Talk:Anuna De Wever

unsourced contentious edits

IP users Special:Contributions/185.194.187.0, Special:Contributions/185.194.187.2, Special:Contributions/185.194.187.138, Special:Contributions/185.194.187.142 and perhaps others have persistently been reverting to a version of the page that has poor syntax, no sources, and contentious personal claims about the subject.

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

This is not something that WP:BLP would suggest is tolerable. Are there any reliable sources for such claims? If so, perhaps share them on the talk page rather than make unilateral and damaging edits. I have never gone in for reports and blocks and suchlike, but think it is time this page were protected and the IPs that have been persistently vandalising it blocked. Who would know how to go about initiating such a procedure? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

I have no problem with a criticism section, but there should be mentioned who exactly criticizes. The person who critizices should also be a noteworthy person, before this can be included in the encyclopedia. See for example Greta_Thunberg#Criticism_and_response. Furthermore the attack on Pukkelpop can better be classified as a menace than as criticism. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So after the people who want to say it is all a political conspiracy by GROEN finally give up, the people who think criticism in left-wing national daily newspapers is not "noteworthy" emerge ... --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A critical opinion by a notable person can for sure be included. The jounalists Wim Van de Velden and Dries Bervoet are however quite unknown and are not notable, same for Michiel Martin. Also presenting 'it led to bad publicity' as a fact and not as an opinion from a journalist is not according to the guidelines of wikipedia --PJ Geest (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with statements about Gert Verhulst made by Anuna De Wever

Anuna De Wever made racist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements. She said: "An old white straight male that completely minimizes the climate crisis and gives an opinion on something he has totally no knowledge about. What else is new?". She received criticism for this statement from all major Belgian media and from many prominent figures, including the Belgian Secretary of State, Asylum and Immigration, who said: "Intolerance takes on many forms. Can we stop reducing a person's opinion to age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender? Is that so hard?". There’s no reason to put the actual racist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements on wikipedia to have them “judged by readers” (as proposed by User:Fram). These statements are factually racist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory, as confirmed by the Belgian Secretary of State, Asylum and Immigration. My proposed edit is not only neutral and factual, but also prevents Wikipedia from having to show racist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements on its pages. Hate speech does not belong on Wikipedia unless it's actually really unavoidable.

I propose to revert back to my change, which is the following: She received criticism for making racist, misandrist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements.

Instead of the version proposed by User:Fram which quotes the actual hate speech: She received criticism for calling Gert Verhulst in a tweet an "old white straight man". JustinPurple (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Coming here from BLPN, this content looks entirely WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure being criticized by some people on social media is relevant to a biography, or else many public figures could have hundreds of vague "received criticism" lines. Criticism by a fairly random public official on social media does not seem particularly noteworthy either, which I assume is why the sourcing for this content is so poor. Two of the sources in JustinPurple's proposal are the same article (with "tg" as the author byline), and the other source is an opinion article. Claiming in Wikipedia's voice that the statements are "racist, misandrist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory" is clearly inappropriate and not supported at all by the referenced sources. Also, describing someone's factual characteristics is in no way hate speech. Please note that talk page discussions are still subject to WP:BLP restrictions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Wallyfromdilbert. We should not state in Wikipedia's voice that she made racist etc. comments. I doubt the incident needs inclusion at all, but if we do, it should be neutral, without adding our own labels; and perhaps also include her reply to the storm in a teacup[5]? Fram (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And I'm touched by the concern JustinPurple has for Wikipedia and its readers, "prevents Wikipedia from having to show racist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements on its pages. Hate speech does not belong on Wikipedia unless it's actually really unavoidable." but this is not how it works, per WP:NOTCENSORED. It is much better to show the actual (rather mild) words in the article, than to tar a person with such a broad and extremely negative brush (and "statements", as if she does this all the time) without actually showing what the fuss is all about. Oh, and "She received criticism for this statement from all major Belgian media" is incorrect: all(?) media reported that she received criticism from Mahdi, some right-wing politicians, and some Twitterati. Fram (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Replying to wallyfromdilbert: If the sources are an issue, I’d be happy to quote more. This was all over the Belgian news and received frontpage headlines in all newspapers, and a very notable event. It created huge backlash for Anuna De Wever and led to plenty of discussion about racist behaviour and hate speech on protected classes. Just tell me how many sources you need and I will quote them. For the sake of simplicity, I will give you a google search link that will show results from every big Belgian media outlet and an opinion piece from one the largest Belgian media outlets to prove my point that it lead to a lot of backlash and discussion. Note that Belgian newspapers use the Associated Press and that’s the reason why some content will seem similar. The fact that they all published it carries a lot more weight than the fact that it might be similar in some cases. Also, calling the Belgian Secretary of State, Asylum and Immigration “a fairly random public official” would be equal to calling the US secretary of state Antony Blinken “a fairly random public official”. Our officials carry as much weight in our country as they do in someone else’s country. It Antony Blinken would call out a prominent figure with “Can we stop reducing a person's opinion to age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender?”, it would be an equally big deal in the USA. The fact is that these statements are factually racist and hate speech cause they discriminate on a protected class. If you’d like to debate if Anuna De Wever’s words discriminate on a protected class, I’d be happy to take this to Wikipedia’s dispute mechanism, cause that will be an easy win. To quote US law: ‘US federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, colour, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008).’.

Replying to Fram: Wikipedia allows you to say someone made racist comments if they were actually racist. I guess it’s the question of the debate here if these comments should be included or not. Luckily, that question has already been resolved for us. If you look at one of the most disputed pages on Wikipedia, you will find the answer: Donald Trump. I quote directly from his Wikipedia page: ‘Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.’. So the verdict is clear to me: We continue in a similar fashion, and do not quote the actual content but link to sources instead. As for the incident itself, it absolutely needs inclusion cause it was all over the Belgian news, and while inconvenient for Anuna De Wever, it is what she actually said. The fact that you consider her words “mild” does not make them any less factually racist and in violation of protected clasess. Calling someone out for their age, gender, sexual orientation etc works in every direction. JustinPurple (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• So you mean that in the article [[Racial views of Donald Trump] or some such, we don't have actual quotes of the things he said? Right... To describe things as "racist" etcetera, you need good sources using those terms; not your own interpretation. You are free to consider the tweet "hate speech" and so on, but none of the reliable sources go that far, so neither do we. Feel free to take this to any dispute resolution you like of course. But "Wikipedia allows you to say someone made racist comments if they were actually racist." is not true: Wikipedia allows you to say this if enough reliable sources have described the comments as "racist comments", not if you consider them to be racist (no matter if you are right or not). Fram (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • JustinPurple, opinion articles and Google search results are not reliable sources. Your comparison to Anthony Blinken is also incorrect, as his equivalent would be a minister in Belgium, and your use of "hate speech" is entirely false, which I assume means that you do not have any actual understanding of what that means or what the words "discrimination" or "harassment" mean in US federal law. Nothing that was said by De Wever was racist and certainly not hate speech in any way, and no sources even claim that because it's an obviously ludicrous claim to pretend that mentioning someone's age or race is "hate speech". I am going to mention again that you need to abide by the WP:BLP policies on talk pages, and making repeated inflammatory and false statements about living people can result in sanctions or blocks from editing. I am also removing the content from the article for now until there is consensus to include it per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Replying to Wallyfromdilbert: As mentioned before, Anuna De Wever said "An old white straight male that completely minimizes the climate crisis and gives an opinion on something he has totally no knowledge about. What else is new?". She effectively discriminates him and his opinion based on his age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender. That's the definition of racism, misandry, heterophobia and age-discrimination. As mentioned before, even the Belgian Secretary of State, Asylum and Immigration said: "Can we stop reducing a person's opinion to age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender?". But the Secretary of State's opinion is even irrelevant at this point, and so is the disputed weight of his office, because this discussion now resolves around the actual premise if Anuna's statements were racist, misandrist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory or not. They absolutely are. To give an example: If I would reply to your point above by saying "A young black gay female that completely minimizes my opinion and talks about something they don't have a clue about, what else is new?", would that be racist, misogynist, transphobic and age-discriminatory? Absolutely. To be clear: I have no idea what your race, sexual preference, gender and age is, nor do I care cause, I'm just giving an example. Also, please do not threaten to ban my account for debating the central point. That would defeat the whole purpose of the talk page.JustinPurple (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia talk pages are not a WP:FORUM for you to express your inflammatory views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
      • (ec) JustinPurple, you need to provide WP:RS stating that her comment (singular) was racist and so on. Not one of the sources you have provided does this. You are drawing conclusions from her statement and the replies, but Wikipedia is not the place to post our conclusions, Wikipedia is the place to post the conclusions made by other people, attributed to those people if contentious or not common, or stated as fact if generally accepted in the reliable sources. Continuing to state that her comment "absolutely" was or wasn't racist is unhelpful and irrelevant (and at worst, if you insist on continuing to state this without the necessary sources stating the same, could indeed lead to a block): what we need to discuss is what the sources say. Please stick to that. Fram (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I propose the following compromise: She received critcism for calling Gert Verhulst an "old white straight male", which prompted reply from the Belgian Secretary of State, Asylum and Immigration Sammy Mahdi who said: "Can we stop reducing a person's opinion to age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender?". JustinPurple (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s been 2 days after my proposal for compromise. Since there has been no reply, I assume it was acceptable? I will wait another day and then go ahead and implement it. Please let me know if you have any objections. JustinPurple (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to add more content under the guise of a "compromise" seems fairly disingenuous and inappropriate. There is no consensus for including the material at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? I agree to use Fram’s proposed version instead of mine, and I added the comment from the Belgian Secretary of State to it, which was also included in every major newspaper post. So we’re reporting exactly what Anuna said combined with the comment from the Secretary of State that was also included in every newspaper. How is that not a compromise? My comments about Anuna’s statements being racist etc are completely out now. If you have any other proposal, feel free to discuss it.JustinPurple (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Fram are you happy with my proposed compromise?JustinPurple (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with Wally that it is doubtful whether we even need to include this at all, I have no issues with your proposed text. So either no mention at all or your proposed text are fine by me. Fram (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fram, I will apply the edit.JustinPurple (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)