Jump to content

Talk:2006 Antwerp shooting

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

Neutrality

[edit]

The tone of the article seems to be biased towards protecting the Vlaams Belang party view. --Edcolins 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd find it ;) No offense, I know that you (in contrast to some others) are really only trying to NPOV. I did my best, but I'm afraid it's quite impossible to write a completely neutral article about a subject on which you've got an opinion. I'm sure things'll get better (or at least agitated) when the cavalery arrives.1652186 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I however don't quite understand why you linked here from the Joe Van Holsbeeck article: as far as I know, there's no connection whatsoever, apart from the public outcry and media attention.1652186 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are considered senseless murders, in same period, both created public outcry, media attention and public discussion about "society", "violence" and "racism". Sijo Ripa 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reactions and aftermath

[edit]

(in the article, Reactions' subsection about Vlaams Blok was a separate section until 19:19, 27 May 2006)

[edit]

Mostly utter nonsense spewed out by the media and politicians. I suggest deleting the stuff, and including back some of the family background of Hans. Intangible 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible is making this request after having unilaterally deleted all content beyond the 'Event' paragraph, and replacing it with the following text:
Van Themsche's family are members of the Vlaams Belang. His aunt Frieda Van Themsche is parliamentarian for the party, his grandfather Karel van Themse faught with the Germans at the East Front. The Antwerp public prosecutors say however that on first sight Hans was not brought up in a racialist or violent environment.
The edit was reverted as vandalism. Not only was he deleting all facts in support of the VB view, while keeping those against, his first (Van Themsche's family are members of the Vlaams Belang) and third (his grandfather Karel van Themse faught with the Germans at the East Front) claim are totally unreferenced and as far as I know incorrect. 1652186 17:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Intangible 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the rest of the stuff is because it is simply repulsive to talk about politics when two people are getting killed by a mad-man. Intangible 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, the Flemish speaking observer will notice that the article makes mention of only one family member (the aunt, as already mentioned in the article by myself) that belongs to Vlaams Belang (explicitly stating that the children do not), says that the grandfather fought against the communists, which is not exactly the same as with the Germans, and overall concludes that the family are well-behaved and impeccable nationalists.
As far as your last comment is concerned, I couldn't agree more. It was however not Vlaams Belang that began the political recuperation, but our beloved prime minister.1652186 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I included the family background because the justice department said that at first sight it doesnt look like Hans was brought up in a racialist or violent environment [2]. So it works both ways. Intangible 18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you want to include facts as referenced in the Nieuwsblad article, go ahead, but then you shouldn't limit yourself to things portraying them as radical racists. 1652186 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I meant. Consider yourself happy that I took the time to NPOV your bad faith edit. 1652186 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you want go with this article? Intangible 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? 1652186 10:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not talking about Hans van Themsche or even the shooting event anymore. If you want to talk politics, I suggest you open up a blog. Intangible 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now what has Blokker done? Next week there will be a flemish parliamentary debate on racism and antiracism. Will you include the results of that debate in the article as well? Intangible 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? 1652186 11:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to 1th paragraph of 1652186 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC): At a respectable age for a grandfather and in a Flemish context, with the Germans would be the logical consequence of fought the communists; in World War 2 the Germans found some young Flemish volonteers to fight the communists at the Eastern Front; on the luckier ones' return, they may have faced an effective 5-year prison sentence. The history of people, the movements these once belonged to, and their historical objectives, may indicate a not-always-so-neo-nazi sympathy. For example, by the time the Court had outlawed the VMO (Vlaamse Militanten Orde), a name-shift by one character in the alphabet might have lead to WNP which stood for Westland New Post - Flanders is seen to the West by only one neighbour country; former members of VMO and Were Di (old Dutch for Defend thyself or current Dutch Verweer je, compare German Wehre dich) - not entirely unlike IRA stood to Shin Fein - became, together with an impeccable nationalist old-timer, associated with the Vlaams Blok; by the time the latter was convicted by Court, an even easier name shift lead to the Vlaams Belang...[reply]
(Further reading on V.B. background: older sample, and more recent sample in Dutch only.)
Please note: I do not take any position regarding the authenticity of statements made about the individuals far or closely related to Hans van Themsche. I do not suggest comparing an Annemans with an Adams. I do not suggest that a large number of todays' sympathisers with the Vlaams Belang would be aware of much more than what Karel De Gucht accused them of: a co-responsibility for racial intolerance. By the way, this Minister is unobjectively accused to be 'mainstream' in the article: the word 'other' must disappear. User:213.224.87.185 2006-05-23
Re: "mainstream" : At last someone caught it. But I think it fairly describes the situation : you have mainstream politicians, and there are far right extremists, like the Vlaams Belang...
You really know how to turn everybody's words around, don't you Luc? With mainstream, I try to exclude people like Jahjah, who simply says that all Flemings are racists. And there's something I haven't understood for a while: how can the largest party of Belgium be extreme? Isn't extreme those that are furthest away from what the majority thinks? 1652186 13:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I should have said "you have mainstream politicians, and there are extremists, like the Vlaams Belang on the far right, and like Dyab Abu Jahjah. (Who doesn't seem to have his own page ?) --LucVerhelst 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luc did not turn words around: you recognized only 3 classes: most extreme to one side, most extreme to the opposite side, and 'mainstream'; many people prefer to disregard the most extreme standpoints and focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the broad range of essentially different viewpoints between those - they may then take e.g. a rather radical stand on some matters, and a moderate or mainstream one on subordinate aspects and/or about other subjects.
More than a 2/3 majority adheres to parties that disassociate themselves from the largest party ; one should not forget that the original Nazi Party became democratically elected in the first place, was it then not extreme? Not mere numbers determine the extremes. User:213.224.87.185 2006-05-23 14:07 (UTC)
What is your point anyway? Suppose that I indeed meant to say that Vlaams Belang is not mainstream. Would that be a confession if half of you people claim nothing less? Or just a compromise? 1652186 15:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, perhaps a feeble start of objectivity. My point is that Karel De Gucht is not to be qualified as 'mainstream', e.g. his boldly outspoken conclusions or opinions that most 'mainstream' politicians may be aware of though refrain from uttering, got him into trouble at several occasions. And that the fact of some people being unable (or rarely unwilling) to recognize this, causes a greater danger than these people are aware of. User:213.224.87.185 2006-05-23 15:58 (UTC)
Yes, I get your point and partially understand it. Certainly, if you do not consider De Gucht as mainstream I must agree. I'll change it then, I don't want a fight over such a detail. 1652186 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to last paragraph of 1652186 17:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC) and first half of 1th paragraph of his 18:02 follow-up:[reply]
"De familie Van Themsche is vanaf het eerste uur lid van het Vlaams Belang. Grootvader Karel Van Themsche ... voor hem een onmiddellijke aanleiding om naar het pas opgerichte Vlaams Blok over te stappen. Ook zijn vrouw en de oudste dochter, Frieda, worden meteen lid. ... Zo waren de kinderen geen lid van de Vlaams-nationalistische Jeugd (VNJ). Evenmin waren ze actief bij het Vlaams Belang." (Quoting the referenced article in Het Nieuwsblad 13 May 2006)
In plain English: "The family Van Themsche is, right from the start, member of the Vlaams Belang" [actually then still named Vlaams Blok] and (shorter but strictly following the text:) "Grandfather Karel, his wife and the eldest daughter Frieda immediately become members of the just founded Vlaams Blok" ... "For instance the children were neither member of the Flemish-Nationalist Youth (VNJ), nor actif with the Vlaams Belang"
VNJ is not the same as Vlaams Blok/Belang, a Vlaams Blok/Belang member is not necessarily 'actif'. In other words, the original claims you reverted away, did indeed follow the published and referenced newspaper text (at least three members, and even if the article itself might have slightly generalized for "The Family", it is not obvious whether 'the children' are members or not). Surely, your 18:02 statement (before the grandfather part) is 100% false - please read references as they stand, not as you would prefer them.
P.S.: Im not happy with the current Nazi/SS part: I simply don't know whether any non-WaffenSS may have gone to the Eastern Front. The largest group was recruited for joining the WaffenSS (Military SS) upon instigation by the German&Flemish DeVlag, and I think all SS had to swear loyalty to the Nazi Party. Even for me (aware, but born a full decade later), the statement highly needs a decent reference. User:213.224.87.185 2006-05-26 03:27 (UTC)
Having found several more references on the subject of "The Family Van Themsche", included by others or by myself in the articles on Frieda Van Themsche, see also its Talk page, and on Hans Van Themsche, it is clear that 1. according to the references at least FOUR close family members have ties with the Vlaams Blok: a grandfather & his wife (very early members) an aunt (early member and currently MP), his father (founding member); 2. Wikipedia readers fully deserve the current phrase about this grandfather; as is in Frieda's article even stronger referenced than at present in Hans' article. -- 83.182.60.42 (at times submitting from an open access point as 213.224.87.185) 2006-05-28 07:45 (UTC)

The parents' advocate

[edit]

As the term 'advocate' had been replaced several times, once stating it was a mere Scottish term: look into the Advocate Talk page: "This article seems to focus on the UK. Why is that? Advocate is the title of a type of lawyer (Barrister in England) in many English-speaking countries, such as the USA and South Africa. Joziboy 6 May 2006, 12:18 (UTC)". In fact, that article does not mention anything outside the UK sphere of interest. In Belgium, the Dutch and French words for, and the function of, such person is that of what in English language - outside the UK - is often an 'advocate'. The Latin originated word has the for many readers clear meaning or connotation of being a spokesman for another person; in the Hans V.T. story that is how Jef Vermassen, though a famous advocate (lawyer, legal representative, barrister,...) at Belgian courts, acted in public for TV. The parents did not as much needed to be represented lawfully, but an able spokesman needed to represent them (thus staying out of the public interest themselves) on the public forum. Any term containing 'law', 'legal' or 'bar' is here misleading (even slightly derogative, for a person in Belgium having such representative at hand, would not normally be an innocent ordinary citizen), while 'advocate' is here correct, as relating to 'advocacy' (see that article's "see also" subjects) as well as the man being capable of any legal represention if such would ever become an issue. -- 83.182.60.42 2006-05-31 03:41 (UTC)

Let's not make to big a fuss about this. We have to look at what is important for the Wikipedia reader to understand the article and the events, not the big principles or the dictionary definitions. Personally I wouldn't use either 'lawyer' or 'advocate', but rather 'spokesman', with possibly as a parenthesis or footnote 'the famous lawyer Jef Vermassen', if we believe this is important.
I wouldn't use 'lawyer' for the reasons cited by 83.182.60.42.
I wouldn't use 'advocate' because for quite some readers this looks awkward, and it is a word of which the meaning is less commonly understood.
I think 'spokesman' is a fair middle ground. What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though better than 'lawyer' etc., 'spokesman' with a footnote has the disadvantage of readers generally not glancing at the note when they don't spot anything unfamiliar; they would read on thinking some uncle of the child had spoken. We should not try and write literature, but precision in the choice of words is required. The word 'advocate' is the most exact here and if we would need to keep texts in an encyclopedia so simple that fourteen year olds wouldn't come across a difficult word, we will soon have to get used to adults talking like babies. Perhaps 'advocate' with an explaining footnote than - or leave it as it stands for now, awaiting more reactions, if any?
It may not be wise to use 'spokesman' while that sentence continues with a very different kind of "spokesman for Vlaams Belang" - which must remain because the press had expressed surprise at this rather unknown party man appearing, deferring from common Vlaams Belang policy to let only its best known (Dewinter, Vanhecke, Annemans) speak for the party.
Something else to consider: We are used to lawyers representing people for legal matters; politicians and companies now have their PR spokesmen or -women; these days, it is rare for anyone needing an advocate in this sense. Therefore the 'awkward' feeling of the word for some readers may draw their attention so as to understand the highly uncommon aspect. I further assume most people reading this article, being either speakers of Dutch or French who are accustomed to 'advocate', or rather learned - and it should not be too awkward to these.
If it were not so ambiguous especially in this context, simply "the parents' representative" might have done as middle ground, though I'd had still preferred solid ground.
"After Luna's funeral, the famous defence lawyer Jef Vermassen, this time representing the girl's parents in front of the press, asked ..." ? (without Wikilink: though he is often named as Belgium's most famous Assisen lawyer, no English Wikipedia article even mentions him, nor 'Assisen' for that matter) -- 83.182.60.42 (from a new IP) 2006-05-31 20:30 (UTC)
No, I believe that this is a bit longwinding, which will distract the reader from the real message in the paragraph. Let's leave it as it is, there are other, more important parts of the article that need improvement. Thanks for the effort, though ! --LucVerhelst 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of poll

[edit]

Diderot, why did you delete the poll results because Either this article talks about the VB in terms of political consequences, or it doesn't? Isn't that a bit contradictory? The poll does talk about the VB in terms of political consequences.1652186 07:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. If there's to be a discussion of the VB in relation to this article then either we do this the stupid way, like most Wikipedia articles on political subjects, and turn it into a he said/she said that ultimately informs no one; or we leave it at noting that press and public figures have been discussing the VB in this context. A poll is something from which it is difficult to extract conclusions without a lot more context, and it will be irrelevant and outdated by next week. It will either serve as a defense or a condemnation of the VB, or of the political fallout of this killing. If this article is going to defend or condemn the VB, then the Paul Belien quote goes back in, since he is funded in part by the VB and certainly acts as one of its ideologues, and it provides a real context for why so many people want to pin this on the Vlaams Belang; or we act like an encyclopedia and actually talk about the murder and let the political consequences establish themselves before trying to make arguments about them. --Diderot 10:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, it's the Beliën quote. Well, I have no problem with it being there, the reason I removed it was that it didn't fit in nicely anymore after Intangible's additions. 1652186 12:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i have stated before that I dont want to talk about politics in this article. I only tried to include the rebuttal of the justice department that Hans was not brought up in a racialist or violent environment, after it became known that Friede van Themsche was his aunt. Intangible 14:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

the reactions and aftermath dont concern the article subject, which is Hans Van Themsche. Intangible 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Van Themsche himself isn't notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia. The only reason why this article exists, is because of the racist shooting. The right thing to do would be to move the article. --LucVerhelst 08:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article to an article about the whole event? Sijo Ripa 09:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should think so. What are the Wikipedia standards for these kind of article names ? "Hans Van Themsche murders" ? --LucVerhelst 09:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose splitting up the article. I could probably live with a move though, if the new name can be agreed upon. 1652186 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the tags still have to stay? 1652186 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no more discussion on this part, I'm removing the tags. 1652186 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Murderer

[edit]

I added the cat:mass murderer after reading an article in De Morgen, 20 May 2006, page 13, with headline "'Het motief van een massamoordenaar herken je aan de slachtoffers'" : "The motive of a mass murderer can be recognised by his victims". Jef Vermassen, well known expert and author of a book on mass murderers, clearly defines the shooting in Antwerp as being committed by a mass murderer : "These murders fit in the profile [of mass murders']. [...] In the first place, a mass murderer wants to commit suicide.[...] Before they die, they want to do once more what they want. [...] They want to do something that makes sense by taking others with them into death." --LucVerhelst 15:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall within the wikipedia definition set forth in Category:Mass murderers, so I will revert back your changes. Intangible 15:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I most strongly agree with Intangible. Ignoring Wikipedia definitions is purely bad faith. By the way, Luc, you have made five reverts (in two articles) the last 24 hours. You could thank me for giving you this warning in stead of having you blocked. 1652186 17:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was already convinced by Intangible, no need to start threatening me again. You guys know how to create an environment of confidence and cooperation, don't you. --LucVerhelst 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For as far as copyrights would allow longer quotations from the article in De Morgen, such and to that respect Hans Van Themsche, should belong to the cat:mass murderer - his being stopped by a bullet before achieving a 4th killing or the survival of some victim should be irrelevant - but only as far as it would truly add to/corroborate/contradict information (psychological background, motive, state of mind, modus operandi, ...) relevant for the category. If not, the whole category would belong in a morbid Guinness Book of Records. User:213.224.87.185 2006-05-23 19:52 (UTC)

Column by Khaled Diab

[edit]

Anonymous user 81.241.7.213 added a link to a column by Khaled Diab. He also added similar links to the articles Flemish Block and Vlaams Belang, where I removed them as irrelevant. However, I question the legitimacy of this one as well. Since similar edits were made to Joe Van Holsbeeck and many others (see the talk page of the latter for a list), I strongly suspect that these are vanity links. I also don't know whether these subjective columns are encyclopedic (certainly not anywhere outside 'external links'). 1652186 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References don't need to be encyclopaedic, to the contrary. How else would you find sources to base an article on. Of course you can't copy the column, or any external text, that would be unencylopaedic, but you can surely use them to write a Wikipedia article.
In this particular case, where the column is refered to in a section about the different reactions, a column like this most certainly has its place, altough we have to make sure that it has enough weight and importance to be mentioned.
Since it is a reaction from an international magazine, and in particular from an arab/muslim magazine, it should certainly be mentioned (until we find a more representative article, maybe), because the link the public is making between the murders and the Vlaams Belang, which is a self declared anti-muslim-party. --LucVerhelst 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Luc, of course I agree with what you say, but I would like to see some proof that Al Ahram Weekly by Khaled Diab is a respected English-language newspaper, certainly if you want to keep this in the article itself and not the 'external links'. 1652186 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. I'm positive that you are going to be able to convince us with a well-balanced argumentation pro or contra. --LucVerhelst 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. As you and others have stated before (in connection to my references), it is up to the person who includes them to prove that they are reliable and noteworthy. For me proving the opposite would be just as difficult as for Saddam Hussain to prove that he doesn't have WMDs. 1652186 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. You're right in saying that it's in the first place upon user 81.241.7.213 to provide some proof. But I don't agree that it would be more difficult for someone else. You're using the wrong analogy here. --LucVerhelst 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't resist, so I looked up the newspaper on Wikipedia : "its content is controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information, but despite this its opinion section is well regarded." (Al-Ahram). The newspaper itself was founded in 1875, the English weekly in 1991.
Not some rag from a bunch of fundamentalists or extremists. --LucVerhelst 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, not that I suggest the latter of course, but on Mr. Diab's site, I see no affilation to Al-Ahram. It seems to me he is just a private Belgian citizen with a blog. 1652186 17:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make myself more clear: I do see that he is a freelance journalist and that this column has been published in the newspaper, but this does not mean he is a professional journalist of that paper. Maybe we should link to that article instead of his personal site. 1652186 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Do we have a permalink ? --LucVerhelst 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A permalink to what? The Egyptian article? 1652186 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. How else are you going to keep the reference ? --LucVerhelst 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. I haven't even found it on that site in the first place. But once again, I don't consider that to be my problem or responsibility. 1652186 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is/was on the front page.
What do you mean, it's not your problem or responsibility. I thought we were all collaborating in making a good Wikipedia article ?--LucVerhelst 20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I question the correctness of the allegation that Karel Van Themsche was a member of the Nazi SS, as well as the wording of this. For more details, see the talk page of Frieda Van Themsche. 1652186 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no doubt that Karel Van Themsche was in the SS. The phrase tegen het goddeloze communisme en voor Vlaanderen (http://www.friedavanthemsche.be/biografie.php) in the context of Flemish politics is unambiguously the standard formulaic apologia of the Flemish SS veterans. If he had not been in the SS Frieda Van Temsche would have said so loud and clear. If you have any notion of respect for historical truth this objection should be withdrawn.


Make a page about "Zinloos geweld"?

[edit]

The word "Zinloos geweld" (Meaningsless Violence) is lately often used in Belgium. Media sources even frequently speak about "een golf van zinloos geweld" (a wave of meaningless violence). I think the sentence is becoming a term which defines all the latest happenings in Belgium (the murder on the 16 year old Nigerian kid, the murder of Joe, Hans' murders, the skinhead assault which put one person into a coma, the chased Morrocan who drowned, the deadly beating of Guido on the bus, etc.). Therefore I think it's appropriate to make a page about it, which could summarize these latest happenings and the combined consequences on politics, public opinion, etc. Also, it would put the separate cases into a context. I suggest: Meaningless Violence (Belgium). Sijo Ripa 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term was also heavily used in the Netherlands a couple of years ago. Maybe make a page similar to the NL Wikipedia site nl:Zinloos geweld, and link from there to individual cases? Intangible 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

[edit]

I added the factual accuracy tag because various users keep removing the referenced (and relevant, in connection to the Belgian social situation) fact that the perpetrators of the Joe Van Holsbeeck murder are of Roma descent. 1652186 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various users realize that you refuse to show references for statements 'Roma' and 'cause of death'. Even on your edit comment you suddenly mention "On Demoor" – What Demoor? do you see the name anywhere in the article or in the reference? There may well be some link in the article or in its reference that provides that information but that is not a reference by itself: from the Google search page you are only a few clicks away from just about any source, this does not mean you can simply put a link to Google underneath each article and then claim "the referenced (...) fact".
  • Roma: When properly referenced, it may go into the article provided it is not mentioned in the sentence that describes the reactions when the Polish nationality was discovered: to my knowledge, at that time the Roma descend was utterly unknown. It must follow in a next sentence.
  • 'heart attack' is stated as cause of death in the only reference given (VRT news, considered highly reliable). A later discovered contraditory cause of death then must be accompanied by a very good reference, even one that mentions ...another cause of death than earlier publicized (to avoid leaving Wikipedia readers wonder which is the better informed).
Conclusion: there is no dispute going on, each editor is responsible to deliver references, as I did on your request, illustrating the general assumption that a roman-catholic was the killer and not a muslim as had been assumed earlier. This does not prove the killer to be a christian, such is irrelevant because the earlier general assumption of the killer being a muslim was based on an a far faibler basis; the now referenced statement of the catholic religion does however explain why some public reactions pointed at the difference between the expected responsabilities of muslim organisations and those expected of catholic institutions. SomeHuman 2006-07-14 01:42 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your above rationale. I'll first try to respond step by step to the above, then elaborate on your recent changes to the article:
  • Various users realize that you refuse to show references for statements 'Roma' and 'cause of death'. I do not understand what you mean by this. If you are simply looking for hard evidence about the cause of death and the Roma descend, let me refer you to [3] and [4]. The first is of a latter date than the article speaking of a heart attack, and is therefore correct until further notice (if every article overruling an older one should explicitly mention this, newspapers would grow to twice their size). The latter is from the highly reliable VRT, so should be no problem to accept.
  • Even on your edit comment you suddenly mention "On Demoor" – What Demoor? do you see the name anywhere in the article or in the reference? If you are so well up to date to know (unlike the rest of the country) that the cause of death was a heart attack, then you should also be aware of the name of the victim.
  • There may well be some link in the article or in its reference that provides that information but that is not a reference by itself: from the Google search page you are only a few clicks away from just about any source, this does not mean you can simply put a link to Google underneath each article and then claim "the referenced (...) fact". Once again, I fail to see your point here. Where did I refer to a Google search?
Now, for the article itself:
  • You have unilaterally removed a factual accuracy tag, thereby also taking down the POV tag that had been up for months. This is considered by the community as a serious offense.
  • You admit yourself that you have no proof whatsoever that Joe's killer was a catholic: This does not prove the killer to be a christian, such is irrelevant because the earlier general assumption of the killer being a muslim was based on an a far faibler basis; You seem to indicate here that you can include this unproven claim in an encyclopedia, because there have been mistakes about the killer's religion in the past. By the way, your so called reference [5] does not meet the criteria, since it is nothing but a subjective blog. This is clearly illustraed by the cartoons and banners alone.
I'll try to insert some sanity in the article while keeping in mind your point of view. However, if you continue to be unreasonable (such as, as a prime example, officialy branding the article accurate and NPOV because you feel it is), I'll feel compelled to follow Wikipedia guidelines for this kind of situations. 1652186 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of this. If you want to create a day by day timeline on when we thought that the perps were North African, when we found them to be Polish, and when they turned out to be Roma, do so in the Joe Van Holsbeeck murder article. This is of no importance here: we are just referring to the Van Holsbeeck case, and only the facts that eventually turned out to be correct concern us here. I also patched up your reference to include the real reference, not a subjective blog referring to it. This is supposed to be your job. 1652186 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the paragraph starts with "While it took them four days to react", you cannot mention facts that were discovered after these four days before describing that reaction: such falsifies the data causing either the reaction or the delay before the reaction, or both – and thus the main issue of the paragraph. The Roma descent remained irrelevant for that main issue, and the 'various people' that you had complained about had correctly decided to remove it. Today, for the first time, your edit shows the for this paragraph relevant fact that the perpetrators where right from the start thought to be of north-african descent (as I had introduced with my last edit). Only in conjunction with that aspect, the 'Roma' descent becomes relevant (and thus I had left it in with my last edit because you finally had given the required reference), and the precise place of insertion in the paragraph became rather irrelevant; my way allowed to clearly point at the for Belgian witnesses seemingly ethnical ressemblance; perhaps readers can figure this out for themselves the way you edited it. Is it not ironical that the forementioned reference you finally gave, has as title and subtitle: "Murder of Joe Van Holsbeeck: chronology Thu 27/04/06 - The brutal murder of Joe Van Holsbeeck dominates the news already for more than two weeks. We put the most important facts in proper order for you.", while you still persist that the chronology 'is of no importance here' ?
• I did not read the newspaper article on 'the coactor's strict roman-catholic family' and cannot access its archive (without subscribing, only a fraction of the article is available); thus I assumed my job to be: following the Wikipedia referencing standard and stating which quote from the newpaper is found and where. Your edit of my reference, pointing straight to the newspaper, is entirely your responsability: we must assume you verified that original source to be in line with the referenced text in the article.
• I do not see how your last (2006-07-14 19:22 UTC) edit might have improved the article, but if you are feeling happy with it, than so will I.
SomeHuman 2006-07-15 02:16 (UTC)
I included the timeline article because it gives the best single overview of the event as a whole, not because I find the exact chronology of the events important here. And on the catholic reference: please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. We must indeed hope that the blog you first referred to is honest in citing its sources, but that site itself is certainly not fit as a reference (as you seemed to agree upon). It is still you though who referred to De Morgen (whether directly or via the blog), so if you say we can't trust the blog, it's your task to check the De Morgen article. 1652186 09:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are really trying to test my patience, aren't you? If you are unable or unwilling to read the Wikipedia guidlines for referencing, let me bring them to you:
A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page and the web page must be mentioned. The web page itself must therefore be a reliable source.
Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources.
The only solution is for you to link directly to the De Morgen article, which necessitates that you personally check whether this article really says what you are claiming. For clarity, I'm not contesting your addition, I'm just demanding that you add a real source for it. 1652186 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You assume a lot, and you do not read very well as now again proven by your 3rd removal of a proper reference. As stated in my former reply above: I had followed Wikipedia standards for secondary sources. As edit comment when reinstating the reference after your first removal of it: 'Ref. was valid: several reasons'. In particular, that secondary source is a well-known organization's bimonthly magazine with articles, the only blog part is the facility for readers at their responsability to post reactions that are shown when clicking on 'Reactions' underneath an article; my reference shows the article that cites the primary source. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-15 12:13 (UTC)
I am ceasing attempts to engage in a constructive debate with SomeHuman. However, let me conclude by saying that:
  • Secondary sources are not qualified to serve as a reference for a claimed fact.
  • His self proclaimed secondary reference is no such thing, since his reference is not a summary of reliable primary sources, but merely a piece of opinion.
  • He is the one about to violate 3RR, not me. 1652186 13:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very glad that you finally are "ceasing attempts to engage in a constructive debate" for which these quotes stand model:
 • "If you are so well up to date to know (unlike the rest of the country) that"...
 • "You have unilaterally removed a factual accuracy tag, thereby also taking down the POV tag that had been up for months. This is considered by the community as a serious offense." Comment SomeHuman: since 1652186 had removed the POV tag, and I simply hadn't thought about it when removing his new tag that soon by my edits had become without subject, I think the community, unlike 1652186, might assume my good faith.
 • After an argumentum ad hominem, 1652186 continues: "You seem to indicate here that you can include this unproven claim in an encyclopedia" while the article did not claim the admittedly unproven and irrelevant true religion, but states "(the killer was initially assumed to be Muslim but was subsequently thought to be Roman Catholic)" and the reference proves the 2nd religion was 'subsequently tought to be' at least the coactor's (and such is clearly stated by myself in the reference text that links to the external article).
 • "your so called reference"
 • "I'll try to insert some sanity in the article while keeping in mind your point of view. However, if you continue to be unreasonable (such as, as a prime example, officialy branding the article accurate and NPOV because you feel it is), I'll feel compelled to follow Wikipedia guidelines for this kind of situations." Comment SH: Congratulations with your sane mind, distinguishing you from all the other contributers who were utterly incapable to bring the least bit of sanity in the article; gratefully accepting your early threath. It is interesting to see how my forgetting about a tag that 1652186 had removed, earlier assumed my 'serious offense', here became my 'officialy branding the article accurate and NPOV'.
 • "I'm getting tired of this."
 • "You are really trying to test my patience, aren't you?"
 • "I also patched up your reference to include the real reference, not a subjective blog referring to it. This is supposed to be your job." (SH: and after my reply why the reference should be as I had put it:) "it's your task to check the De Morgen article." (SH: and finally enlightening me about the status of my freedom:) "The only solution is for you to link directly to the De Morgen article, which necessitates that you personally check whether this article really says what you are claiming. For clarity, I'm not contesting your addition, I'm just demanding that you add a real source for it." Comment SH: also bold as written by 1652186.
  • 1652186 is the first person in half a century,
who manages to never understand anything simple I explain though yet always finds a way to assume flaws and a means of pointing out relatively intricate rules; and after incorrectly interpreting an assumed flaw, next blowing it up to a major intentional offense; he also claims a minority vision (his alone) to be the community view (for whom he feels compelled to speak up). Such persistent actions extend beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith: it is a debating technique known from Nazi propaganda and fascist movements, an unusual skill indicates a specific training on behalf of such organization for either spokesmen or molls (persons under innocent pretences spying or sneekily agitating from within outsider circles). The by 1652186 instigated introduction of a reference resulted in my incidentally finding the secondary reference: an article in a magazine of an organisation never known to introduce false quotes, the 'Anti-Fascistisch Front', a most straightforward opponent of the 'Vlaams Belang'. It seems to have rattled some chains; if these might after a while appear to have become silent, the typical style would soon be recognized from under some unsuspected mask.
I am not unaware of 1652186's similar behaviour in a 'constructive debate' on both their talk pages and his creation of "your personal article" on Luc Verhelst, who ended by: "In my book, being falsely accused of going against the rules is considered a personal attack"; as one may notice, from someone properly warned, I take it as that.
SomeHuman 2006-07-16 16:10-17:02 (UTC)
Since SomeHuman's above comment is in no way article related, I will not react to the content. I however do wish to note that:
  • while my quoted comments are indeed bold and taken from the heat of the discussion, I do not see them qualify as personal attack. SomeHuman's [s]uch persistent actions extend beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith: it is a debating technique known from Nazi propaganda and fascist movements, an unusual skill indicates a specific training on behalf of such organization for either spokesmen or molls (persons under innocent pretences spying or sneekily agitating from within outsider circles) is another matter though.
  • I do not think that it is constructive to bring up my relations with other users in unrelated debates. 1652186 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is 1652186 who stated he is "ceasing attempts to engage in a constructive debate with SomeHuman"; the latter cannot debate constructively alone, so 1652186 should not think my reaction to be constructive to his benefit; he might have contemplated about the motto on my user page.
• Precisely an unrelated debate illustrates the current one not being a loose unfortunate incident that ran out of hand innocently, as 1652186 now sheepishly claims "in the heat of the discussion" – Neither I nor the forementioned opponent of 1652186 had caused such heat: numerous provocations had been quietly disregarded.
• 1652186 does not qualify his input as a personal attack, I assume just as "He is the one about to violate 3RR, not me" does not qualify as an unprovoked personal attack. Instead of stating e.g. '... I do not see them qualify as personal attack, SomeHuman's entry here above is another matter though', 1652186 manages to extensively quote the countering without quoting any part of the immediately preceeding argumentation – for a typifying style of debate once more Q.E.D. It is remarkable how this time 1652186 did not opportunistically dodge my intention by saying 'I fail to understand your above rationale' but cuts right to the essential conclusion – again Q.E.D.
• Of course 1652186 states "SomeHuman's above comment is in no way article related", obviously in blatant contrast with all 1652186's contributions quoted above by me. It happens to be article related because the behaviour of 1652186 not only prevents editors to do serious work, it warns readers in what light the 'POV'-tag on this article (and possibly others) edited by 1652186 might need to be read: The controversy started by 1652186 insisting in adding the 'Roma descent' and obstructing any mentioning of the 'Roman-Catholic family' of criminals.
SomeHuman 2006-07-16 20:51-21:17 (UTC)

Content removal by LucVerhelst

[edit]

Luc, you should know by now that you cannot go around removing entire paragraphs that have been discussed for months with a one sentence rationale that actually isn't one. This is considered vandalism. I do find it weird that you do not attend to certain articles for weeks, then suddenly show up when I do, and remove something written by me, but not my latest edit. Is this getting personal? 1652186 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling my edits vandalism, while they are not. Shall we seek mediation on this, or a third party ?
In any case, calling good faith edits vandalism constitutes a personal attack.
You are accusing me of stalking you. I consider this to be a personal attack.
--LucVerhelst 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want meditation, go ahead. You really need to read the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks again. Comments on content (thus on the nature of your edits) is not a personal attack. I'm not accusing you of stalking me. I'm asking you whether you are deliberately attending to articles that I contribute to. You really need to pull in your toes, as we say in Flanders. 1652186 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I reverted your unwarranted revert. I really think the removal of these paragraphs make the article better than it was before. Let's discuss this like adults, shall we ?

  • What does the Joe Van Holsbeek murder have to do with Hans Van Themsche, apart from the fact that they were committed in the same season ?
  • Do you really believe the comments by Dyab Abou JahJah are important enough to be in the article ?
  • The Blokker store being set to fire really had nothing to do with Hans Van Themsche, had it, or certainly not verifiably.
  • Guido Demoor's death also had nothing whatsoever to do with Hans Van Themsche, don't you think.

--LucVerhelst 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* What does the Joe Van Holsbeek murder have to do with Hans Van Themsche, apart from the fact that they were committed in the same season ?
Exactly what the article said. If there is no connection however, then references to this article in the Van Holsbeeck one should also go.
* Do you really believe the comments by Dyab Abou JahJah are important enough to be in the article ?
Yes I do. He, as the self proclaimed leader of Muslims in Belgium (through his party), made a comment about an important event in the aftermath of this murders.
* The Blokker store being set to fire really had nothing to do with Hans Van Themsche, had it, or certainly not verifiably.
Not less verifiable than the influence by Van Themsche's grandfather, I'd say.
* Guido Demoor's death also had nothing whatsoever to do with Hans Van Themsche, don't you think.
Here, I'm tended to agree. But then again, I didn't include that paragraph. 1652186 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


* What does the Joe Van Holsbeek murder have to do with Hans Van Themsche, apart from the fact that they were committed in the same season ?
Exactly what the article said. If there is no connection however, then references to this article in the Van Holsbeeck one should also go.
I removed the paragraphs because the article didn't make the connection clear. Please elaborate, may be I'm not intelligent enough.
I shall go and have a look at the Van Holsbeek article. If you don't mind, that is ?
* Do you really believe the comments by Dyab Abou JahJah are important enough to be in the article ?
Yes I do. He, as the self proclaimed leader of Muslims in Belgium (through his party), made a comment about an important event in the aftermath of this murders.
Yes, well, "self proclaimed" is the key word here. Personally, I think Jahjah isn't notable enough. But if you insist, I could agree, but without the extensive cite.
* The Blokker store being set to fire really had nothing to do with Hans Van Themsche, had it, or certainly not verifiably.
Not less verifiable than the influence by Van Themsche's grandfather, I'd say.
Firstly, I don't agree about the grandfather bit.
Secondly, if you can verify a connection between the Blokker store and Van Themsche, please provide a source. I will be surprised, really, but I have been known to be wrong before.
--LucVerhelst 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the paragraphs because the article didn't make the connection clear. Please elaborate, may be I'm not intelligent enough.
Just what it says: that some find it questionable that while taking four days after one murder, the reaction came immediately after the other one. And now don't say I'm using weasel words, cause I didn't include this allegation in the article, only the facts left to the interpretation of the reader.
Secondly, if you can verify a connection between the Blokker store and Van Themsche, please provide a source. I will be surprised, really, but I have been known to be wrong before.
I'll be happy to, as soon as you prove that Karel's Nazi past has influenced Hans and is thus relevant.
But then again, I'm elaborating here. I'm sure this will remain a too/not discussion, which I vowed no longer to take part in, in order to avoid further personal attack allegations. I've tried to make my point clear, it will no longer change. Feel free to partially restore the content or leave it down and the tag up. 1652186 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just what it says: that some find it questionable that while taking four days after one murder, the reaction came immediately after the other one.
Now I understand. If this is what you want to insert in the article, then this one sentence should be enough, no need to use 4 paragraphs.
Furthermore, I think we do need a reference that verifies that "some find it questionable".
I'll be happy to, as soon as you prove that Karel's Nazi past has influenced Hans and is thus relevant.
Yeah, well. Not very cooperative, are you ?
--LucVerhelst 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags

[edit]

I propose to remove the two tags that still are in the article.

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian User:REN got rid of the 'total dispute' tag, though his edit also left out relevant and undisputed facts. His promoting of a sub-subsection to subsection however, left the remaining tag at an improper place. After re-reading, the only part on which this 'primary sources' tag may still make some sense, is the Beliën quote for which blogs are cited. I indented that (sub-sub...-)section and restricted the tag to it, and reinserted for this case undeniable relevancies (see my edit comment) in the article. — SomeHuman 2006-08-12 13:26 (UTC)

"Fortunately ... inhabited"

[edit]

I would like to change the sentence "Fortunately a Turkish courier could quickly extinguish the fire, as the apartment above the office was inhabited" to "A Turkish courier could quickly extinguish the fire". I feel that the way it is now, the message conveyed in the sentence is that the fire bombing wouldn't have mattered if the building wouldn't have been inhabited. Like it is now, I feel it's POV against the far right youth organisation involved. --LucVerhelst 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If fire was set to an office, it was of course a crime and I do not imagine someone thinking otherwise. But setting fire to an inhabited place at night makes it a far more severely punishable crime by the Belgian law (because it is likely to kill people!). Hiding the circumstances which as recognized by the Penal Law mean that someone endangered innocent human lives to hit a far or extreme right target (thus not only the Vlaams blok will likely assume a left wing extremist culprit), would be the worst kind of bias. If I recall well, I once reshaped the sentence 'Fortunately ... to its present form: I do not think anyone can assume some POV when one states it is fortunate to be able to extinguish fire set by arsen. Although property is far less valuable than human life, reading it again I agree it leads to assuming it might not have been fortunate if the place were not inhabited. So I will insert one word: "especially as the appartment..." — SomeHuman 2006-08-02 00:24 (UTC)
Good thinking ! --LucVerhelst 07:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title truncation on 7 October 2006

[edit]

I reverted User:Mountolive's edit at Hans Van Themsche, for a number of reasons.

  • the heading he changed was created after a long -and heated- debate on the article's talk page. We're risking to reopen the debate, disrupting Wikipedia
  • I believe the heading accurately describes the content of its section
  • his Point of view ("Vlaams Belang may share responsability as a legal organization which can be targeted if needed, but you just can't make responsible a blurring mass of people -its voters- (unless you are biased)") is one of the POV's that is discussed in the section. Maybe it should be expanded. The discussion about it might be reflected better in the article.

-- ➌  LucVerhelst  19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I had pretty much lost interest in this article earlier on, but the corresponding section reads like blatant WP:OR piece, where ideas are synthesized by a Wikipedia editor (such as "Allegations against Vlaams Belang must be understood in the context of rhetoric like that of commentator Paul Beliën, a supporter of the party and spouse of one of its parliamentarians"), instead of secondary sources. Intangible 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced comments on Beliën's quote are themselves primary sources for how the quote is perceived; synthesizing these is simply our job and not original research. From the several references, e.g.:
  • "Wie gaat een klacht wegens racisme indienen tegen Vlaams Belanger Paul Beliën, echtgenoot van Alexandra Colen, die schreef in zijn Brussels Journal, overgenomen door De Standaard: ...(the quote)... Ik ben benieuwd wie het initiatief neemt. Welke minister gaat Marion Van San nu een opdracht geven voor een onderzoek naar het verband tussen Poolse cultuur, katholicisme en criminaliteit? Nu blijkt dat de mededader uit een 'streng katholiek' gezin komt (DM 26/4)."
  • "Hoelang nog zullen we geweld door autochtoon opgejaagd wild individualiseren en het geweld van kleurlingen aan hun cultuur wijten? Hoelang willen we politieke retoriek over roofdieren en prooien nog tolereren? ‘De roofdieren hebben tanden en klauwen,’ schreef twee weken geleden nog een publicist van VB-signatuur. Hij had het niet over Vlaamse Leeuwen, wel over moslims. ‘De roofdieren hebben messen,’ ging hij verder. ‘Van kleinsaf hebben ze tijdens het jaarlijkse offerfeest geleerd hoe ze warmbloedige kuddedieren moeten kelen.’ Een uitschuiver? 'Het is niet omdat je de kat in de viswinkel plaatst dat hij een pladijs wordt,’ zei een kopstuk van het VB enkele jaren geleden in een debat over integratie op de Vlaamse televisie. Onschuldig beeld, blijkbaar, want niemand was verontrust. De boodschap was nochtans duidelijk: zoals de kat er is om de vissen op te eten, zo vormt ook de vreemdeling en zijn cultuur een bedreiging voor de Vlaming. De kat hoort hier niet thuis en als we niet opletten worden we opgegeten. ‘Wij zijn de kuddedieren, zij zijn de roofdieren,’ verduidelijkte de publicist – tevens Vlaams correspondent voor de Wall Street Journal – nog in zijn website-artikel. ‘De kuddedieren hebben de roofdieren zelf in hun biotoop toegelaten.’"
  • "(the quote)... Paul Beliën over de Noordafrikaanse daders van de moord op Joe Van Holsbeeck, voor bleek dat het om Polen ging. Beliën is de echtgenoot van VB-parlementslid Alexandra Colen en werkt bovendien geregeld mee aan activiteiten van de VB-studiedienst." (Though the layout might suggest this to be a secondary source [from The Standaard?], it does not state such and then should not be assumed to be such. It is definitely a primary source as far as it uses this quote and comment in a box to illustrate its own article on Vlaams Belang.)
  • "Nu, als ik Paul Beliën zou willen op iets aanspreken in deze, dan is het niet op zijn huwelijk met mevrouw Colen. Nee, ik zou het met hem willen hebben over de voortdurende sluipende haatzaaierij—islamofascisten nog aan toe!—en vooral over dat ene stukje van hem, Geef Ons Wapens. Met onder meer fijne typeringen als ...(quote part 1).... Hetzelfde stukje waarin Beliën voor eens en voor altijd duidelijk maakt waar de partij van zijn vrouw eigenlijk voor staat:" (quote that is not put in the article: "[…] dat het “xenofobe” Vlaams Belang slechts een vierde van de Vlaamse stemmen haalt, en geen 75 procent […] betekent dat slechts een vierde van de Vlamingen komaf wil maken met de roofdieren die rond de Vlaamse kudde zwerven […]") "Leuk om weten. En dan naar het einde van dat stukje staat het zwart op wit:" (quote that is not put in the article: "In een democratische staat moet de overheid de burgers beschermen tegen de roofdieren. Indien de staat deze functie niet meer kan of wil uitoefenen, hebben de burgers het recht zichzelf te bewapenen. […] Nood breekt wet. […] [B]esef dat niemand ons zal verdedigen als wij het zelf niet doen. Wie op de politie(k) rekent voor bescherming, is zo goed als dood.") "Natuurlijk is er geen redelijk mens die zal beweren dat het artikeltje van Beliën of die hele Brusselsjournal ook maar iets te maken heeft met “The Antwerp Massacre” zoals ze het zelf noemen. Dat is teveel eer, zóveel lezers hebben ze vrees ik echt niet in de internaten in Roeselare. Nee, rechtstreeks hebben ze er niets mee te maken. Maar onrechtstreeks des te meer."
The references are by a wellknown Western author who lived at several places in the Middle East, by an author who had written a book about the Vlaams Belang, by a left wing movement, by a blog... in other words of varying origin: this proves that Beliën's quote did not remain unnoted and how it was perceived and commented. It is not the task of an encyclopaedia to pick citations from each source, but to give an NPOV indication of their general perception. That perception itself is a POV ('Catholicism' is one too), it is our task to mention its existence. Not that I wrote the section, but it does summarize it pretty well. I had only put some references in. — SomeHuman 7 Oct2006 22:31 (UTC)
Comment originally inserted underneath LucVerhelst's comment of 19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
First I do apologize for I seem to have touched a sensitive spot: I just ended in this article incidentally and I was not aware of the polemics.
Once this is said, well, opening the debate for the sake of opening the debate and start one of those stupid editing wars does disrupt wikipedia and must be avoided. However, opening the debate to try to settle a better version is one of the things wikipedia is about and we should not be scared of "disrupting" wikipedia this way, should we?
Again, I am not into this debate but is blatantly biased to mention the Vlaams Belang voters there: it is like if someone not only wanted to involve Vlaams Belang in this murder (which may or may not, that depends on your POV) but, besides that, he or she would like to "rise to the occasion" to put a stigma on ALL Vlaams Belang voters which is obviously ridiculous....or maybe are you saying that ALL VLAAMS BELANG VOTERS ENDORSE THIS KILLING? because that is what you get from the present formulation.
I'd erase the reference to the voters again, however, for the sake of not disrupting wikipedia (a new form of self censorship, I guess) I will not. But I hope you take into consideration these remarks and you open some debate which ends up leaving Vlaams Belang voters aside of this, whether you like them a lot or hate them a lot.
Thanks Mountolive 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put comments in a same section between other peoples' comments and do not modify the section title (Since your nickname was part of it, I modified the title so as to be recognizable but without your nickname as you seem to prefer, from your "Criminal voters?" to some middle ground title).
I had prepared next reply on your previous, meanwhile modified, comment, I put that original back here above. Your revised paragraph and further comments are put underneath mine. (Edit conflict incurable by your modification of your talk page comment.)
Anyway, whether you like it or not, the publicized (originally on a major TV channel, rebroadcast several times), and noted (quoted in probably every newspaper and newsmagazine) reaction of the national Minister of Foreign Affairs is not something we are supposed to camouflage, and it was especially noted in particular because his resposibilizing the voters "for the climate of racism" ". If you call it a stigmatization... or call a climate of racism an endorsement of this killing... The title is in fact extremely prudent by its 'alleged' in front of 'responsibilities'. That is not confirming the point of view of Minister De Gucht.
By the way, I could find one more source, the page 2 article in a major newspaper, De Morgen, for the Beliën quote (as earlier I could not get access to the direct source, thus I accompanied it with its cache, which is readily available).
— SomeHuman 8 Oct2006 00:02 (UTC)
Next paragraphs rephrase and add to Mountolive's last two paragraphs of 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I am not into this debate and I don't really have a POV but to me is blatantly biased to mention the Vlaams Belang voters there. I was shocked when I saw it: it is like if someone not only wanted to involve Vlaams Belang in this murder (which may or may not, that depends on your POV) but, besides that, he or she would like to "rise to the occasion" and put a stigma on ALL Vlaams Belang voters which is obviously ridiculous....or maybe are you suggesting that ALL VLAAMS BELANG VOTERS ENDORSE THIS KILLING? because that is what you get from the present formulation...this is pretty bold, isn't it?
The present formulation doesn't have enough with involving the Vlaams Belang (and I do not know if it was involved or not, too complicated for me..) but it intends to make a clear (and biased) reference to its voters as a part of a criminal act (which, by the way, is redundant, for a party can't be understood without its voters and you normally won't hear statements like for example "the Labour Party and its voters have passed this or that law" "the Republican Party and its voters rejoice at this or that").
I'd erase the reference to the voters again for the sake of a more neutral POV, however, for the sake of not disrupting wikipedia (a new form of self censorship, I guess: they seem to be on the rise these days..) I will not. But I do hope you take into consideration these remarks and you open some debate which ends up leaving Vlaams Belang voters aside of this, whether you like them a lot or hate them a lot.
For not to mention that the present header is too long anyway!
Thanks Mountolive 22:4023:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you inserted this before you could read my above reply to the original comment, I do not want to rub it in, but merely mention that the answer is given just above your last comment. In that lengthy title, each word counts. — SomeHuman 8 Oct2006 00:02 (UTC)
I regretted having changed this section title right after I made it: I'm sorry about that, but, as you noticed, I didn't want my username heading it, but now you've found a much better title section which I appreciate. Thank you.
I did intend, though, to put my first post right below the one of LucVerhelst just because his seemed pretty much addressed to me while someone "got ahead" of my answer and posted something. If this is not considered polite, I apologize as well.
I see you guys are pretty stubborn in this matter and, then, I will disappear and I will try to refrain myself for posting here again for, as I said, I only ended up in this article by chance and I don't have strong feelings about it nor want to spend much time in it.
Once this is said, well, only wanted to make clear that
  • The header is too long
  • The header is too long because it is a header + a POV
  • Sentences with the word "alleged" in it are troublesome and usually hide more or less successfully a POV, as stated somewhere in wikipedia guidelines
  • It is gruesome that a whole mass of people -the Vlaams Belang voters- are related in this header to this murder, I don't think anyone mentions the Ecologist voters as related to the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, for example, because that assassination was an individual act just like the assassination we are talking about here is as well.
Vlaams Belang may have a hatred ideology and you can make it morally responsible for the crime, but not its voters, I don't think the thousands voters of Vlaams Belang endorse this crime: they may vote to reduce immigration or any other goal, but they don't vote for having a teenager shooting people dead in the streets, do they?
  • The Foreign Affairs minister made a statement which is, per se, politically biased, for he is a politician and he is opposed to the VB, therefore, quoting him is reproducing a biased POV.
  • I'm sorry if I wasted your time or caused a stir over here, guys.
Mountolive 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Alleged' should not be used thoughtlessly, but this is not the case here: precisely because we repeat the Foreign Minister's POV (amongst other viewpoints regarding the Vlaams Belang party). That is the core of the article: an otherwise for an encyclopaedic article too unnotable wacko shooting people, de facto having a major influence on a political viewpoint and course of action on a topic that has been prominently in the news for several decades. Since this was very ostentatively proven notable by the media coverage. The horror of the killing with the killer's background entangled with the Vlaams Belang party (and its background) has triggered the perception that finally caused De Gucht to explicitly point at the voters. That is an observation, not a POV, that is unusually well referenced (24 reference indexes in a relatively short article). Precisely the possible implications make this article a very sensitive one. Precisely the forementioned entanglement makes it improper, even falsifying, to split the section with its long title or to leave out essential elements from the title.
You can still watch the video clip, from the reference at the De Gucht phrase: it not only shows De Gucht making the statements, but also the government party VLD's leader (at that time), without emphasizing De Gucht's opinion as the official party vision, carefully but unmistakingly supporting this line of thinking by saying and repeating that "it is time that we all should contemplate on this"... Since he, Bart Somers, is generally known as the Prime Minister's puppet, that too is significant. It was in the news (as proven by the clip) but did not draw further extensive media attention like the De Gucht statements did do, and thus can remain out of the article.
You seem to think that I or others on this talk page are strongly envolved. I should point out however that, after a long time of rest, a few people have suddenly become active in trying to change the article. Communal elections start in less than five hours... I do not think it is wise to alter the article, at least during the next week or so. After changes made by another contributor, I just put in some more and more notable sources for one particular reference that had been claimed not to be a 'primary source' and then removed the thus obsoleted tag. — SomeHuman 8 Oct2006 01:22 (UTC)
SomeHuman, Wikipedia policy does not allow Wikipedia editors to synthesize from primary sources, that is Original Research. Intangible 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. You seem to confound either an encyclopaedia with a book of citations, or a synthesis with a commentary. Just read the definition of original research from the link you provided. Synthesizing does require (actually means) sticking to the content of available proper sources, but rephrasing it so that the article text follows what is mainly present in the sources (thus not a new synthesis), without making a series of literal quotes, and without making a synthesis of each separate source (which would bring out a number of aspects with unduly weight). For the Van Themsche article, proper sources exist (thus not 'original research'), and are referenced, thus you can verify whether the phrasing is supported by the references.
Perhaps our problem is the different use of the term 'synthesis': it can mean a (shortly wrapped up) deduction from the observation of two or more different things (OR), or it can mean picking the clearly common aspect of several texts (writing an encyclopaedic article). — SomeHuman 8 Oct 2006 18:42-19:32 (UTC)
How is the commentary of Belien linked to the Van Themsche case or even the VB? That is your OR synthesis. Intangible 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no original research provided 1. a primary source links Beliën to VB, and 2. a primary source links his article Geef ons Wapens ("Give us Weapons") to Hans Van Themsche. The article Le racisme meurtrier du Vlaams Belang by journalist Benjamin Adler published on 19 May 2006 in l'Humanité, journal founded by Jean Jaurès, is a fine primary source, be it clearly left-wing. Mentioning Vlaams Belang (even in the title), it says: "Paul Beliën, idéologue du parti" and closes with: "Le titre de son pamphlet xénophobe ? « Donnez-nous des armes. » Hans a pris la sienne." It can hardly be more straightforward, while the quality of the source itself, and its origin in uninvolved France, pre-empt criticism that would attempt to call Beliën's publication too obscure to have been of some direct or indirect influence on Van Themsche, in particular with his family background.
▲ SomeHuman 2010-02-19 12:27-12:36 (UTC)
[edit]

Maybe "popular jury" could be explained. It's not a particularly common term among English-speakers (well under 1,000 Google hits worldwide). 86.136.251.18 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with "a jury of 12 citizens" to distinct it from professionals without drawing attention to this type of jury that is also wellknown in Anglo-Saxon law.
▲ SomeHuman 2010-02-07 09:26 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hans Van Themsche. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hans Van Themsche. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

[edit]

This article was originally written as a pseudo-biography of a person only notable as the perpetrator of a criminal act. The article has been moved from the person's name to a title that describes the crime. The article now needs to be re-written to be about the crime, not the perpetrator, who is primarily notable for that crime. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Dewe Honestly this doesn't even read as a biography. It just isn't well written. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: My main concern was that the lead section was previously written when this article was named for the person who committed this crime. It starts off as if it was a biography, but then turns into an article about the event that occurred. The original naming means it now may have the wrong focus. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Antwerp_shooting&oldid=1264133665"