Talk:Pim Fortuyn

message: I think tis article is actually pretty NPOV now, and the notice should be removed. I'll add a comment on the talk page of the anon who included it. Junes 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's much, much better, thanks for working on it. Since you asked me to look it over, I may as well comment on one small thing. "He openly rejected all violence and was no overt racist" -- these are strong claims, especially the latter, and require strong evidence. I would replace the sentence with quotations that demonstrate the points. If no such quotes can be found, the sentence ought to be cut. Once that sentence is dealt with, I agree that POV notice should be removed. 128.59.31.237 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. To be fair, I only did a little work on this article just recently. And yes, I agree completely about that sentence you mention. It's very gratuitous. The first part is rather broad (what? Any violence at all?). And while I feel the second part is probably true, there's not really a reason to include it. Certainly people have called him racist (although opinion leaders were more like to refer to him as extreme-rightist, xenophobic or Islamophobic). In the future we should include some attributed criticisms concerning that statement (for instance Paul Rosenmöller "this is not just right-wing, this is extreme-right") and rebuttals, and discuss the "demonisation" claim. In the meantime, I removed the comment. I will also remove the POV-tag shortly if no one else objects. Junes 10:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I removed the POV notice. Junes 18:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV notice 

message: The man has written a number of books in his lifetime. 
Should we include a list, even though they haven't been translated into English (yet)?
And give a quick summary of each one as well?
:I think a list of (a selection of his) books could probably be included, at least for completeness' sake. Maybe we could also include a small section Works or something like that, but I don't think we should be too exhaustive in discussing his works, given that his books are in Dutch only and he's not primarily known for them. Junes 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books? 

message: Should this article also not mention that before LPF and even Leefbaar Nederland, Pim Fortuyn had been a member of PvdA as well?
:That would be best. :o)--MWAK 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political party memberships 

message: I re-added the De Vries stuff which was taken out, although I left out the reference to the Scotsman; I don't feel that this article has received enough attention in the mainstream press, and including the piece seemed to suggest that Fortuyn might have had with minors after all. Furthermore, the quotes in the lead are now referenced to the Volkskrant article. Of course, it's in Dutch, but I can verify (as can other speakers) that the quotes are there and that they are presented fairly here. Something went wrong with the notes, though. I thought that the numbers would automatically be adjusted, but that turned out not to be the case. If anyone can fix that, I'd be grateful. Junes 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Re-)adding Peter R. de Vries research, notes 

message: I archived this page, partly because this page was getting too long, partly also to get rid of the (inactive) discussions about Fortuyn that were not really related to the article. Junes 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pim_Fortuyn&diff=73028288&oldid=72594028 someone changed "backwards" into "retarded". How to translate Pim Fortuyn's "achterlijke" remark? Achterlijk can both be translated to retarded and to backwards, yet they have widely different meanings. How should a translation problem like this be dealt with? Frank Quist 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By translating it correctly: backward. :o)--MWAK 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "retarded" much better captures the pejorative sense of the Dutch word than "backward" does. Paul Koning 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but "retarded" is something you say of people, hardly of cultures.--MWAK 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Achterlijk" is not normally used in the sense of "backward," but very frequently in the sense of "retarded".  In fact, it is hard to come up with any occurrences in the former sense.  Of course, the translation is politically loaded: Fortuyn claimed to have meant "backward" after his calling it "achterlijk" caused an uproar.  Perhaps we should respect the stated intention by the speaker, but the ambiguity should not go unnoted -- I will add a remark. 129.27.152.126 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Backing this up: nl.freedictionary.com mentions only mental retardation and stupidity.  nl.wiktionary.org mentions only mental and physical retardation (and a naval meaning). Synoniemen.net mentions retarded, provincial, idiotic, outdated, ignorant, and crazy. 129.27.152.126 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards or retarded? 

message: Why is he categorized as a catholic? Only because he was born in a catholic family and because his funeral took place in a catholic church? Not enough it seems to me. See Talk:Pim_Fortuyn/Archive1#Roman_Catholic Andries
:Because he felt deeply religious catholic, that's quite clear from his TV performances and books. Furthermore, he intended to become pope. C mon 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so then I have to accept it in faith, because I do not know enough about the subject. Andries 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this? I've been googling but can't find much besides the fact that he was born a roman-catholic. Surely for such a public figure there is a reliable source out there that documents this. jaco♫plane 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cmon, was he a just an "ietsist" (believer that there is more between heaven and earth) or did he express sympathy for the catholic church? Andries 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cmon, convincing, thanks. I prefer good Dutch sources over flawed English. Will try to insert with a reference. Andries 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finding those references, I guess your google skills p0wn mine :) I use dutch sources regularly on articles regarding Dutch people, and there is no clause in WP:V that states that the source needs to be in English. Groet, jaco♫plane 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic revisited

message: i dont know how to word this, but leefbaar rotterdam predates leefbaar nederland, so its NOT an offshoot of either leefbaar nederland or LPF.
actually, there were many 'leefbaar' parties in many different cities 'leefbaar haarlem' and so on. but because of the charismatic leader of fortuyn (he was lijsttrekker of leefbaar Rotterdam long before he went national) and perhaps the many ethnic people in rotterdam (over half of them i believe) he got about 40% of the votes, far more then in any other city, and decided to go national, and leefbaar nederland was born, wasnt long before he got kicked out^^--Lygophile 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leefbaar Rotterdam 

message: Since someone made an issue of the spelling of his last name:  it is true that "ij" is baffling to non-Dutch speakers.  But in fact, so is "uy" or for that matter "ui".  I've tried to teach that sound to English speakers for a long time, with singular lack of success.  In any case, the fact that a particular way of spelling is baffling to people doesn't change the fact that it is the spelling of the name. Paul Koning 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume user Cholmondeley-Smythe hadn't understood Fortuijn was his registered family name and assumed earlier editors had tried to give the standard spelling of the word. Which, however, is fortuin :o).--MWAK 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Unless someone can defend it, I plan to remove the desciption of Fortuyn as right wing.  I realize that it's common in the news media to describe Fortuyn as right wing, but few of his views as described in this article match what is described in the Wikipedia article on the term right wing.  Most flatly contradict the term right wing, as the Wikipedia article defines it -- particularly his views on drug policy, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and compulsory military or social service. --Tedd (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and edited accordingly. There's media commenting that can be cited. --tickle me 01:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed the BBC quote saying that "Dutch people describe him as a populist rather than a fascist." The "popularist" label is already mentioned in another sentence, so why should a claim about what someone is not be in the article?  I imagine Dutch people would also decribe him as a populist rather than a bycycle, or a tree, or a field of tulips. That doesn't mean the article should say "he has been described as a popularist rather than a field of tulips". Meowy 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right wing? 

message: Is Silvio Berlusconi "centre-right"??? I highly doubt it. The upper part of the article states as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.255.196 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in an Italian context he may be called so :o). The "centre" part should here be understood as "as opposed to being a far-right extremist".--MWAK (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the reference to Berlusconi 

message: Is there a reason Fortuyn's autobigraphy is not included in the list of his books?
     Babyboomers: Autobiografie van een generatie 
     www.amazon.com/dp/9022983692
     www.worldcat.org/oclc/39937054
If there is not a reason for excluding it, may I suggest that it be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.70.154 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiography 

message: The following statement in this section is surely contradictory? 
"informant had claimed that Fortuyn had engaged in sex with under-age Moroccan youths;[38] they would be aged between 16 and 21, this was legal under Dutch law"
How can the alleged youths be both "under-age" and of legal age under Dutch law? Only one of these things can be true, if they were of legal age then the "under-age" term is incorrect and misleading - if they were under-age then the second part of the statement about ages and Dutch law is unnecessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.155.147 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there. The "under-age" was an imperfect attempt at translating Dutch minderjarig, being a minor. The age of consent, even for prostitutes, at the time was 16 (or 12 in most contexts) but you were generally a minor until the age of 18/21. I'll adapt the text accordingly.--MWAK (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we including something that is presented as a "scandal" but (i) did not happen, and (ii) would not have been illegal if it had happened! Why give this issue so much weight - because it's been covered in the press!? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statement in "Posthumous sexual allegations" 

message: I suspect the following part of the article is inaccurate: 
A comment above also says: 
However, I could find no trace of this televised debate on internet. I found the following source from The Guardian which says that there was indeed such an exchange (i.e. an imam called Khalil el-Moumni attacked Pim Fortuyn on his homosexuality in derogatory terms). However it looks like Fortuyn answered to him a posteriori (i.e. the exchange did not happen live on TV).
Could someone find a trace to the actual video footage of this exchange, or correct this section to more accurately describe how this exchanged happened precisely?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado.221 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a confrontation never took place. It is a conflation of a published altercation in Fortuyn's book De islamisering van onze cultuur, Nederlandse identiteit als fundament, het woord als wapen, met een kritische reactie  van imam Abdullah R. F. Haselhoef, thus with another "imam" and the fact that Khalil el-Moumni had earlier compared homosexuals with pigs.--MWAK (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imam televised debate story 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Pim Fortuyn. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws/denhaag/1013147690985.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newcriminologist.com/article.asp?nid=870
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/actueel19/kn1920a.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.volkskrant.nl/den_haag/article153195.ece/De_islam_is_een_achterlijke_cultuur
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/05/10_years_after_pim_fortuyn_was_1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310014512/http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id%3D106882/contentid%3D525037/sc%3D5ce917 to http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id%3D106882/contentid%3D525037/sc%3D5ce917
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I recently made two changes. I figured I'd comment given I'm at work and thus not logged in to anything so people know if they're reverted as 'vandalism' or any such nonsense that it's an attempt to revert them for political reasons. I am on the other side of the world, and a centrist, thus have no dog in this fight but noted that the lede of this article read as apologetica defending the murderer of this guy. Idgaf who he is, murder is a crime, and we don't use bio's to defend or excuse murders. It's irelevant to the biography what the murderer said in his trial, this man faced political violence in the past according to the rest of the article, so using the lede to allow the murderer a platform to justify his murder is absurdly POV.
I also added a bit more context to the murderer passage, it simply stated he was an 'animal rights activist' which makes no sense, why would an animal rights activist kill someone who had nothing to do with abuse of animals? But his article lists him as a radical environmentalist AND animal rights activist, radical is a bit strong although let's face it to murder someone you're clearly radicalised but I added environmentalist in to at least give it a bit more context so it doesn't sound like he got murdered for wearing fur. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely for that reason, it is important to make explicit the motives of his assassin. Obviously, for him they justified his actions. But the essence of our NPOV policy is not that we avoid platforms or POV: then Wikipedia would be empty. It is that we present all relevant POV, leaving it to the reader to decide whether he agrees with any of it.--MWAK (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit to lede. 

message: I agree that Fortuyn was already notable and that his assassination didn't create his notability. But I don't really share that  First, the meaning of the sentence is unclear. Do you mean a single attack that resulted in 100 murders? Do you mean 100 murders in a year? Do you mean 100 politicians murdered? In a single attack? Over which period of time? Secondly, the fact there had been no assassinations of politicians for a long time made his death the more shocking and important in the Dutch psyche. Sincerely,  Thinker78 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally any of those sentences would give a valid conclusion, because the first sentence you wrote is not a good one. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The historical knowledge of the Dutch population is notoriously poor. Most people could not have told who Johan de Witt was, let alone that he was murdered. They were shocked or indignant that an anti-establishment politician who successfully challenged the politically correct consensus was eliminated by violence. Then they were told by the media that it had been centuries ago a political murder had happened and this element became part of the standard narrative of the event.--MWAK (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the pages Assassination of Pim Fortuyn and Pim Fortuyn List, I could make a guess that both have similar notability. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of the assassination of Fortuyn

message: According to the Manual of Style guidance of the first sentence, there shouldn't be overload of information and instead it should be concise. Certainly, such is determined by reasonable limits and specially consensus. My view is that the first sentence should be as concise as possible without compromising meaning or readability. 
Pim Fortuyn was many things but according to one of the points in the guidance for biographies' first sentence (item 4), the information should include one, or possibly more, roles of the subject. 
Although it mentions possibly more, the main idea is to provide one role in the first sentence if that is enough. Only if it is not enough (key word "possibly") then it advises to include more. 
If we say in the first sentence that Fortuyn was a Dutch politician who founded the Pim Fortuyn List party (not really my preference, as it introduces redundancy), the reader then will be reasonably informed as to who he was. Mentioning he was an "author, civil servant, businessman, sociologist and academic" can be relegated to other parts of the lead in order to maximize conciseness of the first sentence without compromising proper information. Likewise if we say that he was the first Dutch politician assassinated since World War 2. 
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the first sentence as concise as possible is not policy. "(T)he main idea is to provide one role in the first sentence if that is enough" is not correct for in that case the text would have read "if possible limit the sentence to one noteworthy fact". The "possibly more" simply means "more if the occasion warrants". However, there are many defensible forms the first sentence might take. My objection was merely that a reference to the events of 1672 would be included.--MWAK (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence overload and conciseness