Jump to content

Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw

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

Griffin

[edit]

Griffin is not a neutral source. I am not even sure what the reason is for his comment to be entered here. If you are going make an implication, you have to use a reputable and neutral 3rd party source, otherwise it cannot be entered into Wikipedia. Intangible 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin isn't used as a source here. --LucVerhelst 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is. That la Libre (incorrectly) reprints his statements, does not make this less a primary source. Intangible 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin's quote isn't used for the information in it, but because of the act of saying that he feels close to the Vlaams Belang. Not the information in his quote is relevant, but the act itself. Surely you can see that.
That's why he isn't used as a source here.--LucVerhelst 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All fun and well, but the Vlaams Belang didn't even exist back then. Your above notion makes the quote irrelevant to this article. Either way it is out. Intangible 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh ? Back when ? --LucVerhelst 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Libre article dates from 8 September 2006...--LucVerhelst 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but you might check the timeline of 2004 as well... Intangible 20:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check WP:V again, will you ? --LucVerhelst 20:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It is verifiable that the Vlaams Belang did not exist at the time of Griffin's writings. Intangible 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a verifiable source saying that "un professeur américain, Robert S.Griffin, membre de l'Alliance nationale américaine, qui a participé le samedi 3 juillet 2004, à des activités organisées par «Blood & Honour Vlaanderen», et le BBET («Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw» traduisez «Sang et sol, honneur et fidélité») avait écrit dans le rapport qu'il fit de son voyage qu'il était heureux de voir que les organisations flamandes qu'il a côtoyées en Belgique avaient à leurs côtés un parti comme le Vlaams Belang."
Griffin probably used the words "Vlaams Blok", which was the name of the party in July 2004. La Libre Belgique used the present name of the party. You see, everybody in Belgium knows that Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok in reality are the same party, it's only legally that there might be a small doubt. But as you know, "the words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Wikipedia",[1] so this argument really is no ground to remove the paragraph.--LucVerhelst 08:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are changing your argument for inclusion. You can read the exact words Griffin used via Google cache. He makes not mention of "un parti comme le Vlaams Belang/Blok à leurs côtés". Have you found a Flemish paper that makes the same kind of mistakes la Libre makes? Of course not. This says a lot about the media in Wallonia. Intangible 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intangible you are again engaging in disruption, despite the fact that you are on probation. Don't make silly claims about Vlaams Belang/Vlams Blok, a name change doesn't modifies a party. You are making us lose time. Furthermore, if Libre Belgique highlighted Griffin's statement, I don't know why I should believe you, and not the Libre Belgique, concerning the usefullness of such a remark. Tazmaniacs 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an emperical fact that Vlaams Belang did not exist at the time of Griffin's writing. You can check the exact words used by Griffin in Google Cache. No need to make smirky remakrts here. Intangible 18:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:V and WP:OR again. It really doesn't matter what your research reveals. There is a verifiable and reputable source. That is enough. Now please stop. Please. --LucVerhelst 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Naming

[edit]

The article at present is called "Bloed-Bodem-Eer en Trouw". I don't like the hyphens, I think they're not correct, so I'd want to propose a name change. I've seen the group mentioned as "Bloed Bodem Eer en Trouw" and as "Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw". Personally, I would prefer the comma-version, with the other versions as a redirect.

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Abramowicz

[edit]

Manuel Abramowicz is not a specialist. Of course le Soir can have its own opinion, this can be added to the Manuel Abramowicz article. But Abramowicz does not regularly publishes in academic journals or weeklies. Note that ResistanceS is a radical progressive website, far outside of the mainstream. Intangible 09:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only claiming Abramowicz is not a specialist. All the Belgian press refers to him as so. Please stop disruption. Tazmaniacs 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find a middle ground. Alas User:WGee came in and reverted the middle ground attempt without resorting to this talk page. Instead of calling Abramowicz a "specialist" I was pointing out that he "studies far right groups as a journalist." Intangible 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abramowicz is used as a source by Belgian newspapers and by Le Monde diplomatique. Contrary to what you are claiming, Intangible, he works with many scholars. His seriousness is not put in doubt by anybody else than... yourself. Tazmaniacs 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed Griffin

[edit]

I removed the Griffin piece again. You can check Google Cache [2] where you can see the exact words Griffin used. No mention of "Allies" or "Vlaams Belang". Intangible 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V and WP:OR again. It really doesn't matter what your research reveals. There is a verifiable and reputable source. That is enough. Now please stop. Please.--LucVerhelst 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. English sources are preferred above other language sources. The English language source conflicts with what is in the article. Intangible 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your English source constitutes WP:OR. --LucVerhelst 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I do not want his text in this article, I actually claim it is irrelevant. But WP:V says:
"Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
* It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
* It is not contentious;
* It is not unduly self-serving;
* It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it." Intangible 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I can use this source, and then say that the French newspaper article is an incorrect translation and that the current piece of text (which was translated back into English from the French newspaper article by an Wikipedia editor) needs to be removed. Intangible 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are claiming that the information is irrelevant. That's something else than focussing on the verifiability of the sources. Why would you feel it is irrelevant ? --LucVerhelst 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one making a positive claim that text from Griffin needs to be entered into this article. Why? I have already proven that the text in the French article is incorrect. Intangible
I didn't put the text there, I just reverted your removal because it was based on the wrong arguments. I invite you to give some arguments on why the information irrelevant. --LucVerhelst 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it should be removed as well? If not, you as well have to provide arguments for its inclusion. I do not have to argue why it is irrelevant, you should be the one arguing why it is relevant. Intangible 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one that disagrees with the consensus that the information is relevant. I suggest that you try and convince the other editors with arguments that your position is the right one. --LucVerhelst 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that the (incorrect) information is relevant. Otherwise you wouldn't have reverted me. Intangible 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is that then ? --LucVerhelst 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tazmaniacs pretty much edited this article alone before I made my first edit to the article. Clearly one cannot speak of consensus between two editors who think differently about the article. Intangible 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time there were also myself and User:WGee who participated. There were also some other users that edited the article, and didn't find it necessary to remove the lines you object to. I think we can fairly assume there is a consensus, with you being on the outside.
I'm once more inviting you to discuss the matter with some arguments about the relevancy of the information. --LucVerhelst 15:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:WGee and you participated after I removed the Griffin bit. Thus consensus was never reached. Why do you think we have this discussion here? Intangible 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell us why you believe the information is not relevant ? --LucVerhelst 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V:"Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." Please provide your rational for inclusion.
Also from WP:V:"English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." I have already proven that the French news article uses an incorrect translation. Intangible 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The French language article didn't translate, it interpreted. That's what newspapers do. They interpret facts to inform their readers.
Wikipedia has its WP:OR policy because what you are doing, interpreting facts, should only be done by professionals like journalists and scientists. Not because they're per se better at it than you and me, but because they are working in a structure that prevents the interpretation being just a personal bias.
So, you did not prove anything.
I think the information is relevant because it places the existence of BBET within a broader framework, the international Blood and Honour organisation, but also Belgian far right politics. It adds something to the article that an informed reader should know.
Now, could you tell us why you believe the information is not relevant ? --LucVerhelst 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I interpret facts? I just pointed out that what Griffin said in English does not correspond with the quotation here in the article. According to your "logic," a translation from French to English by a Wikipedia editor would be Orginal Research as well, since one is "interpreting" the French language. Intangible 19:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell us why you believe the information is not relevant ? --LucVerhelst 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current piece of text in the article is simply incorrect, according to the English language source I presented. That does not mean I want anything from the source I presented in this article. But that is not really what we are discussing here, since you claim I cannot use this source at all. Your notion conflicts with WP:V however, which says:
"Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
* It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
* It is not contentious;
* It is not unduly self-serving;
* It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it."
So I can use this source to point out that the current piece of text is incorrectly quoted (into French, and then back into English), but I cannot use the source to make claims about third parties (VB). Intangible 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin wrote : "My hosts [...] are partisans of the Vlaams Blok political party [...]. I took note that my hosts had politicians and a major party that advocate their positions, and I don't. Bush and Kerry would cross the street to get away from me."
I believe that we can say that La Libre gave a good interpretation of Griffin's words, can't we.
So the information is both factually correct, provided by a reputable and verifiable source, and relevant to the article.
Could you tell us why you believe the information is not relevant ?--LucVerhelst 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current text says: "happy to see that the Flemish organizations had allies such as the Vlaams Belang party" This not what Griffin said. So the text has to go. Your notion above is WP:OR. Intangible 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Griffin is important, not because he says that BBET is tied to Vlaams Belang (that's not a surprise, and many others reliable sources say the same thing), but because it shows that neo-fascist groups have international connections. If you want us to take you seriously, Intangible, instead of suddenly calling us Mr., use valid arguments, go to the point, and stop using rhetorics such as "Vlaams Belang" didn't exist. If we're editing these articles, it surely is because we're all interested in politics. So, this kind of arguments may work with a Japanese who just arrived in Belgium, but certainly not with us. However, as we are interested in politics, we're also used to negotiating with people we disagree with. That's the point of politics. It is also the point of Wikipedia. So, go to the point, be serious, and we will take you seriously. Tazmaniacs 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Standaard

[edit]

De Standaard of September 9 writes that the justice department could not find any ties to any political party. I guess this would solve the above problem in a different way. Intangible 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That indeed is important information. I suggest to change the paragraph as follows :
Robert S. Griffin, a member of the United States neo-Nazi group National Alliance took part on July 3, 2004 in activities organized by Blood & Honour Vlaanderen (Dutch language branch of Blood & Honour) and the BBET. He wrote in a report that he was "happy to see that the Flemish organizations had allies such as the Vlaams Belang party."[1] The Belgian justice department however could not find any ties from BBET with any political party.[2]
How does this solve things? There is still an incorrect translation being made. Furthermore, it would be given totally undue weight to the views of Griffin. Intangible 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there is Dutch source which makes the same kind of mistranslation from English to Dutch (like the French article). It says "Hij prees zijn gasten gelukkig dat zij een partij als het Vlaams Blok aan hun zijde hebben." Now "aan hun zijde" transliterated to French means "à leurs côtés" (the English terms would be "at their side") I wonder if La Libre based its article on this source, because I doubt that these two misstranslations are just accidental. Intangible 16:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between "advocate their positions" (the original source) or being "at their side" ? Isn't that what an advocate does, stand at your side and support your positions ? --LucVerhelst 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Advocate their positions" does not imply a connection, while "at their side" does.Intangible 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary. "Advocating someone's position" means "taking someone's place, defending their points of view for them, instead of them", while "standing at someone's side" means "supporting them". The original source is stronger, the translation is weaker. --LucVerhelst 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Advocate" was used as a verb, so it does not mean what you just wrote above. While "side" as a noun means they belong to the same group in a dispute. Obviously a mistranslation. 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Then how about this paragraph :
The text from the verifiable source still is used, but it is strictly attributed to that source. This way, it's not Wikipedia that is to blame for what you call a mistranslation.
Unless of course you have other arguments why this paragraph shouldn't be included.--LucVerhelst 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is doing the other mistranslation from French to English? Intangible 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would your suggestion be ? --LucVerhelst 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like to find a middle ground here. That is very difficult if you concentrate on the issue of translation. I have suggested some texts, so I would like to invite you to either suggest a better alternative, or to explain why you want the paragraph to be removed, other than the issue of translation.
We need to get this article unprotected. There is some new material on the court case to be entered. What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A governmental information is always important. But in no ways does it cancels the previous statements. Beside, Intangible, why don't you let the reader judge by himself instead of desperately trying to impose your POV? Tazmaniacs 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would giving undue weight if the current Griffin piece remains in this article. It is as simple as that. If you make the exceptional claim that BBET is linked with VB, you would have no trouble finding other independent sources based on actual factual info, now would you? Intangible 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De Standaard and La Libre make the claim, that's quite good enough for something as non-extraordinary as a link between BBET and VB. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, banal ones require only mediocre supporting evidence. Nobody is being slandered by such a claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but De Standaard does not make that claim, and La Libre is just rehashing the words of Griffin. Intangible 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And about "banal ones require only mediocre supporting evidence" With this logic, as an analogy, the views of Juan Cole calling Likud a fascist party on his web-log, can be justifiably entered into the Neo-fascism article. Banal claims are not to be entered into Wikipedia. Intangible 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Griffin

[edit]

Hi Intangible. You still haven't given any legitimate reason to delete the reference to Robert S. Griffin's visit to the BBET. Or are you claiming that he did not make this visit? I'm sure you understand, therefore, why I have included again this sentence which you are the only one here (as in many others places) to contest. Thanks for your comprehension, regards Tazmaniacs 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you read what is said on this talk page? I never said that I disputed Griffin's visit to the BBET. That's just putting words in my mouths, and you know that. Intangible 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Un Belang devenu trop respectable ?, in La Libre Belgique, 8 September 2006 (in French)
  2. ^ De Standaard, 9 September.
  3. ^ (in French) Un Belang devenu trop respectable ?, in La Libre Belgique, 8 September 2006
  4. ^ (in Dutch) De Standaard, 9 September.

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloed,_Bodem,_Eer_en_Trouw&oldid=1252600366"