votes from each other and created a new column (turnout) for the old number. --URunICon (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the original format. Following editors you have a dispute with to other articles to continue the disputes is rather looked down upon, so I'd advise against continuing the antagonistic behaviour. Thanks, Number 57 20:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, the total number didn't add to 100%. Valid votes and total turnout should be separate, see French presidential election, 2017#Results. --URunICon (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my edit summary, continuing your grudge here will result in a report at WP:ANI. Please stop. Thanks, Number 57 21:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party Endorsements section[edit]

Hi, I'm going to move more of the information from this section to the "Endorsements for..." page. Almost all the information is stated in other places in the article. All this section really needs to include is the main two candidates, and brief details of the main parties who were split on endorsement. Anything else can be found on the endorsements sub-article. In most cases it's already there... Jdcooper (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign logos[edit]

Can we have a discussion about whether to include campaign logos in this article? Several editors have reverted back and forth. Personally, I don't see any problem with keeping them, as we have many other election articles where we show candidates' logos. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be included.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Would you please explain in more detail why these logos should be removed? Other election articles show the candidates' logos, so I don't see why this article is different. Your answer would be appreciated. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the fair use rationale for each logo doesn't substantiate the use in this election article. Secondly, per WP:NFLISTS we don't use fair use images in lists. Their use is purely decorative and doesn't meet the requirements of fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Femen protest theories[edit]

Hi Honzula, I think we need to provide a translation of a specific quote about the Femen/Zeman claims. It's quite a controversial suggestion. Jdcooper (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdcooper, I will try my best. This is the translation of the cited news article Golis, Ondřej (16 January 2018). "Dostala jsem hodně nenávistných zpráv, doporučili mi hned opustit Prahu, říká 'Zemanova sextremistka'" [I got a lot of hate messages, I was recommended to leave Prague immediately, says 'Zeman's Sextremist']. iRozhlas.cz (in Czech). Český Rozhlas. Retrieved 23 June 2018. which is basically an interview between the Czech Radio reporter Ondřej Golis (OG) and the Femen protester Angelina Diash (AD):
OG: You wanted to deter Czechs from re-electing the current president; don't you think you helped him with this protest instead?
AD: That's what my advocate said too. Zeman supposedly said after my protest that I attacked him because he is important (Editor's note: Zeman's commented the protest in the way that he feels honored because Femen also protested against Pope Francis). And that many people will vote for him now, because he is important. Such people, I think, are ignorants. It's just ridiculous, and I would never believe that my protest could help him.
OG: Theories had also emerged, that you made a deal with the Zeman's team, so he can be presented as a victim. What do you think about it?
AD: People simply try to find the simplest explanation. It is perhaps hard for them to see the world context, not just their lives. It's easy to say: she was hiding there to help Zeman. No this is not true. I was there alone, representing Femen. Nobody else.
--Honzula (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I don't think we can really justify including this in the article, it's basically gossip, no? And borderline libellous. Plus the source itself has the woman in the centre of the story saying it's completely false. Jdcooper (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically the event became the part of the election campaign. As well as other accusations (such as that Zeman will withdraw from the election because of poor health, that Horáček financed negative articles about his competitors, that Russia influenced the outcome of 2017 parliamt elections, that Drahoš met chancellor Merkel for the purpose to invite the immigrants etc. which almost all are included in this article. I'm just assuming that reporter wouldn't ask Diash this question, if he had considered it as unimportant. Concerning the theory about the deal between Zeman's team and Femen, it was obvious that it will emerge - when former president Klaus was attacked by airsoft gun in 2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHk_oMkkblk), his enemies also spreaded the theory that the attack was feigned for the purpose to gain the popularity (at first, nobody believed that the bodyguards could be so passve, unless they expected such event). This general view probably comes from the popular retro-crime film Assassination of the Prime Minister (1987, which in turn was loosely based on real affair from 1930's) in which the eponymous attack was also feigned for the sake of the politician's popularity. From the article is clear that many people (reporter, advocate of the protester, some policemen...) believed that the incident with Femen will help Zeman to win the election - no wonder his opponents tried to reverse it. But yes, I should include also her stance to this theory. --Honzula (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% sure that it's encyclopaedic, but you are right that there is lots of other trivial gossip included. It's better with the denial for sure. Jdcooper (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Czech_presidential_election&oldid=1196753424"