Talk:Death of Richard Nieuwenhuizen

Issues with this article
I have reverted the "Moroccan immigrants" section back to the end of the article because, as I say in my edit summary, although it would be neater to deal with national and international responses separately, this is seen by many as a regrettable side issue, and there are arguments for omitting it entirely as such and on BLP grounds. So having it before the international reaction derails the course of the article a bit.

I've also re-reverted the change in citation format. Under WP:CITEVAR, pure changes in format - as in this case from non-templated to templated - are to be avoided as not constructive, and it is not necessary to justify the original choice of format. However, for what it's worth, I chose not to use templates in this case so as to make it very clear which references are based on news service reports, which are videos, and, should the issue arise, which have been updated and when, in view of the volatile issues involved in the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work! I have been editing this article yesterday and today, especially with the aim to update it with more recent events. It is good that you address the issue of cultural debate. The incident is unfortunately being dragged into this discussion. Now that I have added a chapter on the legacy of the incident, I saw fit to incorporate the existing text in the section about the ongoing debate in media and politics on how this can be changed for the good. I think that as a result, it has now been placed in a more positive and constructive light. I have also tried to provide references according to the prevalent citation format. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good, although your style is a little less terse than mine and some may feel that that places emphasis on some parts; I made a few small tweaks but couldn't come up with a good shortening, so I'll leave that for anyone who is concerned. In terms of accuracy, my one concern is whether it was his youngest son or his second youngest; I assume you're going by sources and that the English-language papers I cited on that point had the information wrong. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That"s right, I did notice you were able to pack much information in sentences, which is a style I quite admire! With respect to the sons, the Guardian article is a bit incoherent and unclear, but ultimately correct. It says: "Nieuwenhuizen lived in Almere with his wife, Xandra, and their two youngest sons, Mykel, 15, and Alain, who recently turned 18. Jamie, the eldest son and a former coach at Buitenboys, lived nearby with his girlfriend." Later, the correct attribution is made to which of the sons was there: "Mykel, Nieuwenhuizen's son, saw everything." It would have been helpful if the author had written "youngest". The second son is mentioned in the article as the one who wrote the tribute. Later, there is an error in that same article, saying that Nieuwenhuizen had only two sons: "Mueller (...) watching one of his two sons play," which may suggest that the author corrected an error later. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)