Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 1

Piet Zwart Institute
I figured it must be related, like we would assume a "Claus Santa Institute" would be. In fact, no. Just like this character is "Black Pete", this was the "Pete Black institute" - Piet Zwart is just some photographer. My mistake. Jim Apple 19:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Piet Zwart" is just an ordinary name in Dutch. Andries 19:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'Low Countries' term removed.
It's just old-fashioned! See Low Countries article: " ... is not particularly current in modern articles ... " And the Wikipedia is supposed to be modern, isn't it? :) We don't say 'Rhodesia' either anymore, but Zimbabwe so ... ;) I've replaced it with the more modern term 'Benelux'. -andy 80.129.107.169 14:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Benelux is not the same as the low countries, and sinterklaas is not a holiday in Luxembourg. -- I'm putting "low countries" back in because the reason it is "old fashioned" is because it doesn't reflect the current political boundaries of the countries it is referring to, but it is still very applicable culturally. I'm in the Netherlands now, where the phrase is used all the time. Maybe its not in vogue, or PC for scholars or something, but it doesn't seem to raise problems for the people it is actually referring to. Whirlingdervish 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Present and Future
The first paragraph implied that "Santa and the elves" may compete or displace "Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet". Wrong holiday! The feest of Saint Nicholas (= Sint-Nicolaas = Sinterklaas in Dutch) is celebrated December 5 or 6. "Santa and the elves" are actually competing with "Kerstman" in the latter part of December. It is also somewhat ironic that it be suggested that the non-PC Zwarte Piet be replaced by elves when the latter have received criticism for being non-PC as well.

The remarks about the future of Zwarte Piet are speculation and should be considered for removal.

-- I reconsidered my remarks about the possible future and agree. Refrased and removed.--Paddy Fitzgerald 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Martinet vs. Birch
In the previous version it was mentioned that Zwarte Piet uses a typical Martinet like in france. It was linked to the page of the Martinet, but this item is incorrect. The Martinet is a rod ending in several lashes like a whip. The item Piet uses is a Birch (a 'roe' or 'roede' in dutch). A bundle of twigs, bound at the end looking most like a witches broomstick without the stick. Since the word 'birch' redirects to a page full of the tree type 'birch' I have placed the redirect on the word birching. --Paddy Fitzgerald 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs work
This article could be expanded substantially. For now, I've settled for separating it from Knecht Ruprecht, an article to which it previously was redirected.

Anyone wishing to elaborate on this subject -- particularly the controversy surrounding it -- may wish to refer to the various outside links provided, as well as to Blackface. Peace. deeceevoice 16:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

-- The Iranians have a similar character called Hajji Ferouz. He is the mascot of the Iranian New Year, and is kind of like a Zwarte Piet. I would be astonished if they didn't have the same etiology.--Aufidius 00:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

-- Is there a word "schminked"? I can't find it online or in a dictionary. The closest I can find is an Eartha Kitt song, "Mink, Schmink" which certainly does not apply here.
 * I suspect someone's having us on. Scix 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * actually, "schminken" is a dutch verb, it means "applying theatrical make-up". It comes from "schminke", a brand of grease paint 80.60.242.12 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What does Zwarte Piet have to do with Christmas? Why the category christmas characters. The feast of St. Nicholas is celebrated on 5 or 6 december. Andries 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * you should take a look at Companions of Saint Nicholas and Saint Nicholas

-- Isn't Zwarte Piet's face black because of the soot from decending the chimney (that is what I was told while I lived in Rotterdam)? One year the American's at my school were quite upset and there was no Zwarte Piete for the little kids (it was an international k-12 school), the kids were not impressed with the replacements... --SeanJA

-- I too was taught that Black Peter's face was soiled from the soot from the chimneys. The tradition - as I heard it - was that Black Peter would ascend the roof to listen at the top of the chimney to hear if the children had been good or bad and would then leave gifts at the door. -tickjrh

-- I am an American who lived in the Netherlands for three years when I was younger, it was around 1974-1977. Zwarte Piet was portrayed to us as Sinter Klaas' helper, black (not sooty), and the one who did most of the legwork (putting candy or switches in your wooden shoes you left outside overnight). His being black wasn't really remarked upon; everyone's gotta be some color. The one I actually saw was really black, not in blackface, but he was one of the very, very few blacks I ever saw in Holland; I imagine in most cases the blackface is due to there not being anyone genuinely black around to portray him! It's probably more diverse there now 30 years later... -mxyzplk

-- I just removed some weasel words and gave soem links to testimonial and criticism of the negative Zwarte Piet experience. I am a Canadian of mixed Dutch - Jamaican descent and the issue kind of tears me up. It seems like ex-pats and people from North America are the first one's to criticize, yet its true that every country in the world had to work on inclusiveness. As the criticism itself says the problem isn't Zwarte Pie, but whatever role Zwarte piet plays in social exclusion. harperin

-- In regard with latest additions I have relocated the external criticism tags and accompaning text to 'current events' where more external opinions are gathered. Some of those weasel words you removed were definatly not meant in that manner, but rather used to illustrate the diversity of opinions on the matter. By removing the indication that Zwarte Piet it seen as rasism by 'some' the text has become a factual statement that zwarte piet equals rasism, which heightens the audience expectations about the speaker's subject, which is also exactly what should be prevented. It might have been better to define 'some' by adding who these 'some' are. i.a. 'people that connect the appearance of zwarte piet to blackface' and thus excluding those people that do not link this appearance to a racial bias, which was how the previous was originally intended, although it might have been flawed. If the text would remain this way there should be mention of the view that it is not considered rasist after which people the reader can form it's own opinion. --Paddy Fitzgerald 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The good and the bad
Where Zwarte Piet comes from remains essentially a mystery. However, most guesses go in the direction of an evil spirit, accompanying the good Saint. There is little doubt about its roots in animistic pre-christian mythology.

The Sinterklaas myth has certainly many similarities with pre-Christian German mythology concerning Wodan or Wutan, the German 'higher God'. In the beginning of severe winter, Wodan rode with his six hoofed horse over the roofs and dropped "good luck" biscuits in the form of runes (German lettres) through the chimneys.

In the late pre-christian period, good was mirrored in bad (it was among many other religions the core of the Aryan "heresy", an early christian interpretation that lost the battle with orthodoxy). We find that dichotomy in Lucifer, the fallen angel. Good was white and bad was black.

This old story has been re-invented over and over again, for ideological reasons. The birch Zwarte Piet carried was recognised by children before the twentieth children as a common spanking instrument for bad children. When flogging children with rods became "not done", other interpretations were forwarded. However, in France he is still called 'Père Fouettard', or 'Father the Whipper'.

'Anti-racist" interpretations of Black Pete as a negro slave may be called racist, as they interpret all from a context of white versus black. Pete was black, he was evil and he was likely a slave of the good but the core of the myth is far older than the relatively recent slave trade or modern racism (or its Sinterklaas pendant anti-racism).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bonneux (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

NPOV
I assume the OA of this article is Dutch or something, as the constant references to things 'clearly' being stated and 'impossible' to do, and glossing over the controversy of the racial aspects of Zwarte Piet (which are HARDLY recent). As a result, this article across as "There's nothing bad about Zwarte Piet! No, really!" Obviously, in a place like this, we can't say that there IS, but this article as it is leaves a lot to be desired, especially historically. MagentaThompson 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone who knows American culture well, will know that in the US, the blackface image is considered a powerful racist image, at the same level as a burning cross or a swastika. In another culture, it may be associated with the holidays and candy. I'm afraid it's both, depending on the context. --Mzzl 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's idd the same as a swastika, which also in Europe is not considered 'a good thing', but for example in India(?) and other cultures is considered a common sign. I think if the article is well explained, this shouldn't be an issue.
 * Van der Hoorn 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The swastika was chosen by Hitler as the symbol for the Nazis. At the time he was copying the already existing swastika (which dates back to ancient Greece) but to make it his own he reversed the direction in which the 'spokes' of the symbol point. As such the symbol used by the Nazis and the symbol seen in other cultures are indeed very similar but they are not identicle. fildon 16th of December 2006

External Link
The link to the page was labeled with "testimony" and "victimization" which are both not NPOV, and also not even in the article in a sourced way in any case, this is the article author's opinion and perspective and i do agree it needs to be in there so that readers can draw their own conclusions, but the wikipedia page should not be swaying anyone to hold any specific view of this tradition. Also i worry that that site contains a fair amount of advertising, i would have removed the link but like I say though i do not necessarily agree with that opinion (the author of the article seems to be talking about paranoia more than actual victimization), it is necessary to include both positive and negative views of this tradition. Let me know if i'm against policy or something here, it just seemed worded too strongly one way to be maintained. GTMusashi 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to a Canadian ex-pat goes to the top page for expatica.com. It worked a few weeks ago. I'm a newbie, not sure how to fix it so it calls the correct page.

Image
I think the tag on the image is confusing. Some people might think that it refers to and alleged shot of the real zwarte piet and the real sinterklass. It is obviously not, and people will probably now it, but still, it sounds awkward. Something like "a picture depicting people costumed as Sinterklass and Zwarte Piet" would sound better, IMHO. 205.211.221.52 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Odin's Raven
There's a theory that Sinterklaas is the christianized version of an older celebration, in which Wodan/Odin was the subject. According to folklore his "ears and eyes" were the raven Huginn and Muninn, which could have evolved into the Black Pete's. I'll try to find online sources for this theory. 81.71.36.212 00:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be removed - there is no reference given, and having read the original source, I'd say the evidence for this link is pretty thin. If subsequently someone can find a source for this theory - and that the theory itself is plausible, you could always put it back in lxowle (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite tag Dec 2009
Tag was added without adding a discussion, so I'll mention it here. Not a good article, probably doesn't need to be rewritten entirely. I've ordered a book on ZP, so when I get it I'll try working on it. Шизомби (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag, which was crazy. The article is fine.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Characterizing User:Bloodofox's addition of the rewrite tag as "appear[ing] to be vandalism" in your edit summary diff and above as "crazy" because you think the article is "fine" isn't ideal, particularly when Bloodofox's edit summary did supply a reason "Plagued with unreferenced opinions, this article needs to be rewritten from scratch" diff and there's another editor here agreeing that some kind of problem tag beyond the ones that were already present was appropriate. Anyhow, the book I ordered arrived, so I will be trying to work on it soon. Шизомби (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well; that tag grossly exaggerates the problems this article has, though. The 'unreferenced' tag already in the article seems more appropriate.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - "rewrite" tag removed again. No more in need of one than about 3 million other articles, & the tag is unlikely to provoke one. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Swiss/German Black Peter tradition not mentioned
I spent my earliest days in Rheinfelden, in the German speaking part of Switzerland (1969 to 1971). despite being very young, I vividly remember 'Schwartz Peter/Pater' coming around every family home on 5th Dec with some helpers and talking to the kids. They magically knew all the naughty things I had done and the good things too (a prior briefing from the parents I suspect). If you were good, Black Peter would tell you that you would get presents, if you did not improve then Black Peter would threaten to come back and put you in the sack (which he always carried over his shoulder) and take you off to his home in the black forest. He was terrifying, very white (no black make-up), not with Santa Clause and I always understood his 'black' name to relate to his place of residence. I am sure other true Swiss/Germans will now the tradition better. I was always good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.138.145 (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that it was Schwartz Peter and not Knecht Ruprecht? In any case, find a reference and then add it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Germany/Austria do NOT have Black Peter they have Knecht Ruprecht, Krampus they are not black and no peters 178.210.114.106 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Switzerland (the catholic part of the german-speaking part of switzerland) has Schmutzli (Dirty) who is dirty (the 'dirt' may be misinterpret as being black but he is not black he is full of dirt) he is also no peter 178.210.114.106 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

multi-colored Pieten
The part describing multi-colored Pieten had been removed as a whole, since the issue of the rainbow Pieten is a 'this year only' event. This might be true (we'll find out next year', but the previous edit describing colored Pieten in general is not a one year event, as shown in the 1999 news article added to exterior links. I've reincluded the part about the colored Pieten in it's broader concept, without the specific mention of this years event. --Paddy Fitzgerald 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

at the moment the foreign backlash against 'zwarte piet' has caused a dutch backlash against 'rainbow piet'. cities and organizations that were planning on using the multi-colored variant are instead going back to the black version. 109.32.63.35 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Racism
Zwarte Piet may have been a racist thing in the past, but you can be sure parents from this time period don't tell their children that zwarte piet was a negro-slave. Thing change over time. The most common story right now is that zwarte piet gets his black face because he climbs down chimneys, and gets covered with sooth. In your effort to create a NPOV article, you have done the opposite. I'm not saying that the existing part of the article needs to be changed. Im saying that there needs to be added a new part explaining this. 62.194.170.62 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Piet was never a negro, African or slave. This is simply incorrect. White soldiers paint their faces black when to go to battle in the night. A blackface is white soldier's camouflage. When white people die in winter frost, our skin turns pitch black: Tollund Man. Black is a reference to the dead. Piet used to scare children.Jmk2013 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a news article saying that the face is supposed to be black from soot. Currently the word "soot" doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article. Fnordware (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet is part of the dutch culture, anyone has the right to look down apon it just as others look down apon many actions americans take. You all need to suck it up and deal with it. Its a part of heritage that has been for years.

Further evidence for the Soot story; ever wondered why we don't let negroid people play Zwarte Piet? It's because originally, Zwarte Piet was white, and he's black from the soot. 213.84.77.218 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 'We' don't 'let' negroid people play Zwarte Piet? Hardly. I don't think we have any say in the matter. If black people want to play Zwarte Piet they can, without 'permission' from white people. It's rare, but I have seen negroid Zwarte Pieten - without make-up of course. 84.53.74.196 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen (Suriname originating) ones with make-up too. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one origin of any cultural character. They all change over time and each era sticks a part of those days to the character like gum on your shoe's as your walking through life. Different people grow up with different views, and before television and now the internet connects every part of the world even a small country like the Netherlands or Belgium is quite large indeed. The 'evidence' that was presented on december 22 isn't evidence at all... just a guess made by the writer. But so is the guess made by a user on december 26th, who presumes to know that black people don't play zwarte piet because they are offended by it. I disagree with the statement that black pete has 'long since' been replaced by rainbow colored versions... This hasn't been introduced all that long ago. If I am wrong i'd love to see some evidence of that. --Paddy Fitzgerald 12:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen people play zwarte piet in other imigrant quarters of Amsterdam. These people did use make-up because dark coloured people are never as dark as Zwarte Piet is. 85.144.122.79 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't say anything regarding the origin of the specifically Dutch version, but I think it would be a good idea if folks took a look at images the figure known as 'Schmutzli' (which roughly translates to 'The Dirty One') in Switzerland and parts of Southern Germany and Western Austria. He, too, is typically portrayed as 'black', but, as the name indicates, this is understood to be the product of dirt or soot and not his skin color. Also, he is of the same stature as Klaus, appearing more as his 'shadow' or 'opposite'. The only significant differences are the color of his face (ranging from simply soiled with soot to actual blackface), gown/frock (typically brown or black, though usually of the same shape as that of Klaus), beard (typically black), and the nature of the objects he carries. Maybe someone can find literature linking the 'Schmutlzi' of the South to the Black Peter of the North. Aryaman (☼) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "who presumes to know that black people don't play zwarte piet because they are offended by it." - That's the way of all "anti"-racists: Stereotyping the "victim" race in a serious, thought crime, sort of way. They'd hate to think that individuals can embrace non-serious "stereotypes" such as Zwarte Piet, as well as other racial caracatures. --Kurtle (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always understood his blackness as a consequence of his profession as a chimneysweep, prior to becoming Sinterklaas's helper. My children don't see Zwarte Piet as negroid, but as pitchblack, (though they have no idea from what). They don't find it offensive, because Zwarte Piet is a very valued helper. You can see many actors on tv in dark brown make-up, but originally it would have been soot. Likely the story of the chimneysweep and that of the moorish helper got mixed up.84.80.77.23 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NU article in controversy section
One editor would like to include the following sentence in the controversies section: "Most of the criticism is based on individual interpretation however, as of all the theories about Zwarte Piet's origins, not one is discriminatory in nature."

There are several problems with the sentence and the citation. First off, the rather brief article seeks to discover the source and the origins of the character. It comes up with a few theories and neglects to address several which have been cited/sourced even here on Zwarte Piet's Wikipedia page. The article only uses one source for its claims, those of Frits Booy, an author who has written a book about Zwarte Piet. Furthermore, the article at no point states that most of the criticism is "based on individual interpretation." Booy's hypothesis can be easily disproved by countless other sources. In short, neither the sentence nor the citation are reliable. WP:NPOV. 17:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constablequackers (talk • contribs)
 * Not sure what is to be understood by a "theory that is [not] discriminatory in nature". The Meertens Instituut does say that "a direct connection between the feast of St. Nicholas, Zwarte Piet and slavery in 1850 cannot be substantiated on the basis of the historical sources", but that is probably not what is meant here, or is it? Iblardi (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So that makes two sources that say there are no direct connections between Zwarte Piet and the alleged racist roots: the institute for Dutch language and culture, and an author and historian who specializes in 19th century literature and wrote more than 15 books on the subject.
 * You have failed to actually point out which information you claim is contradictory to the information on this Wikipedia page. GameLegend (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the predominant theories, as cited on this very Wikipedia page, is that Zwarte Piet was previously a "chained" or "enslaved" devil who was turned into a black servant. Jan Schenkman's famous depiction includes a servant of Moorish descent, a subservient to the white Sinterklaas. All of these can easily be construed as racist depictions and there's no denying that many, many authors and others have argued this. Just because one historian claims otherwise doesn't mean that these other theories/arguments can be completely discredited, as you're attempting to do here. If their takes can be written off as "individual interpretations" we must apply the same rationale to Booy's hypothesis. Now then, if you want to fight for the inclusion of this sentence/citation, it really needs to be reworded. Something like "Meanwhile, others including historian Frits Booy argue that the character was never intended to be a racist caricature." Take a look at the wording in the controversy section. There's nothing set in stone and no sentence that bluntly states "Zwarte Piet is racist." Only that international commenters/news orgs and protesters think so. We've got to shoot for a neutral, encyclopedic tone here. Constablequackers (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Before Jan Schenkman popularized "his" partner for Sinterklaas, apparently the Sint most often acted alone, and was both the giver of gifts for good children, and the punisher of misbehaving children. It was only in other countries that S't Nicholas sometimes had a sidekick that played the "bogeyman" role, Schenkman thought it was a good idea to give Sint a helper, but he found those foreign figures too scary. He wanted to popularize a figure that would be milder. So as S't Nicholas was a bishop some people had already realized that bishops in Spain had "helpers", in the form of page boys, just a knights had. And to keep in tradition (the tradition that the companion had to be a "black figure") an obvious choice for such a page would be a Moriscos (a christianized Muslim from morocco) because, as luck would have it, pages of Bishops at the time were often Moriscos. This idea (probably not wholly original already when Schenkman wrote his book) became popular because of his book, and was adopted at large. The background of Schenkmans figure was obviously well known to the adult public, as was the populace's conviction that the page (which later was named "zwarte Piet") was a free agent, it was unthinkable that Sinterklaas, with the reputation he had (for freeing women and children) would keep a slave, especially not in the Netherlands were keeping a slave was unheard of. So if some American commenter comments "you (the Dutch) should look at the history of zwarte piet, and it would convince you it is a racist one" he is sorely mistaken, and probably he himself has not taken the trouble to do any real research, and its just his own prejudice speaking.  But yes, if an American is confronted with Zwarte Piet, his pavlov reaction will (probably) be that he is "a figure in blackface". Only he was never "designed" as such, and actually Piet pre-dates the blackface minstrels of the start of the previous century by at least 50 years. Yes "these things can easily be construed as racist depictions", but that doesn't mean we simply have to accept such an untruthful construction/depiction!
 * But yes, we can still strive to minimize offense, out of common equity. Mahjongg (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite the response but the question you've got to ask yourself is this one: if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? The answer to this proverbial question is, of course, yes. The same question/analogy applies to Zwarte Piet. For all intents in purposes, ZP is exceptionally racist. That may not be the intent of the actors who portray the character and may not have been the intent of those that dreamed him up. But, in the context of the times and contemporary society, there's no denying some rather simple facts. Constablequackers (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are using circular reasoning! Your problem is that you were learned that if it "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be racist". But that ain't necessarily so! If I Go to a Kabuki theater, and see a Japanese man that is using theatrical makeup and an artificial nose to portray a Dutch person, do I automatically have to assume it is a racist expression? No! Similarly, If I see a man with a blackened face and red lips do I really have to assume its a racist expression? No! Its only when The theatrical makeup was used for a long time to ridicule the portrayed figure, for racist reasons, and you have you have learned that doing such a thing is racist and therefore shameful, and it is ingrained into you that it is so, and you cannot escape that inclination even when the makeup is used in a completely different context. Then it becomes, for you, the "simple fact" you are talking about. Mahjongg (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Mahjongg. A Japanese actor playing a Japanese man or a Japanese monster/spirit/etc. on a kabuki stage behind closed doors in Japan is quite a bit different than a white Dutch person portraying a black/Moroccan subservient/slave to a white saint while parading down a street in full view of the public. You know the origins of the character as well as I. But all of this is immaterial in this discussion and is off topic. The subject at hand: should this sentence be included in the text? I am of the opinion that it should not for the reasons I've cited above. Constablequackers (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really don't want to even try to understand my reasonings then further discussion seems pointless. My example simply tries to convey that theatrical makeup of any kind don't automatically imply any racist connotation, But you simply choose not to accept any of my careful explanations, and fully keep to your prejudiced preconceptions. So be it. Ill give up trying to enlighten you.
 * About the part "all the theories about Zwarte Piet's origins, not one is discriminatory in nature". IMHO it should not be in the text as literally as this, as it is not a direct citation from the article from the Meertens Instituut for Research and documentation of Dutch language and culture, (a respectable and independent academic organization). As the text of the article  doesn't say that literally, Instead it says (translated by me) "Slavery in the colonies in the West still existed around 1850. And In 1863, slavery was not abolished. However, keeping slaves was only done outside the Dutch colonies, And in the Netherlands it had been uncommon for a long time. The black servant in the book of Jan Schenkman 1850 is therefore not to be understood as a house slave, but as a servant in service (that is, as a job).", and (translated by me) "a direct connection between Sinterklaas, Zwarte Piet and slavery in 1850 based on the historical sources, cannot be corroborated". But the article also says (my translation) "The stereotypical changes in the images of Zwarte Piet around 1850 could of course have been unfluenced by the former discourse and the representation of colonialism and slavery."  On the question "is the claim "Black Peter is Racism" justified?" the article says "Asked whether Zwarte Piet is racist, no clear answer can be given, but one can not ignore the fact that Zwarte Piet can be experienced as racist both by representatives of minority groups, and by scientists and intellectuals." And, in fact I agree with all of these statements. Mahjongg (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

dress in blackface is considered offensive reference
Asking for references to verify a claim is not unreasonable, in fact is one of the basic pillars of wikipedia. If you can find an appropriate source for that phrase (I could not) you're most welcome to add it, otherwise you should leave it as it is: removing tags without sorting out the issues first is against policy.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You left this on my talk page and it is better discussed here.
 * The question is not whether it's reasonable or not, it's what the rest of the paragraph is about. There are three statements that follow the phrase and they elaborate on the prior statement. The following three paragraphs also elaborate on the concept and they have references. Not sure why one phrase needs a reference when the rest is quite adequately referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has some questionable assumptions that do no have any reliable source, first there is the question whether foreign tourist really suffer from "culture shock" upon seeing a zwarte piet for the first time. I have never witnessed a tourist suffering from a "culture shock", and I have never read about such a thing, yes some people who do not know better and associate zwarte piet with the only cultural reference they know might be shocked, but is that the same as a culture shock? Does any reliable article mention this with so many words?
 * If a Dutch person would walk on a Dutch street really dressed up up as a blackface minstrel Dutch people will probably be offended too, but this doesn't happen when they see a person dressed up as zwarte piet, because in their mind zwarte piet and  a blackface minstrel have very little in common. Also zwarte piet only appears on the streets only during a few weeks before December 6th and his appearance is very much codified. Yes a tourist might not know this, but still "culture shock" is a big word. True there are people who want to make a big deal about this phenomenon, but precisely because the Dutch are open-minded and non discriminatory they therefore are very sensitive to any form of critique about supposed discrimination. So they are truly hurt by such accusations. Sentences like "to dress in blackface is considered offensive in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries" are hurtful to the Dutch because they suggest the Dutch are not sensitive to this. But this isn't true at all, really dressing up as blackface is also very offensive to the Dutch (although it does not generated the programmed response  Americans are ingrained with) . The simple fact is that the Dutch do not consider Zwarte piet to be "in blackface" at all. This might be incomprehensible to persons not grown up with zwarte piet, but is simply true for the Dutch. Assumptions made by americans (and Britons and such) about a foreign culture are just that, assumptions. This is an English language Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that an American POV should be applied to the article. People from all over the world visit this encyclopedia, they might have widely different cultural views, and might not share the American pavlov reaction that is assumed here. Does a Japanese tourist also react with a "culture shock" upon seeing a zwarte piet? I think not! Mahjongg (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I may be confusing this article with the Zwarte Piet section of the Sinterklaas article. Feel free to copy edit to remove extreme words and tag anything that needs to be referenced. Sorry if I caused any confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Walter you have just un-done the "citation needed" tag that applied. Why is that? I have lived in England, the USA and The Netherlands. I could not verify by any objective means that the Americans and Brits are the only ones to experience a "culture shock". I know for a fact that a friend from Sweden had some trouble with it (not a culture "shock" though). My personal observation is that the Brits do not experience a "culture shock" than say the Swedes or the Germans. Perhaps the Americans do, but the British culture is a North/Western European culture, very close to the Dutch/French/German culture- and pretty far away from the American culture. I believe we should rewrite the article to say "Americans can explain a culture shock" or generalize it to "foreign visitors can explain a culture shock". I do nit see why the Brits have to be named specifically any more than ie the Swedish or Germans for example 75.84.99.184 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because In an earlier version of the of the article a reference clearly stated that American and British tourists were appalled by it. The first part of it was that for that group, Santa Claus arrives too early and then he arrives with a black-faced assistant. That reference may have been removed or it could be, as described above, in the Zwarte Piet section of the Sinterklaas article --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An earlier version of the same article? That would be a self-reference I reckon? I can see the Americans being appalled, and perhaps South-Africans as well, but I can't see Brit's in particular being appalled more than say Germans or French. Black emancipation started in Great-Britain pretty late, compared to the USA. Probably France was ahead of them actually. Yet without a reference it's all a bit of a wild guess. One thing for sure is that the fact that Americans are appaled does not automatically mean the Brits are as well. And if they are, I could argue tourist from a wider variety of nationalities are.75.84.99.184 (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Britisch had their own symbol of mocking black people, the gollywog, to be ashamed of, which might cause a knee jerk reaction on seeing what appears to be another case of mocking black people. Mahjongg (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear. The reference may have been in an earlier version of this article so it's not a self-reference, no. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As a British person, I can honestly say that I doubt many "brits" would be "culture shocked" by Zwarte Piet. seriously just look at Little Britain, the show routinely uses blackface in it's comedy. That's not to say we're all insensitive, but we don't in general get as offended as Yankees, for instance, would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.6.183 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Offended? Well I doubt anyone would be offended if they have seen Morris Dancers (Btritish tradition) that routinely wear blackface as a disguise. Or even Africans that also wear whiteface as a disguise. The only people shocked are those that have a cultural reference that makes this shocking.

I also wonder about why the black servant : http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/abolition/servantsinscotland/index.asp suggests very strongly that this is the reason the character is black faced. And FInland has a similar aspect with Musta Pekka - a game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.10.108 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dress in blackface is only offensive in American culture. Indo-European culture spawns many blackface traditions: It's important to understand that the origins of these blackface characters pre-date the European discovery of Africa by centuries. The accusation that Zwarte Piet is racist is unscientific, activist agenda.Jmk2013 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In British Cornwall people have black faces during the Mummer's Day festival, also called Darkie Day.
 * The Persian Hajji Firuz, celebrated by 300 million people worldwide, is a fire-keeper with a black face.
 * Harlequin, a blackface trickster, popular in Italian comedy. (I believe Dante mentions him in La Divina Comedia.)
 * Northern Europe's Companions of Saint Nicholas) (=Sinterklaas) can have blackface: Schmutzli (Switzerland), Krampus (Austria), Knecht Ruprecht (Germany).
 * In Dutch culture Zwarte Piet officially is a chimney sweep. The degree of blackness varies from town to town.
 * Roman historian Tacitus mentions blackface warriors, namely the Germanic Harii tribe. Tacitus calls them the feralis exercitus, the army of the dead.
 * European depictions of the devil as a half-goat, half-man with a scorched black face.
 * Euhm, Egyptians (Africans) were writing and constructing pyramids and probably trading amber with Baltic tribes around 4000 BC. I would not support the claim that Africa was only discovered by Europeans later than that....
 * That notwithstanding. The European blackface traditions are very old, and were originally in no way related to African people. The traditions have been repeatedly updated and the current incarnation of Piet does indeed portray a stereotype of an African. Suggestions by the major of Amsterdam to keep the black face (as very old and not meant in a racist way at all), but remove the stereotypical Afro hairstyle and big red lips (which are a 19th century addition and can be seriously questioned) make a lot of sense in that context. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * neither Krampus nor Knecht Ruprecht are blackface-figures 46.223.176.176 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * maybe not, but they do fall into the same "dark figure" tradition, as other "companions of st nicholas". Mahjongg (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

David Sedaris - really?
Who cares what some idiot in America thinks about a foreign culture. Sure, he can be a critic, everyone is. What makes his so important. What makes Americans think that they can criticize cultures that are far older then theirs? Seriously, take this moron out of the article, no one cares about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.83.210.27 (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This "idiot in America" (who actually lives in Europe) is a rather respected writer who has sold hundreds of thousands of books and has hit the New York Times Bestsellers List more than a few times. He's known all across the world, even in the Netherlands where he filled Koninklijk Theater Carré in September of 2013. After his lecture, Dutch people waited for hours to get their books signed by him. To date, he's the best known author to tackle the subject of Zwarte Piet. That's why this "moron" deserves to have the essay he published in a well-known magazine included in this article. Constablequackers (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * never heard of the man, I doubt this will do his popularity any good in the Netherlands, but not a big deal... Mahjongg (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thing you're awareness of authors not the bar by which we measure a reliable source! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed, but I didn't imply it should be, just wanted to give my opinions and thoughts about him... he might be well known, just not by me, but as I said that's quite unimportant, yawn. Mahjongg (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the problems in this discussion is the point of view taken. From Dutch point of view this is a harmless tradition, from an non Dutch point of view it is odd, and possibly offensive. :::::Is a non-Dutch point of view relevant for a Dutch tradition? And if we decide non-national point of views are relevant to typically national tradition this should apply generally across Wikipedia - for example by adding international criticism on the Right to keep and bear arms in the United States of which it can be argued that it actually causes many fatalities a year.


 * I don't say I have the answer, but making international points of view central to local traditions is opening Pandora's box in my view, do we want to go there? Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is only one of the many articles on Wikipedia that contain a section devoted to criticism, controversy, etc. In recent years, the topic of Zwarte Piet has been tackled by several news organizations around the planet. The scrutiny of the likes of the BBC, the New York Times and, yes, a popular/well-known author like David Sedaris is something that should be included. You cited Right to keep and bear arms in the United States as a contrary example. That page contains an extensive section devoted to 'Modern Commentary,' in addition to a section titled 'The politics of the right to keep and bear arms.' This subject even has its own page. If you know of a critical article from a reputable Dutch or international news organization about American gun laws, I invite you to add it to that page. Constablequackers (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not saying the criticism on the current Zwarte Piet is incorrect, I wanted to raise that we should be careful with introducing anglocentric commentaries, just as we should be careful to introduce Eurocentric comments to US articles, or Western centric comments to articles on Asian cultures and traditions. (fire arms may not have been the best argument though ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I took the time to watch these hilarious video's, and feel the reason not to link to them in the Controversies section of the article is simply because he isn't making any serious statements about any real controversy. He is just amusing a bunch of Americans showing how looking at a cultural phenomenon through "cultural chauvinist glasses", can lead to misconstructions, Which can lead to such ridiculous statements as "Santa doesn't speak Spanish", and "he doesn't eat Tapa's" and other such nonsense, such as "Piets were formerly slaves, but went to being friends without a period of bloodshed" and other statements which cannot be taken seriously. If you try to extract anything serious from this you have not paid attention well. Even the title "six to eight black men" that suggest that the number of Piets is fixed between six and eight is ridiculous in itself, with his ridiculous line "everybody tells me its between six and eight". Its a notion straight out of the Disneyfication of "snow white" Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, with a fixed number of dwarfs/Piets. In reality there can be any number of Piets, between one and several hundred, not that it matters, but saying that "everybody says its between six and eight ones", is simply another ridiculous lie. It is as David Sedaris is holding a mirror up to his public, and they are laughing about their own inability to tell he is fibbing, or perhaps its truly simply "cultural chauvinism" as he says himself (with tongue in cheek). I'm guessing That Dutch people can also watch the movie (or read the book) and laugh about such near-sightedness, but I think they do understand the punch line of the joke better than the "Mericans"! I had a hearty laugh looking at sinterklaas repeatedly falling from his horse, (where did he get the footage from?) or even being unable to climb the stairs. Cook a doodle doo. David Sedaris - really? Mahjongg (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

East India Company
In the article the East India Company is mentioned in relation to slavery in the the 17th century. The East India Company did not take part in slavery. There was however a West India Company that took part in slavery

[personal attack removed by --Paddy Fitzgerald 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)]


 * That's a rather overblown reaction, considdering that the original commentor was probably just thinking of the Slave Triangle and realised that that was set up by the West, not the East, India Company. Besides the East India Company didn't technically perform wholesale slavery as the local population got small (token) wages for their work (which has always been the difference between the East and West India Companies). 62.251.127.12 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite an overreacted and demeaning comment that goes against the WP:NPA. Although it should be used sparingly, I believe that in addition to the post not being signed at all, this would be enough. Let's keep it polite in here. --Paddy Fitzgerald 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for whitewashing Dutch history on wikipedia. De Dutch East India Company definitely was involved in slave trade. See for instance the article by Markus Vink, "The World's Oldest Trade": Dutch Slavery and Slave Trade in the Indian Ocean in the Seventeenth Century, Journal of World History, Volume 14, Number 2, June 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xochopili (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove news from section "Controversies surrounding the character"
This section appears to have been vandalized by activists. For example, the line "At a 'pro-Pieten' demonstration in the Hague on October 26th, (..)" does not belong in an encyclopedia. Daily incidents add nothing to the encyclopedic knowledge of Zwarte Piet. Or we should create a specific wiki-page for this demonstration, which is unlikely. These "newsy" sections should be removed.Jmk2013 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, sad as this incident might be, it is a minor thing in the whole discussion. It may, or may not be indicative of a more widespread racism in pro-piet activists which might be relevant. However that conclusion would definitely be original research based on these primary eye-witness reports. Arnoutf (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As Arnoutf states here, the incident is rather indicative of a larger issue at hand. It's a perfect example of how zealous many Dutch people are when it comes to this subject. Zwarte Piet continues to be the subject of immense controversy in the Netherlands and this incident has received a substantial amount of coverage. Why do you feel that it's irrelevant given the attention that it received? Also keep in mind that the woman involved was the daughter of a prominent Dutch activist with his own Wikipedia page. Constablequackers (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because we need a reliable source that explicitly analyses this issue. The primary reports by eye witnesses do not support my point, which may be a logical conclusion but still is original research on my side. Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your entire conclusion is original research. If we take single incidents at rallies and social media, any group can be made out to be anything, from racist pro-immigration people to violent 6-year olds. That's why there's no OR on Wikipedia. A proper and relevant analysis would take that into account, rather than take a single incident and use that as the bible in hand to cast judgement. GameLegend (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I agreed before, my conclusion is original research indeed and cannot be included into the article for that reason. Such a claim/analysis should come from reliable secondary sources; which do not exist to my knowledge Arnoutf (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but a "just the facts" approach should suffice and, once again, given the amount of attention that the incident received, it should be included. Your argument that "it was just one incident" could applied to numerous articles on Wikipedia. By your logic, we would have to nix Rose Park's bus protest from her article and any discussion of the infamous Montgomery Bus Boycott. Or Micah White's blog post that helped spark the Occupy Wall Street Movement in New York. Granted, each of those events was far larger than this one but I'm sure you understand my point. If the incident in the Hague amounted to a post on a personal blog you *might* have a point. But it was covered on everything from TV news to NRC to multiple other news agencies in the Netherlands. Here's what I would like to add to the section. If you'd like to take issue with the citations, please let me know your concerns and I'll find others. Furthermore, please consider that this passage was the work of multiple editors other than myself. I think the following is fair, unbiased and straight to the point:

Rallies have recently taken place in the Netherlands in support of Zwarte Piet.{Hundreds March In Netherlands To Support 'Racist Black Pete' Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/hundreds-march-in-netherlands-to-support-racist-black-pete-2013-10#ixzz2is66z6EG Accessed 26 October 2013} At a pro-Pieten demonstration in the Hague on 26 October, Tilly Kaisiepo (daughter of Papuan-activist Viktor Kaisiepo) was harassed by members of the crowd who mistook her for a counter-protester. Authorities intervened to protect Kaisiepo after she was surrounded by the angry group, one of whom tried to hit her.{Black Petes demo, the hangover comes laterNOS,27 October 2013} {Tilly Kaisiepo krijgt eindelijk aandacht voor Papoea's[Nederlands Dagblad],27 oktober 2013} Constablequackers (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The offending piece (just removed) claims "Hundreds March In Netherlands To Support 'Racist Black Pete' " which seems extremely non NPOV, as the rally was to support "Zwarte Piet", not "Racist Zwarte Piet". In fact the rally was held precisely because the marchers do plead that zwarte piet does not represents a racist stereotype! Yes, no doubt the way zwarte piet as normally presented represents a stereotype. That is because Its a fairy tale figure, its is as stereotypical as say the elves of Santa are stereotypical. But Its a stereotypical figuration of a black moor, the page of a bishop, not a slave (The Dutch understood at the time that Piet was introduced as a replacement for a "devil" figure that, as St' Nicholas was a legendary figure known for its kindness, and was known to buy slaves free, he was hardly likely to keep a slave himself). You could say its representation its not fitting in this day and age, but that is why its a very old custom. In fact it far predates the black minstrels that people now mistake it with. Unfortunately these rallies also attract the real rightwing (racist) types, but that doesn't mean it was organized by racists. Dutch people do see how some could mistakenly be offended though. Perhaps some small changes can be made to make Piet less offensive to those who do, (no red lips, frizzy hair and golden earrings). Perhaps going black to completely soot black faces like the devil stereotypes that came before the invention of the less creepy "black man" represented by "black pete". is an option. Multi colored Piets were tried in the past, but have not caught on, probably because Piet must be black for historical reasons that have nothing to do with moors, and because the makeup must make the person that plays a Piet completely unrecognizable for the kids, that probably know him. the chance that Piet disappears altogether are similar to the chance that the elves will disappear because they offend some, that is, the chance is null and void. Such is MHO. Mahjongg (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (joking) As a colleague of mine said - sticking pointy ears on little children is a very transparent attempt of Santa Claus to hide that he is using child labour in his operation. So indeed the elves can be construed as offending. (PS Santa Claus also is located at the North Pole which is not covered by any nation, hence he is a tax evader. Santa's name, use of chimneys, color of his suit, long white beard, reading from a big book, are all clear violations of the (much older) Sinterklaas trademark;-) Arnoutf (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding some levity to the discussion, Arnoutf. Anytime you want to take on Santa Claus' defenders over on his Wikipedia page, I'd love to witness the ensuing debate. ;) Constablequackers (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All those haters...it makes you just want to disperse pepernoten all over the bike path so they'll get flat tires. And then let them look for a blacksmith, haha. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And thank you again for whitewashing Dutch history on wikipedia. The lynch mob which was surrounding Tilly Kaisiepo at the infamous pro-piet demonstration was really the most offensive and embarrassing part of the ongoing debate this year and should definitely be remembered, because it did show a lot of what this whole thing is about. The complete ignorance about Dutch colonial history, being perpetuated by Dutch politicians, causing people just to see "a foreign flag" worn by a black woman, instead of seeing a red-white-blue flag remembering Dutch people of some unredeemed political promises, the blatant racism turning into violence - this was the true face of the white Dutch protests in defence of "Zwarte Piet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xochopili (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV (2)
I propose to remove the opinionated sentence:

The Netherlands' non-white population in particular finds Black Peter and his representation as child-like and in blackface to be offensive.

The reference attached points to some kind of blog ranting about the alledged racist nature of Zwarte Piet, but failing to give any real supportive facts.

Cheers, 92.108.16.46 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never seen any complaint by an actual black person. Not even on TV. The alledged racist bit seems to be a "making news" cycle where some leftish columnist writes about it, which gives nationalist television (e.g. SBS6 Hart van Nederland) fodder for days. I think this racism remark should be sourced with actual quotes from e.g. formal Dutch coloured associations, and not just refer to annual treatise in populist media.

88.159.64.210 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, FWIW one Surinamese friend of mine abhors and boycotts anything to do with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. So anecdotally, there are "actual black persons" complaining about it. (But of course anecdotes, from a blog or otherwise, are no basis for any Wikipedia edit.)No-itsme (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw about 10 years ago a huge banner stating in rhyme "Zwarte Piet is zwart verdriet", meaning "Zwarte Piet is black sorrow". This was in the "black" Bijlmermeer neighborhood. Andries (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is one factual error in the article: Under current affairs there is mention of Zwarte Piet 'speaking in a Surinamese accent'. This is not true, unless the person playing Zwarte Piet happens to Surinamese of course. Zwarte Piet speaks regular Dutch. The source article that is referred to makes the same mistake. I suggest to remove both the phrase in the article and the quoted source. The way Zwarte Piet speaks can be checked here for example: http://beta.uitzendinggemist.nl/programmas/1670-het-sinterklaasjournaal But of course one has to understand Dutch in order to understand the accent spoken with. 94.208.18.55 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur, article seems to confuse Suriname descent of many Dutch blacks and Zwarte Piet. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. For many years most of the people playing the Zwarte Piet character were speaking in a mock Surinamese accent and occasionally this still happens. The tradition of playing the figure this way was gradually abolished since mid 1980s, because it was considered too offensive towards Surinamese people in the Netherlands. However, this small change doesn't change the general fact that Zwarte Piet still is a racist caricature. Besides that: during recent years, most protests against Zwarte Piet came from people of African-American descent, living in the Netherlands. And for the record: stating that Zwarte Piet is a racist caricature is NPOV - it's a fact. One just wonders how long all these hijacked wiki-articles will last... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xochopili (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

2011 protesters
The page contained the following text:
 * Elsewhere, four people wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011 at a Sinterklaas festival in Dordrecht after failing several instructions by the police to move elsewhere.

It is claimed by a fellow editor that these protesters were arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet, implying significance to the case of alleged racism. In this case however, correlation is not causality, one of several contexts left out by the news article linked.

The official statement makes clear that:
 * the protesters were not arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet specifically, they were arrested for protesting at a place and time where protests were specifically forbidden.
 * this was not an unprovoked police attack: the protesters were asked 5 times to stop their demonstration, yet they failed to comply.
 * when, after ignoring orders 5 times, they were placed under arrested, they resisted arrest.

Other than the protesters in question protesting Zwarte Piet, the arrest had nothing to do with Zwarte Piet and any alleged plot against criticizers: the arrest had to do with people not following the law. GameLegend (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good thing we're not using the official, whiteashed, statement, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. We're using a reliable news source: http://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2011/11/antizwarte_piet_activists_arre.php and it's dead now, but when I read it, it clearly indicated the statement as provided in the article, that they were protesting Zwarte Piet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the official statement is whitewashed?
 * How is one of the major news papers reporting the official statement any different than a website reporting the statement from the protester in question?
 * "it's dead now" is not something to base an Wikipedia article on.
 * It is clear that they were protesting ZP, but that is not the reason they were arrested, and thus has no causation to this article. They were arrested because they disobeyed the law. GameLegend (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * [:: the follow up story. (and with proper citations, sources do not need to be online)--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One throw-away mention of the event in 2011 is not "proper citations".
 * Which leaves us with two conflicting sources: a clear statement from a major news paper, and a throw-away sentence by an online news site. GameLegend (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. It wasn't a throw-away sentence either. It was a report of the action. You haven't read it but you're making commentary on it? Please stop! Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I ask you four questions, you post one link to WP:RS without actually supplying an argument.
 * Please address the three issues left I brought up.
 * Google is your friend. The initial report is just contains quotes from the protester, not from an independent journalist on the scene reporting what happened. The second link by TRPOD only contains one throw-away sentence.
 * A lot of speculation and beating around the bush here. Please actually engage in the discussions and use facts. GameLegend (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Did you read RS? I'm reprising my earlier comments which you ignored, tried to change the topic by going on the offensive and I didn't take the bait. The news source, which contained more than simply quotes from the protesters (more than one), contained a full report. I'll mark it as a dead link. Feel free to add your primary source as the official government story of what happened, but the news source must stay as an objective record that meets both SECONDARY and RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only part of the news article that talks about the arrests is the following:
 * "The arrest of four people wearing t-shirts with the slogan ‘Zwarte Piet is racist’ during the Sinterklaas celebrations last weekend has given new impetus to the annual debate about St Nicholas’ assistant and political correctness."
 * Please refrain from making false statements, or otherwise point out and exactly quote which part of the link you believe to an objective record of the arrest.
 * GameLegend (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have access to a dead link? That's interesting. Regardless, if you have a link to that dead source and not an excerpt, I'd be happy to remove it as a source now that I've found an even better one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is normally accessible via Google. GameLegend (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you please be so kind as to point out where in your new source there is an objective record? This source also does not include any first-hand record and is a rehash of "they said" and "this video".
 * Furthermore, this again makes no point as to the claim that these people were arrested because of Zwarte Piet. It actually again explains that they were simply arrested for breaking the law. GameLegend (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Either provide a direct link to it or shut up about it, because as I said, the source I found only has excerpts of the original.
 * My new source is an objective record--the entire document. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are avoiding the issue.
 * Please point out where in your new source it is made clear that this is an objective first-hand record of the incident.
 * Please point out where in your new source it is made clear that the protesters were arrested for protesting ZP.
 * Please point out where in your new source it is made clear that the official statement is whitewashed.
 * GameLegend (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the wayback machine, we have the actual text. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still doesnt answer any of the questions. GameLegend (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The arrest of four people wearing t-shirts with the slogan ‘Zwarte Piet is racist’ during the Sinterklaas celebrations last weekend has given new impetus to the annual debate about St Nicholas’ assistant and political correctness." There is no need to discuss this any further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That is exactly what I quoted earlier.
 * It does not, in any way, shape or form, say that they were arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet.
 * You have still not proven that they were arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet. GameLegend (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, they were arrested for arson and murder, but the paper chose only to mention their shirts and the protest that they were at and the continued scrutiny the custom is under, but their arrest had nothing to do with that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * but we can use this source instead. or this one  or this one   --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

According to pp. 11-12 of this police report, the operational commander referred to the APV when he told his colleagues to ask the protesters to leave and to arrest them if they were not to, fearing disturbance of public order and/or safety. Iblardi (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * so your position is they were arrested for being the target of a mob? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. As the source says, there was no "mob" at the time, but the police feared that deliberately provocative behaviour by the group might lead to disturbances later on (p. 12). Iblardi (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They were arrested for
 * wear the shirts
 * some police found the statements offensive or embarrassing
 * the event was a highly visible event
 * in order to reduce embarrassment for the organizers or the region, the protesters were asked to move on
 * the protesters refused and held to their right to protest the event
 * It's not a simple solution. Police reports a BS. They write what they think will make them look good, not the truth. That is why, as a PRIMARY source, they are not to be trusted. If we had court documents where the protesters could offer rebuttal to the police reports, it might be better. The news reports offer both sides of the story. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

They were arrested for protesting in a place and time there was a ban on protesting. It doesn't matter if they were protesting Zwarte Piet, racism or to save puppies Cruella de Ville: they were arrested for breaking the law. Just like you are doing now, they are playing the victim to turn this whole thing into a "look at the evil racist white devil" story, but on Wikipedia we are supposed to stick to the facts.
 * FACT is that in the Netherlands there are limits to when and where people are allowed to protest. This goes for neo Nazi's as much as for Zwarte Piet protesters. No source has been provided to support the claim that the reason for the arrest was anything other than breaking the protesting law.
 * FACT is that a Wikipedia editor claiming "Police reports a BS" needs some good evidence. Founding an entry in an article on a baseless accusation like that, we might as well turn the 9/11 page into the truth as claimed by the conspirators.
 * FACT is that none of the sources quoted support the claim based on first-hand reports.

So please stop running around in circles rehashing the same non-facts, and either provide a source that actually supports the facts that you are claiming, or admit that there is no factual basis for the claim you want to support that they were arrested for supporting Zwarte Piet. GameLegend (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fact is that they were protesting legally. They were not protesting in a place and time when there was a ban on protesting. No new source indicates this. Not even the primary police report supports that. So please stop running around in circles rehashing the same non-facts, and either provide a reliable, SECONDARY source that actually supports the facts that you are claiming, or admit that there is no factual basis for the claim you want to support that they were arrested for supporting Zwarte Piet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about? Must I simplify things to an extreme so you don't lose track? Fine.
 * Not a single source you have provided supports the claim that they were arrested for supporting Zwarte Piet.
 * If there is not a single source to support that claim, it has no place in this article. GameLegend (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What they did was tantamount to wearing a T-shirt with the text "Santa does not exist", then waiting for the camera's to broadcast their "message" country wide to an audience of children. They were probably were first asked nicely to take their "protest" outside the range of the TV cameras, but when they refused the police did the only reasonable thing they could do and removed them by force. Probably just as they hoped for, they got exactly what they wanted, as the event was broadcast in the news, after children's bed-time. Mahjongg (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * your speculation about spoiling children's fantasy life is all fine and good. do you have sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant speculation when there is still no source saying they were arrested for protesting ZP in the first place. GameLegend (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, as discussed earlier, no actual reliable objective first-hand report of the event: just a throw-away line.
 * You can not argue that the official statement is false, based on a throw-away line like that.
 * So let's try this again: is there a reliable report to suggest that the official statement is false and that they were instead arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet? GameLegend (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth my view on this.

(1) Dutch policy is to be fairly open in allowing protests and people will object if protesters are arrested without good reason (e.g. antimonarchist protesters during coronation ceremony).

(2) Protests may need a permit, and there are no indications these protesters had such a permit.

(3) Dutch Police has fairly much power in asking people to remove themselves from a location if they deem this a problem for public order (for whatever reason - of course unless people have a permit to be there).

(4) If people do not follow the request of the police, the request can be a command and failing to follow the command can lead to arrest. Of course people who feel they are protesting for a just cause (under 1), might feel that they should be allowed to do so even without a permit (2). Hence they may feel that the police request to remove themselves (3) was unjustified and hence irrelevant and thus they may honestly perceive that any arrest was made because of their protest.

In the discussion above nobody denies that people protesting zwarte piet were arrested. GameLegend acknowledges that some people claim arrests were made because of the protest (i.e. topic 1), while official reports claim the arrests were made because the protesters did not follow police orders (i.e. 3). In my view there seems no strong reason to disbelieve the official report here, unless there is strong evidence of the opposite, and I have not seen this.

If you read the analysis of the incident provided by TRPoD in you will see that:

(a) The mayor of Dordrecht issued a ban on demonstrations to avoid public unrest. This is within the power of Dutch governmental bodies

(b) Police did not agree with putting up signs protesting Zwarte Piet, after which the protester showed their shirts instead

(c) Police did not immediately respond to this, but after deliberation stated that the T-shirts also violated the ban on demonstrations, and demanded to either remove the shirts.

(d) the actual arrest was made for ignoring police orders.

As the paper clearly argues, it is unclear whether the police was in their right to demand people to remove their T-shirts in the first place. So looking at it altogether, the case is interesting in relation to the power of the Dutch police to interfere in peaceful protest; and whether they take too much liberty especially in this Zwarte Piet case in restricting freedom of expression. Which is all interesting and potentially relevant. But there is no evidence that the arrest were made solely because of wearing T-shirts. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempt at clarifying the issue
The sentence that caused the problems reads:
 * Elsewhere, four people wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011 at a Sinterklaas festival in Dordrecht after failing several instructions by the police to move elsewhere.

A long sentence so allow me to break it up in phrases: So the only issue of concern is 7. & 8. I broke these out to be precise, but otherwise those are the phrases that are at issue. As far as I can see, none of this is unsupported in the sources. If anyone would like to indicate which of these are unsupported, I'd be happy to discuss them.
 * 1) Elsewhere,
 * 2) four people
 * 3) wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme"
 * 4) were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011
 * 5) at a Sinterklaas festival
 * 6) in Dordrecht
 * 7) after failing instructions by the police
 * 8) several instructions
 * 9) to move elsewhere.

The statement indicates what the protesters were wearing, but nowhere in the sentence does it indicate that they were arrested for wearing the shirts. To be clear, they were arrested for protesting and believing that Zwarte Piet is racism, but that's not supported in the documents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I follow and agree with your analysis up to your last sentence: "To be clear, they were arrested for protesting and believing that Zwarte Piet is racism, but that's not supported in the documents.". Everything you mention before leads to the conclusion they were arrested for failing to follow instructions by the police (which is the police position on this). How do you get from that analysis to the conclusion that it "they were arrested for protesting"? (I do not deny that the police may have been extremely fast and harsh in their instructions (7 and 8 indeed) because of their protest goal, but whether the police went too far in issuing these instructions is another issue). Arnoutf (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad the issue is clear now.
 * Now that we have all come to the same conclusion, is there any reason we should still keep this information in this article? GameLegend (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We have obviously not come to the same conclusion. The material above is clear, and it is valid for this article, so YES we should keep it in the article! Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Than why did you strike through the only conclusion that makes it relevant? GameLegend (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please read the discussion and you'll understand. You might want to start at "The sentence that caused the problems reads". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That sentence does not establish why it is relevant to the article. So some protesters broke the law and got arrested: what relevance is that to the subject of Zwarte Piet? Supporters of a certain cause misbehave all the time, also at protest. That doesn't have any relevance to whatever they're protesting. Unless you want to make the point that protesting Zwarte Piet makes you a law-breaker. GameLegend (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So now your argument is based on relevance and not that the material is not referenced? That's not what you were saying above where you wrote:
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the official statement is whitewashed?
 * One throw-away mention of the event in 2011 is not "proper citations".

You cannot believe how unbelievably angry I am with you right now. Before I discuss your apparently new issue, can we agree that the material above is accurately referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's try to make this clear for you one last time:
 * The current text is properly referenced.
 * The current text does not establish relevance.
 * None of the references establish any sort of background to make the event relevant.
 * The material referenced does not establish relevance. All it establishes is that protesters misbehaved. The problem is that you are reading the conclusions you want to read -they were arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet and the police is trying to cover it up- into references that do not properly support that. GameLegend (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's stop the attitude. Glad you think the text is properly referenced. That's the end of that debate. The relevance is that they were wearing wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" at a Sinterklaas event. That too has been established. The relevance is obvious to everyone except you and doesn't need a reference and the sources do make it absolutely clear:
 * "For some decades now, there has been a debate in the Netherlands as to the precise nature of this blackface."
 * "After presenting the arguments of opponents of Zwarte Piet that there is such a connection, termed racist, the author focuses on the performance context of Zwarte Piet’s presence, in order to try to understand why Dutchmen generally fail to make this connection."
 * "that local authorities will try to avoid anything that might compromise the spectacle. On the other hand for anyone intent of making a point, this is a prime occasion." "With this in mind Amsterdam-based poet and dramatist Quinsy Gario and poet and rapper Jerry Afriyie alias Kno’ledge Cesare set off to Dordrecht. The preceding months, in an art project of their own making, they had toured poetry and summer festivals wearing and selling the same type of T-shirts. Their text ‘Zwarte Piet is racism’, somewhat reminiscent of Kurt Tucholsky’s 1931 controversial dictum ‘Soldaten sind Mörder’, aimed at provoking a discussion on relations between ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ in the Netherlands. Public attention, though, was rather modest. In Dordrecht, however, things would be different."
 * All taken from http://www.quotidian.nl/vol03/nr01/a01 If you would like, I could ammend the text of the article to read
 * "Elsewhere, four protesters who are opposed to the racist stereotype represented by Zwarte Piet, who were wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011 at a Sinterklaas festival in Dordrecht after failing several instructions by the police to move elsewhere." Because, that is supported by the text. Unless you have a counter-proposal or would actually like to read the sources and come up with a different conclusion. But the removal of the twice-referenced phrase will never be removed while I am alive so give up your attempt at censoring it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is the fact that among Zwarte Piet's protesters, there are people that broke the law, relevant to Zwarte Piet?
 * It only reflects on these two people that were protesting Zwarte Piet.
 * The only reason it would reflect on Zwarte Piet is if they were arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet, but after all these replies, and all these very specific requests for you to proof that, you have still failed to do so.
 * "But the removal of the twice-referenced phrase will never be removed while I am alive"
 * Such an egocentric attitude is not healthy on Wikipedia. GameLegend (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on your logic a discussion of racism in America should not discuss the race riots of the 1960s. I'm sorry you can't draw the line between the fictional character and those who object with the way that the character is portrayed. The relationship is obvious though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great example of relevance actually, although probably not in the way you envisioned it.
 * A number of racially motivated riots with agitators from both sides over the course of 20 years: relevant.
 * A single case of one side breaking the law: not relevant.
 * You may find it relevant, as you may find the relationship obvious, but Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles, so unless you can provide objective sources, it does not matter what you find. GameLegend (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the most recent reference clearly links the two, and I won't speak to your ideology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I will once kindly ask you to refrain from personal attacks about supposed ideology.
 * Furthermore, mentioning an incident is something entirely different from proofing details surrounding the incident.
 * As this is clearly not going anywhere, and you remain unable to supply the sources requested, I will put in a RFC to have an outsider establish whether a single case of civil disobedience is to be considered relevant. GameLegend (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Please read the references and stay up-to-date on the article. The new reference clearly states that this is not a single case of civil disobedience: it has been ongoing since 2011, and that it is a desire to abolish the nature of the portrayal of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the desire has nothing to do whatsoever with this single incident. That desire is expressed in many perfectly legal ways. This is nothing more than a story of two individuals who choose an illegal manner to express a desire they could have expressed in a legal manner.
 * None of the references say that illegal ways of expressing a desire have been ongoing since 2011, because they have not. GameLegend (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What? The new reference clearly states that this is not a single case of civil disobedience, which is what you claimed above: it has been ongoing since 2011 and so has happened three times. The two new references clearly indicates that this is about racism. All three of the references make it clear that there is a link between the protests, the clothing and the subject of this article: how the subject is portrayed in Dutch culture. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "What? The new reference clearly states that this is not a single case of civil disobedience"

Would you please be so kind as to stop your deceptive attempts to attribute quotes and facts to sources that do not support them?
 * What has been ongoing since 2011 (much longer actually) is a perfectly legal way of a group of people expressing their displeasure. This has nothing to do with civil disobedience, as it is perfectly legal.
 * What has not been ongoing since 2011 are people breaking the law to express their displeasure, despite the fact there are plenty of legal ways to express this. These are the two incidents in the reference.
 * This supposed suppression of expression that you are trying to push so hard, is baseless and unreferenced.


 * "The two new references clearly indicates that this is about racism."
 * It indicates that this is about the way a certain group of people choose to attribute their own chosen implications on other people's feelings and intentions.
 * Perhaps you could use this next week to read up about both sides of the coin so you can develop a more neutral point of view. GameLegend (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further attempt to clarify
I feel there is a fallacy in Walters reasoning. Starting from a central argument from Walter Gorlitz "The relevance [for including it in the article] is that they were wearing wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" at a Sinterklaas event.".

Making this a neutral statement this could be read as "The relevance [for including it in the article] is that they were wearing wearing clothing with the words "Something about the event" at that event." There are examples of this (e.g. the 2010 controversy around Bavaria, see Leeuwenhosen) where the clothing was central. However there are also many cases where the behavior is central and the clothing not (e.g. football Hooligans fighting with the police after a match are generally not arrested for wearing clothing related to that match). The latter case seems much more common - there is event related clothing AND event related misbehavior and the people are arrested for the latter.

The issue now is to what extent Anti-Piet protests during Sinterklaas tours (including in the cases when explicit ban on protesting is issued by the mayor) can be considered event related misbehaviour. I think the only way forward is to find sources that state that the actual instruction of the police to remove the T-shirts from sight was unjustified as police cannot give instructions randomly as that in my view is the central moment where the police may have crossed the border. So to make it relevant, we would need to find a source stating that the police instructions were unjustified. As the scientific paper states, this is unlikely to be found as charges were dropped and the case was never brought before court.

An alternative could be to rewrite the sentence and put less emphasis on the T-shirts but make it something like :"In spite of bans on protests during Sinterklaas parades demonstrations against Zwarte Piet has been frequent. The police has shown very little tolerance against even the most minor forms of protest, such a wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Zwarte Piet" is racism" - (The tolerance here relates more to the instruction to remove the T-shirt than the actual arrest.) Would that be a way forward?

In any case I suggest we leave it as it is for a week, both the talk and the statement (I did not look right now which version was up) as a cooldown period, because this seems to be going nowever, Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will go with you on leaving this for a week.
 * Perhaps when the emotions have cooled down a bit, Walter can see past his emotionally charged statements of 'censorship' and 'racism' and we can actually come to a factual conclusion, rather than going around in circles based on conclusions not supported by references.
 * However, otherwise, I will put in a RFC about relevance and the inclusion of 'only implied by some' facts. GameLegend (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevance as recognized by the outside world: "Momentum has been growing against the custom, in part thanks to campaigners such as Quinsy Gario, a poet and activist born in the former Dutch colony of Curaçao who was arrested two years ago for wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "Black Pete is racism" at a Saint Nicholas parade in the city of Dordrecht"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another throw-away line that is not an accurate first-hand report.
 * If you want to present something that is opposite all official accounts as fact, you need more than a throw-away line that does not indicate it is anymore than hearsay on the matter. GameLegend (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * your position is bizarrely counter to all content policies and standards. we specifically WANT third party uninvolved reliable sources to be making the analysis. the fact that far away and two years later from what you are presenting as a minor non important incident, one of the major news sources of the English language world wide has picked up the story and made the connections is EXACTLY the type of content that belongs in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning a major news source like Fox News calling Obama a Muslim should be enough to include it as fact on his page, shouldn't it?
 * Nothing indicates that it is the conclusion of any sort of analysis, or reliable news reporting. It is one single throw-away sentence that just mimics the hearsay of an account that is untraceable to any sort of reliable origins report.
 * Fact is that there are conflicting accounts, and that should not just be accepted by a single unexplained throw-away message. GameLegend (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * uhh, no your analogy is not even close - 1) FOX is most certainly NOT in the ranks of the highest quality reliable sources in the world, English or otherwise, quite the opposite. 2) Your example is a domestic paper covering a domestic issue 3) the president is a high profile subject and coverage during and two years later is not unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * None of which takes away that in the case where there is a conflict between sources (haven't even gone into secondary sources yet), all it takes for you is a single unexplained, unanalyzed sentence. Do you really think that is that idea behind WPs policies? GameLegend (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * where exactly are these reliably published sources which state that the arrests of people wearing "Zwarte Piet is racism" at the parade of Zwarte Piet have no relation to Zwarte Piet?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking an unreasonable stance. There's no doubt in my mind that Zwarte Piet was never intended to be a racist image. There's also no doubt in my mind that the majority of black residents of the Kingdom don't take him that way: I lived on Bonaire for five years, and while I found the sight of black people in blackface strikingly bizarre, it was the Americans that were uncomfortable with it, not the locals.
 * That doesn't take away from the facts of this particular instance. Protesters were arrested. They had slogans on their shirts. It isn't original research to conclude that the slogans on their shirts related to the thing they were protesting. It's true that the phrasing of the report shouldn't give the impression that the Dutch police are cracking down on the protestors or are treating them differently from protesters about other causes, but to deny that they were protesting Zwarte Piet and were arrested during the course of that protest is well supported by the sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that so I don't know why we keep going in circles about that.
 * The dispute is that some individuals' choices to break the law, have no relevance on the subject. It doesn't help to better understand the legal stance on it -as the arrest had nothing to do with the subject of the protest-, nor does it help to better understand the protesters, as not all protesters choose to express their feelings in a way not compliant with the law.
 * What do you believe is the added value of including this one incident? GameLegend (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate Arnoutf's attempt at refocusing the phrase. I like the editor's suggestion and I don't think it requires waiting a week. The consensus is clear to all but one editor that the events are related to the subject of this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "the events are related to the subject of this article."
 * No matter how often you rehash this same thing, that still doesn't make it the issue.
 * For the umptieth time, in Arnout's words this time (and next time, don't put words of consensus in other people's mouth): just like "football Hooligans fighting with the police after a match are generally not arrested for wearing clothing related to that match", correlation does not imply causation.
 * The part of Arnoutf's words that you choose to ignore, is the issue at hand here (not events being related, as you keep making it out to be): "I think the only way forward is to find sources that state that the actual instruction of the police to remove the T-shirts from sight was unjustified as police cannot give instructions randomly as that in my view is the central moment where the police may have crossed the border. So to make it relevant, we would need to find a source stating that the police instructions were unjustified. As the scientific paper states, this is unlikely to be found as charges were dropped and the case was never brought before court."
 * The alternative provided is an alternative because there is a lack of a proper source, which should be reason enough not to include it on Wikipedia.
 * Again, I welcome you to actually find such a source, because unlike your obvious emotional attachment to this cause, I am arguing on Wikipedia for fact-checking. However, (aside from knowing this, having followed it first hand) when after all this back-and-forth you are still unable to find a source with proper analysis to support your hypothesis, I think it's fair to say there's a good chance such a source does not exist. That's why I've offered you a week to either think about it, or waste your time chasing a ghost. GameLegend (talk) 22:41, 5 Jantgtuary 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is one of undue weight. You shouldn't attempt to argue that people are misinterpreting the sources if what you are actually saying is "despite the characterization of the protests being accurate, it was too minor of an incident to include in an article about Zwarte Piet".&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What characterization are we talking about now?
 * The official characterization of protesters breaking the law is not relevant to Zwarte Piet as a subject (see football hooligans).
 * The characterization that this is a violent attempt of the police/government to suppress any opposing sound to Zwarte Piet would make it relevant (just like football hooligans actually being enabled by their clubs would be), but there is no proper source to support that claim.
 * So the first is problematic because opponents' behavior is irrelevant to the subject, and the second is problematic because -based on the sources available- it is inaccurate. GameLegend (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your analogy of football hooligans is fundamentally flawed. These protesters are more akin to someone protesting football itself. If that was a notable phenomenon, that would certainly belong in an article about football.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is saying the protesters (as a group) don't belong in the article, they already are!
 * That does not make this arrest of these individual protesters who by themselves choose to break the law, relevant though. GameLegend (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They were there protesting the nature of the portrayal of Zwarte Piet and so that makes it imminently relevant for inclusion in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can repeat the same line another 100 times, but unless you actually answer the issue presented, it won't change anything.
 * Why is it relevant to Zwarte Piet, that in a single incident protesters misbehaved? Why do you consider it relevant to anything other than the protesters themselves?
 * It's a very simple question, that you keep avoiding like hellspawn. GameLegend (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can repeat the same line another 100 times but if you don't see how it's relevant after having been told multiple times you're never going to see it. I will answer it one more time for you though.
 * The protesters are opposed to the portrayal of Zwarte Piet in blackface. They make that known before they arrive to protest. They wear clothing to make that known. They are arrested for their protests. The fact that it is directly related to Zwarte Piet--a change in opinion on popular culture--means that the discussion. If you actually read the sources, you'll see it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "They are arrested for their protests."
 * As I and several others have pointed out, there is no good source for that.
 * Unless you provide a source for that statement, it is irrelevant.
 * Your latest attempt to disrupt the discussion by providing a false view of the situation, will not change that.
 * For the umptieth time, this is not a discussion whether or not they were protesting Zwarte Piet. This is a discussion whether there is a factual basis if they were arrested for protesting, or if they were arrested for misbehaving during that protest. GameLegend (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, no it is not. WP:OR Wikiepdians do not decide such matters of "fact".
 * We represent the fact that multiple reliable sources have identified this incident as an incident of note in the recent views of the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But not PRIMARY sources like you want to use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Move to simply discussion
Please place your name and your position (which is clear to all but one editor) below.

This is not a place for discussion, but for clarity.


 * Support inclusion The protesters are clearly against Zwarte Piet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * support inclusion multiple reliable international sources have covered the incident for an extended period of time. The specific content may need to be wordsmithed but there has been no basis for "not including" that have not been counted by relevant policies. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Funneling the protesters discussion
There are basically three separate discussions going on simultaneously, which makes this one big mess of cross-talk and discussions of things not in contention. So let's divide the discussion in its separate components.

To clarify what is not an issue:
 * It is not being contended whether or not the protesters were arrested.
 * It is not being contended whether or not the protesters were protesting at the time of the arrest.
 * It is not being contended whether or not the protesters were protesting against Zwarte Piet.
 * It is not being contended that there is no relevance IF the protesters were indeed arrested only for protesting, not for breaking the law.

The three main questions that are the issue:
 * 1. Reason for arrest: were the protesters arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet, or were they arrested for breaking the law?
 * Sub: Use of sources: should the official reports be dismissed solely because it is a primary source?
 * Sub: Conflicting sources: how to treat the conflict between a thorough report from a primary source and a single line from a secondary source?
 * 2. Scale: is this an incident, or have protesters been arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet "ongoingly" since 2011?
 * 3. Relevance: if the protesters were arrested for breaking the law, is it relevant to the subject they were protesting?

In an attempt to move this forward, let's please discuss these issues and only these issues in their seperate paragraphs. Let's try to keep the cross-talk to a minimum. GameLegend (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason for arrest
The issue: According to the official sources, the protesters were arrested not for the fact they were expressing their displeasure with Zwarte Piet (in an attempt to push censorship), but because they broke the law (protesting unannounced, protesting while there was a ban on protesting, ignoring police orders, resisting arrest). According to the arrestees, they were perfectly legally behaving citizens, victimized by a censoring police brutality, arrested only because they were protesting Zwarte Piet. The official report: At the time of the Sinterklaas event, there was general ban on demonstrations along the event route. Protesters with a banner showed up on the outskirts of the event, and were asked to remove the banner (per the ban). After removing (putting away) the banner, they revealed t-shirts with the slogan "Zwarte Piet is racisme" and subsequentedly tried to continue their protest mingled with the crowd. The police ordered them not to do this, subsequently, yet they refused. For the refusal to comply with protesting ban than active, and the refusal to comply with the orders to leave, they were placed under arrest. The protesters than attempted to resist the arrest. Quote from Arnoutf: "I think the only way forward is to find sources that state that the actual instruction of the police to remove the T-shirts from sight was unjustified as police cannot give instructions randomly as that in my view is the central moment where the police may have crossed the border. So to make it relevant, we would need to find a source stating that the police instructions were unjustified. As the scientific paper states, this is unlikely to be found as charges were dropped and the case was never brought before court."
 * My stance: As there is no accurate	report from a secondary source that clearly defines that the official report is incorrect, it would be OR at best to make a different conclusion. More on that in the sub-section. GameLegend (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They were arrested for protesting Zwarte Piet. That is what two of the sources state.
 * "Because the case was not brought to court, and it seems unlikely it ever will be, there is no jurisprudence on whether wearing a T-shirt with a text expressing an opinion is within or beyond the limits of the constitutional liberty of expression prevailing in the Netherlands. According to at least one professor of law the odds seem to be against the latter. Apart from this, the arrest gives the impression of being made, not on the basis of law-enforcement, but rather because the police officers simply disagreed with the Zwarte Piet statement." http://www.quotidian.nl/vol03/nr01/a01
 * "The man who lit the tinderbox is Quinsy Gario, a Curaçao-born Dutch performance artist, who began protesting in 2011 when he attended a Sinterklaas parade wearing a T-shirt reading “Zwarte Piet is racism” and was arrested." http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21588960-debate-holiday-tradition-exposes-racial-attitudes-zwarte-piet-racism Although there is not a direct link, it is understood that this is why the arrest was made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In an effort to move the discussion forward, GameLegend needs to stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And the otherwise disruptive editing. Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, two people opposed to removing the material isn't enough, Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTE
 * And please do not, once more, misrepresent the situation. As I have made very clear to you, the third party is to address your behavior and your refusal to properly communicate. GameLegend (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS. This is not a vote, it's logical discussion and your refusal to discuss them and the insistence that you, and only you are right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you agree this is not a vote, there is also no relevance to saying "Apparently, two people opposed to removing the material isn't enough", when several other editors are involved, and when you refuse to address the issues brought up. GameLegend (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * pPerhaps you should click on the link and read what you wrote on my talk page. No that's to much to ask: " I will ask for a third party to address this". I incorrectly assumed you were referencing the discussion here, but you were referencing my removal of your incorrectly placed comments instead. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but to avoid further confusion, I will not strike my statement. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Use of sources
The issue: An argument that has been repeatedly voiced is that the official reports should be ignored because they are a primary source. From Identifying and using primary and secondary sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".", ""Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"" and "Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published."
 * My stance: The quotes above speak for themselves. GameLegend (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * : Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * It appears that in this case, the primary source is being misused.
 * : Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.
 * So here, we should rely on the secondary sources, not on the misuse of a primary source. "Your stance" is an attempt to misuse a primary source as something other an an opportunity to use a police report rather than a court document to explain why the arrest was made. The police report has not been scrutinized and the secondary sources we have clearly disagree that they are neutral and probably not accurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting sources
The issue: Official sources state that the protesters were arrested on legal grounds, while a few secondary sources that mention the event, include a single line, without further explanation, along the lines of "protesters were arrested for protesting". From Conflicting sources: "In many cases, when two (or more) reliable sources conflict, one (or more) of those sources can be demonstrated to be unreliable."


 * My stance: To prevent a rehash, I think most can agree that the blanket statement "Police reports a [whitewashed] BS", as an unreferenced statement from Walter, is not a legit point to base a discussion on. Unless there is a secondary source that can be demonstrated to have reliable insight to make a claim that the official reports are false, inaccurate and/or untrue, there is no factual reason to believe otherwise.
 * The official reports are thorough and detailed, and explain exactly what (in their eyes) has happened. WP:Primary does not mean that a single unexplained line from a secondary source, with no evidence of any kind of analysis on the subject of the arrest, overrides
 * If there is a secondary source that through analysis supports a conclusion that the official reports are false, than there may be a point to assume false official reports. Until then, the interpretation that these sources confirm that the official reports are false, is demonstratedly unreliable. GameLegend (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated above, we don't have conflicting sources. We have a biased primary source and three secondary sources that agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are conflicting your own words. By your own admission, there are two sets of sources, and by your own admission, they are in conflict.
 * Your continued unreferenced attempts to present the official report as unreliable does not mean there are not conflicting sources. GameLegend (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to read my quotes from references does not constitute "unreferenced". Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the secondary sources is that they appear to be all based on the same primary source, the statement of the protester. That this statement was picked up by several papers and not critically reviewed does not make it superior over the primary source that has been ignored by the newspapers per se. A secondary source is only a relevant and reliable secondary source if it critically reviews and evaluate all evidence. These newspaper report do not (they ignore the official report). So we should be extremely cautious with giving them preference. (I think this is basically what GameLegend means when he refers to "a single line"). Arnoutf (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * so what? that third party independent analysts have given more weight to one version than the other as being more credible is EXACTLY why we do, too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, they don't.
 * Other than you and Walter, no one agrees the third party source properly addresses the official report. GameLegend (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I also agree that the third party sources don't address the official report. THAT IS THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. NO SOURCE HAS CONSIDERED THE POLICE REPORT WORTHY OF MENTION, hence we shouldnt either, since we cover content in proportion that the reliable sources cover it -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And other than you, no one agrees that the primary source is reliable or even truthful. In fact, it has not even been proven in court, and it won't be. Why? I'll speculate that the Dutch equivalent of crown counsel said it's BS. But a police report is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Scale
The issue: Walter claims that 'this', the civil disobedience, has been ongoing since 2011. He has not provided any sort of evidence to support the claim that protests have been ongoing in a civil disobedient way.
 * My stance: People have been using legal ways to demonstrate against Zwarte Piet since 2011, and have not been arrested for this. As demonstrating within demonstration laws is legal, there is no valid comparison between the behavior that got these people arrested in 2011, and the perfectly legal way in which others have behaved during their demonstrations. GameLegend (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * some protests are legal, some protests are illegal - we cover all the protests which have been noted by reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This section was specifically to address the claim that arrests have been ongoing since 2011. Your comment does not seem to be relevant to this section. GameLegend (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re RedPenofDoom. Again, nobody denies that arrest were made in cases where demonstrations were deemed illegal. But was the arrest made because (a) A ban on any demonstration was published before the occasion, where the failure to follow that ban was the reason for arrest OR (b) the specific topic of the demonstration. The current phrasing suggest the second, while it is much more likely that the official reason for arrest was the first. Arnoutf (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What the "official" reason may or may not be doesnt really matter. What matters is the analysis and context that independent third party reliable sources have given to it. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevance
Note: the issue is whether or not there is relevance in case above discussions comes to the consensus that the protesters were arrested as a result of breaking the law, not because they merely protested. Please see "what is not an issue". The issue: Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that these protesters were arrested for their behavior, does not imply that their behavior is related to Zwarte Piet.
 * My stance: Just because the arrested protesters were protesting Zwarte Piet at the time of their behavior that got them arrested, does not necessarily mean it is relevant to Zwarte Piet. It is not Zwarte Piet that displayed arrestable behavior, nor is arrestable behavior the only way people can protest Zwarte Piet.
 * IF there is a reliable source to support the claim that the official reports were false and this is a case of censorship and silencing complaints, I agree the suppressing element makes it relevant to how Zwarte Piet (as an institute, if you will) 'treats' those that critique it.
 * However, as at this moment there is no reliable source to support that connection, these are two single incidents that are the result of the choices made by the protesters to behave in a manner that is against the law. People's personal choices GameLegend (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained above, your argument is flawed and so is this conclusion. We have reliable secondary sources and a biased primary source. The material stays in and should probably be expanded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the note again. Your comment once again does not address the issue. GameLegend (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is, neither does yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be suggested that the sources also fail to address the issue directly. That is, whether the arrests would have happened if the T-shirt had carried a message protesting against something of no cultural significance to the Dutch population and to the local police. The police say that the protester's behaviour was arrestable (by implication, whatever the message). The reports mention the subject matter of the message, and could be taken to imply that the police wouldn't have bothered to arrest anybody if the subject had been different. These two contradict each other only by implication, that is to say, by original research. Surely we can report the sources without committing OR. I offer the following not as a finished text (apart from anything else, it lacks references, which I trust the regulars here can supply) but as a possible starting point:

"Quinsy Gario was arrested and punched in 2011 when he attended a Sinterklaas parade wearing a T-shirt reading “Zwarte Piet is racism”. The police said that he protested at a place and time where all protests were forbidden, continued despite requests to stop, and then resisted arrest."

I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard Keatinge; I think that is a very useful phrasing and close to something I would consider a solution. I fully agree that if we frame it in a relevant way this may give some relevant information, but that we should not take it out of all context. Arnoutf (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that the third party coverage of the incident generally do not include any reference to the "The police said that he protested at a place and time where all protests were forbidden, continued despite requests to stop, and then resisted arrest." us calling it out in such a prominent way is giving WP:UNDUE weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". GameLegend (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could come to a consensus to omit the police account of this arrest incident. It would be silly, but we could do it. If we wanted to be wikilawyerish, we could argue that the police account is secondary too, except for the actual quoted words of the policepersons who were there. On the whole, I'd suggest just including both major aspects of the story. Arnout, can you draft a suitable form of words? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unproven in court police report is another way to spell unreliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of acquittal in court is one way to suggest the police report is true. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quincy Gario would have a pretty bad lawyer if the police report is so clearly untrue that an armchair expert can come to the conclusion based on a single line, that doesn't even mention the police report, yet he can't make a court case out of it.
 * At least you're now openly admitting you're speculating.
 * And stop acting like "police report is BS" is Wikipedia policy. GameLegend (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of acquittal? There was insufficient evidence to take it to court. They would have been acquitted had it gone to trial. And the truth is that police lie all the time. The Robert Dziekański Taser incident is a high-profile incident in this country where that happened. So the police report is untested and both a self-published source and unreliable. Had it gone to court and been proven with cross-examination, it would be a different matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "There was insufficient evidence to take it to court."
 * Yet you claim there is sufficient evidence to claim the official report is false?
 * Furthermore, a single case of police problems in a different country is no basis to support your claim that the police in general, or the police in the Netherlands specifically, is unreliable. It massively fails any sort of Wikipedia policy. GameLegend (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The police lie all the time? So basically you suggest that all police forces should be disbanded as each and every arrest ever made is based on lies????? Be real. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of an overstatement, but I brought the question to WP:RSN and the two editors who responded immediately stated that police reports are not RSes and should not be used. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * And who says that "there was insufficient evidence to take it to court"? If there's a police report that says something and the protesters were arrested, they were arrested for a reason. If there isn't sufficient evidence, that means the prosecutors don't believe the police report either.
 * But honestly, it's not about the protesters, but their position that Zwarte Piet is racism. That's what that section is about, not whether they were or were not arrested. The secondary sources we have are clear that that is why they were there. I realized that this discussion was completely off-track earlier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not saying it's manipulative, but telling half the story of this discussion at RSN is not an honest way of conducting yourself.
 * The consensus here is the same, and if you believe that their stance remains the same after they are filled in on the content of all the sources available, feel free to invite them. GameLegend (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm sure you do. I'll be glad that I won't have to deal with you after this issue is resolved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not present them with a NPOV question, by drawing a comparison to an unrelated.
 * You do not present them with the full situation of sources in this discussion.
 * You misrepresent the second editor, who says not to jump to conclusions and specifically points out that there are situations where primary sources can be used.
 * You are welcome to invite them over here for an educated fully informed discussion to help reach consensus, but a manipulated answer on another discussion does not enforce a consensus here. GameLegend (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Save the lecture. Anyone can see the question and can comment there. There's really no need for them to come here as they're discussing whether a police report is a RS and the first response was an emphatic no and the second was a qualified no: "So primary sources are not automatically unacceptable, but police reports generally are, and pretty much always in BLP situations."
 * You're as full of BS as the police report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Generally", you do certainly love mixing that word with "definitively".
 * Regardless, the consensus needs to be reached here, on this talk page. Other editors can take the comments at RSN into account, but you are not the one to claim consensus on your own. GameLegend (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. If RSN says a class of document is not a RS then that applies to all of wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward (I hope)
In my view there are four options, perhaps we can capture opinions on those before spending more time Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Remove the case altogether.
 * 2) * Neutral: I don't care, the case may have some level of raising undue attention, so removal would be fine with me. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) * Support. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) I add that the specific case is not of sufficient salience to the article, nor is it sufficiently notable, to require that we mention it here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) * Support. GameLegend (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) *oppose widely covered by reliable sources from around the world over a period of many years. to ignore is to WP:UNDUEly silence a significantly reported aspect of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Discuss the case from the point of view of the newspaper reports on the issue.
 * 7) * Oppose: I am not in favour of this as a lot of it is based on hearsay and there is no evidence that the journalist did actually ask the police their point of view (lack of Audi alteram partem). Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) * Oppose per Arnoutf. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) * Oppose per Arnoutf. GameLegend (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) *support reliable sources are considered reliable sources because they conduct their business in the appropriate manner to be considered reliable sources. Without actual evidence that these high quality generally reliable sources have failed in this instance, we do not presume nonsense that they are not acting in the manner of a reliable source. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Discuss the case from the point of view of the police, using the formal report.
 * 12) * Oppose: Although police reports have legal status (in contrast to hearsay and opinion of protesters that are not brought to court), the police reports may present a tunnel vision on the part of the police, therefor I am not in favour of this either. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) * Oppose per Arnoutf. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) * Oppose per Arnoutf. GameLegend (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) *oppose improper use of primary source and inappropriately ignoring  other reliable source voices on the subject.
 * 16) Provide some kind of balanced view between 2 &3.
 * 17) * Neutral: I am not convinced this is important enough to be raised, but if consensus is we should discuss it, at least it should be in a neutral way. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) * I'd be happy to support this one too. If we do decide to report this particular business, and I agree that we don't have to, we should do so briefly, factually, and neutrally. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) * Neutral, per Arnoutf and Richard Keatinge. GameLegend (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) *oppose giving WP:UNDUE weight to primary source document from a source that has a self interest to spin content. But I can live with it if (and only if) it will get you to stop flogging the dead horse and your tendentious editing on this talk page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the police report is self-published and unreliable both 3 and 4 are off the table. Since the news and academic reports meet WP:RS 2. is the only option. I get the distinct feeling that the proposer does not want to move forward in any tangible way that allows the existing reliable sources to stand and insists on introducing the self-published police reports instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus on your blanket statement claim that police reports are BS. GameLegend (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is. See WP:RSN as referenced above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another suggested text based only on undisputed RS
Of the sources produced so far, http://www.quotidian.nl/vol03/nr01/a01. John Helsloot. Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands. Quotidian. Dutch Journal for the Study of Everyday Life. Vol. 03 (2012). Quotidian 3-1 (February 2012) seems to be the most reliable, an academic publication, and it should be possible to say all that we need to say about the incident based on that source alone. I offer a draft on that basis:

"On Saturday 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of St Nicholas where "demonstrations" were forbidden, two young black Dutchmen stood in silence in T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racism’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were arrested. An academic commented that the arrest gives the impression of being made, not on the basis of law-enforcement, but rather because the police officers simply disagreed with the Zwarte Piet statement.John Helsloot. Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands. Quotidian. Dutch Journal for the Study of Everyday Life. Vol. 03 (2012). Quotidian 3-1 (February 2012) accessed 8th January 2014."

Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case it would seem relevant to also mention that the academic who made the comment is a professed opponent of the Zwarte Piet character, pleading for its "eventual dismissal or substantial modification" on p. 15. Iblardi (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The last sentence does seem a little pointy. How about removing it, giving us:

"On Saturday 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of St Nicholas where "demonstrations" were forbidden, two young black Dutchmen stood in silence in T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racism’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were arrested.John Helsloot. Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands. Quotidian. Dutch Journal for the Study of Everyday Life. Vol. 03 (2012). Quotidian 3-1 (February 2012) accessed 8th January 2014." Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't explain why demonstrations were forbidden (because the officials wanted to save face in the public light).
 * It doesn't explain that the protesters were allowed to stay at first by one set of police.
 * Typo. "Zwarte Piet is racisme" as can be seen on the shirts. All printed reports do list "Zwarte Piet is racism".
 * Finally, it focuses on the protesters and police and not the attitude behind the protest. That's what that section should be discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * : It doesn't explain why demonstrations were forbidden (because the officials wanted to save face in the public light).
 * It was forbidden to demonstrate at that exact spot because it was the spot of a life televised event, the arrival of Sinterklaas, which is a big deal in the Netherlands, meant for kids, with hundreds of thousands of kids watching. They could have demonstrated 100 meter further on, out of the sight of the cameras without problems.Mahjongg (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand why it happened there, but the suggested change doesn't explain it.
 * Ultimately, the issue isn't about the arrest but why they were arrested. The discussion is in a section titled "Controversies". The new wording makes it seem as though they were arrested for standing in the wrong place. It's in a paragraph discussing a response by Surinamese politicians and ends with residents of Amsterdam complaining to their mayor to remove black face representations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not need to explain in this article why demonstrations were forbidden (nobody has suggested that the discussion behind that decision had anything to do with Zwarte Piet). We do not need to go into details of which policeperson decided what or when. We can leave the reader to decide on what exactly was going through the minds of the police - indeed we must, we have only speculation and to repeat it with NPOV would be verbose at best and WP:OR at worst. We do need to decide whether to use a primary source or a (silently corrected) secondary one to decide whether to put an "e" on the end of "racism". I'd leave it off, but I for one don't propose to spend another second discussing the point.
 * I suggest strongly that after a long dispute all editors should now respond positively to any suggestion that stands a chance of resolving the dispute and ending the waste of time. This one does give the salient agreed facts, and the present account is in a chronologically appropriate place in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestions and observations by Richard Keatinge. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First, we don't need to add any OR, as one of the sources explained the whole thing.
 * Second, we don't even have to change the existing material to explain that protesting was temporarily banned because it was banned because of the protesters and only because of them.
 * The sources make it clear that they were arrested because they were protesting against the presentation of a black face Zwarte Piet. That not only fits the facts, it fits the section as well. The digression into the mechanics as described above does not fit the section and the three references have all of the information if anyone wants clarity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, they weren't professional protesters. That's not supported anywhere. It does state that they were artists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide RS that substantiate your view of "the whole thing" as fact, we can include them. Also, if you can provide RS that state that protests at the Dordrecht parade were banned specifically because of possible anti-Zwarte Piet protesters, we could include that as well. And if you can carry a consensus that we should use RS to elaborate further on what the protest was about - which strikes me as perfectly clear in the draft above - then we can do so. Adding further references strikes me as unexceptionable and personally I'd be happy to list every reference that has been suggested so far if it enables consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The RSes do support the statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so would you be kind enough to give us an alternative draft, ensuring as a start that every fact is carefully referenced to something clearly described as fact by a reliable source? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to give a alternate draft since I don't see anything wrong with the existing material. The current copy is supported by the existing references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, is there anything in the existing article copy that isn't referenced or isn't supported by the references? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, that present text is:

"Elsewhere, four people wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011 at a Sinterklaas festival in Dordrecht after failing several instructions by the police to move elsewhere." And my draft was: "On Saturday 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of St Nicholas where "demonstrations" were forbidden, two young black Dutchmen stood in silence in T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racism’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were arrested.John Helsloot. Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands. Quotidian. Dutch Journal for the Study of Everyday Life. Vol. 03 (2012). Quotidian 3-1 (February 2012) accessed 8th January 2014."

The differences strike me as minor in every way. In the first version, the number of arrestees is given as four, the second, using only one agreed RS, mentions two (but the phrasing allows for more arrests having possibly occurred). In the first, they were asked to remove themselves, in the second, to remove their T-shirts. The first mentions the fact that demonstrations had been forbidden for the specific time and place, the second does not. Which version would other editors prefer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that demonstrations were for forbidden I think is the most important context. People can make up their own mind based on that. GameLegend (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Can you explain why in the article about Zwarte Piet you feel the "most important" facet is that demonstration were "forbidden"? That seems to have little to do with the actual subject of the article and be merely an attempt to cast the protesters as criminals, which really has nothing to do with the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that demonstrations were forbidden is not key because they were forbidden to avoid the demonstration in the first place. It's a circular argument.
 * In Dordrecht, on Saturday 12 November 2011, on the route of the official, nationally televised arrival of St Nicholas, two young black Dutchmen stood in silence in T-shirts bearing the words "Zwarte Piet is racisme". A law had been passed forbidding demonstrations in the area on that day, as it would be clearly visible to the television audience. The two refused police requests to remove the T-shirts in the area and they, along with two others, were arrested, and were later released without going to trial.
 * My counter-proposal 1) adds the location, 2) corrects the spelling to the incorrect spelling on the shirt as is shown in the pictures, 3) explains why protests were not allowed in that area, 4) changes "orders" to "requests", 5) corrects the number arrested, 6) adds the information that the four never went to trial. Refs exist for all of the material and will be added in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Such detail about the 2011 event seems to be irrel considering we have the Economist article pointing out how the events of 2013 showed ", the custom was a tinderbox waiting for a match. In October the debate exploded, " is more of what we and the article should be focusing on. There was an arrest in 2011 which got coverage and got Gario the opportunity to speak on a widely viewed platform. Many events happened thereafter and " For many, even if a year ago [Zwarte Piet] was not a symbol of Dutch racism, he is now." --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The suggested lines have some problems because there are several things in there that show the person suggesting the text has no idea what happened and how these things work in the Netherlands:


 * In Dordrecht, on Saturday 12 November 2011, on the route of the official, nationally televised arrival of St Nicholas [This is correct], two young black Dutchmen [why is this relevant, at best it puts undue attention at the skincolor of the protesters, at worst it implies racist motives of the police] stood in silence [I do not believe that they were silent (noise level 0dB) or even that they did not say a single word, but if you have a RS source they kept their mouths shut at all times during this incident something like this might be ok] in T-shirts bearing the words "Zwarte Piet is racisme" [this is true]. A law had been passed [this is false. A law must pass parliament, in this case the mayor issued a decree] forbidding demonstrations in the area on that day [this is indeed the case], as it would be clearly visible to the television audience [this is probably true but we need a RS for this]. The two refused police requests to remove the T-shirts in the area [this is indeed the case and relevant] and they, along with two others [this is new information that seems irrelevant, and I do not see the source], were arrested [this is fine], and were later released without going to trial [this would be ok to leave in].


 * If it is your honest intention to arrive at a compromise do not make suggestions that are this obviously flawed please. Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence has a couple of flourishes that make it sound less encyclopedic and perhaps a little biased. Is it really necessary to inform the reader that it all happened on Saturday, or to present the protesters as "standing in silence", other than for dramatic effect? Iblardi (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, could I remind you that refs should be given at this stage for each fact?
 * I too feel that this latest suggestion is over-detailed, but I do ask everyone to remember that we are trying to produce a text that is acceptable to all and will allow us to move on, and that all of us are therefore likely to find such a text less than ideal. If the price of consensus is a bit too much detail, I for one would be happy to pay it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, could I remind you that refs should be given at this stage for each fact". I believe that the editors who are questioning the material for "lack of references" have not read the references in the article. I suggest that you do. At this point it is clear that the copy as it currently stands will remain as no compromise can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's try again, with the draft slightly altered in view of useful comments above: "On 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of St Nicholas where "demonstrations" had been forbidden, two black Dutchmen displayed T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racisme’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were arrested." Is there anyone who really can't live with that version? Or finds the current one better? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My response
 * On 12 November 2011,
 * that's not bad
 * on the route of the official televised arrival of St Nicholas
 * It wasn't. It was Sinterklaas
 * We use a RS to say St Nicholas, but Sinterklaas would be acceptable and arguably better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * where "demonstrations" had been forbidden
 * This is where you will never, ever get my consent because it's a BS way of saying that someone at city hall, who was worried about his image, or the image of the city decided to legislate -- and quite frankly I don't care if it was passed into a law or it was a bylaw or someone paying Guido and his buddies to prevent it, it's an enforceable action -- that it was not legal to protest at this location because an anti-Zwarte Piet protest was anticipated. Unless you make some effort to explain this, it's not accurate at all and is unacceptable. I tried to explain that more clearly and rather than incorporate that material but it was ignored.
 * Do you have a reference for that? It is not self-evident and a RS really is required if you want it in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the references in the article? Until you do so you're not on the same page as I am. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * two black
 * See WP:LABEL and the concern listed above.
 * It's said by a reliable source and in the context of an anti-racist protest is relevant. However we don't have to include it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dutchmen displayed T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racisme’.
 * correct. but you could avoid the whole issue of the last two words and, as they do in ''The Economist article, say "two anti-Piet protesters"
 * The present version is correct, it's extremely clear, and also it avoids the problems of the phrase "anti-Piet". In context "anti-Piet" may be clear enough, but the subject of the protest is (arguably) racist depiction, rather than a specific person. They weren't protesting against any of the non-black depictions of Piet. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were arrested.
 * and? no charges were pressed. Your sentence leaves the reader with the idea that they are still in jail or have a criminal record. Neither of which was true. Change "arrested" to "removed by police" and you might have a workable phrase.
 * "Removed" might be acceptable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion will not work until you stop soft-selling the problems. And perhaps we can focus on the 2013 Economist article as well. It's great with lines like "Many Dutch who have come out against Zwarte Piet have been hounded by the traditionalists".
 * If such material on separate incidents is available, it may be best used separately. Let's see if we can come to a consensus description of this particular incident first. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And one further thing, why in the world are you placing both quotes and italics around your material? Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, I do find the current one better that the suggestion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So, until we have a RS for the motivations of the demonstration ban, we have (without quotation marks, but with italics to demarcate it clearly): ''On 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of Sinterklaas where "demonstrations" had been forbidden, two Dutch men displayed T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racisme’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were removed.'' Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(Do you have a reliable source for the motivation of the demonstration ban?) Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, if you don't read the existing references you're missing the RSes. "Under such circumstances, it is only natural that local authorities will try to avoid anything that might compromise the spectacle" and "because of a local authoruity ban on ‘demonstrations’ that day". And now, I feel we must add that there was a similar protest "a handful of young black men and women" in Amsterdam the next day who were also "harshly arrested by police". Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This does not amount to a reliable statement of the specific intent behind the ban on demonstrations. Nor do I find any others. Do you have such a reliable source?
 * Let us also find consensus on one incident at a time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So, based on Helsloot in Quotidian and with comments from Walter Görlitz, a suggested text for this particular incident is: On 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of Sinterklaas where "demonstrations" had been forbidden, two Dutch men displayed T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racisme’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were removed. The present version is "Elsewhere, four people wearing t-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011 at a Sinterklaas festival in Dordrecht after failing several instructions by the police to move elsewhere.".
 * Do we have any consensus either to leave the text as it is, to change to the version above, or to produce something different? Me, I'd change the second "removed" to "arrested", but I'd accept the version with two "removed"s if there's a strong feeling for it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made a bold edit of the sentence under discussion, using the Helsloot reference and the text On 12 November 2011, on the route of the official televised arrival of Sinterklaas where "demonstrations" had been forbidden, two Dutch men displayed T-shirts bearing the words ‘Zwarte Piet is racisme’. They refused police orders to remove the T-shirts and were arrested. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I stated, you removed several RSes. And as I discussed below, we should really reorganize the whole section rather than attack it piecemeal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

reevaluate the whole section
I think we've gone off-track again.

The section is called "Controversies".

It starts "The role of Zwarte Piet has become part of a recurring debate in the Netherlands. The character continues to draw negative attention from international commentators and news organizations."

It then goes into "attempts to introduce an updated version of Zwarte Piet".

It discusses several objections and then protests. This is the section we're trying to censor, I mean edit.

It then returns to attempts to introduce updated versions.

That makes no sense.

What makes sense is to change the section as it doesn't deal with controversies alone.

The next change is to fix its flow. The first paragraph is appropriate, but then it could discuss the objections and protests in a single paragraph. The material we're discussing could be simplified. The section could close with efforts to reform the character.

In short, this section we're discussing could be simplified to start with the two sentences about Suriname. Then the Canadian retailer (don't ask for a RS for whether he's a retailer or not, I shop at his store) who cancelled the Sinterklass festival. Then transition to a sentence about public protests in Dordrecht and Amsterdam (per Quotidian). Move the "On the weekend of Amsterdam's Sinterklaas celebration in November 2013" up. We might want to mention that both resulted in arrests and release. Then, include the Nations Human Rights Council paragraph, and edit if possible. Then close with the mayor of Amsterdam's suggestions.

I could create a temporary sub-page or one in my user space for a suggested revision. Alternately, someone else could do so. The goal is to reduce the emphasis on the few protests and the idea that the official response was someone justified or alternately heavy-handed and focus on the change the character has undergone in recent years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that makes a lot of sense, and as you said yourself would fix the odd flow discussing update attempts, then protests and then update attempts again. Arnoutf (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You caught my attention with " censor ." Nice. ;) As it stands, I think this section is rather straight-forward and easy to follow. The introductory paragraph provides context and a quick rundown on the viewpoints of both sides of the debate. The remainder of the section is comprised of events in chronological order. In short, I think you're offering a solution that's in search of a problem. Constablequackers (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Constable. The section seems to flow quite well as it is. I'm reminded that we still need a citation for the retailer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you need a reference for the retailer? He's not mentioned in the article while he is mentioned in the existing reference. So the real issue is that those commenting here really need to familiarize themselves with the supporting material. "Tako Slump, local Sinterklaas organizer and owner of the Holland Shopping Centre" Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded to your comment above "don't ask for a RS for whether he's a retailer..." I should have checked first, but I thought you meant that you didn't have one. Sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

that there even is a "controversy" section is the issue: WP:STRUCTURE. Per the tag "Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see TheRedPenOfDoom feels that the controversies section should be merged into the article, but has made no suggestions no how that should happen and has tagged the section. Suggestions would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It could probably be as simple as changing the section to "21st century" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a totally pointless and superfluous change to me. Why not just leave it as is? As anyone who follows this topic knows, Zwarte Piet has been the subject of immense controversy in recent years. The current title of this section is more than appropriate and completely fitting. Constablequackers (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of the times where the generally good advice in WP:STRUCTURE doesn't apply very well. Zwarte Piet isn't Kim Kardashian or something where there are constant arguments about whether material is personal, professional, or attack. He's a fictional character with a clearly defined background and heritage and is the subject of an equally well-defined controversy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Beware of misrepresentation of court ruling
In the wake of last week's court ruling, I have seen several misrepresentations of the ruling left and right, from people who don't seem to appreciate the ruling. With many people misrepresenting things, or presenting opinions (or misrepresentations) as facts, I think it is extra important to be aware of this, and to recognize fact from fiction/opinion.

The ruling can be found here in Dutch, and here in Google Translate English.

One of these misrepresentations has been reverted from Wikipedia, and although I hope it won't happen too much, I think it would be very good if everyone is aware of the actual ruling, and make sure we judge the use of any sources on their accuracy.

Some things I have seen misrepresented (that would be good to be aware of):
 * "the court says it is offensive, and that is racist/unequal treatment"; in the court's decision, point 12.5, the court explicitly says that something being offended is not racist (in the terms of article 1 of the Dutch constituation) and something leading to offended feelings is is not unequal treatment (racism).
 * Furthermore, the court explicitly says (point 12.6) that there is no evidence of unequal treatment as part of, or as a result of, Zwarte Piet and his role in the event.
 * "the court says discrimination is humiliating, which is in violation of article 3 of the ECH"; in the court's decision, point 14.2, the court acknowledges that discrimination could be humiliating, but explicitly comes to the conclusion that this does not apply to this situation (Zwarte Piet).
 * "the court says it perpetuates negative stereotypes, which invades our private lives, and is therefore not allowed"; the court explicitly states in point 15.13 that "this is not by default a reason to reject it" and goes on to mention a "fair balance" of interests in a society.
 * "the court says the city of Amsterdam was not allowed to give permission because of Zwarte Piet"; the court says that the city of Amsterdam should have taken the offended feelings into account. The court even explicitly states (15.13) that none of this means that Zwart Piet should be disallowed; merely that the city should have taken it into consideration.
 * Dr. Barryl A. Biekman, a big player in the rally against Zwarte Piet, has misrepresented the court's words to make it out as if the court said Zwart Piet is racist. In point 15.10.1, the court takes into consideration this quote from a third party which makes the statement that Zwarte Piet is racist. However, Dr. Biekman represents this as if it the quote itself is by the court. The court does not make any further statement on whether or not it is racist.

So what did the court actually say? It comes down to the following:
 * the court acknowledges that Zwarte Piet in the way it is described in the lawsuit, can be offensive to black people.
 * the court feels that the city of Amsterdam did not proof they properly considered these feelings.
 * the court decided that the city of Amsterdam should reconsider, within 6 weeks, the license for the Sinterklaas arrival of 2013 in this context.

This last part is where the reverted edit on this page was wrong; the court did not say the city had to reconsider "revoking it". The court said the city had to reconsider the license as a hole.

Zwarte Piet is part of a heated debate. Let's all work together to do our best in keeping the Wikipedia entry to facts. GameLegend (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Vrije Piet Poster
I'm partial to photos on Wikipedia pages. The more the better and they can offer a sense of context, time, place, etc. that text often cannot. This ongoing debate has inspired many graphic artists on both sides to create a melee of images to support their arguments. If they're free to use and licensing/copyright aren't applicable, I'd like to see both a "pro" and "anti" image added to the article. The "Vrije Piet" poster has already appeared and the pro equivalent could work well on the left hand side of the 21st Century section. Does anyone out there have a reason why this wouldn't be the best of ideas? Or maybe a small gallery would be the way to go with this, provided both sides are properly represented? Constablequackers (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "poster" shown in the image lacks notability, and I don't think this article should be used as a platform for promoting random users' artwork. Iblardi (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It lacks an English translation, but that can be solved easily. The questions I have are:
 * Is the image representative?
 * Does the Dutch article consider the image to be representative?
 * We shouldn't be adding an image just to have an image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are indeed some problems with this poster. As User:Iblardi notices - where is the notability of the poster. This is the more important since the editor adding the poster User:Ancilla.Dominii is the same user who uploaded the poster on Wikicommons, claiming it is own work (how anonimous is that?). So there may be a WP:COI involved where the artist looks for recognition by posting an image into Wikipedia articles. Taking this into account I think we should remove the poster from this page until reliable secondary sources confirm its existence outide Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I neglected to take notice of the image's ownership and that it was likely posted by the artist themselves. Given that, perhaps it should be taken down. I'd still like to see a few more images/photos in the 21st century section but this one, perhaps, wasn't an appropriate candidate. Feel free to remove it. Constablequackers (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed it, at least for now. If reliable sources emerge this poster is relevant and notable outside Wikipedia, I am ok with re-adding. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Black Pete", accurate?
It seems common to translate Zwarte Piet as Black Pete, as this article does, but I am not sure whether that is accurate. According to the Oxford dictionary, the adjective black refers to the colour first, and to "belonging to […] any human group having dark-coloured skin" second. The latter is somewhat far-fetched for the Dutch adjective zwart, as it has other uses ("zwarte handel", "zwarte koffie") that are more common than the one that describes a group of humans.

If the reader reads the translation as "Pete, who has a black skin" then the translation is perfect. But if the reader reads it as "Pete, who belongs to the black race" then I personally feel that it is off. Pimmhogeling (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, much of the controversy in the Netherlands is about the fact that this ambiguity is exactly the same as in Dutch. Where people in favour of black skin refer to it being derived from ancient black demonic antagonist (with no human connotation let alone a racial one); while the opposition claims that much of the Piet costumes nowadays relate to racial stereotypes. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see a distinction. It makes reference to both the physical colour and the symbolic nature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not really accurate, indeed. The term is ambiguous in Dutch, and it is now considered extremely improper to apply it to real people. The blackness of the character is most likely related to other characters depicted in black paint or black accompanying the Saint Nicholas and other Christmas traditions throughout Europe, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companions_of_Saint_Nicholas. Kind of odd that the article about Piet nowhere mentions that this is the common root of the character, as they are are all legendary / fairytale characters meant to judge children on good behaviour, carry a birch rod for punishing, and / or give presents. The Krampus companion of Saint Nicholas in Austria is also black for example, and no doubt about it that "Black Peter" is an ancient Dutch term for the figure of the Devil, or a Demon. Other characters that depict the darkness in black clothes and black facepaint are Père Fouettard in northern France, and Schmutzli in Austria. French speaking Also, there is a lot in common with the figure Befana, the witch that delivers presents to children around christmas time in northern Italy, by use of the chimney. I find it very unfortunate that the tradition is correlated to the phenomenon of "blackfacing" by people from the States and the UK, who are often not even aware that this phenomenon was restricted to their own cultures. Mansize010 (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This assessment is incredibly disingenuous and overlooks much of the oft-discussed history of Zwarte Piet, much of which is outlined directly in this Wikipedia article. While the roots of the character are, indeed, embedded in older folk characters like the Krampus and centuries-old traditions, ZP was drastically revised in the mid 19th-century. Schoolteacher/author Jan Schenkman is typically credited with turning Zwarte Piet into a "servant" of Moorish descent. An investigation into this revision was examined in a 2013 edition of De Volkskrant, one of the daily newspapers in the Netherlands. The author made the case that Zwarte Piet's attire and appearance was based on that of child slaves commonly found in wealthy estates throughout Belgium and the Netherlands in the 17th century. At the time, it was considered "en vogue" to dress up young boy slaves in fancy attire and have them perform various duties around the house. The article featured numerous historical examples and paintings from the era to further support this theory. While there may be no direct correlation between the tradition of "blackface" in the United States and that of the traditions surrounding Zwarte Piet, it's, essentially, the same thing. It's arguable that, in many ways, white people dressing up as Zwarte Piet is more offensive than American blackface. There's a case to be made, indeed, that people in Zwarte Piet outfits with full makeup are dressing up as child slaves. Constablequackers (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry sorry sorry, I truly meant no offense, I was honsetly only responding to the word "zwart" and to point out exactly why the figure is black, and why it is not a great translation to English, and how it relates to other figures wearing black clothes and black paint throughout Europe. The term "Black Peter" for the Devil is definately older than the book by Schenkman. Also, I'm not disinginous, many people are just completely unaware of those common roots to other folklore I pointed out (most dutch people are anyway), while the resemblances are striking; as close as the south of Belgium, a monk in black robes painting his face black accompanies the Saint Nicholas. Well maybe this place is not the right one for such discussion, but I think saying that a deeply rooted folklore figure is the same thing as (or more offensive than) a racist and offensive American form of theatre is not very informed. It could be argued that the suits Zwarte Piet wear strongly resemble those of regular pages, too (because they do), and there are many other explanations for the outfit as well. I don't see them listed here. Also, did you know that the tradition is so strong that Sinterklaas is - for example - celebrated over at the (partly former) Netherlands Antilles, where people paint their faces white to respresent Sinterklaas? This only shows how adaptive the tradition is; I've seen the figures develop so much over the last 30 years. The Zwarte Piet probably was a black and frightening develish creature first, unrelated to skin colour, and over the course of time, changed more and more to be less frightening for children, and incorperated cultural elements that were relevant at the time. I mean not to neglect that of course it can be incredibly offensive to people from other cultures such as Americans or Brits (because of their own history and tradtiions) and even more so because American culture has such a tremendous influence on ours. Remember, at the root it is not meant to be racist, and many people are mortified that other people are offended. The opposition within the country is relatively small, but still has a large effect because of the press. Which is exactly why the tradition is changing as we speak. While we may never find the exact origin of the figure, the only thing we know for sure is that the tradition is incredibly adaptive and traditionally supports innovation (as shown when Sinterklaas started using modern transportation like steamboats, trains and hot air balloons right after they were in use for the public), which is why it even survives to the present day. Time to adapt it so that it becomes non-offensive for everyone I would say, and keep this page informed as to how it is changing factually. Television has become leading in developing Sinterklaas, and this season a figure was introduced named "Grandpa Piet", who has now more or less the same status as Sinterklaas. He also wears exactly the same outfit, and rides the original white horse, whereas Sinterklaas has a new black horse. Mansize010 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Back on topic, I just read an article in Dutch by an anti-discrimination organisation, which traces the origins of Zwarte Piet indeed to a late medieval personification of the devil, to black Clauses and from there to incorperating the elements that are now so controversial. Maybe we could add something about that to the Wikipedia topic? The article is here; http://www.art1.nl/artikel/7219-Historische_achtergrond_Zwarte_PietMansize010 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik van Muiswinkel
In this article Erik van Muiswinkel is presented as somebody who wants to change the tradition, but this is not a realistic presentation. I added the information that he still performs in blackface every year. I think that this is important information. [redacted BLP] Lucid~nlwiki (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the term "blackface" really appropriate here?
It isn't sourced or cited and it just seems to be there for political reasons: To note, there is no Dutch word for "blackface", most people in the Netherlands do not know such a thing even exists. The term blackface implies that the character is supposed to look of African descent which isn't really a connexion many people in the Netherlands seem to make with it. It's supposed to be a Spanish guy who spends too much time crawling in chimneys 81.204.20.107 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The moorish connection with Zwarte Piet definitely suggests some African assocation, and the Blackamoor relation seems more than justified.


 * I see this as related to the "Spanish" origin of Saint Nicholas, which is an element acquired in the 16th-17th century, when Spain, southern Italy (= Bari), and the low countries were part of the same state (Habsburg Spain). Assuming that the low countries adopted Saint Nicholas in the Ottonian era of the Holy Roman Empire, when other Byzantine saints were imported as well (and Saint Nicholas churches were built), educated adults may have been aware that Saint Nicholas (or his relics) "lived" in Bari (San Nicola di Bari), and would point to Spain/southern Italy as the place where Saint Nicholas and Black Peter stayed over the rest of the year. This is why Saint Nicholas arrives by ship and why his servants wear Spanish Renaissance military outfits (familiar from Dutch independence war iconography as stereotypically "Spanish" clothes). Increasing Christian sensitivity to the obviously heathen background of the festival (combined with lower sensitivity to racism and slavery) would then take care of the rest: the Black Peter is no devil, but simply a non-descript Spanish servant of Saint Nicholas. These are the elements that deviate from the normal Companions of Saint Nicholas stereotype, while other elements are the same (mischievous, black faced, carrying rod and a sack). I find this article rather biased against the tradition, for instance by absence of reference to the other, very similar incarnations of Companions of Saint Nicholas and historical attestations of their existence far predating Black Peter. The absence of Black Peter as a character in historical sources before the 19th century carries little weight. Firstly, Calvinist churches would be strongly opposed to Saint Nicholas in general (cf the rant against Saint Nicholas by Walich Syvertsz from 1604 now kept by the Allard Pierson museum), and obviously Black Peter specifically. Towns even prohibited the sale of props for the festival (Delft, 1607), but to no avail. Secondly, children's literature in general only started in the 19th century.


 * I do tend to agree, however, that the use of the term "Blackface" (and especially the wikilink to the article) with all the associations going with it, seems a way to reframe the Zwarte Piet tradition in terms understandable to the US population, by linking it to something similar, but entirely unlike Zwarte Piet which they know from their own culture. The difference between what black facial make-up implies in different cultures may underlie part of the international concern about Zwarte Piet, and the lack of understanding of many Dutch what the problem might be.


 * I think we do not need it in the lead, but perhaps we should deal with it later on where the difference between Dutch and American blackface tradition (i.e. in the Dutch culture only for Zwarte Piet and not for other, unspecific performances as in the US) Arnoutf (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that his face is pitch black because he crawls around in chimney is belied by the bright clothing and spotless white ruffles. that Netherlanders are culture-blind to the racist nature of the character does not mean the racist nature of the character does not exist nor that modern mainstream cultural analysis should be hidden to protect the fee fees of the Dutch.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and while the term "blackface" may have had its origin as describing practice in American minstrel shows, today the term is used for whereever black makeup is used for a Caucasian attempting to impostor as someone of African descent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * see the sources    and the historical revisionists claiming that it is not blackface but soot.    --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There was recently a similar discussion at Talk:Sinterklaas. In short, yeah, it's appropriate here and not appropriate on the character. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Wikipedia article on Blackface almost exclusively describes the history origin of the American minstrel shows, and not the usage today. So the Wikilink to that article is introducing biased associations into this one. My problem is thus with wikilinking the term (not the term itself per se). My problem with your post above is that you suggest that a distinctly American based view on this topic IS the modern mainstream cultural analysis, which in itself would constitute a neo-colonialist attitude towards the Dutch (PS I agree the soot is nonsensical) Arnoutf (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's easy. We can update that article to indicate modern, international use and reference this article with all the references provided here and on the Sinterklaas article talk page. An update that is needed apparently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that this page was written for English Wikipedia and that blackface is the dictionary definition of an actor putting on black makeup to portray a character of another race (ala Zwarte Piet). While the term may mean nothing in Dutch, it is not a uniquely American term. One need only look up 'blackface' in the British Oxford Dictionary to discover otherwise. Since it's an English page this is the best term for the practice. Constablequackers (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I do not object to this use of the term blackface which is distinctly different from the description on the blackface page. Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)