Talk:Harry van Bommel

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

First thread[edit]

This discussion goes about the question either we should call the politicians of the SP-party communists. The party of Jan Marijnissen is founded on Maoist-grounds. Under Marijnissen this withered away, but on the SP-website you can find the following citate in "Kernvisie SP" as a goal for the SP: "Het formuleren van fundamentele kritiek op de kapitalistische wereldorde" (In English: "criticize the capitalist world"). So why is it a point that we mark at least Marijnissen a communist (I know he is a Maoist but there isn't such a category). And since van Bommel is a member of the same party he approves the same principle. And the SP had contact with the Chinese authorities. I don't see your point, butI wont qaulify them as communist anymore. But I will reformulate the sentence and add it to the articles because it is essential for the party. It is a difference of opinion but it seems to me that I'm right. Besides of it, in the SP article on wiki English the SP is called a post-communist party.

Marijnissen is not a maoist anymore, nor is the SP a maoist party. Fundamental criticism of capitalism lies at the very foundation of socialism. Socialist Party (Netherlands) already amply discusses the party's roots. Qwertyus 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matching citation[edit]

I reworded some material to match the wording in the citation. I also removed a peacock word that is not needed. --Tom 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you find the use of the word "prominent" in a reliable source a "peacock" term is interesting, but in no way relevant. Your opinion does not trump reliable sources. And can you say exactly what you are talking about, in terms of citing. What line, and where? Thanks. IronDuke 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Did you read the citation? What is your agenda here? Please stop and compromise for a change. Thanks, --Tom 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a difernt cite than the one in the other article? I will have to add that one as well. --Tom 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? IronDuke 23:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... no reply on the bit about "prominent." I'm assuming you're okay with it, then. IronDuke 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not ok with it. What does it add to the article? Why is it being included? It is unneeded and a POV that is not attributted to the person who wrote that article. --Tom 14:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It adds a good idea why we're quoting him, and it's from a reliable source. And it isn't POV -- that's a transparently ridiculous idea, of course. Unlesss you have reliably sourced evidence that the idea he's prominent is somehow controversial. Do you? IronDuke 14:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Again, do you have some COI or other agenda here? --Tom 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that adding abuse to your previous disruption will move the article forward any. As you are not able to reply to my previous question, I'll consider the matter settled. IronDuke 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ID, Can we tone down the rehtoric a notch? Now what question didn't I answer? Is it the Unlesss you have reliably sourced evidence that the idea he's prominent is somehow controversial? Thats like the when did you stop beating you wife type deal. Again, I don't know this attorney from Adam and don't know if he is "prominent" or not. It really doesn't matter. The "material" about him was added. The "describer/label" is not needed in order for It adds a good idea why we're quoting him. Anyways, --Tom 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, in terms of toning down the rhetoric, if by “we” you mean “Tom,” then I heartily affirm it. I understand, I think, why you’re using the “when did you stop beating your wife example.” Unfortunately, though you’ve probably seen it used a lot, you don’t appear to understand what it means. It’s a sort of a trick question, a logical fallacy, which begs the question. My question to you was no such thing: it was merely “Do you have evidence that my (sourced) descriptor is in some way wrong.” You have now answered it in the negative, when you indicate you know nothing of this person. The second part of your argument was to basically say “The thing you said that was true is not true.” That’s not an argument. IronDuke 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. My involvement in this article is solely in cleaning the copyright violation. I don't care if the attorney is called prominent or not, but I am having trouble finding in the cited article an indication that van Bommel would have left if he had heard the chants. Could you specify the language in the source? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm seeing the source of confusion here. Evidently, there is another article with the same title which has different language: [1] says "Van Bommel told Haaretz he did not hear the calls, and that he'd have left had he heard them." The one cited in the article does not. But finding the specific language raises another problem: the language at the "other" Haaretz source is almost identical to the text placed in our article (with the solitary exception that "he'd have" has been transformed to "he would have"). This is only usable if quotation marks are used per WP:NFC. I'm restoring to the earlier language until either original text is used or the material is properly handled to comply with our copyright policy. (I will leave the "prominent" for discussion.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mrg, thanks very much for your help. IronDuke 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I added the other citation, are the quotation marks correct? It seems better to use his statements rather than include "denies" per WP:WTA. Thanks also for clarifying the two different articles that caused my confusion. Tom 04:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because "Van Bommel told Haaretz" is part of the quote. That language was already written by the Haaretz reporter and is therefor "owned" by them. I'll put it in quotes with attribution for now and the choice of wording can be worked out afterwards. I can see why the different articles confused you. :) Who would imagine two articles online under the same title with different text? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Tom 13:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry van Bommel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_van_Bommel&oldid=1206364759"