Talk:Eva Vlaardingerbroek

Not a philosopher, edit warring
I see that some Dutch publications have referred to her as a "philosopher" but I fail to see any published treatises. She seems to me at best, a pundit. I'm sensing WP:AUTO Joshua the cat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For posterity, here's a selection of sources with an English-language Wikipedia presence referring to Vlaardingerbroek as rechtsfilosoof or legal philosopher: de Volkskrant: 2019-12-07, WNL: 2019-12-09, 2019-12-14, 2020-03-08; De Telegraaf: 2019-12-14; Het Parool: 2019-12-19, 2020-11-02; RTV Noord: 2020-01-25; EW: 2020-01-27; NPO Radio 1: 2020-05-02, 2022-04-29; Trouw: 2020-10-31; Reformatorisch Dagblad: 2020-11-02; RTL Nieuws: 2020-11-26; Collegium Intermarium: 2021-05-28; RealClearPolitics: 2022-01-19; Global Times: 2022-01-22; NRC: 2022-04-22; Fox News: 2022-04-22; 2022-07-10, 2023-03-23; NOS: 2022-05-13; NTD Television: 2022-07-07; The Spectator: 2023-03-28; National Catholic Register: 2023-04-23, Church Militant: 2023-04-25; and the office of Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán: 2023-05-05. --NFSreloaded (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Media are clearly referring to her as she has requested – we don't need to blindly repeat this. Is there any evidence of her being a philosopher. WHAT ARE HER PUBLISHED WORKS? 46.208.254.182 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Her legal encyclopedia and philosophy degree allows Vlaardingerbroek to refer to herself as legal philosopher, and more than enough reliable sources have referred to her as such. This meets Wikipedia criteria for this definition. I am not sure where this sudden fixation from anonymous and new contributors is coming from. --NFSreloaded (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic anyone with an economics degree can call themselves an economist and I am a professional historian (I'm not). Maybe it's different in the Netherlands but this is English language Wikipedia 46.208.254.182 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Economist seems to disagree, it seems anyone with an even tangibly related degree can call themselves an economist in the Anglosphere. As for this article, a body of work is not a prerequisite, just reliable sources, which are (again) provided sufficiently. --NFSreloaded (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "In academia, most economists have a Ph.D. degree in Economics". She does not have a PhD. 46.208.254.182 (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and what did the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics add about individuals with Bachelors and Masters in Economics after that? --NFSreloaded (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking info from reliable sources without providing context won't do the trick, and cherrypicking from them even less so. Other sources call her a "little Aryan princess", yet nobody would seriously consider writing that in the lead of the article. As far as her being a legal philosopher is concerned, it's actually quite simple: if you consider anyone who studied musicology a musicologist, or anyone who studied law a lawyer, even if this person never actually worked as a musicologist or a laywer, then the young lady in question is undoubtedly a legal philosopher. But as a result, you'd get a category full of "musicologists" and "lawyers" who never did anything in the field. Is that really what you want?
 * As far as I know, the lead paragraph of a biography usually mentions the thing(s) the subject is notable for, but not necessarily his/her education. Eva Vlaardingerbroek is not known for being a legal philosopher, nor has she ever worked or published as one. As a random example, just look at the lead paragraph of our prime minister: "Mark Rutte is a Dutch politician who has served [...]". It does NOT say that he is a historian. The fact that Rutte has a master's degree in history is mentioned where it belongs, namely there where his education is being discussed. I'd suggest doing the same thing in this particular case. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this 46.208.254.144 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is accusation #2 of a conflict of interest, 46.208.254.144 (not to be confused with 46.208.254.182?). Do elaborate, as my contributions are out in the open. An anonymous user returning from a six year hiatus with an exclusive fixation on this article, though...? --NFSreloaded (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Addendum: Looking into it, I've messaged Joshua the cat who seems to be editing this article without logging in, possibly in violation of WP:SOC. --NFSreloaded (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Checking her (social) media presence and reception, Vlaardingerbroek's supporters, detractors, and herself seem to have based her notability and credibility in the 'opinionosphere' around her legal credentials, similarly to fellow pundit and jurist Raisa Blommestijn. I feel its inclusion in the article lead is justified, especially when sufficiently sourced. If moving the descriptor down a sentence or two in the lead also ends the continuous reversals, I'm for it. --NFSreloaded (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Addendum: I have since removed the descriptor from Vlaardingerbroek's occupation(s) and moved it to the second sentence of the lead in a way that also delineates the "angle" from which she engages with the farmers' issue and criticizes the government. --NFSreloaded (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Engagement
Eva seems to no longer wear her engagement ring and doesn’t post pictures with Will Witt anymore. Can anyone find a source confirming they’re no longer engaged. BigCheddah (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * She is now married to man that’s not Will Witt, updated for the marriage. BigCheddah (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Question
When a subject has been identified in their Wikipedia entry as "far right," as has Dutch politician Eva Vlaardingerbroek, exactly what does that mean?

Assume the political "right" is everything from 50 to 100 on a continuum of 1-100. Is "far right" everything from 51 to 100? Or 75 to 100? Or 95 to 100?

My point is that this designation is entirely subjective and unhelpful. For normal people, those without an agenda, "far left" is Marxist territory and "far right" is Nazi territory. As Wikipedia descriptors, they are entirely unhelpful because they lack real meaning and play on every individual's worst political notions. "Liberal" and "conservative" are reasonable and safe. YankeeSoldier (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with this and moreover, the links that are used to cite her being far-right don't offer any proof of it either. They're just news articles saying she's far right. 2A02:A449:AB8D:0:1C1D:5A6F:A609:6D80 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories
please stop spreading misinformation that she is supporting conspiracy theories. What she claims are real facts that can be proved. 2A02:A212:A2C9:4B00:89B3:1408:DAE1:5E7F (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)