Talk:Flame of Peace

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project, because... (your reason here) --84.57.174.197 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help to translate the Article Flame of Peace in English speak. Thank you very much.

Unreliable resources

Before we get into an edit war let's discuss which sources people believe are reliable or not. Sorry Future Perfect at Sunrise but you created an absolute mess with this article and Aymatth2's version was far superior in terms of content and appearance. Most of the sources look acceptable for use, although I agree it needs more independent solid sources. Do the Austrian newspapers have hits on this? I can see why Future is suspicious of vanity on this, but it does look an acceptable subject. Ipigott do you see anything in German lang sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? You just created an absolute mess, by blanket-reverting to an old edit, following a revenge edit by a banned IP; in doing so you removed the AfD tag and several legitimate cleanup tags ("reliable sources" etc.), plus you reinserted a whole big table that was both (mostly) unsourced and/or sourced only to the organization's own sites, and ungrammatical (what is "International honors Ambassador of Peace and Place of Flame of Peace" even supposed to mean?) Please self-revert immediately. If you want to reinsert that table, then (a) do so without removing the maintenance tags elsewhere, (b) source it, and (c) correct the text so that we at least know what it's supposed to mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Meinbezirk.at source appears to be a leading Austrian news portal. Numerous reliable publications use it as a source. If you have wider concerns about reliability take to the noticeboard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I have tagged two more refs as unreliable: this [1] is a low-quality local news outlet that manifests its evident lack of journalistic independence and quality control through the fact that it has copied its entire paragraph describing the society verbatim from the society's own publicity blurb or press release – including even its glaring grammar mistakes ("eine gemeinnützige und überparteiliche, sowie religionsunabhängige Vereinigung"; "Austausch für Konfliktbewältigung und Frieden-stiftender Ideen". See [2] for other websites that do the same). Please reinsert the maintenance tag on this one. This [3] is a self-published, non-journalistic website of some designer company, whose relation to the event is unknown (they might be a sponsor or anything), but which most definitely doesn't qualify as a "reliable source" in any way. It displays its lack of quality also through its extremely sloppy translation, leaving entire paragraphs in a state of jumbled mess of English and German fragments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Further: This [4] is so far the only actual source that may formally pass the WP:RS threshold, but it fails to support the claim for which you just tried to insert it as a source: i.e., that Sandor Habsburg is an "archduke" and "prince". The Weltwoche article doesn't call him that. From what we know, this title is entirely self-styled; the only other reliable source I've so far been able to check on his status from the perspective of "nobility", the Almanach de Gotha of 2008, does not describe him as such, but titles him merely "Count" (apparently because his father's marriage was morganatic). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Further: This [5] Polish government website might in other circumstances count as a reliable source, but in this instance it's a source directly affiliated with the party receiving the reward in question, and as such not an independent reliable source. This is important insofar as the text reiterates the claim that the "flame" is "awarded" to people who "have earned merits for peace in the world, society, culture or the environment" ("die sich um den Frieden in der Welt, um die Gesellschaft, Kultur sowie um die Umwelt verdient machen"), a claim which, from this source, is self-serving, and which is also quite dubious, since Ms. H. has (according to her own site) "awarded" the same flame also to her own husband (13 Feb 2009), an entire nation (19 Aug 2009), and several new-born babies (8 Dec 2006, 14 Oct 2006) [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's total BS Future. Almost all of the sources used currently are either government/local council/church sources or leading Austrian newspapers/portals. Official sites of local governments always meet RS. I'm one of the most experienced editors on this site, I think I know what constitutes a reliable source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What you are missing is that most of those "sources" are directly affiliated with parties that are either co-sponsors or recipients of the "awards" in question, and as such non-independent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that some of them are. Let's see what can be found on this anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[7] don't think that's the same one though?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, indeed, that seems to be about an entirely different, unrelated initiative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Another issue with your current expansions, Dr. Blofeld, is that your text is now making it appear as if there was something like an annual competition, with one award ceremony per year at which "winners" of the award are presented. That doesn't seem to be the case. From what I've seen, they are essentially throwing out any number of these "awards" as they seem fit each year – essentially one for everybody vain enough to ask for it (and willing to pay an appropriate charitable amount in return, no doubt). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you claim it wasn't in the source when it says "Roberta Pinotti, il vicepresidente della Regione Veneto, Marino Zorzato e il presidente del Consiglio regionale, Clodovaldo Ruffato, al quale gli Arciduchi d’Austria, Principi di Toscana, Herta Margarete e Sandor Asburgo Lorena hanno consegnato la Fiamma della Pace. " Fiamma della Pace is its name in Italian. Look, I appreciate that you initially thought that this was a dubious COI/vanity case and should be nuked, but your edits and comments in the last few hours are really against the spirit of wikipedia. I'm trying to improve this and you keep trying to shoot me and the article down!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If my Italian isn't failing me dramatically, the relative pronoun al quale is grammatically singular and thus refers back only to the last in the preceding list of names, Clodovaldo Ruffato. He was the one who got his flame that evening. Pinotti was also present, and she happened to also have received that flame thing, but not on that occasion but at a separate event a few days earlier, according to the society website [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The official website says it was awarded on 23.3.15 [9] and the source is dated to the 24.3.15 reporting on the previous day. It does mention another ceremony on 26.3.15 and Ruffato again but my independent source does mention the three people being given the Flame of the Peace.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The confusion about the dates only goes to prove how unreliable all these sources are. The society website indeed makes it appear as if Ruffato got the flame twice, both on the 23rd and the 26th, which seems implausible. But your reference at [10] is, again, not a reliable source either, being a mere self-published press release of a commercial society sponsoring some promotional side show of the event in question. But be that as it may, the simple fact is still that you are still misreading the Italian, and that the Italian text is simply not saying Pinotti got the flame. You quite rightly translated the passage elsehwere as "The evening, organized by the Veneto Regional Council, included illustrious participants such as the Italian Minister of Defence Roberta Pinoti, the vice-president of the Veneto Region Marino Zorzato and the president of the Regional Council Clodovaldo Ruffato, to whom the Archdukes of Austria, Princes of Tuscany, Herta Margarete and Sandor Asburgo Lorena gave the Flame of Peace". But you are overlooking the fact that the Italian relative clause with "al quale" is syntactically a lot less ambiguous than the corresponding English "to whom". "Al quale" is unambiguously singular (the plural would be "ai quali"), so it can refer back only to one person, the last in the list. It's "Ruffato, to whom [sg.]", not "Pinotti, Zorzato and Ruffato, to whom [pl.]". Pinotti may or may not have gotten the flame on the same occasion, and I agree it's quite likely she did, but the simple hard fact is that this particular (unreliable) text isn't saying anything about that either way. (Plus, your reading would imply that Zorzato, the third person in the list, also got one, which would again contradict the society website, where he isn't mentioned.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please stop tagging legitimate sources for uncontroversial statements as "unreliable". This is getting disruptive. If the Polish embassy says the award goes to politicians, diplomats, media representatives and peace activists, and the article is full of examples, there is no reason to tag the embassy as an unreliable source. The organization indisputably gives awards to people like this. If a hospital says they got an award and the award-giver also says they got the award, they got the award. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with the statement that the award "goes to politicians, diplomats, media representatives and peace activists" is that it implies that it goes only to such people, when the prima facie evidence of the society's website strongly suggests it also goes to people who have done nothing more notable than being Ms H.'s friends, being local businesspeople in Ms H.'s environment, or having awarded Ms H. one of their own "awards" in return. I have explained above why under these circumstances any statement about the nature and significance of the award and about its selection criteria that is sourced to people who are themselves recipients of it is ipso facto unreliable (those people have an obvious and transparent interest in making the selection criteria appear restrictive and the award more significant than it may in fact be). As explained above, this also goes to sources that would count as reliable for most other purposes, such as the Polish embassy. This point, which I raised yesterday, has so far stood unchallenged on this talkpage; in fact, Dr. Blofeld explicitly conceded the point yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Any further tagging like this to promote your point of view on the subject will be disruptive. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Any further misuse of unreliable sources on your part, to promote your point of view, will be disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Tagging the Polish Embassy as unreliable is really quite embarrassing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to engage my arguments, don't bother to comment. Your behaviour here is crossing into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Polish embassy is the recipient of the award and as such a non-independent source when it comes to why and on the basis of what criteria it received it. Now, are you going to correct your grammar error in reading Italian or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It can be interpreted both ways. All I know is that the official website of Flame says they gave the award to Pinotti on 23rd March and that article on the 24th was obviously covering the previous day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I just explained to you (twice) why it cannot be "interpreted both ways". If I have been wrong in this and you know something about Italian grammar that I don't, you ought to be able to explain, with reference to the rules of Italian syntax, how and why a relative clause with a singular pronound could have a plural antecedent. Or ask a native speaker of Italian what the sentence means. You have so far given no sign that you've even taken in my argument, let alone answered or refuted it. Simply asserting over and over again that the sentence means what you thought it meant won't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)