Talk:Geert Wilders/Archive 1

old comment
As the above template says: stay cool. Fitna will cause quite some commotion, so be on the look-out for vandalism and trolling. Cheers, Face 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Religulous Interview
How tall is this guy? When he's standing next to Bill Maher, he makes Bill look like a dwarf. He's gotta be over 7 feet, because Maher's 5' 11". 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)~

NPV
It is not NPV to say he has a program devoid of issues. I would also like to point to his speech of 31 jan 05

http://www.geertwilders.nl/


 * I can't really figure out any particular stance this speech indicates, except protecting the Dutch people from foreign influence and how problematic it is for him to gather funds. A 'party revolving around freedom' doesn't quite cover it either. I'm not touching this beehive though, I fear he's a little to 'loaded' right now, with the situation in Holland. Sauronmaiar 21:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some biographical details
Dutch parliament-page: http://www.parlement.com/9291000/biof/02258

And maybe eventually we could also include details on his past life and career. Much of that can also be found on the website I first mentioned.

I wrote an extra paragraph based on one sentence that was already included. To "His party program is one which revolves around freedom" I added: "; according to Wilders, the Netherlands have been held hostage by elitist politicians for decades. He claims to want to give it back to the people and in that regard can be seen as a populist. Sometimes his views are compared to that of the late Pim Fortuyn."

I took out a few double expressions ("Because of the threat of fear of assasinations" => "Because of the fear for assasinations") and corrected a few typoes and grammar hickups (nothing too bad).

Let me know if I forgot something or made a boo-boo :) --Nichiran 10:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I guess you could add details of his career, though it isn't really that interesting. Jacoplane 12:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean: beleidsmedewerker sociale zaken en sociaal-economisch beleid en speech-schrijver Tweede-Kamerfractie V.V.D. ........ :) It's a good idea to add that link as a reference to this page, I'll do that. Anyway, saw you were new to wikipedia, welcome! Doozo yoroshiku. Jacoplane 13:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jXUeG4g9eng This video states that he was a punk rocker in the early 80s, while on secondary school. It is not very specific about when he stopped being left-wing though.Darth Viller (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pim Fortuyn
I have made what I believe is a light edit on his party "heir" relations with the Pim Fortuyn list. I thought this context was under explained, if you may. Mountolive 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be better if this were referenced. It seems after this election that all heirs of Fortuyn are gone, and Wilders isn't really a heir of Fortuyn. He has a liberal background. Intangible 23:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't they mean just with respect to the immigration issue? But Pim Fortuyn was much more lenient on immigration issues really.  But most other parties sound more anti-immigrant than Pim Fortuyn now.  What they share is a desire to strip away the veneer of institutional retoric which says that Islam isn't a problem.  Other parties also see Islam as a problem but prefer to keep the exisitng institutional retoric (anti-discrimination) while fixing it.  JeffBurdges 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am guessing that the folks who vote/d either for Fortuyn or Wilders have their motives, and the main one is not the dividing line liberalism/conservatism. Besides, I don't think that Fortuyn may have been anti-liberal himself, was he? probably not consistently liberal like Wilders, but neither anti-liberal anyway.
 * Besides, there has to be some relation between the disbanding of the List Pim Fortuyn and the dawn of the PvV, in terms of votes, or so I am guessing.
 * By the way, Intangible, I scored a really -I mean really- disappointing 3,36666 in the F-test. Everything was going well until the fourth question. This revelation has left me both concerned and thoughful. I may ease my pain by means of plagiarizing your user page. I think they also call it "inspiration". Mountolive 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I slightly reworded the phrase again. Probably "successor" was not the right word. Mountolive 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

His wife...
"He is in favor of stripping criminals with dual nationality of their Dutch citizenship and deporting them to the country of their original nationality. This point of view is remarkable, as his second and current wife herself has a dual nationality. She has also the Hungarian nationality. It is speculated that Wilders cares less about this fact, as Hungary isn't a predominant Islamic country. Nevertheless, it has led to considerable critisism."

What does his wife's ethnicity and country of origin have to do with anything? And WHO said his political position is "remarkable" and gave "considerable criticism"?


 * I can see why it would be notable if he is proposing either a policy which would lead to the deportation of his wife, or one which contains an exemption for his wife. However we should still source it. If there is "considerable criticism" then we should be able find some reference for it (htough it may take someone who can read Dutch.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He talks about criminals, thus nationality of his wife or any other Dutch citizen of foreign nationality is not under question here.


 * Regardless, the info should be sourced. If there's a controversy it's not up to us to decide if it's a reasonable controversy or a silly one. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree


 * I did some searching for you: http://tweedekamer.blog.nl/integratie/2007/03/20/heeft-mevrouw-wilders-dubbele-nationaliteit

Pechtold D66 is interested in the fact whether she has a dual nationality because that way he can show Wilders' followers that he is often inconsequent. Pechtold states that this method of approach is more effective than a debate with Wilders because democracies have failed due to political correctness and dictatorships arise when democracy is unstable. etc etc.

these are google hits: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=wilders+vrouw+hongaars+nationaliteit&meta= Mallerd 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wilders responds here: http://www.nosheadlines.nl/forum.php/list_messages/6291 -- he says he will not answer the question as he's the politician, not his wife or other members of his extended family. He also argues that it does not matter anyway: what he is saying about double nationalities applies to everyone in the Netherlands. The issue (whether or not his wife has a double nationality) did make some waves (mainly amongst his critics) as can be seen from Mallerd's Google search above. I have no opinion whether or not the info should be in the article; but if it is reinserted, I'd say his response should be there as well. Also note that at least two of his positions regarding immigrants with double nationalities made headlines: (1) forced repatriation after a criminal conviction (2) opposition to specific politicians' becoming a member of government/cabinet. Avb 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please check the reference confirming that Geert Wilders' wife is Hungarian? Also please make sure that the author has backed up his claim with references, otherwise it could just be speculation. StaticGull Talk  17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Appa on Dutch telivision programme Nova
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=fBOekXRR4ZI

Dutch spoken Mallerd 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Islam in the Netherlands|Wilders, Geert
This is a good category for him because 90% of what is published about him is about Islam in the Netherlands. Andries (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

a real political party ?
The problem with his political fraction is that, there is now democracy in his party. While most parties have a club of members behind them who can speak out their voice and have influence on the party. The Wilders party only excepts money, and he himself is the only public speaker of it.

It might be understandable why because, in the past simmilar political groups, always went into trouble. And so they got forbidden by law. Geert Wilders believes he can keep the balance of his talking legaly. By beeing the only talker, in history there have been simmilar political talkers (mostly dictators) who lacked democracy within their party. It also means that any of his personal opinions is in fact the voice of his political party.

Because of demographic problems with dutch and non dutch people in the netherlands Wilders wants to preserve the old Dutch valeus and wants less influence from other countries. Such parties are on the raise at countires in change. Countries rarely turn back time. And it is most supricing since in the past the power of the dutch trading has ben mae possibel by trading with other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CocaFire (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fitna
I was thinking that maybe the "Movie on koran" section should be moved to its own page. Any thoughts???? StaticGull  (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Fitna section has been moved to Fitna (film).    StaticGull   (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's "mein kampf" doing in under this header?--82.92.81.110 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad language
What does this sentence mean: "Wilders' wife is which was a former believer of the islam. Hungarian.[3][4]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.228.76 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Can we have the IPA pronunciation of his name? I have difficulty with Dutch pronounciation rules, and I had hopen this would already be here. :-) — Mütze (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's ['ɣe:ʁt 'vildɛʁs]. -- nlitement [talk]  18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation given was the Limburgian one, as he would pronounce it himself (with two errors that I corrected: the 'w' is pronounced [v\], the last 'e' as schwa). I added the standard Netherlands Dutch one, the one you can hear on TV etc. Jalwikip (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The w is incorrect except if you speak which a Surinam or Antillian accent. Should definitely be ʋ instead of w. 94.208.19.247 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see my change was inadvertently removed a few days after I applied it because of some other reversion. I'll reapply... Jalwikip (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
The reference given stating that Geert Wilders' wife is Hungarian seems a bit dubious to me. Are there any other sources stating so? StaticGull Talk  11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've hidden the statement until someone finds a reliable source confirming it. StaticGull Talk  11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's common knowledge, and part of a discussion about double nationalities. Jalwikip (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention of National Zeitung
The sentence

"This caused right wing publications like German National Zeitung to speculate whether he was an Israeli agent, who might set the world on fire."

Seems a little problematic. I had a look at wikipedia's article on National Zeitung, and it looks like the paper's a neo-nazi rag. Is mentioning the paper's view on Wilders a case of undue weight? If not, should the paper be described as far right, rather than merely right wing? Andjam (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose that we delete the whole sentence. It doesn't seem worth mentioning, as it's only speculation. StaticGull Talk  14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to mention a newspapers' perceived political affiliations. If a paper says something so extreme no one will repeat it, why put it in the article at all? And if more than one "right wing publication" said this, shouldn't the mention have at least two citations? Looks like a case of trying to associate all "right-wing publication"s with this single anti-Israel article. MantisEars (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Writing "papers" (plural) and only mentioning one newspaper could be considered as being weasel-y. StaticGull Talk  14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dutch Nazis agree with their German think-alikes: altermedia publishes a long article by Dutch broadsheet de Volkskrant on his "vermeende ‘dubbele loyaliteit’" (alleged double loyality), Geert Wilders: verliefd op Israël (Geert Wilders: in love with Israel), Dutch leftists dislike him for the same reason too, dejongejournalist.nl: "Geert Wilders heeft een geheime ‘Israëlische’ agenda" (Geert Wilders has a secret Israeli agenda), nl:De Jonge Journalist. Antisemites from both left and right hate him, that's worth mentioning. --tickle me 04:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)--

Book Banning
Geert Wilders supports free speech, as long as it doesn't bear malice (against Jews, for instance). Mein Kampf is already banned under Dutch law (not contradicting the Dutch constitution per article 6.2). StaticGull Talk  07:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed "unlikely to win many converts"
I have removed the phrase "The interviewer notes that this idea "seems unlikely to win many converts." I believe this is redundant and contrary to fostering a neutral point of view in the article. Let's allow the readers to come to their conclusions on the subject.

JohnChrichton (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Racist
I'm quite annoyed by the style of this article. English Speaking People probably don't know the man, and heard his name and are using Wikipedia as the ensclopedia to find out what he's all about. Everybody in the netherlands knows that this man is constantly discriminating muslims and the only thing he ever talks about is islam and what a treath that would be. He's sees muslims as guest instead of dutch civilians. However when you read the article and you never heard antything about this man you would think if you read the first somuch lines that he's somekind of cilvil rights activist and you would think he wants to give rights when actuelly all his proposals were about taking rights away.

One way or antother this is an ensclopedia and not a propaganda page for this racist. It should be immidiatly clear what this man is all about.

I don't mean saying he's a racist or something it has to be objective because this is an enclopedia. I'm just saying that in the first paragraph their should be somthing like "Geert Wilders is often critisised because his proposals and statements would be discriminating against muslims, and is critisised for seeing muslim people as guest instaid of dutch civilians"  or something like that.

There's nothing untrue about that, it fully true and objective that's he's often criticised for that, so even all you wilders-fans can't say that's untrue but it does give english speaking people that never heard of the man a better idee of what this man is about, or how he appears to lots of dutch people.

Please respect the fact that I was quite soft on him in this text and if it wouldn't have been for an enslopedia I would have said much worse about him. So also react with the same descency. thug_n_g 15:44, 17 januari 2009 (CET)

Biased
I can't help but feeling that this article is biased. Mr Wilders is presented as a respectable politician and there are just a few hints about possible controversies.

In reality, he is the leader of an extreme right one issue party. He is a brilliant speaker, and all his oneliners are racist remarks about muslims. Fear of migrants is the only point of his party - it is called Freedom Party but it is not, as the article suggests, libertarian at all. It is extremely conservative instead.

For example, Mr Wilders (the party is basically just a vehicle of his ideas) has seriously proposed to ban the Koran. I don't see libertarians banning books.

94.208.19.247 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excactly my problem with this article. I understand the writers of the article are people who like the man but this is a ensclopedia and wilders is now even charged for what he said. English speaking people look him up because they probably don't know him and get a twisted image of what this man is all about. Even the dutch article mentions the fact he is a islam critic but the english article don't. I can't help it but all this man was ever about was spreading hate over society against muslims and antillians.


 * However I do not feel like it's my job tot change it because I dislike, to speak softly, the man and probably can't give an objective view either, and I feel it's very important to keep an ensclopedia objective.


 * So please anybody show the world what wilders is all about, a racist.thug_n_g 14:01, 27 januari 2009 (CET)


 * Hey, the article makes quite clear that Wilders is a critic of Islam. That of course is not racism for a few obvious reasons. Firstly, Islam is not a race. You cannot convert to a race, and racism is a term refering to discrimination about a facet of a person, unrelated to concious thought, which they can neither help, nor which has an effect upon the way they choose to live their lives. Secondly, criticism of something is never Racist, or infact discrimination. A critic is simply critical of something. In this case of a book, and an ideology surrounding that book, however, he has never expressed an opinion about individual muslims, and never been critical for any reason other than that which is related to there believe system. Also, it's quite a serious claim to say that "writers of the article are people who like the man". I'm sure no editor allowed their personal feelings to get in the way of editing, and infact, most claims are sourced, and free of opinion. If you can sure any third party sources which can verifiably show him to be a racist, then please provide them and of course the information will be added. Thankyou for your contribution. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jimmi. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote: "In recent interviews, Geert Wilders more than once indicated that the Dutch constitution and European Convention on Human Rights should be amended or temporarily suspended to protect citizens from Islamic extremism. He is in favor of stripping criminals with dual nationality of their Dutch citizenship and deporting them to their country of origin" EndQuate.
 * This is the first time in the article the word islam is mentioned, While that's what all his proposals where about islam.
 * It's the image wich is twisted. Most people won't read this far, and I don't say this article doesn't mention facts, but it's onesided. The Reason I won't edite the article is because of what you mention, but the way it is now don't mention anytihing about discrimination while the Judge forced the District Eterny's to charge him for it!!
 * One Way or another you can't people to get that a party who calles itself party of freedom actually, (and the party is nothing more than wilders himself) it did not a single proposal to bring more freedom (except more freedom of speach) but did lots of proposals to take all the freedoms that we have away. He wants to forbid the koran, and refuse to see people of a certain etnic group as dutch civilians and yes etnic racism is racism to, Quote from Racism: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination."
 * I Say just put a scentence like this in the first paragraph: "Geert Wilders is often critisised because his proposals and statements would be discriminating against muslims, and is critisised for seeing muslim people as guest instaid of dutch civilians"  and I'm pleased. But I don't think I'm the person to do it. thug_n_g 21:57, 28 januari 2009 (CET)
 * The reason discrimination isn't mentioned is because he doesn't discriminate, has not been charged with discrimination, and your quote doesn't not lend any credibility to the idea that he is prejudice. He supports protecting the sovereignty of his country by suspending those parts of an outside system which threaten it, and is in favour of reducing criminal persistence in his country by sending those with a second nationality away from his country. I don't see what's discriminatory, racist or even bad about that. While the last part is my own opinion, the rest stands as fact, and none of this talk so far was specific to Islam, he supports the removal of Dutch passports from non-muslim criminals with duel-passports also.


 * In the courts own words, he is not being prosecuted for any kind of incitement or violence, but for "insulting as well [as] substantially harm[ing] the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers." If they stand by that prosecution, he will no doubt win the case, as no one has the right to not be offended. So no, he is not being charged for discrimination, and the mention of hate speech at other times was admitted appeasement, and is still not a source of a charge of discrimination (which is not a social offense by the way, only an internal Government and Corporate crime).


 * I don't wish to discuss the part about his party with you, this is a place for discussion of facts surrounding the article, not your personal opinion. Have no doubt though that you are wrong and should research the party. I also couldn't care less about the United Nations Liberal attempts to prevent any kind of valid comment by making all forms of considered separation look like racism, Muslims are not a race, by the English definition, and not one that is forced upon me, racism is a racial issue. Also, note again, that Muslims are not an ethnicity. You can't convert to an ethnicity. It is not Racism. Also, more importantly, Geert akes special mention of the fact he has no issues with any Muslim who wants to integrate honestly into his culture. It is Islam, a set of beliefs that he disagrees with.


 * That additional statement would of course be incorrect. He isn't often criticised, he is often worshipped for his strong Moral sense, and only that minority who threaten violence have mangaged to cause any discussion over whether what he is doing is wrong. The majority of peaceful people, including Muslims, of course do not see any problem with a person expressing an opinion about a belief system. More importantly, Geert has never expressed such an opinion about Muslims, and is well known to have no wish to see any Muslim removed from the country, for being Muslim, if they are prepared to assimilate into Dutch society. Perhaps you could find a way to word it more neutrally, and with an actual source? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it pleases you more I'll Quote Geert Wilders from what he said in the Second Room: Geert Wilders Said: "I have no problem with people who are muslim, I have a problem with people who believe in Allah and have the Koran as a holy book." That's what he said. I don't know, but people who believe in Allah and have the Koran as a holy book are muslims to me.


 * The reason this man scares me personally is because he's spreading hate across society, and his idees are getting more extreme every day. I fear his idees will eventually become so extreme that he will change into somekind of Hitler or something with Muslims as his Jews.


 * But this is not the place to discuss my political opnions and I doubt if it has any use trying to convince you. So let's get to what we're talking about, the article. My porposal: put in the top paragraph: "Wilders is an Islam Critic" and "Wilders want's to remove article one of the dutch constitution, wich states that all people should be treated equal and discrimination on base of gender, race, religion, political idees, or wathever kind is forbidden. Wilders wants to replace it with an article wich claims the dominance of the Jewish-Christian Culture". [] Here a source. It is what he wants to do and it makes the article a little less onesided, because the article makes him look like a Black Panther or something. (Power To The People).
 * By the way the morrocan goverment don't allow there civillians to loose their passports so they can't help it that they have a double passport.
 * Personally I think all religion is nonsense but everybody has the right to believe the nonsense that they want. thug_n_g 14:21, 29 januari 2009 (CET)
 * By the way what's his problem with antillians, they're no muslims, and they don't have double passports.thug_n_g 14:25, 29 januari 2009 (CET)
 * “I fear his idees will eventually become so extreme that he will change into somekind of Hitler or something with Muslims as his Jews.” - I don't really believe this will happen. Besides that we shouldn't forget there are many people who call for the infidels to be beheaded (pic), just because they are different, there are people in Europe who are right now preparing for a 'Real Holocaust', etc. It's not Wilders who demands such 'measures'... --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does please me, as I can quote the exact same quote as you, and help you learn where you misinterpreted the statement, and why we can't therefore synthesize meaning from it. Geert Wilders said, "I have no problem with people who are muslim", And he does not have a problem with people who identify as Muslim. Unfortunately, alot of people associate with the word Muslim who are not aware of all the text in the Koran, and who ignore Fatwa's and other Islamic rulings which, I agree, a real Muslim would not ignore. However, Geert happily accepts Moderate Muslims, who by your own definition may not be Muslim, but who are identified as such by most people. It is the people who do take the Koran literally that he has a problem with, however, you have to see that except for those extremists, there are alot of people who are considered Muslim, and he therefore does not make comment on the entire group of people.


 * Hatred is of course a very badly malformed term in this time. Hatred in essence is not a bad thing. To use an analogy (not a comparison), there would be nothing wrong with Hating Nazis, the KKK, a person who steals from you, a criminal, PETA, Nuns, if you're not particularily fond of Nuns, etc. Hatred is a normal feeling, and while people may derive hatred from Geert as he speaks, this is neither Scary in context, nor is it actually his intention in this case. I've never once known him to incite, or to directly call out for hatred, he makes purely informative or political comments. I don't know if you've seen Fitna, but you will be quite suprised to learn that he didn't make a single comment, or assumption in that movie. The entire film was purely amalgamation of related Muslim footage and Actions, without any added information. Hitler of course, was firstly psychotic, something Geert is clearly not. Secondly, he hated many more people that Jews, he was extreme about his own kind, not about anothers. Thirdly, Hitler wanted the physical removal of a ethnic and religious backgroud, and did not discriminate between those who were newly Jewish, and those that were not Jewish with a family History of Judaism. Geert neither has any intention to Murder Muslims, has no problem with the average Muslim, and most certainly does not associate with Islam, people who are not Muslim. The comparison is cruel at best, and if that is an honest fear, I advice you go research and add to the article from sources instead of discussing your own feelings.


 * I won't be convinced by Original Research no, as I am expressing a neutral opinion, held by the sources. Provide sources to your claims and I will fight on their behald and add the information to the article! I agree with the rest of your reasoning, though I don't see how you reached the conclusion. Yes, he wants to make sure his Government protects it's culture instead of allowing it to be replaced by a Second culture. It is the purpose of a National Government to protect it's people and not to freely allow their standards, and ideas be replaced by an outside system. He has never called for a ban on the religion, or discrimination of the people, only for Dutch Culture to be considered ahead of others, by the Dutch Government, and for a Book that incites violence to recieve the same treatment as related documents, such as Mein Kampf, which is illegal to sell. If you can provide a source that actually provides evidence to the contrary, provide that, but original research of a primary source, is not allowed. Also note the article already makes it clear that he is an Islam critic; it specifically says he is a "critic of Islam", can't be much more specific. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes one single sentence on line what is it, 100 or so? I want "Wilders is a critic of islam"</I> in the first paragraph, because, and that is something you can't deny, most of the things he speaks about consider Islam so it's important.
 * I won't discuss his views anymore, please be real, I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. This is not the place. I'm tired that in this country the people around me won't accept it if I have my own views and opinions, and most Wilders-fans verbally get aggressive if i refuse to say "fuck the Moroccans and Turks. (and yes Moroccans and Turks are ethnic groups and Wilders made those terms synonyms (in dutch daily use) of Muslim and Allochtoon (I believe there's no English word). I'm not talking about you, you've been quite polite against me, where other Wilders supporters never were.
 * But like I said I won't discuss no more political views because it's useless. This is an ensclopedia.
 * So my Proposals:
 * <I>"Wilders is an Islam Critic"</I> in the <B>first</B> paragraph.
 * <I>"Wilders want's to remove article one of the dutch constitution, wich states that all people should be treated equal and discrimination on base of gender, race, religion, political idees, or wathever kind is forbidden. Wilders wants to replace it with an article wich claims the dominance of the Jewish-Christian Culture"</I> also in the first paragraph. I think wanting to change the constitution is something big and should be in the first paragraph. You said you would fight to get them in the article if I would provide sources. Here 3 from respected newspapers. It was in every newspaper when he said but most of them require a subscribtion to vieuw the articles on the web. This Newspapers do allow to view articles on the web and this are respected newspapers so here are 3 good sources. ,,.
 * I don't really get what you mean by Original Source, but news sources from respected newspapers, I can't imagine no better source. What do you think about this proposals? A good compromise?thug_n_g 16:17, 3 February 2008 (CET)
 * P.S. Maybe you should watch "De Tegenfilm". It's a good movie with some humor but also seriousness. It can be found here (uses media player, if you use firefox instead of IE you should download an add-on)
 * I repeat. These are not my views, they are the facts expressed by the news sources. If you have a verifiable and note worthy source that supports your conclusions of racism and that does not require original research in your interpretation, then provide it, otherwise, no change can be made based upon discussion of our own views. I haven't once expressed my feelings, and I am not trying to change yours. I don't agree that the topic should be added to the beginning of the article, as it is not a primary or even dominant part of his policies, even if it is as part of his life; however, I'll look at improving the section on his views to include his opinions on changing the Dutch constitution to support the dominant culture ideology, that's obviously quite important information. Don't expect any negativity though, I will attempt to be neutral. I've asked a Dutch friend to translate the film for me, looks like an interesting take from what he says, I'll definetly look at that for me personally. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I see that this article has been vandalised - i suggest that editing be restricted.Richwil (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I see someone removed everything I said in my discussion with Jimmi Hugh, but kept what he said. That's what you ment I assume? Anyway I think it's strange that my comments aren't there while Jimmi's are. So I putted mine back. thug_n_g 20:52, 21 February 2009 (CET)

Political principles
"Building feeding camps and discipline schools". I've never heard the phrase "feeder camp" "feeding camp": I'm guessing it means some kind of punishment & re-education system for teenagers, like the US boot camps. Can anybody confirm or correct this? If it is the case, I propose a wikilink from "feeding camp" to "Boot camp (correctional)" Dom Kaos (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Something seriously was lost in translation here. I have half a mind to e-mail or write a letter to Wilders himself... The Squicks (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was certainly written by somebody whose first language isn't English! It's not actually clear from the article whether the 16-point manifesto is a direct quote - it has quotation marks around it, but neither of the footnotes points directly to any English-language document which contains these exact words. The wording appears to come from here. Unless anyone can show that these actual words (in English) are a direct quote, I'm tempted to try to put them in slightly clearer language - e.g. changing "Creating a 5 year moratorium on bride taking from foreign countries" to "Creating a five-year moratorium on Dutch citizens marrying foreigners and bringing them into the country", and "Expanding the police while using the army within public zones" to "Enlarging the police force while using the army in a public service role" Dom Kaos (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather leave it alone for now, since any further edits that you or I make to the text run the risk of whitewashing the extent of Wilder's views. For example, changing "while using the army within public zones" to "while using the army in a public service role" may leave a misleading impression on the reader. Wilders wants some form of martial law, with the army used as a police force. The phrase "public service role" is very calm, neutral, and anti-sceptic sounding; it brings to mind police officers raking leaves rather than, say, smacking protestors' faces into the ground. The Squicks (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that, by saying whitewashing, I am emphatically not bringing up bath faith or POV pushing or anything at all like that. I'm just worried about subtle changes in tone, which comes from even the best efforts of the best editors. The Squicks (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, well made. But if you do fancy trying to get hold of Wilder to find out what he does mean by "feeding camps", I'm sure we'd all appreciate it! Dom Kaos (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Only member of the PVV?
In the lead, it says "He [Wilders] founded PVV and is currently its political leader, as well as its only member", but according to the party has 9 representatives in the Tweede Kamer, which to me suggests the party has more than one member. Has the quoted sentence been mis-worded? Unfortunately, I don't understand Dutch, so I can't verify the sentence through its cited source. Allventon (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms "member", "representive", and "activist" do not necessarily mean the same thing. It's pefectly possible (and I think this is indeed the case) that Wilders is technically/offically the only "member" with everyone else related to PVV being counted as something else in its records. The Squicks (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Wilders could technically be the only member. However, I feel that some general readers might have misunderstood the meaning of "member" in the context it was placed in, presuming your theory is correct.  In any case, since the comment has been removed by another user as vandalism, arguably my original issue is mute.  Thanks for your response.  Allventon (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilders is the only member of the PVV. You can donate monay to it but of the 9 representatives he's the only member. This might soun strange but it's a juridical constriction wich allows him to have all the power within his party and he don't have to have any intern democracy. And the dutch law doesn't states that the representatives for a party should be a member. The PVV is the only party that used it this way. All the other partys have their representatives being a member. But in the PVV is only one member and that's himself. thug_n_g 20:42, 21 February 2009 (CET)

Ethnicity
Wilders isn't an ethnic Dutchman and for the precision of fact we try to emulate on Wikipedia I think this should be made clear. His father was a man of Jewish background who had fled Nazi Germany to the Netherlands during WWII. Again I'm only raising this issue up because its material to the facts, and the facts alone. Aside from that, I am a native Dutchman, and to see this man as one of the few readily recognized Dutchmen to our collective English-language audience, inadvertently masquerading as a Dutchman, really puts a bad taste in my mouth.
 * Wilders speculates that his father may have had Jewish ancestry. That's it. That doesn't make him a Jew, or a Dutch Jew, or whatever other way you want to yellow badge him. And barely-veiled antisemitism "really puts a bad taste in my mouth". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know for sure he is a Jew? He speculated that he might be distantly Jewish but do we have any verifiable source that says he is a Jew? - Schrandit (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

His father FLED Nazi Germany during WWII to the Netherlands. This is cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainmane (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people left Nazi Germany. That doesn't make them Jews.  Do you have any proof that Mr. Wilders is a Jew?

Please desist from disinformation. This is a factual correction in emulation of the metrics of ethnicity and nationality Wikipedia uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainmane (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible that Mr. Wilders is a Jew but we would need proof of it. Find a source for your this claim or else it cannot stay. - Schrandit (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed the nonsense from the lead. I agree with Jayjg here. The Squicks (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't... Judaism is a religion, Geert Wilders is an atheist, not possible. On the genetic Semite connection, Geert has Cro-Magnon ancestors, but he's not a Cro-Magnon, etc etc. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He does think that he's some percentage Jewish by race- which gives enough to the Wiki-bigots to slap on the yellow star. The Squicks (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Fitna surah 8 verse 60.png
The image File:Fitna surah 8 verse 60.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Logo PVV.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The Squicks (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

UK ban criticism
Since the UK news media haven't blanket criticised or even majority criticised the banning of this man, I changed the text to reflect the fairer and more accurate description. It was changed once, and I put it back again. I have a feeling this will be changed yet again, so I would like to request that if any users are particularly desperate to have this wording in the article, then please credit it with the correct reasons. People who are objecting, are doing so mainly because they object to the publicity created for this "populist twit and bigot", Michael Portillo's words, not mine (sourced here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7887540.stm). The objection has little to do with freedom of speech or anything related to that. The article can not reflect an agenda, be it political or otherwise, it has to be balanced and somewhat reflective of the truth. So if this section is to be edited again, it must reflect what actually has happened and been said, and not just what the man himself may want people to believe. Sky83 (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article that we use as a source explicitly states: Wilders's right to enter Britain won broad support from editorial writers and columnists in Britain's major newspapers. This may be wrong, but in that case it is the source that is wrong and not this Wikipedia article's wording. The Squicks (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it so that it is clear that it is that newspaper making the claim. The Squicks (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's definitely better, but that is still not an accurate statement. Just because that article happens to state it, certainly does not reflect the truth, and unfortunately, that is going to be the impression that a reader will be left with. I have no objections to that sentence being kept, but there needs to be be something that reflects the truth, rather than just one article's opinion. Sky83 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Squicks, your IHT link is broken so that statement no longer complies with WP:V. I couldn't find the story on the IHT site anymore possibly due to ADHD on my part. I found it..sort of...at the parent NYT site which states "Editorial writers and columnists in Britain’s major newspapers mostly took the view that Mr. Wilders’s film did not justify the government’s ban". Of course that isn't very informative in that it doesn't say why they "mostly took" that view (e.g. could be he's too tall or he has a chubby face or his hairstyle frightens children and animals) other than the Times saying his “political posturing" is "self-evidently preposterous". Unless there's an RS saying why they "mostly took" that view I think the statement doesn't add any value to the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Why must we read anything into the quote? It says what it says, the plain meaning of the text. The ban was broadly condemned, according to the IHT. That's it. It's not like a Koranic or Biblical text with inherently vague and misleading wording. It's a newspaper. If the NYT were to write "Most editorialists in the US favor Obama's economic policy", than there would be no need to get into whether or not they just like Obama because he is young, clean, and articulate. The plain meaning of the text suffices. The Squicks (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "The International Herald Tribune has stated that the ban was broadly condemned in the British news media" no longer complies with wp:v so it must be removed unless you can find the story again or maybe a tertiary source would work. The NYT statement is quite different, no mention of condemning the ban, simply stating instead that the film didn't justify the ban. As a reader I would like to know why they opposed the ban, freedom of speech, don't like that EU law, think Wilders is a great chap, let him hang himself through his own actions etc etc. My argument is simply that "X opposed Y because of Z" contains more information and is therefore better for an encyclopedia than "X opposed Y". On the other hand "X opposed Y" is better than nothing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Google Cache is here. The Squicks (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ..or have you thought of maybe just using the cached version google store...oh wait. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Article one of the dutch constitution
This article still doesn't mention the fact that Wilders want's to remove article 1 of the dutch constitution even after I requested it. Article one of the dutch constitution states that all people should be treated equal and discrimination on base of gender, race, religion, political idees, or wathever kind is forbidden. Wilders wants to replace it with an article wich claims the dominance of the Jewish-Christian Culture. ,,. thug_n_g 19:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Recanted Catholic
The use of the term "recanted" seems to me to have a different religious meaning than what Wilders did.

Probably, the best way to phrase it would be "Wilders is no longer" or something like that. The Squicks (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "a faith he no longer identifies with" ? SultrySuzie (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would make more sense. The Squicks (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. What I think would be better, to avoid confusion on parts, would be "Although raised a Roman Catholic, Wilders considers himself an atheist." Though I suggest better sources. Fox News is decent, but the second, "Hurd, Dale (2009-02-19). "VIDEO: Can Christians Support Geert Wilders". Christian Broadcasting Network. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/544304.aspx." isn't a noteworthy source. I also thought he prefered the term humanist, not atheist, any sources to verify that? 74.5.105.31 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page from editing due to unproductive editing. PLease seek consensus on the talk page. If there's a consensus before the protection expires I'd be happy to lift it early. In the future, please avoid reverting each other's work repeatedly.  Will Beback   talk    15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency on free speech
We have two good sources saying that Wilders supports a semi-absolutist view of free speech-- with incitement by Imams and hate speech by Muslims in general being completely legal. How does this square with his calls to ban the Koran?

The article presently states: In a speech during a Dutch parliamentary debate, Wilders elaborated that he calls for the consistent application of Dutch laws restricting free speech that incites violence,[30] He would, ideally, prefer to see nearly all such laws abolished.[27][63] This may give Wilders far too much credit for being a hypocrite. The Squicks (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Labeling someone who wants to publicly censor, destroy or ban books a free speech activist is at least controversial, and I therefore strongly urge the administrators to remove Wilders from the Free speech activists category. 82.93.142.210 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, apart from three major problems. One, he hasn't called for a "ban" on the book in any way you might define it. He has stated that if given absolute power (for instance) he would not bring new legislation to ban the book (and might infact repeal legislation that should); the point is brought against him by the media because in the past he has questioned his countries executive as to why they do not execute the already existing law that bans books which incite violence. Secondly, while I don't support the point, many freedom of speech activists cave to the question of "incitement". That is incitemenet in the honest sense, to encourage (not say something that migth lead to) a crime, and not to imaginary crimes like hatred and offense, so a position on banning book that incites violence wouldn't be seen as contradiction of the definition. Finally of course, it's not for us to interpret his actions, he has been considered as such outside of Wikipedia, and we must take facts from there, not make up labels. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning you first problem: Wilders has repeatedly stated that all passages that incite violence must be removed from the Qur'an for it to be acceptable in Western society, and that so much would be removed from the Qur'an in the process that it would become the size of a Donald Duck magazine. This is a clear call to censor a book and I think this is at odds with free speech because either speech is free or it is not. Once one takes the position that some forms of speech are not free and should be censored one can't be called a free speech activist anymore. Secondly, if it is not for us to interpret Wilders' actions, his actions shouldn't be interpreted as free speech activism either because this too is a judgment call and open to interpretation, as this very discussion proves. 82.93.142.210 (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind you that freedom of speech is not absolute in any country in the world. You are holding a fringe position that "speech is either free or it is not," and too that Geert Wilders is not a proponent of the right to speak without the permission of Lord Ahmed or the Grand Ayatollah, as he would like himself and others to do.


 * What I think you're trying to say is that you don't like his speech, and therefore his speech shouldn't be considered free speech but incitements to the murder of homosexuals, Jews, and infidels is further than free but taboo. Well, I'm sorry. One of those expressions has been systematically suppressed by fearful states and governments worldwide, and the other has the fanatical support of millions. You are not the persecuted minority, nor are you the scholarly minority, nor are you the sourcely minority. Therefore, the meritocritous Wikipedia will always be Dar al-Kufr to you. Fortuynist (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't take any position about mr. Wilders political points of view except for his calls to censor or ban the Qur'an, which I think are at odds with labeling him a free speech activist. What you are stating is mere conjecture about my beliefs from your part and I politely ask you to refrain from this to keep this discussion focused on mr. Wilders' record on free speech. I agree with you that free speech is not absolute in any nation, but even in a world of relative freedom of speech a free speech activist should not try to actively limit other people's freedom of speech, which is exactly what mr. Wilders does regarding Muslims and the Qur'an. 82.93.142.210 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, 82.93.142.210, I will repeat my final point, this is not a place to discuss the details and make our own decisions. I will entertain you with a response but discussion of a non-encylopedic topic should not continue much beyond that. The obvious opening point is that open discussion in the public arena, even by politicians, does not constitute a call for legislation. Yes, for the Koran to be acceptable to Western Values, and if the Fundementalist Muslim population wants to integrate, it s a fair point to make to them that removing the violent texts would be positive, however, that does not mean he would ban the book, and as I have already stated, those passages are already illegal (to print or sell) in the Netherlands. I agree, that speech is free or it is not, however, once again, it's not a call for new legislation, it's not censorship for the general public to discuss self-imposed ridicule of violent texts. Incorrect on the final point, the fact he is a freedom of speech activist ahs been considered and seen true by enough of the public arena that it is verifiable by way of reliable sources, the only grounds for inclusion of information in Wikipedia. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's incorrect to claim that parts of the Qur'an are "already illegal" in the Netherlands since the Qur'an is available for sale, versions are printed, and if parts were illegal in the Netherlands Mr. Wilders could simply go to court and have the book banned or edited. Instead of this Mr. Wilders wants the Qur'an to receive the same special treatment Hitlers Mein Kampf has, which means the Dutch state has to seize the copyrights to the Qur'an, refuse to have it reprinted and forbid anyone from holding a copy (which a copyright holder is entitled to). This might not be introducing new legislation but it most certainly is calling for the state to intervene in affairs a judge could settle to Mr. Wilders' liking if they were illegal by Dutch law. 82.93.142.210 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Mr. Wilders made his call for Dutch politicians to treat the Qur'an like Mein Kampf in an opinion piece in Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on august 8, 2007, which can be found online here (Dutch). 82.93.142.210 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? If you don't even know how the legal system in the Netherlands (or most non-despotistic lands in the entire world) then how can you possibly discuss this? Everything else you say goes on from this misunderstnading, so it was incredibly hard to respond; mind my language, your post was idiotic! Ok, Parliamentary and trias politica constitutions 101! Firstly, you have the "legislature", that is Parliament (or congress) who represent the people and form the only office in the land that can accept bills as statute. Ignoring common law for the time, this statute is for all intents and purposes "The Law". It consists of every Act of Parliament describing in details what is "illegal", and has no power to act for itself, being only conceptual. So, along comes the "executive", that is the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister (or President and staff) whose job it is to enforce the law and run the country within constitutional limits. Now, for the most part, it is there job to act upon the law to the letter, however, in many cases there will be some inconsistencies. The same goes for the "judicial" system, which consists of the independent courts who interpret the law and punish illegal acts that the government has not prevented. Both of these elements do, on occasion (and I mean rarely, there isn't any serious despotism (arbitary enforcement of the law) yet, and unlike you, I don't want to see it) do over-rule legislation before it is officially repealed and usually only when it will be. For example, the law on Blasphemy in Britain, repealed 2008 was ignored by the executive and judicial systems until then for at least 30 years. In the Netherlands, they have a piece of legislation making texts that incite violence illegal (I'm afraid I don't remember the title of the Act, I will look it up) to print or sell. This makes the Koran "illegal". However, in the name of "community cohesion" the judicial would never prosecute and the executive ignores the fact it's even possible to enforce it. So, now for the random junk. The Netherlands does not hold the copyright for Mein Kampf, it never did, and now that the copyright is non-existant it doesn't have to. Enforcement of the law is the limit of legality, it doesn't need to work within the framework by buying out illegality. A Judge could not settle the issue, because "Mein Kampf" is not "banned" (neither would the Koran be), it's simply illegal to print or buy, that's an executive enforcement issue, though courts could punish individual companies for prnting and sale, that's a long way around the issue. I agree entirely with your last comment, Mr Wilders has indeed asked politicians to enforce their own laws fairly and to the letter so as not to become tyrannical! - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no I'm not joking and I think I know the legal system in my own country better that you do. In the Dutch constitution freedom of religion is just as important as freedom of speech and religious texts such as the Bible, the Torah and the Qur'an can't be brought to court, while all other texts suspect of being hate speech or incitement of violence must be brought to court where a judge decides if they should be banned or if passages should be removed from them (this is why Mr. Wilders insists Islam is not a religion but a political ideology). As I explained earlier, the reason why Mein Kampf can't be printed in the Netherlands is because the Dutch state holds the copyright to it. You don't have to take my word for this, let me cite Mein Kampf from this very encyclopedia:
 * In the Netherlands, selling the book, even in the case of an old copy, may be illegal as "promoting hatred," but possession and lending is not. The matter is generally handled as a matter of copyright infringement against the Dutch government, who owns the translation, though it refuses to allow any publishing. In 1997, the government explained to the parliament that selling a scientifically annotated version might escape prosecution. In 2015, the government's copyright on the Dutch translation becomes void. (emphasis mine).
 * I'm beginning to suspect you are either very badly informed about or biased in questions regarding Mr. Wilders because you state blatant untruths to maintain Mr. Wilders is a free speech activist even while you admit he wants to ban a holy book. I urge you to do some real studying on this matter before passing judgment because your current judgment is wrong, possibly biased and based on error. 82.93.142.210 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not Freedom of Religion! I have enough faith in your country to assume you are wrong until I have had time to research that statute, but that is sick. Freedom of religion is the lack of restriction, it is not excessive rights upon the freedoms of others. The rest of your comment is of course meaningless if you are right (contradiction?) and meaningless if you are wrong because of my above comments on why despotism is (unforunately) existent in the Dutch system. Quoting Wikipedia doesn't prove your point, but for the record, even the quote makes clear that it refers to the Dutch translation, doesn't have any effect upon the fact you do have legislation on incitement to violent texts and of course, once again, describing situations does not serve to make apparent the legal backing which you remain unaware of (try actually reading legislation for once). Obviously, it is you who is misinformed and jumping to self-imposed conclusion from the wrong sources, not I, but attacking my motives has of course ended this discussion. For the last time, my opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter, he is a freedom of speech activist and we represent it as such because of verifiable sources from notable sites. Also, there is nothing holy about a religious book, I'd rather respect Mein Kampf, at least it does not incite violence like the Koran. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He left the VVD in 2004, not 2006
This bit in the text is incorrect: "Wilders left the People's Party in 2006 to form his own party, the Party for Freedom." The date he left the VVD was Thursday 2 September 2004 (source: http://binnenland.nieuws.nl/49263). Juvarra (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it meant to say that he created Wilders Group in 2006, not 2004. That needs to be reworded. Campagne (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

English grammar
"Similar attempts in Britain lead to a travel ban,[31]" should be "Similar attempts in Britain led to a travel ban,[31]"

"Led" is the past tense of the verb "to lead." This is an error that is becoming more and more common.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.47.204 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations in lead
Given that almost every aspect of the lead is being repeatedly challenged/discussed/amended/reverted etc I suggest that all material in the lead include citations as per WP:LEADCITE. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE obviously doesn't apply. Citations in the lead are meant purely for quotations not mentioned elsewhere, and active topics. The lead-in of a static article like this with no active current event, is meant to represent the article. The lead-in should change only to reflect the rest of the article which is in fact, already sourced, and repeating those sources. Also note the two primary points being argued (I use the term lightly, the opposing opinion refuses to to respond to the argument put forward) over are one of basic logic (a subset being a subset of a greater set) and one of contradictary sources, neither of which will be "solved" by more sources. What will be useful though instead of misinterpreting guidelines, would be discussion reaching a consensus about the already existing sources throughout the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reply suggests that you didn't read WP:LEADCITE or skipped parts of it e.g. "Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time". I'd like to hear from others too so that a consensus can be reached. Statements in the lead must comply with WP:V. Do they comply with WP:V ? It's hard to tell without citations. As for using set theory, that's great but let's try to apply it consistently throughout and in a way that maximises the information content for the reader e.g. Dutch politician is better than politician. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dutch Politician is better, because it covers the entirety of his political categorisation! "Muslim Immigration" was selected as a focus, but "Immigration" is the highest common denominator. I didn't skip over it, I don't consider arguments about categorisations that include the same facts to be contentious, however, if someone wants to spend the time adding the already existing sources to the lead-in, that's fair enough. The point being that the sources already exist to support the statements, so go for it, but adding contradictary sources which make claims to labels and not statements of fact does not constitute sourcing a laead-in. I do believe the comments comply with WP:V, given the sources, however I don't think it matters, because the argument doesn't question the facts (apart from the Christian label, verified by sources with quotations from Geert himself), they only wish to increase the focus on a single topic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:LEADCITE clearly applies here. The lead seems relatively okay to me right now, but those ideas need to be cited.
 * As well, the mention of 'Roman Catholic' in the lead ought to go. Wilders is an atheist, not a Christian.The Squicks (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a mention of his upbringing, not his current status, which is already in the body. Campagne (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But if we mention that he was 'raised a Roman Catholic' in the first few words and then bury the fact that he is no longer a Christian deep in the body text, this gives a false impression.
 * As well, the fact that he is an atheist who believes all religious beliefs to be bunk is directly related to his criticism of Islam, which is itself a religion after all. The Squicks (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Has he said that? He talks a lot about the superiority of the Jewish, Christian and humanist traditions. Campagne (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He talks about the alleged superiority of the secular humanist European tradition over Islam. The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wilders is not antireligious, and he does throw around the word "Judaeo-Christian" to describe his country and Europe. He's also said that Islam is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism, but an "ideology", something that governs the totality of one's life. Campagne (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilders indeed is not anti-religion. Don't put words into my mouth. Wilders is not someone who hates relgious people in general or who hates religion as an idea.
 * But he is someone who expresses diagreement with religion. As an atheist, he opposes all beliefs- from Islam to Christianity to Buddism and so on. Naturally, his disagreement with the idea of religion in general is completely relevant to his criticism of Islam. The Squicks (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the lead-in to give equal weight to his upbringing and current views, including his often mentioned (while possibly rhetoric?) support for (apparent) Judeo-Christian Values in his society. Sorry for reverting that one in the first place, I didn't realise it was still being reverted along with the categorisations of his views. Also note that terminology used by the subject, does not affect the actual meaning. If he claims Islam is not a religion, it does not mean it is not, and it does not mean that his dislike for basic religious concepts are irrelevant. It is also worthy of mentioning his comments on it not being a religion are always in relation to the assumption religion is good or holy and is meant to remove that in consideration of the fact that opinions should always be questioned independant of label. In actual fact, all religions are somewhat Ideological, especially Chrstianity with it's many Ideological splits (Catholicism/Calvinism etc). Finally, his references to Judeo-Christin heritage are unrelated to the religious beliefs, but for the ethical traditions he (incorrectly) associates with modern Western society, not because of the innate religious aspects (belief in God). - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the use of the term 'claim' here to be problematic, since it directly implies that he is lying as per the 'word to avoid' Wikipedia guidelines. I rephrased it to he is now an atheist, while he attributes his politics to his support for what he calls 'Judeo-Christian values'.
 * While this is a bit awkward, a biography of a living person like this needs to be careful with the tone. The Squicks (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My person belief is what when he says "Judeao-Christian heritage' he is talking about religious humanism and the Kantian life philosophy, in which the rights of the individual is held paramount. This blatantly contradicts Islamism (Islam itself? I think not. But Wilders would hotly disagree with me there). The Squicks (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good rewording. Though, "while..." makes it sound like you're about to make a contradictary statement, making the sentence end quite suddenly. Could we make that flow more? Without just adding more "and"'s. I will, as the Americans say, plead the fifth on discussion of that label, I hotly disagree with both you and Wilders. :) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that there's an unfortunate Brit/Yank cross-cultural language gap here. I've heard and read the term 'while' used frequently in a way that does not imply a contradiction.
 * But if you have an idea as to how to reword it, then- by all means- be bold and do it. The Squicks (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, as long as it's American enough for you lot to understand, we'll use our superior minds to adapt, muhahahaha, etc etc. :) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archive
Any objections to doing this? The Squicks (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Heckler's veto
Can we stick to something based on what the RS say please and cite it ? Take your pick <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Letter => "your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK".
 * 2) The FT => Britain has taken the unusual step of banning a Dutch member of parliament from entering the country due to his stridently anti-Islamic views
 * 3) The Guardian => refusing him entry because his opinions "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety".
 * 4) The Times => It is understood that Mr Wilders was denied entry under EU law, which allows a member state to bar individuals if they constitute a threat to public policy, security or health. ...or The Home Office’s decision to refuse him entry because of his extreme views


 * I'm not sure where 'Heckler's veto' came in.
 * But here, given our concerns for BLP, I would stick as close as we can to what her Majesty's government officially said (1): His presence in England was barred given that it would have, in their view, posed a security risk in the country. The Squicks (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  He has also been banned from entering the United Kingdom since 12 February 2009, with the Home Office viewing his presence as a security risk. 
 * I re-phrased the sentence. The Squicks (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry which letter are you reading? I'm afraid the copy received by Wilders, sent by the Home Office, doesn't once mention a security risk, only that it would be a problem to another group of people (the definition of hecklers veto, taking into consideration the single European law covering internal immigration, this is a free speech issue) and the terminology used does not have to be identical, that's simply the term for it. Note that the added reasoning came after the event, and had nothing to do with the actual reasons given, as you have quoted it, seemingly thinking it effects the reasoning given. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jimmi, the letter sent by the Home Office says "your statements about Muslims and their beliefs.....would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK". This is unambiguous. It makes it clear with no ambiguity whatsoever that the basis of the ban as stated in the letter was that his statements would threaten public security. This is not complicated. We shouldn't add a layer of interpretation or put words in anyone's mouth. Transforming Home Office statements to 'Heckler's veto' is not acceptable behavior unhelpful in my view. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that not Hecklers veto? You say, exactly as I did, that there is no security risk from Geert, and as you say, it is unambiguous that they are saying his visit would cause public security issues from the community (that's no a security risk to Geert in anyway) and exactly as is the definition of hecklers veto, they chose to prevent his opinion being expressed in order to appease another group of people. If that's not heckler's veto, you will have to enlighten me with your superior defintion (one that won't be backed up by either Wikipedia or any other source mind). - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A Thought The article currently says He has also been banned from entering the United Kingdom since 12 February 2009, with the Home Office viewing his presence as a "threat to one of the fundamental interests of society."[10]

Is there a problem here? I don't understand. This seems perfectly worded to me. The Squicks (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly worded, I was the one who worded it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. I was directing my comment more twoards the world in general, not to any one person. The Squicks (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I mean, is that (apart from the link), the wording disagreement is no more. I can see why some people might still disagree to linking hecklers veto though, and while I don't agree, it does need discussing, if I'm wrong, an opinion on the matter needs to be reached via consensus. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Linking to article in quotes is not allowed, so I'm removing the reference to 'Heckler's veto' there. The Squicks (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the wording but I'd prefer something more informative based on "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security". When I read "fundamental interests of society" I'm left wondering which interests are being referred to, free dental care, freedom of expression (apparently not), religious freedom etc ? I'm not fine with editorial opinion and personal observations such as Heckler's Veto being included by Wikipedia editors. To answer your questions Jimmi, "How is that not Hecklers veto?....If that's not heckler's veto, you will have to enlighten me with your superior defintion (one that won't be backed up by either Wikipedia or any other source mind)". I think you are missing the point. I'm not an RS and neither are you so our definitions of Heckler's Veto aren't really of interest to anyone. It isn't Heckler's Veto unless an RS says it is in my view just like Wilders isn't Dutch unless an RS says he is. I don't see any difference between someone OPEDing the legal interpretation 'Heckler's Veto' into the lead and someone OPEDing a political interpretaion like 'racist' into the lead if neither of them are supported by RS. In both cases there's an interpretation/transformation of information based on private rules. For example, I think he's tall. Does that mean I can describe him as tall here ? No, because the rule I use to make that interpretation is a private rule, it's my rule. It's not our business to transform information by making legal, moral, ethical, political etc interpretations. We should leave it to the RS. Apart from being so much simpler it's also what we are meant to do. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sean is right about the OR factor here. Use of the term should be sourced. The Squicks (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snore. Give me a single precedent for not using the correct terminolgoy because you can't use the exact same term used in a source? Otherwise, don't be so petty, I know there's negativety associated with the term, but that's becasue the situation was wrong, and was by definition a case of heckler's veto. There is actually a Wikipedia policy about not copying soruces verbatim which not only make you wrong in this assumption but me correct in attemtps to produce an honest article. The interests are mentioned in the source, read it before making things up, it makes it quite clear it's rhetoric for social reaction. (This was aimed at Sean Hoyland, I didn't mean to put it below Squickss reply, i doubt he is being petty) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to wake you from your snooze. I'm trying to follow guidelines because this is needs to comply with BLP rules where things get even stricter than usual. I'll go further. We will follow guidelines on this page. This isn't a negotiation. For interest, I don't care whether Heckler's Veto is negative or positive, I don't care about Geert Wilders and I don't care what is in the lead as long as it is based on RS. What I care about is making sure we go by what RS say. If you think this is petty you might want to brush up on the guidelines. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm no tired, just bored of you making things like this up. My point was that I'm in no way contradicting WP:RS, not that I don't care about it. Please, just answer the request, give me a single prevendent (or guideline) for not using the correct terminology because you can't find the exact same term used in a source? Here's a clue, there isn't one, language isn't limited to words sourced, it's limited to defintions, and this is the correct defintion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jimmi, instead of testing my patience with your confrontational attitude why don't you just read WP:V and WP:OR and think about whether your personal assessment that this is the "correct terminology" to describe the actions of the Home Office and the inclusion of your personal assessment in the article is consistent with those guidelines ? Why not simply provide one or more reliable sources that support your assertion that this is the "correct terminology" to describe the actions of the Home Office, cite those sources in the article and the matter will be settled as far as I'm concerned ? If you are correct it will be easy to find RS that back you up and you can add the material happy in the knowledge that you are including verifiable information in this encyclopedia. That's how things are supposed to work around here. It's easy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "threat to one of the fundamental interests of society." That's the definition of heckler's veto. Now that you've taken to ignoring the conversation and are just making mindless responses aimed at nothing (you still have't responded to the request for a single example of your lie) I'll take it that a consensus has been reached by those editors willing to discuss it. So, now that I've provided (again) the source for the definition, and you (still) haven't provided a single guideline stating that we have to use identical terminology to sources, and now that you're acting like an arrogant ruler ("That's how things are supposed to work around here. It's easy.") as opposed to being helpful, I'll revert the removal of the link and wait for a grown-up editor to discuss any controversy. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimmi, seriously, do you want to constructively edit this article following guidelines or do you want to continue testing my patience which is not infinite ? Take your pick because you can't do both. I'm going to kindly ask you again to read WP:V and WP:OR and provide one or more reliable sources that support your assertion that this is the "correct terminology" to describe the actions of the Home Office. These are perfectly reasonable requests. It is your responsibility to provide verifiability not my responsibilty to refute your personal assertions as you would know if you simply read the guidelines I provided. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you actually reading the text you are responding to? Once again, show me the guideline making the claim that the same wording has to be used? I've given you the source that corresponds to the definition, but if you're so intellectually challenged to even use Wikipedia, I'll quote the definition of heckler's veto for you. However, I don't have the time to waste educating people of you intelligence so I won't be explaining it to you, this s becoming tiring and you're becoming embarrassing. "A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior." Exactly as happened in this case. I won't respond again, I don't need to justify correct terminology to you. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jimmi, I have reverted your edit for the following reasons Please read WP:CIV and try to be more civil in future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided verifiability using a reliable source. Without these your assertion is orginal research. I am not alone in this view. See "Sean is right about the OR factor here. Use of the term should be sourced. The Squicks (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)". I am also not saying that you are correct or incorrect as to whether this is or is not Heckler's Veto. I am simply asking you to ensure verifiability using a reliable source as per guidelines.
 * WP:BTW states "Generally avoid linking items within quotations; instead, place links in the surrounding text of the article wherever possible". This issue has already been mentioned before. "Linking to article in quotes is not allowed, so I'm removing the reference to 'Heckler's veto' there. The Squicks (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)".
 * You do not have consensus for your edit.

Hugh, I really don't see why you are taking this personally. The Squicks (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When did I take it personally? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh brother, evidence. Okay perhaps the following will help with quotes from the policies. Just make a small effort to find a reliable source to directly support the Heckler's Veto argument so that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (from WP:V). The source needs to "directly support the information as it is presented in an article" (from WP:V). You need to be able to show that the statement isn't original research which includes "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" (from WP:OR). Remember that "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research"(from WP:OR). You only need to be able to demonstrate that Heckler's Veto is an appropriate term to characterise the actions of the Home Office using a reliable source. That's all. It should be easy. Try looking through http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22heckler%27s+veto%22+%22geert+wilders%22&btnG=Search and I'm sure you will find an RS in there somewhere.


 * If you don't think these policies apply to this particular edit can you explain why by addressing the evidence I have provided for you ?


 * Try to understand that I'm not disagreeing with you. Try to understand that this isn't a battleground, it's just an encyclopedia. Try to understand that it makes no difference to me whether Heckler's Veto is in the article or not and assume good faith. Try to understand that you need to get consensus for your edits and that you need to work with all other editors in a mature collaborative way that follows policies and guidelines. I only want you to make the effort to ensure verifiability for information that you are adding rather than simply making assertions and then resorting to personal attacks when challenged. That kind of behavior doesn't benefit anyone. WP:V and WP:OR are mandatory core policies of Wikipedia so talking about lies and biased vandalism in edit summaries is somewhat odd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orthography
In the first chapter of this article we can read: "Born of a German father on the border town of Venlo and raised a Roman Catholic". English is not my native language, but the term "born on" refers to a date, doesn't it? He is born >>in<< Venlo / born >>ON<< September, 6th. To the second phrase: Is he not raised >>as<< a Roman Catholic?

Born of a German father in the border town of Venlo and raised as a Roman Catholic. This would be my suggestion. --87.78.64.212 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilders's lead positions.
An editor has been some information to the lead, defending it as sourced, and the removals as based on opinion and censorship. Let it be clear that the lead section is for summarizing the contents of the article. Therefore, the statements in the lead should not be sourced because they should be sourced later on in the article, where they appear in detail. Geert Wilders' focus is on Islamic extremism, not theology, and his critiques of the Koran tie into this. On the issue of "immigration" vs. "Muslim immigration", Geert Wilders does not only want restrictions on Muslim immigration, though he wants that, but he is a critic of Eastern European immigration too. Fortuynist (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal

The lead section is for summary, I agree, which is exactly what the IP guy did. However, Wilder's positions need to be put in context rather than handpicked. Wilders himself makes it a point to state these categorical subjects in his speeches, especially the more recent ones starting earlier 2009. Also note that his position on Immigrant muslims is quite stronger and more public than his position on their Eastern European counterpart. The argument that adding about 5 more words somehow makes it too detailed isn't without merit, imo. See other examples at WIkipedia that have long been in usage without problems (in the lead section):

Galileo was physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. Or that Hitler gained support by promoting nationalism, antisemitism and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda. Or that Che Guevara was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, politician, author, physician, military theorist, and guerrilla leader. (User:Speakoutfreely) 20 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC).


 * No one is saying it's too detailed, in the sense of too much information. It's simply incorrect, Wilders party, and his speeches have covered Immigration in general, stating it is purely Muslim Immigration is to lie. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be more accurate to say 'immigration from non-western countries'. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect also, he's never said "non-wester countries" at any time. He has made commentary on Immigration in his own country, that's it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Really ? So I guess we better remove "An immigration ban of five years for immigrants from non-western countries" from his Klare Wijn manifesto in the Political principals section then. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I just worded that terribly, apologies, I'll think more before posting. He's never said his primary concern in relation to immigration is immigration from "non-wester countries". He has made commentary on Immigration from his own country in relation to many different topics, not just non-western and definetly not just muslim immigration. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I support adding those categories in the Summary. It's no accurate to portray him as some kind of civil rights activist when a good population of Wiki users, not to mention Geert's critics abroad, know him as discriminatory. If Geert doesn't shy away from his attacks, why should we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.43.138 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Working backwards. We shouldn't attack him, because this is an encylopedia, we are here to report fact, not to express opinion. Secondly, Geert Wilders doesn't attack anyone not deserving (I've only personally ever heard attacks upon Iran's criminal leader, but I'm sure there are other's as with all politicians and critics) and definetly no generalised attacks that you might be attempting to imply. You can't "know" someone who isn't discriminatory as discriminatory. Whie his detractors make make this assertion, it is documented here as such, and not stated as fact that he is infact discriminatory because this is an encylopedia. It's accurate to portray him as a civil rights activiist, when that is what he is. He is an actiivst, fighting for civil right's, it's not exactly a stretch of definition. Obviously, you shouldn't support for any of these reasons, you need some sort of proof that his primary stance on immigration is Muslim or non-Wester, and to prove the sources stating otherwise wrong... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't limited to Muslim Immigration, even though that's his stronger stance (when it comes to Immigration in general). It also includes his fight against Islam the religion, Qur'an the book and any Islamic Laws. None of this needs to be considered as unmentionables within the summary. You've seen how other topics use similar styles, Wilder's thread isn't excludable from Wikipedia tradition. (Speakoutfreely) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakoutfreely (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His stance on Muslims is already mentioned in the lead-in, no one is excluding anything from "tradition"(?). Though I would support changing "Islamic extremism" to "Islamic Fundementalism", as it is the fundemental tenants, and not the extreme actions that he has been most critical of. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This results in arbitrary assessments. If one interprets things like Islamic extremism or Immigration (Muslim or otherwise) or "freedom of speech" as having merited mention in the lead, then the same can be said of the Qur'an and Sharia, because all five have been specially targetted by Geert Wilders. If one really wanted a brief intro, then one could simply say he is critical of Muslims and Islam, but we both know that would be misleading, partly because he attacks Islam as a whole but focuses only on a specific segment of the muslim community (the practicing). Ironically, both Geert Wilders and Sharia (as opposed to the misnomer Sharia Law) maintain that individuals have intellectual freedom to believe or reject ideas. Clarifying his stance is beneficial and belongs in the lead summary. Essentially, I'm saying that limiting Wilder's interests to 3 categories instead of 5 makes absolutely no sense, especialy when we have many other Wikipedia pages that include 5 or more in the lead summary, as I showed before.(Speakoutfreely) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakoutfreely (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilders is a national politician, and he campaigns on much more than what incenses certain Muslims. Your proposed changes would weigh down his biography with the minuscule laws and interpretation of Islam. The Koran, Sharia, etc, fall under that umbrella. He would like to see limited immigration from the two biggest sources of immigrants to his country that happen to be Muslim-majority countries, it's true, but to call that an attack on Muslim immigration (to the exclusion to his other statements) is a parochially Islamic point of view.


 * And yes, Wilders does campaign for freedom of speech, and it's not necessary to put that in quotes. It's hardly surprising since he's been suppressed from speaking by hostile and fearful governments internationally. Does he support exceptions for incitements to violence? That's the way freedom of speech was always implemented in practice; nuances are for the article body. Again, this article is not a rebuttal of Wilders's ideas, it is a gloss of the most important ones. Fortuynist (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree entirely with Foruynist, it's worth adding, before you attempt to go rebutting anything anywhere you should get your facts straight. In Sharia Law, it is punishable by death to convert away from Islam, that is not freedom to believe or reject ideas. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's called Sharia, not Sharia Law. Saying "Sharia Law" is like saying "Islamic Law Law"(twice). So please, at least get the name straight before delving into details. As for punishment for Apostasy, you've got that wrong as well. The punishment is not for converting into another religion, it's for treason under certain circumstances once the person has been found guilty (of said treason). It is the intellectual right of every individual to leave Islam, and in muslim populated countries like Egypt, people come in & out in the open. Under Sharia, before anyone get sentenced for treason, they must face a court and go to trial, and then only the Government can implement such a penalty. Last time I checked, treason was punishable in every other nation as well, which as you know, are all under non-sharia confides. I don't mind correcting you, but you should educate yourself before making comments. Furthermore, a gloss of Wilder's ideas should not be limited to 3 categories. Why not limit them to 5, or 4, or 2 or 1? I don't see any reasoning behind such a decision. Other people also have a say.(Speakoutfreely)
 * Incorrect, "Sharia" is the Arabic term, "Sharia Law" is the evolved English borrowing of the term. If you aren't even living in the correct time and place for the discussion, don't try to have it. Everything else is just misinformed lie, Apostasy is indeed punishable. Obviously Egypt does not have a Sharia constitutional legislative so your point is irrelevant. I won't respond to anything else, as you went on about treason, when I mentioned Apostasy, which results in the death penalty, and you also went on about judicial systems as if I'd said that they wouldn't get a trial, before they are killed for the crime of Apostasy. No one limited the categories, we simply selected the highest possible cateogry encompassing all his views, and not a single one of the proposed labellings isn't included in a less biased manner. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a vote for mentioning the rest of them. There aren't any good reasons to stop short, the beginning paragraph should be comprehensive. And you guys shouldn't change the subject to treason, stick to Geert Wilders. Hugh I know you started it so I'm talking to you first but also Speakoutfreely. Dontkillmeimanoob (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (EST)
 * The list is comprehensive, and already mentions "the rest of them", that's the entire point, try reading the conversation. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the definition if you wish, but you're only increasing the ignorance of the english speaking world. Sharia Law is a misnomer, if you want to continue using misnomers, at least don't get offended when a more educated response corrects it. My mention of Egypt was used because it's populated with Muslims, not because you mistook the Sharia aspect. As I'm sure you (probably don't) know, there is no nation that currently rules via Sharia. The treason aspect was to correct your unsupported allegation that Sharia orders the death of Apostates, a side comment you brought up yourself. Finally, saying that you selected the "highest possible" categories of Wilder's views is completely subjective, and has been challenged by at least 3 other contributors. As we've seen, you're not exactly educated on this subject.(Speakoutfreely).
 * I was referring to Jimmi Hugh, not you dontkillmeimnoob (Speakoutfreely) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakoutfreely (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, it doesn't ignore the defintiion, it is the definition adopted by the English language, it shows pragmatic correctness and an ability to cope with the development of languages instead of becoming academic about issues of origin where you appear to be completley idiotic. Clearly, that's an uneducated response, I'm not offended, I was trying to broaden your horizons of the way language actually works and why pretending everyone is incorrect because you found out the etymology of a word makes you sound backward. Your mention of Egypt was therefore wrong, the majority make up of the people does not change the implimentation of the legal system. Clearly, it is you, trying to use examples of countries as to why Sharia law considers something a crime, that it is ignorant of the facts, but thankyou for showing the kind of contribution you wish to make my attacking me with made-up commentary about my knowledge of the application of Sharia law. Clearly you didn't correct me, you were wrong, and brought up a compeltely unrelated topic that relates to the law of nations as opposed to the rleigious aspects. Finally of course, it's not subjective, you as the English "expert" should be quite aware that the term Immigration does indeed cover specifics such as "Muslim Immigration", "non-western Immigration", "Immigration of Blue Eyed Ninjas, with Purple skin, who speak Spanish, and only eat tomatoes". The specificness doesn't need to be added when his overall stance is made clear. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimmi Hugh, poor reasoning displayed there. You don't own up to your errors yet you want to regulate them, and you brought up an unrelated subject although it has nothing to do with what seems to be your immigration policy for Wikipedia - that the word Muslim shall not accompany it in a Wilder's thread summary. Now you want us to magically accept your cut down version on the basis that you've deemed it "clear" enough for the public at large! Your entire response above is a poster for anti-intellectualism. You'd make a good manager at Best Buy. And I'm also voting to mention them in the lead.Dontkillmeimanoob (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The new unilateral changes are even worse than the ones in the beginning. Now Wilders is a "critic" and a "European nationalist". Increasingly pejorative terms are creeping on BLP violation. Let me repeat the points that were not addressed.


 * 1) The new changes devote a disproportionate amount of prose to Islam, and interpretations of his stances from an Islamic point of view to the detriment of others, and Wikipedia's own neutrality.
 * 2) The new changes introduce new ideas that are not articulated in any article, such as "Muslim immigration" and "European nationalism"; fringe ideas of synthesis, novel interpretations of unreliable sources to give dubious assertions false authority, and teasing prose that is not expanded in the main text.
 * 3) The new text tries to rebut Wilders's positions with confusing and contradicting positions, apparently to give the impression of hypocrisy, in any case framing things in a way that a bitter editorial writer, not a serious biographer or historian, would.
 * Several policies come to mind. Most seriously, about recentism and the proper use of leads. The article itself does not have separate long sections about Sharia (Law?), Islam, Muslim immigration, etc, therefore, and it shouldn't because then it wouldn't be balanced (in terms of political positions, historical perspective, and biographical topics), therefore the lead should not have that. Fortuynist (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dontkillmeimanoob, poor reading skills shown there. Owning up to "errors" is an act that usually follows error. If you care to read my response you will of course see that I not only was not in error but I have already responded to the following lies you made at least once before. I have no once said that the word Muslim cannot accompany the word Immigration in this article, infact I welcome a section. What I have, clearly and without fault maintained, is that it would be a lie to sum up his views on immigration with the term, when he has made critical commentary on all forms of immigration, and that is the truth, impartial as is required by Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't know what else the gibberish in that sentence was refering to, you seem to have got lost on my User Page, I don't seem to be able to find a "policy" on immigration, and I certainly don't recall forming one, I simply follow Wikipedia policy on the matter. What unrelated subject is it that I brought up by the way? I am of course accusing you of being a Liar of the worst degree here, I did not bring up any new or unrelated subjects, you Liar. I don't expect Magic, it's basic logic that any subset of a group is a member of the superset. It's also already made clear in the article his stance on Fundemental Islamic issues, even in the lead-in you seem so desperate to lie to ruin. Insulting my intelligence I am afraid, doss not make you right. It just makes you look like the kind of person who is not only unable to form logical responses to fact, but also who is unable to read. Fortunately, this isn't a "vote", this is an encyclopedia, and you are wrong. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This has to be quick, but some thoughts I had regarding your responses:


 * 1) How can it be disproportionate when Wilders is mostly reported on his view of Islam & Muslims.  If it wasn't for his film Fitna, there'd be much less to report. Even this discussion tablet on Wikipedia alone indicates that Islam is the reason for which he is famous. Neutrality doesn't meant ommition of accuracy.
 * 2) The assertion that the text meant to show him as hypocritical is not only unprovable, but uneccesary, since his own detractors find his straightforwardness easier to deal with. No one's every accused him of hiding his feelings. The irony of you wanting to censor his ideas is beyond humorous.
 * 3) Please look up the definition of a critic. My guess is that you'd deny Roger Ebert the title film critic as well.
 * 4) Perhaps replacing Nationalism with Tradition would be better, since Wider's ideas heavily draw from what he says is the need to protect european traditional values. See link provided. (Speakoutfreely)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakoutfreely (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilders is not "famous". He's a politician, one who was known before releasing Fitna and one whose views have come to attention because of it in more areas than those that cover Islamic issues. Clearly, you didn't read the entirety of the article, or Fortuynists post. His stance on Islam is made clear in the lead-in, and as Fortuynist pointed out, there is no need to attach a relationship to a single issue to every other issue when that is infact incorrectly detailed. The detail is not ommited in the slightest, I'd argue for you if the very next word after immigration wasnt "Islamic"! Again, no one wants to censor, here is a basic lesson in First Grade Logic. The superset of any topic includes the topic. That is, Muslim Immigration is not exempt from the topic of Immigraton. It's not the most complex of concepts. I've removed Nationalism altogether, you can't concieve and debate labels, this is an encyclopedia, primary sources are not welcome in such places. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore the facts in preference of your biases, eh? No wonder people fight your positions. User:Vangotten (talk) 20:10, 8 May (UTC)
 * ~{Self censored)~ Was this aimed at me? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument isn't adding up. Your emphasising comprehensive name for one subject, the Immigration issue, while emphasising a specific approach for another title, Islamic Fundamenalism. Either we go with one or the other, even though the accurate approach is best. As has been sources and proven, his core issues with Immigration has to do with muslims, and his core issue with Islam is Islam. All of Islam. Not just the part you deemed as fundamental, or whatever is meant by islamic fundamentalism. - Spearheaded (talk) 16:3, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How does "using the correct terminology" not add up. I use the widest common terminology to describe his actual views instead of making biased simplifications. In terms of Immigration, he has commented on, proposed solutions and maintains policy on many forms, other than Muslim. In terms of Islam, he has commented only ever on Islamic Fundemetals, that is the tenants of faith and not some imagined or enacted revisionism or moderation. He himself as called for groups of Muslims to choose to remove portions of the Koran that are violent or hateful, thereby forming moderate Islamic sects, all of which are part of Islam, but none which adhere to Islamic Fundementals. In the way you use the term, the term "Islam" is no different to "Islamic Fundemantalism", but as is seen in the "Islam" article, far more than the fundementals are inferred, and this is not something Geert Wilders comments upon, making the term incorrect. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms 'fundamental beliefs of Islam' and 'Islamic fundamentalism' are not the same thing. I favor changing it to suit the former term. The Squicks (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It now reads Since then, he has been outspoken on a number of issues such as immigration, freedom of speech, and the fundamental beliefs of Islam. I believe that this is a factually accurate summary with neutral language. The Squicks (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's because they're not the same thing. Wilders doesn't speak out primarily about the 'fundamental beliefs of Islam' (actual wording of the faith) he speaks out about 'Islamic fundamentalism' (the application of the faith), so it was correct. 'Islam', as I've stated repeatedly, and as our own article supports, implies blanket references to non-fundamental Muslims and is wholly dishonest. While he may make reference to the actual text, his criticism has always been about how it is fundamentally applied, and that is Islamic Fundamentalism. Way to be hypocritcal though, choosing your own terminology with a source :-P hehe. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? He opposes the inherent tendencies of Islam. He has even publicly declared "I hate Islam" and "Moderate Islam? That's a contradiction." If someone said "I hate Black people", would we be able to write in the lead of their article: "Mr.So-and-So opposes certain activities done by African-Americans"? And its no hipocracy. A source was used by me originally when I wrote the lead (before I nominated this for GA statis), and then it was removed somewhere. I was going to restore it to cite the terminology, but I suppose it would never last anyway- since this page is such a quick-reverting battleground. The Squicks (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's no comparison at all, he has never said he hates any group of people, you counter your own point perfectly. There's also no comparison, because the distinction exists for the very reason that membership of Islam is voluntary and comes therefore with difference of opinion, whereas being Black is simply a fact and not something Geert would criticise as you know. As for your introduction, I'm not exaclty sure what you are going on about, I said quite clearly, "Wilders doesn't speak out primarily about the 'fundamental beliefs of Islam'", I never denied his mention, I denied that saying that as opposed to "Islamic Fundementalism" was correct. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we go further, please see the speech Wilder's gave. And I quote verbatim "'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam". He is so clear, unhidden. Why switch anything at all? Regardging Immigration, I changed it like the guy since JH provided no evidence of his version, and since he himself admits there is no concensus (I counted more people went against him, but that's another story), then the clearer version should be applied.Vangotten (talk) 4:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of including such weaselly statements at all, why not scrap the sentence entirely and simply quote him. Have the lead include his quote "I hate Islam", with no interpretation or anything else added. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because interpretation of sources is far more important than quoting out of context to make your point. Printing that quote is like printing quotes from the early 20th century including the words allergy or poison to try and make a point, without considering them as language is understood. Wilders has made it clear, as can be seen for the entirety of his quotes in sources that he "hates" Islam, the whole of the religion. In English, to say Islam, includes reference to the practices of non-fundemental (non-Islamic in the strictest defintion) practioners. This is the reason we have the term "Islamic Fundementalism", which means the whole of the actual ideology, and while obviously the same as his reference to "Islam" is taken differently, hence the accusations of his dislike for Muslims. It's also obvious from the differences in the way he makes the comments in Dutch that to print a source like that would just be lieing, and that's why this is an encyclopedia, and not a quote factory. To take a single quote to make this point, is far more weasley than just stating the actual facts as we know they are. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Suppose someone were to say "I hate Christians and I hate Christianity", and then they elaborated later that they could tolerate Christians if they were "Christian atheists who discarded all belief in the supernatural and focused only on loving their neighbor, which is the true Christianity without this theistic crap".
 * Would writing in their article Person X opposes Christian fundamentalism be accurate? No, of course not. Someone can completely believe in the central tenets of something and not be a fundamentalist. Someone like Billy Graham and the Pope would fall into this category regarding Christianity. Distorting Person X's statements like this is misrepresents them completely.
 * Wilders opposes bedrock central tenets of Islam. He criticizes the main thing, the main principles of the faith. Calling him someone opposed to 'Islamic fundamentalism' is like saying that Richard Dawkins is opposed to 'Christian fundamentalism'. It just doesn't work. The Squicks (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, I didn't bother to read any of this, I can't be bothered with arguing original research, when if you actually read through any of the dutch articles, in his native tongue you'd see that you're so far off it's impossible to discuss. That's why you shouldn't print english quotes, and it's just wrong to cherry pick quotes to create your incorrect point of view. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)