Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:20, 16 October 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Awards Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 October 2012.

Ridiculous POV

The reactions section is ridiculously unbalanced and only cites obscure far-right cranks and crazies from the UK Independence Party and the likes. If we are going to have a reactions section, it should cite notable reactions, e.g. from heads of state or government. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Syriza is a left-wing party. The Greeks are not all "far-right cranks and crazies from the UK Independence Party". Nor is Channel 4 as far as I know. Or the BBC. And you can't come along and delete entire articles on a whim. Discuss before removing anything else please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

When you add a POV essay consisting exclusively of negative reactions from obscure figures, I can indeed delete the entire POV essay, as it didn't contain any reactions that belong in this article. The right place for such an essay would be your personal blog or something. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A minimum standard of notability should be decided and all reactions which meet it should be shown or none should. Due weight must be observed in this regard. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Any official reaction coming from a government or international organisation could be added to the article, which is a common criterion observed in a case like this where there will obviously be a huge number of reactions. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To avoid cross-posting, a controversy already seems to be arising mostly in Norway, but also maybe in Sweden, see Talk:Nobel Prize controversies#Soon to be added: 2012 Peace Prize. For the rest, Syriza is notable even if it is a left-wing party. Expect some more derisive reaction from Greece and southern Europe soon. This will make a controversy, I can feel it from here. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we have the absurd incidence of Misplaced Pages giving the EU a platform to praise itself for winning an award while all criticism has been eliminated. If no criticism or controversy exists then why have a separate article for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize in the first place? That my contributions are considered POV merely serves to highlight how silly this is. I have no allegiance to either Syriza or UKIP, nor have they any allegiance to each other. They are opposites in every way, politically (left-right), geographically (east-west Europe). Contrast with 2010 Nobel Peace Prize , where responses from the internet, media, human rights groups, intellectuals, academics, etc. are included alongside those of politicians. That Misplaced Pages has an article for Van Rompuy, Barroso, Schulz, Merkel and Hollande to praise themselves for their ingenuity in managing to carry off the Nobel Peace Prize while Athens burns is itself a violation of Misplaced Pages's own policy of NPOV. It appears NPOV is here being mistaken for "eradicate all criticism, encourage praise, long live the EU, never mind those Greeks rioting, Spaniards protesting, or Irish and Portuguese being crushed." That Misplaced Pages is blind to this is nothing more than a crying shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cry me a river! You should at least learn to sing your own posts... Calm down, you are overreacting this. --${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 17:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If we were to cite every reaction from politicians representing fringe parties (like the UK Independence Party) or other unnotable figures (like "Municipal councillor Petros Constantinou"(sic!), "Photographer Ioanna Nikolareizi"(sic!), or "University of Iowa archaeologist Dr. Robert Cargill"(sic!)), the article would make up hundreds of pages. We only cite reactions from politicians who are notable in this context, such as the politicians who speak on behalf of their country (i.e. their government). These are official reactions from the elected representatives of their countries, not personal opinions. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why so serious? I carefully considered everything I said. How else do you expect me to convey the above? The addition of self-congratulatory comments from Monte, Bildt, Juncker Rutte and Di Rupo does nothing for the NPOV problem. It in fact makes it much worse than ever. It would be like filling the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize article with condemnation by officials and politicians from Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin and Chongqing. --86.40.110.74 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Municipal councillor Petros Constantinou", "Photographer Ioanna Nikolareizi" and "University of Iowa archaeologist Dr. Robert Cargill" are not notable. A statement from the Greek government (not municipal councillors) would be notable. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there are no trouble with Misplaced Pages's policies in this respect. I however think that the editors removing the initial criticism should consider putting it back, and balance it with positive criticism. The opinion is about the following: in Norway and UK the general reaction was negative, in Germany it was fairly positive, in Sweden the newspaper media praised the election, the official state media were neutral, but the common citizens derided it. For the rest of Europe, I don't know, although I heard the Greeks were negative. We should not only write about official reactions, that would produce a bias, instead we should try to use the usual WP:UNDUE due weight (Syriza is notable), WP:CITE and not allege anything without referring to who says? Rursus dixit. (bork!) 11:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A brief mention under "public reaction" of the reaction of various far-right and far-left Eurosceptics is appropriate (Syriza is part of the far-left, so already covered). Mocctur (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not every euroskeptic is far left or far right, but some are, I have changed the article to say 'including'. The sources do not support the assertion that it is an extremist view. --JacksonKnight 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this still politically neutral?Dave Briggs (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Farage/EFD quote

Included Nigel Farage quote. He is EFD group chairman in the European Parliament, he is UKIP leader and the most famous eurosceptic in the world. His opinion nicely balances the wiki article --JacksonKnight 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'far right' claims require multiple high-quality sources if not stated by mainstream media as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL--JacksonKnight 23:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'far right' does not qualify under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and you have not established that the sources are unreliable, you simply claim it. This in insufficient. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the sources calling individual EFD member parties 'far right' are legion. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

'far right' is an important claim, not supported by the mainstream media. The sources you use are in receipt of EU funding, which creates a conflict of interest. You require multiple high-quality independent sources, otherwise the quote should be removed. (A source calling individual EDF members far-right will not suffice because you claim the whole group.)--JacksonKnight 00:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Many things are an important claim, that doesn't automatically make them WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, you have in no way supported your assertion that these sources are somehow not credible or even that they get EU funding. Even if they do, this doesn't automatically make them non-reliable. Eurobarometer gets EU funding - we still use it for all kinds of "important" claims. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 06:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost any activity in Europe could be claimed to have "EU funding". It's not like the EU dictates the views expressed in books published by Rowman & Littlefield. There are plenty of sources describing the group in question, or its members, as far-right. Even some of its own members left it because they considered it extremist. Mocctur (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

using the term 'far right' to describe the EFD is not used by the mainstream media. The author of the self-published book/source is in receipt of this funding from the EU and therefore cannot be used as a source on this topic as per WP:REDFLAG. If you cannot find multiple high-quality independent sources this needs to be removed, thats the rules of wikipedia.--JacksonKnight 15:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Jean Monnet Programme is a highly regarded programme for funding independent research. The idea that research that happens to be funded by the Jean Monnet Programme is not "reliable" is absurd. Almost all research carried out in a country is in fact funded by the government. Funded by the Jean Monnet Programme means funded by the European tax payers and is no different from e.g. funding by various national research councils such as the Economic and Social Research Council. Your claim that a book published by Rowman & Littlefield is "self-published" or that EurActiv is not "mainstream" (it's one of the most frequently cited media specializing on EU affairs) is nonsensical. Mocctur (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

^^ Perhaps you could point me to a single Jean Monnet research project which has discovered that more European integration is not the answer? Just one single piece of work produced by by the 162 Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence, 875 Monnet Chairs, or 1001 Monnet teaching modules from any of the 72 countries on 5 continents in which it is represented. All of it paid for by the European Union. It is fundamentally different to other research funding in that its research as a starting point assumes its conclusions - that the EU is the answer. That is like cigarette companies funding the search for the causes of cancer, but excluding anything to do with tobacco from the search. Dave Briggs (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that some institution has come to conclusions contrary to your own is not a point against it unless those conclusions can be challenged on their own merit. Internet companies give money to wikipedia, which has tonnes of content about how the internet is good. This doesn't undermine the credibility of the content. Other things may, but this sort of argument doesn't. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 19:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The grant is dependent on promoting the cause of greater European integration, as all EU grants are: in other words, it comes with a political string attached. That is not independent research, however you slice it and whatever my own views are! I think you'll find that my analogy about tobacco is rather closer to the mark than yours about Misplaced Pages! :) Dave Briggs (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reaction sorting

I was just wondering if it wouldn't be better in terms of clarity if we placed the reactions of EU members under the EU heading. Thoughts? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. They are all part of the EU after all. As I've been trying to say all day. --86.40.110.74 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a point to separating reactions from within the EU (organisation) itself from those of its member states, but also members from non-members. I'll do that now. Skrofler (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. Certainly the various politicians from EU member countries do not represent the EU as an institution. Mocctur (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Separating the Member States by whether they were original members or not is, however, pointless. I suggest this be changed, as all Member States are equal partners regardless of their accession date. 86.43.72.9 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The prize was awarded specifically in recognition of achievements in the 1950s (and other achievements at specific points of time), so sorting by entry (the customary practice in all international organizations) into the union is more helpful than a long alphabetical list, and is relevant to show which role the country in question had in the events being honored (e.g., the Czech Republic had little to do with Franco-German cooperation in the 50s, one of the key issues highlighted by the Nobel committee). In addition to being more readable, it also teaches the reader a little bit of EU history at the same time. Also, it appears that the most high level comments (from heads of government) came from the Inner Six (founding) members, while many of the other comments are comments by lesser officials, so it's a good thing to have the most prominent comments first.. Mocctur (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Prize distribution

Could someone clarify in the article how the prize was distributed? Was it shared between member states or some central EU entity like European Commission received the entire prize? 176.241.247.17 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge it hasn't even been decided yet who will go accept it much less how it will be used. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please edit the caption of Jens Stoltenberg to mention that he's from Norway? It's not immediately obvious where he's from just based on his name and face. 184.44.130.189 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Also maybe change "...contributed to secure peace and to build democracy..." to "...helped to secure peace and build democracy...". The second translation I got directly from just using a simple Bing Translation but I think it sounds better. Going further, perhaps the word order in the quote from the Jens Stoltenberg should be rearranged to make it easier to read. Though that might undermine its worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.139.214 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the EU an "organization"?

Just curious if other editors would distinguish the EU from other nominated organizations. The EU seems to be better classified as a political entity, and very different from any past Nobel recipient. It'sseems almost like giving the award to a country or NATO or whatever. --PedEye1 (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the UN is a political organisation as well, plus it has a two letter acronym and everything. :) --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 09:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The award is no different than the award to the United Nations in 2001, or many other prevous awards to international organisations. Indeed giving the prize to a country wouldn't be unprecedented either (the 1986 Charlemagne Prize was given to The People of Luxembourg). Mocctur (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Simple answer. The Nobel Prize people regard it as one. And NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is, by its own terms, one too. --86.40.98.9 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class awards articles
• Low-importance awards articles
• Awards articles
• Start-Class European Union articles
• Mid-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• Start-Class Norway articles
• Unknown-importance Norway articles
• WikiProject Norway articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles