Talk:Geert Wilders/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hecklers Veto

If it must be included, then we could this legal opinion on FindLaw or this legal opinion from the First Amendment Center. The Squicks (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have no issue with the word, I had an issue with blantant disregard of the rules which do not once stipulate that terminology must be identical, only meaning, scrap the word if you like. I'm now convinced that the Majoirty will simply twist the terminology, ignore oppositions requests for evidence and apply their bias either way. so much for a non-partisan view. I doubt that anyone else wishes to add the word, so I don't think it "must" be included. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf" outlawed?

As far as I know, there is not a single book outlawed in The Netherlands. "Mein Kampf" cannot be printed (I am not sure whether this is a copyright issue), but it is not outlawed. It is not illegal to own a copy and as far as I know it can be legally obtained abroad. In any case, outlawing books is of course not a very Dutch thing to do.... --Crusio 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the nl.wikipedia it is forbidden to sell Mein Kampf. It bases this on an answer the minister of Justice gave in 1997 on questions in parliament see "Antwoord van minister Sorgdrager (Justitie), mede namens de minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen. (Ontvangen 28 oktober 1997), zie ook Aanhangsel Handelingen nr. 135, vergaderjaar 1997–1998". C mon 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks C Mon, so technically speaking, that does indeed mean that not even Mein Kampf is outlawed in The Netherlands. To me "outlawed" would mean that it would be illegal not only to sell, but also to buy or own a copy. Like many politicians, Wilders apparently does not want to be bothered by this kind of details. --Crusio 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, it is not important to Wilders. He compares Mein Kampf with the Koran, Qu'ran, he says that both contain terrible texts and thoughts. So he wants to make clear that the Koran needs a same treatment. Mallerd 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is not outlawed per se, it is just copyrighted by the dutch government. So the comparison is a bit off target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_books#M Possession and sale for historical reasons is legal in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. Only reproduction is forbidden due to copyrights (held by Bavarian state, expiring 70 years after the death of the author: 31. December 2015). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those thoughts and texts Wilders is referring to do not belong exclusively to islam. You can find the same texts in the bible(old testament) and in the torah. Even before the abrahamic religions excisted, concepts like stoning to death as punishment for adultery, chopping of hands for thievery, honor killings and an eye for an eye were already present in the region where the abrahamic religions originated. You only have to read the Code of Hammurabi(2000 BC) to see how long these concepts have been around. Even today they still excist among muslims, christians, yezidis etc in the middle east. I don't think Wilders is being fair by singling out Islam and saying it should be forbidden in Holland because of these texts while he advocates the preservance of judeo-christian tradition in Holland. I don't see these problems as religious problems but as social/cultural problems.--Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you have to specify the Old Testament out of the Bible, isn't it? A little qualifying part tacked on the end of it called the New Testament, which is all about Christ, whence the name Christian comes from, is markedly different, wouldn't you say? And Wilders singles out Islam because it's Muslims, not Christians or Jews who are immigrating en masse to Europe and the Netherlands, and it's Muslims, not Christians or Jews who have beliefs that seem incompatible to Western European culture. Storleone (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Geert Wilders and Israel

there are a lot of important information about Wilders and Israel in the article but I have a lot of doubts about their accuracy. can anyone help us to find out whethere the mentioned points in the article are true or not? --Wisamzaqoot (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, what is THIS supposed to mean? -- "Even after the day Israel killed forty seven citizens in south Lebanon, bombed the Beirut airport twice, and launched an air and sea blockade of Lebanon, Wilders asked, one of his many, pro-Israel questions to one of the Dutch ministers." -- Seems to me it's posted with the foregone conclusion that Israel acted in the wrong and Wilders was defending the indefensible. I think a sentence like this violates neutral POV. --75.178.92.119 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

75 -- I fully agree, if it is not gone or fully explained as to how it is not strongly POV, I think it should be removed. Also, I don't know enough about how to do things on this site, but if there is a way to find out who wrote it, as this is so clearly POV (and that is to put it mildly) that I think that if there is a way to find out who wrote this, then this perosn should be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.12.87 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the entire section, for anybody that would like to write a section with regards to Israel on this page, please a)maintain NPOV b)use reputable sources and references (preferably in english). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.12.87 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP address (of the person that put the Israel section) is 82.170.203.52, I don't know how to contact an administrator, (I guess I can figure it out), but in the meantime if somebody else wants to contact an admin. : his/her user page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.170.203.52. (sorry, I just think that it is such a shame to have such a great project being so heavily compromised by people like him/her). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.12.87 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

@ ALL: I have reposten AND REWRITTEN the text. Al the claims come DIRECTLY from the source given (which is, unfortuantely for the non-Dutch, in Dutch). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowalles (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole Israel section is ostensibly biased. It seems as if the person who wrote it is trying to draw a parallel between Geert Wilders and Israel in an attempt to dismiss him. Right now, I'm seeing this figure: Jews/Israel ---) Zionism ---) Geert Wilders likes Jews and alledgedly Israel, but "hates" Muslims and therefore he is a Zionist. The section is not entirely neutral, and I think the person who wrote the section knows it.

(The grammar is also horrible)

Bennyman (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly has that tone, but it's from de Volksrant, which is a real newspaper. Why don't you take a stab at rewriting it? Alexwoods (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous statements that the section is biased. I would also like to point out that here in the Netherlands, the newspaper Volkskrant is seen as a leftist newspaper, it is not likely to be credible in these matters. Just so that people are aware of this. I tried to access the link, but it has not been made public, you have to pay for access. Thus I can not verify its content. I suggest the section to be removed until it can be verified by a more credible source. Again Volkskrant is commonly NOT seen as a neutral source by us Dutch. //Eirik van den Eijnden

--81.225.12.226 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the referred to newspaper is a source with little or no credibility it should be discussed, however if it is a source that can not even BE confirmed (in this case, without paying) it is not even a proper source. My suggestion: Remove the whole segment and/or get real sources. --David Igra (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why this part about israel is in this article at al? It also kind of pops out of the air, what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.145.79 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it because of its obvious NPOV violations and copious use of weasel words, especially: "More than a few members of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy suspect Wilders of taking guidance from the Israeli Embassy in the Netherlands (which is only a few meters away from the Dutch Parliament) in order to question Dutch ministers. Wilders has always denied this. [24]"

"More than a few" are clearly weasel words--no mention of whom, how many, or why, with details only available through reading a largely unavailable and highly biased document of the sort that isn't NPOV, and therefore can't be used in a WP entry that must be NPOV. Hardly factual. And the mention that the Israeli embassy is "a few meters away" from the Dutch Parliament? What possible relevance could that have? It's anti-semitic innuendo, I suppose trying to get the reader to infer that physical proximity equals philosophical, political proximity. Which is ridiculous. There's plenty of grounds for removal so I've done so. Someone will have to rewrite it if they want to make it conform to Wiki rules. Just adding some references DOES NOT make it WP material.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this needed to be removed. Kelly ^hi! 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised about this section, even more surprised at it's deletion so went past the paywall and have a copy of the article. Generally Wilder's sympathy with Israel is well known. Some of the points in the article, which were the basis of the section are less well reported. The Volkskrant is one of the major newspapers in The Netherlands, that even the wikipedia article on it says it is now lost much of its former left wing stance. How can sections stay if they reference something beyond a paywall? Just rewrite is a more NPOV style? Ekes2 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with having the section at all, so I don't know that it would ever pass NPOV. Nevertheless, you can try, and the way to get around the inaccessibility of the article is to get other references--so if the article quotes him saying something, you can likely find somewhere else where that is quoted. Ultimately, it doesn't matter hugely whether the journal it was in is biased or no--if there's substance behind a fact, it can stand up to scrutiny as neutral. However, it's not just that the article itself was biased and the information it contained was almost wholly innuendo; it's that there's little point to including this information for this particular politician in this particular situation, with this particular level of scrutiny.QuizzicalBee (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Israel section is obviously not NPOV. I made a few tweaks to improve its accuracy, but it needs removing or reworking. It should be noted that it sites one Dutch source that cannot be verified, for most of its claims. --Ongal (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this hard to believe, but no one seems to have questioned this claim that he's close to the Mossad. There are two citations provided: one to a Dutch newspaper site that requires a password and the other to an article in The Register that also says GW "claims tight connections with the Mossad" but gives no source. As it happens, the response movie made against Fitna cites claims that he's close to the Mossad as well, but that came out in the end of March, so it clearly wasn't the original research for this wiki page or that Register article. And who knows anything about the Dutch article? Perhaps we should wait for an interview with GW to include this potential claim of "closeness" with the Mossad. For now, though, I'm taking it out as unsourced. Gidklio (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC) [sorry, i forgot to sign in so I just added this again after doing so]

Was not aware of this discussion, but not mentioning his feelings about Isreal looks like leaving out info that could explane him (and his hair) to me. I made it as NPOV as I could. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2009-06 travels

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), has already made four trips to the United States this year. He has also been to Italy and Denmark and is planning a couple of new trips to the US later this year, plus trips to Canada and Australia.

Why does the politician from the Netherlands travel so much? This is a question the Dutch media have been asking themselves. Last week, both the weekly magazine Vrij Nederland and the newspaper De Volkskrant wrote long articles about Wilders’ travels, written by journalists who followed him on a couple of his trips. The only reason why a man would so eagerly travel the world, is obvious, they say: He does it for the money. Wilders is said to be on fundraising tours, especially among the “American far-right.”

“Dollars for Wilders; How the PVV Leader Raises Money from Far-Right America,” Vrij Nederland headlines. Both Vrij Nederland and De Volkskrant acknowledge that Mr. Wilders is doing nothing against Dutch law. [...]

When the Dutch journalists hear Wilders’ speeches to his foreign audience of “far-right, mostly Jewish, Americans”, they report home how he receives standing ovations for “ever more radical” speeches on Islam

in Thomas Landen, The Flying Dutchman and the Press, The Brussels Journal, 2009-06-25, could be usefull. 89.2.241.2 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Israel lobby"

Yes there were supporters of Israel who like Wilders, but how does that automatically mean the "Israel lobby?" not everyone who supports Israel is part of the Israel lobby. A lobby means a group who lobbies congress. Wilders did NOT have the support of LOBBYING groups like AIPAC or Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which are the actual lobbying firms.Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think American Jews even know who the heck Wilders is anyway. But this is all mere speculation until we can find some reliable sourcing for tagging Wilders with pejoratives. The Squicks (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speeches

We should not allow anyone to post an incredibly large outtake of a political speech. Quotations are fine, when properly applied and referenced, but Wikipedia is not a political stage where one can post half of a political speech. NeoRetro (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Geert Wilders#Public reception is tagged with {{NPOV}} dated August 2009 which has text inviting the reader to see this talk page. I cannot see any mention of POV here. Bias is mentioned above at #Geert Wilders and Israel. although POV is mentioned once at the archived Talk page section Political principles dated January 2009 and there is the archived section header biased dated February 2009. The word "bias" also appears at The inconsistency on free speech dated February 2009 and at Heckler's veto dated May 2009. The archives also contain mentions of "neutral" and "point of view"; I have added a search field at the top so that editors can be find these more easily.

To resolve the NPOV claim it would be useful to list what the problems might be and how to fix them. I checked a couple of claims:

• "very controversial" - the first cite does not claim this, but does have "It was a coolly calculated provocation", while the second cite [1] supports with "controversial politician". The third cite, just after worldwide, has "Geert Wilders, an anti-immigration politician", while the the fourth cite has "the Dutch Parliament’s only internationally famous member" and quotes Doekle Terpstra saying "Geert Wilders is evil".
• the Der Spiegel sentence is backed up by the cite.
• The sentence starting "Given that Wilders has allegedly" has {{citation needed}} after the first clause, and both the first and last given cites ([2] and [3]) do not mention "hypocrisy", so that needs to be fixed at least.

I just skimmed the rest, and did not check any other cite so there could be more verifiability problems. Can anyone provide any (other) actionable specific details? -84user (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AIT decision

It looks like the Asylum and immigration tribunal issued its ruling on 13 October 2009, but I could not find Wilders's case on the AIT website among decisions issued on 12 or 13 October. It seems one cannot do a keyword search in AIT caselaw. I also found nothing on BAILII. Is this judgement available somewhere ? Apokrif (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Found [4] Apokrif (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Page on Criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders

I propose the making of a separate page on the Criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders of which the first sessions will start at the Amsterdam Court next week, January 20th. No doubt much will be written about it, of which a substantial part might in itself be important enough to be included here on Wikipedia, but in the meantime that should not dominate this page on Wilders himself. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will start that page on the Criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders one of these days. --JanDeFietser (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for all your work in this area! Dawnseeker2000 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

De nada. This work is not too difficult, so far. The importance of this topic is not be underestimated, however. I am not in a hurry. The next session of the Amsterdam Court in the prosecution of Wilders will be on February 3. Then, I expect the beginning of a series of publications and comments, especially on the utterings of the witnesses for Wilders' defense, IF the Court sustains to hear these witnesses.

A (first) verdict from the rechtbank (court) in Amsterdam might be expected middle or end of 2010. If that verdict turns out to be a conviction of Geert Wilders for one of the more facts that were mentioned in the summons, if proven and punishable, then he, and also the Officier van Justitie (District Attorney) can both appeal against this conviction at a superior court or gerechtshof. Also if Wilders might be acquitted, an appeal by the public prosecutor is possible.

If that superior court might uphold a conviction, Wilders as well as the public prosecution can then both appeal at the Hoge Raad or Dutch Supreme Court. Note that the Dutch Supreme Court does NOT judge about the proven facts, but solely on strict legal matters. By then, it might be 2012 in the meantime.

If necessary, the Hoge Raad can order another gerechtshof to handle the case. Finally, Wilders can address the European Court, which will then be somewhen after 2012. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow, after adjourning since January 20, the Amsterdam Court will resume its proceedings against Geert Wilders to rule on the charges to be heard before the court and the number of witnesses to be called. The public prosecutor wants only Wilders to be questioned. The defence lawyer Bram Moszkowicz asked the court to hear 17 expert witnesses: among them are legal scholars, Islam experts and several radical Muslims, including Mohammed Bouyeri, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for assassinating Dutch film maker and Islam critic Theo van Gogh in November 2004.

Wilders already denied all charges. He claims that although his statements may sometimes be bold, he merely uses his right to freedom of expression, and does not discriminate against Muslims, but merely expresses his concern about the "islamization" of the Netherlands, which in his view "opposes freedom." Almost 6 % of the Netherlands' 16.5 million inhabitants are Muslims. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pressmulti

Hipocrite (talk · contribs) is trying to make a point, by this removals. He should discuss it at the appropriate pages before doing this kind of deletions. Interested parties can take a look at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_by_Dmcq. Nsaa (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs aren't press sources. Somone keeps pointing me at blogs being hyped-up as press sources. I remove them when I find them. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary. If you read our WP:RS you see that our policy even states that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". I.e. blogs can be defined as even reliable source! As long as the blog is under editorial control, it's published under a newspaper it's part of the press. Nsaa (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you alledge that Pajamas media is a newspaper? I'll donate $1,000 to the charity of your choice for a copy of the physical masthead. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Will both of you please stop exporting your personal climate change related disputes to unrelated articles? By "please" I mean "discuss the template with the editors here or be blocked for edit warring". Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

claimed travels

wilders claims that he traveled from israel to syria, iran, etc. this is unlikely as an israeli stamp in his passport would prevent him from legal entry. it should be noted that other than as a rhetorical device to further malign those societies and praise israel's repressive policies, he has no evidence of such.. it's probably another of his fabrications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.88.100 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

article smears israelis/jews

i've fixed some things in the article as previous version implied that _all_ israelis and jews share wilders' hatred of islam and muslims. this is simply not true. the israeli POV he supports is that of the far right in israel; most jews and probably most israelis view wilders' views as abhorrent and dangerously similar to that of people who've targeted jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.88.100 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you are removing, but it's sourced. Do not replace it with unsourced information. Jarkeld (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

repeated claims that _all_ Israelis share wilders opinions re: Islam. That's _not_ sourced. So removed it. If you can find a source showing 100% of Israelis 'hate Islam', etc, please share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.88.100 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The portions of text you remove do not seem to make that claim. Jarkeld (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

HUH?????????? We must be on different planets. I'm on the one where _all_ people are equal. 98.88.88.100 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the text? Your claims are not backed up by the sections you edited. Jarkeld (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dyed

Would be interesting if this article, apart from mentioning that the person it's about doesn't have natural blond hair, would also inform about when and why he dyed his black hair blond.VKing (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A picture of Wilders. http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hpdetijd.nl/images/2009-09/wilders_smoking.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2009-09-02/de-wilde-haren-jonge-jaren-van-geert-wilders&usg=__cRhDEWhuhL1qX1nKf8pWcsjq3pk=&h=720&w=1280&sz=459&hl=nl&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ItsJ-GUpEa1epM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=227&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWilders%2Bjongere%2Bjaren%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:nl:official%26biw%3D1104%26bih%3D452%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=118&vpy=98&dur=121&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=175&ty=92&ei=ZK17TKCxMM_14Ab_yuDrBQ&oei=ZK17TKCxMM_14Ab_yuDrBQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

He has brown or light brownish hair and not black.Noordin28 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning: "Anti-Wilders Hyve" calls up to edit Wikipedia

Opponents of Geert Wilders in The Netherlands call up to edit the Wikipedia pages on Geert Wilders and the PVV. See Anti-Wilders hyves. See esp. "Help mee maak de Engelse Wikipedia-artikelen accuraat" (Dutch) --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Early life and career

In Early life and career, we find this:

Anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen analyses Wilders' Eastern heritage with the concept of displacedness, and classifies his standpoints as "post-colonial revanchism". This analysis is met with agreement in Indo communities.

I think psychoanalyses should be avoided in a bio, especially by people who've not had Wilders on the couch. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.74.219 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That section has always seemed strange to me. Is Wilders Indo or was his mother a Dutch woman who lived in Indonesia? - Schrandit (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can any one provide and info on whether or not he is indo? He really doesn't look it to me but what would I know. - Schrandit (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilder's mother's mother was apperently Jewish Indonesian. I don't see the relevance, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.152.126 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

From the intro, pronunciation produces this?: Geert Wilders (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɣeːrt ˈʋɪldərs];
I'd say: why not a voice? Jee. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Most dutch people pronounce a w labiodentally, not labiovelarly. They'd say [ˈɣeːɹt ˈʋɪldəɹs]. (Approximating the r!) But, being from the south east, Wilders does not speak like most dutchmen. Perhaps the author was describing how Wilders pronounces his name? In that case, [r] and [w] may be more appropriate. (But I am in the fortunate position of not having to listen to Mr Wilders a lot.) 129.27.152.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Wilders will never become prime minister

The sentence: "Wilders' gains toward becoming next Dutch prime minister according to polls in March 2010[14]" in the intro makes no sense. It cites an article which says that 25% of ALEMERE INHABITANTS want him as prime minister. not 25 of the dutch population. second, even if he would have 25 % of the votes. he would probably not become prime minister because he'd need the support of approx 2 other parties to become prime minister, and he won't get that. The best he can get right now is not even being in the government, but having a supporting role for the government. This sentence is thus very misleading.--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lede that is for sure, actually it is dated and more of a fantasy than an opinion, here it is, perhaps the second part can be added somewhere in the body of the article but the first part is imo just not reflective of present citable reality, even the second part is only conserns and sure some people are conserned but we don't imo need to report everyones conserns, if something was to actually happen that was clearly linked to Wilders then wait and report thatOff2riorob (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wilders' gains toward becoming next Dutch prime minister according to polls in March 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/geert-wilders-pvv-holland-netherlands have triggered concerns of political violence in the Netherlands or against Dutch nationals according to the country's National Anti-terrorism Coordinator.http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-elections-greater-terrorism-threat

wants the Koran banned

This addition from a BBC cite is a bit unexplained, where does he want the Koran banned from? The world, the library? When did he say this and in what context, if it is to be included even though it is in a BBC article it still needs some context. Without any context it is unexplained and taken out of situation and carries undue weight and as it is would be much better explained or removed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• "where does he want the Koran banned from?" The Netherlands, see ref 38 "Dutch extreme-right MP calls for Koran ban". European Jewish Press. Agence France-Presse and ref 27 "Death Threats Greet Dutch Lawmaker's Call to Ban the Koran". Cnsnews.com.
• "When did he say this and in what context" Sources don't usually mention this presumably because he has said it many times in many contexts including via a proposed NL parliamentary resolution.
• "carries undue weight" Sources usually include this piece of information in their descriptions of his views.

Random examples

• Reuters Wilders, the political heir to populist Pim Fortuyn who was killed in 2002, wants to ban face veils and the Koran, as well as shut down Islamic schools in the Netherlands,
• The Christian Science Monitor Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who advocates banning the Quran
• Reuters Canada Geert Wilders, whose party wants to end all non-Western immigration, ban the Quran and expel Muslims from the country

I assume it is in the lead per WP:LEAD since it is a) notable according to sources and b) present in the Public reception section. I don't know how long it has been in the lead. I reverted its removal not because I support its presence but because the reason for its removal according to the edit summary was contradicted by many easily found reliable sources including sources already in the article. So, should it be in the lead ? It definitely needs some context/elaboration/explanation as you say but that should be in the article body rather than the lead. I think a single sentence along the lines of the existing sentence ("He advocates banning the Qur'an... etc") summarizing his main political positions in the lead makes sense although it should say "in the Netherlands". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So he wants it banned, only from the Netherlands, did he say why? Also, ban the Koran is a great rhythmic headline, but you know the press and Chinese whispers and headlines. if he says it so much, could you please link me to a link where the words are in quotations, that would clear things up a bit for me. Have you got a link to the parliamentary resolution he allegedly proposed in regard to the banning of the Koran in the Netherlands? As for undue weight, the claim was stated as if global and was unexplained as to his reasons, these missing details give the undue weight. If he really says it a lot then fine but I have yet to be shown that to be citable as a quote.Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he did say why. Some of his reasons are in the Geert_Wilders#Views_on_Islam section including a quote "The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order".[85] via Radio Netherlands. Or read the (Guardian interview) for his reasons, he thinks it's facist "I want the fascist Koran banned", he doesn't like it "I hate their book", he thinks it causes violence/intolerance "what's written in the Koran is giving incentives to people all over the world." or (Haaretz), he thinks it is "the Mein Kampf of today", this last argument being the basis of his call for its banning since Mein Kampf is banned in NL. If you want to see more than his one liners for the press you'll probably have to read his website or watch his Fitna (film). I'm not planning to do either. I don't have a link to the parliamentary resolution which will be in Dutch but here he is saying "So I did introduce a parliamentary resolution to outlaw the Koran in the Netherlands, but that resolution was rejected by the majority." The sentences that precede that one elaborate on his Mein Kampt argument. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the most direct source, a blog entry from 2007 http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1117 220.237.157.5 (talk)proto —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

And here's a compilation of citable quotes produced by the BBC yesterday. It would have helped if they had provided sources and dates but that information isn't required by BLP policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image crop needed

The image used in the infobox should be replaced with a cropped version of the same. --darolew (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I can do it if it would be better. The prev pic was a few months newer, but not so much as to make much difference, I will crop it and have a look if its ok -  Done- Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

atheist agnostic or not much bothered

An IP altered without explanation that he is agnostic not atheist, it appears uncited? ... the IP has cited it to a clear self declaration from the subject, wilders -I am an agnostic ... so I have added him to the Category:Dutch agnostics Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original translated article from NRC Handelsblad. Dawnseeker2000 17:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There can be no stronger citation than the self declaration of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mobile version

The mobile version of this article begins (falsely and outrageously Geert Wilders (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɣeːrt ˈʋɪldərs]; born September 6, 1963) is a Dutch Nazi politician and leader. Somebody should fix it. Andygx (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indo people

I just removed this categorization, indo people the cat itself is in need of a description so that people know what adding the cat represents. I think he disputes this and the term is considered a bit derogatory, anyway I bring it here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It says this, Wilders' mother was born in Sukabumi, Indonesia which was then part of Dutch East Indies , it seems to be presented as a simple fact but the attribution in the title is that it is according to some unnamed indies immigrants I can't listen to the talk or whatever it is as it is unaccessible to me. 'http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants. Are there other quality citations that support who and where and what his parents were/are? Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The link saying he is indo is dead. Does anyone have a source? - Schrandit (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Indonesians or Dutch Jews that lived in Indonesia? - Schrandit (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can go to: http://archieven.blogspot.com/2008/03/kwartierstaat-geert-wilders.html Is a part of his genealogy but its in Dutch.

His grandmother was a Dutch Eurasian/mixed-blood from the Dutch East Indies, they were called Indo-Europeans because of their status,background,culture and their Dutch nationality. They were Dutch/Europeans with Asian/Indonesian blood and not Indonesians with Dutch/European blood. Also the grandmother belongs to an old Eurasian family.They had a high social standing unlike ordinary Dutch Eurasians. So,i think its better to use notable than famous: "his wife was of a famous"

Presumably they were Dutch Jews that converted to Catholicism and moved to the Dutch-Indies probably generaties ago(or converted in the Dutch Indies to Catholicism?) This Indo-European or Dutch Eurasian family began/started when a male ancestor of Geert Wilders had a relationship with an Indonesian/Asian woman 6/7 generaties ago.His offspring became Dutch Indo-europeans because he acknowledge them as his own.His children or this Dutch Eurasian family will only marry other Indo-Europeans/Eurasians or Europeans/Dutch. Noordin28 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would you presume that his maternal ancestors were Jews who converted to Catholicism? Looking at the family tree, I can see nothing that looks like Jewish ancestry. His grandmother's maiden name, "Meijer", is a common ethnic Dutch name (the U.S. supermarket Meijer was started by a Dutch immigrant of the same name). "Ording", "Hoolhorst", "Maat", "Koppers", and "Visscher" (his mother's ancestors) are all non-Jewish Dutch names as well. Looking at his father's ancestry, it appears that Wilders' speculation that he was part Jewish isn't on the money either - nothing but non-Jewish Dutch names on that side, too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ording was Wilders grandfather,he married his grandmother(Meijer).His grandfather was a non-Jewisch Dutchman from the city Utrecht.The names Hoolhorst,Maat,Koppers are all from his side and not from the Meijers, they are all Dutch names.

The name Meijer is also used by many Jews or of Jewish ancestry.The name Canter Visscher is actually a Frisian name from the Dutch province Friesland.Canter Visscher married Elisabeth Bachet and this Bachet was from the family Goldman.Their daughter(Johanna Maria Canter Visscher) was the mother of the grandmother of Wilders.The Goldman's were orignally Jews from Prussia(Germany)Noordin28 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you know this Elisabeth Bachet had any connection to a family named "Goldman"? It's not stated in the genealogy link. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

this discussion is simply ridiculous. i like this part: [... were Dutch/Europeans with Asian/Indonesian blood and not Indonesians with Dutch/European blood...]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.151.99.125 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what i actually meant by that. Its only ridiculous if your ignorant to the Colonial history of the Dutch-Indiës,esp that of the Indo-Europeans(Eurasians) Also this discussion is about Geert Wilders Eurasian/Indo-European family, based on facts.

In the Dutch-Indiës you had basically 2 groups the Europeans/Dutch and the Indonesians people.The children of mixed blood acknowledge by their Dutch/European father or out of a mixed marriages, belonged officially to the European group.In the Dutch-Indiës they were called Indo-Europeans,having the Dutch citizenship or in some cases the status.If someone isn't acknowledge by the father or out of a marriage then they were simply an Indonesian just like their mother.Like the mother they would not have the social status of European,no Dutch nationality,etc.

Out of this distiction(including othr factors)the people ofmixed blood became more European than Indonesian.What was at first distinctively Indonesian-Dutch/European, became about the end of 19th century more and more Dutch/European with some Indonesian parts or qualities.

Of the Dutch/European Colonial society in the Indonesian archipelago, +/-75% were Europeans of mixed blood; the Indo-Europeans.

Basically the European society consist of the "white Europeans" and the "Europeans of color" or mixed blood(Indo-Europeans).But within this European group the Dutch/Europeans were usually at the top layer of the Eur society and not the Indo-Europeans.The Dutch did their best to keep it that way.Only a small group of mixed blood did reach or belonged to that layer.This is true for Geert Wilders family and other well-established families of mixed blood.Noordin28 (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dutch-Eurasian roots of grandmother being removed from the Early life section?

"Wilders' mother was born in Sukabumi, Indonesia which was then part of Dutch East Indies. Wilders' maternal grandparents eventually became displaced in the Netherlands, and Wilders visited them often until they died when he was a teenager"

The part of Wilders having a Dutch-Eurasian Grandmother(also mother) or roots was removed. Why do you mention Wilders visiting his displaced grandparents until they died? Is it that important? And displaced?were they Indonesians of kolonials,etc? If you remove the Dutch-Eurasian info, then please, remove this also, because the Dutch-Eurasian grandmother and especially the kolonial Dutch society(Indisch-Nederlands) where the grandmother comes from and also the same society the grandfather was used to(he was originally from Holland the Netherlands) explains why they were displaced. Noordin28 (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Where is this cited from? It is very weakly cited the link shows nothing, we need a stronger source for this, I removed it untll we have a WP:RS - I think the title of this dead link, who is reporting this? Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilders' mother was born in Sukabumi, Indonesia which was then part of Dutch East Indies. Wilders' maternal grandparents eventually became displaced in the Netherlands, and Wilders visited them often until they died when he was a teenager. http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants| title = Geert Wilders is one of us, say Indies immigrants | date = 4 September 2009 | accessdate = 16 Oct. 2009 | publisher=Radio Netherlands Worldwide | first = Perro | last = de Jong

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6KQxXcbP9lUJ:www.rnw.nl/africa/article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants+article/geert-wilders-one-us-say-indies-immigrants&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.nl Noordin28 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kopvoddentax

The artikel asserted that the dutch "kop" in "kopvoddentaks" is usually used for the head of an animal and it is considered disrespectful when used for the head of a human. This is incorrect as "kop" as used here is just an informal word for "head" and using the word this way doesn't refer in any way to animals. See for example "knappe kop" which means "genius". De authoritative "Van Dale" dictionary confirms this. If anyone wants to revert the change please produce some evidence. Topdown (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference.--Patrick (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good link. De writer is clearly not a friend of Wilders and in his critical analysis there is no mention of animals. So in that sense it supports my argument. Dickhead is a pejorative term, head on its own is not. Kopvod is a pejorative term, kop on its own is not. Does anyone really think that "hoofdvod" as opposed to "kopvod" would have been an improvement? ('Hoofd' is the more formal dutch name for human head.) Topdown (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Funding and support from Zionist/Jewish groups and individuals

Nothing about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernkoler (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Radical Zionist groups backing him include the Jewish Task Force (JTF), set up by Chaim Ben Pasach, Pamela Geller who is also a director of a group called Stop the Islamisation of America (SIOA). Wilders' Zionist support does not end there; he is also backed financially by Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, an organisation that is currently helping Wilders with his legal fees. Wilders is basically part of the Zionist machine.

Partial Dutch/Indonesian mother?

Someone who's partial Dutch/Indonesian or of mixed blood is called an eurasian or Dutch eurasian.

She's part Dutch(father) and part 'Dutch' Eurasian(mother). So, she's a Dutch Eurasian of the Dutch-Indiës(Indonesia) I say Dutch because generally speaking the Eurasians of colonial Indonesia would have the Dutch nationality or status. They were officially Europeans, were called the Indo Europeans. You can say that Wilders his mother,grandmother and his greatgrand parents are Indo-Europeans, but most people do not know what that means, so Eurasian would be much better. Noordin28 (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The source for this doesn't seem very reliable. It cited an unnamed genealogist. Even look at some of this genealogy, it doesn't look like any of his ancestors were actually of Indonesian descent, just born there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

+++Is it even necessary to point this out? If it isn't 100% fact then it shouldn't be listed. Doesn't seem neutral to me, with the nature of his views it seems like a statement trying to discredit him.+++ -WAA

• I have to disagree with WAA, how can his being 'Dutch-East Indies'/Eurasian be used to discredit him!? That seem racist in and of itself to me!?! *confused* Noble Korhedron 21:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron (talk • contribs)

All Hallow's Wraith, Normally all Eurasians of the Dutch colonial society in the Dutch East Indies had Dutch or European names and surnames. They were also registrated as Europeans. You need to look at the maternal ancestor/mother. The maternal ancestor/mother were registrated as 'natives'or Indonesians/Asians. In the case of Geert Wildes grandmother it was 6/7 generaties ago.

http://www.pentalpha.nl/Meijer.htm Its in Dutch. By Rob van de Ven Renardel de Lavalette, (also an Eurasian) family of Geert Wilders grandmother through his mother's side.

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/nieuws/article/detail/1144820/2009/06/20/Wilders-rsquo-overgrootmoeder-was-moslim-of-boeddhist.dhtml

An article in Dutch, by a Geneologist De Neve. He wrote about the Eurasian family of Wilders grandmother came about 6 generaties ago, when his European paternal ancestor had children with an Indonesian/Asian maternal ancestor. Also the mother of his grandmother was an Eurasian. Noordin28 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)