Talk:Guido Demoor

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Belgium

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

POV Balancing

So, let's have the POV issues. I removed some non-verifiable items that call for me to trust summaries of TV news programs. I question the source of the "showed no remorse" claim. I removed speculation on penalties, since this is a political issue of little bearing here. I don't think Wikipedia is a place for pushing POV about the Belgian criminal justice system. I removed a pure POV claim about the failure to label this crime as racist, especially since it was little more than an opportunity to slag the RTBF. POV doesn't become non-POV by slapping a reference on it. --Diderot 07:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the POV tag can be removed, or not? Intangible 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay with me in the current situation. 1652186 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my rationale for retaining some facts:

Racism tag: whether you like it or not, this sentence only states facts. It has even become a relevant social discussion, see the latest addition.
On who started the violence, in the intro: the lawyer does not deny that the youths kicked Demoor. I also let the lawyer quote look more like a quote than an established fact, and added the quite important note that, as far as we know, the suspect is the only one who gives this version of the facts.
Belien: of course Belien is POV, but that is not a problem for an external link.

1652186 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I changed the word "Moroccan" to read "North African" since I strongly doubt anyone has looked up the immigration files of the parents or grandparents of anyone involved to see which country they immigrated from. I changed the wording about the RTBF to reflect that some person on the news said it, and not that the channel itself is necessarily making specific claims. I don't see that the public prosecutor has offered a reason for deciding not to class the case as manslaughter - I should think he has likely done so in response to some preliminary declaration of the cause of death and pending an autopsy, rather than due to media reports as is currently implied, but I'm willing to concede that that is a smaller issue. As such, I'm willing to let the article be in its current form pending new information. --Diderot 10:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the VRT said it were 5 Belgians of Morroccan descent and 1 Spanish from Morrocan descent. Sijo Ripa 12:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, just about every Flemish news bulletin I've read or heard explicitly states Moroccan descent. But North African isn't wrong, so I won't insist. 1652186 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false-friend mistranslation. The English word "Moroccan" refers to people or things that have some connection to Morocco. The Dutch word "Marokkaan" means brown people. Or at least, that's how it usually seems to be in usage, since the word is commonly used, both in the colloquial language and in the press, to refer to Turks, Arabs of any origin, light skinned black people, some Greeks, occasionally Sephardic Jews and even Polish gypsies. Considering the Joe Van Holsbeeck case, I think that off-hand mentions of ethnicity in the Flemish press should be treated as suspect. --Diderot 13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we would follow your opinion, we shouldn't even mention the word "North African" as that was wrongly used in the Joe case. An important difference however is that in the Joe case there were only eyewitnesses and video surveillance which led (wrongly) to the conclusion it were North Africans. However once the police knew who they were, they knew they weren't North Africans, but Polish Roma's. Now that they have captured the criminals in the Guido case, they know who they are, and they know for sure what citizenship and ethnic origin they have. If we would mention it solely based on witnesses however it would be wrong. Sijo Ripa 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sijo, the press almost certainly does not know what countries their parents or grandparents immigrated from. They may not know all their names since some of them are minors and therefore subject to press protection. It is very unlikely that the police have asked any of the suspects which countries their ancestors came from. I think it may be illegal for the police to ask a Belgian citizen about their ethnic origin - it is in France. My point is that the Flemish press uses the word "Moroccan" pretty flexibly and has lost a lot of credibility in its reporting of the ethnic origins of criminal suspects. I'd stick with North African, or even Maghrebi, simply because in my experience very few Belgians make any distinction between "Moroccan" and any other North African or even Middle Eastern origin. Until I see reporting that suggests the Flemish media has researched the backgrounds of the suspects, I would consider it most likely that the press is using the label the same way the average Fleming does. If I see that a reporter has talked to the kids' family or friends, and then tells me he's of Moroccan origin, then I am likely to believe it might actually refer to Morocco. I'd be willing to go with "apparently of North African decent" if you prefer, but while it may well prove true that all the suspects had some Moroccan ancestry, there is no way to be sure of that from the articles sourced. --Diderot 14:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall explicit statements in the media saying that they were from Moroccan descent. Reference them, and they can be included. Intangible 14:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English word "Moroccan" refers to people or things that have some connection to Morocco. The Dutch word "Marokkaan" means brown people. Or at least, that's how it usually seems to be in usage, since the word is commonly used, both in the colloquial language and in the press, to refer to Turks, Arabs of any origin, light skinned black people, some Greeks, occasionally Sephardic Jews and even Polish gypsies.

This is an incredibly racist statement against all Flemings, which makes me seriously doubt your good intentions with this article. Anyway, I added a reference, and if you do not accept that, the 'factual accuracy' tag goes on it. Remember Wikipedia: No original research? 1652186 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see I've touched a nerve. Good. Welcome to what Flanders looks like when you're an allochtoon. Words have meaning because of the way people use them, and that's exactly how the word "Marokkaan" gets used in Flanders. No different from the way Americans can't ever seem to work out that Guatemalans aren't Mexicans, except that their newspapers are little more careful about it than in Flanders. I didn't say that in the article, but I do think that some knowledge of the world, and the tendencies in it, should inform the degree to which a media claim is accepted as truth.

Seems to me Wikipedia also has a policy of "no personal attacks". You've flitted pretty close to the line there, buddy. And on racism, you are not one to talk.

As for their Moroccan origins, looks like HLN today has enough specific information to enjoy the benefit of the doubt in its reporting on their personal circumstances. I won't object to "Moroccan origin". --Diderot 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I didn't attack you, I attacked what you said. 'No personal attacks' doesn't mean that you can say anything you want about non-Wikipedians without being summoned. 1652186 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlaams Belang?

Why is the site of the Vlaams Belang included as a reference, I thought sources had to be objective. Also, can something be included on the version of the six suspects, who say Demoor attacked them first. --Ganchelkas 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well including political reactions is not my cup of tea, but there seems to be no wikipedia consensus on this, see Hans Van Themsche. But as such it is entered here, is see no further problem with referencing it to Vlaams Belang. The version of the the six suspects is already entered in the article, see the advocate's reaction in text.

I admit that this is quite unconventional, though it is to reference a fact that is mentioned nowhere else. I do trust the accuracy of facts that Vlaams Belang presents (though obviously their interpretation can be seen as POV), since it has never been proven otherwise, which I believe would happen immediately if they were found to be lying. The suspect version is already in the article, it's even longer than the conventional one. 1652186 18:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you presume that the Vlaams Belang speaks the truth until proven otherwise? Shouldn't you presume that the Vlaams Belang is wrong unless they prove the factual accuracy of what they say (which they rarely do BTW)? You should be critical about sources, especially those of political parties. Anyway, the main problem I have with the reference to the article on the site of the Vlaams Belang is that it is only vaguely related to the case of Guido Demoor. It says that the "problems" with "immigrant youths" are much greater than the government supposedly wants to make us believe. That's just propaganda and in no way is the information reliable.

And the bit on the "intimidation" by immigrant youths. I've read in reliable sources that their community was outraged by those slogans, but I didn't find anything on intimidation or riots, because the website of the Vlaams Belang speaks of "opstootjes" (small riots). --Ganchelkas 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that if Vlaams Belang states something that can be factually proven wrong, many people would be glad to do so. And indeed, it's those small riots I'm referring to. If you want to replace intimidation by small riots, be my guest. 1652186 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant, the only source stating there were "small riots" I found was the site of the Vlaams Belang, which is not at all a reliable source. --Ganchelkas 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Total dispute"-tag

I have inserted the "total dispute"-tag. Acoording to the latest press coverage, the six youths had not much to do with Demoor's death. "If Demoor had missed his bus, and had had to run for it, he would have had an equal chance to have died." Demoor was the first to have used violence, and the authopsie hardly showed any violence from the boys on his body, and certainly not heavy enough to cause death.

I'll propose some alterations to the article later today. --LucVerhelst 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What press coverage? Nothing in De Morgen, De Standaard or De Tijd...What is this Humo article all about? Who's talking in it? The youths? The lawyer of the youths? The medical examiner? Intangible 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promised not to react in talk pages anymore, and so I managed to take my stand in the edit summary. 1652186 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Humo is part of the press, you know. And being a weekly, it has more time to take some distance, to investigate deeper, and to uproot some facts that dailies don't have the time or the resources for.

Anyway, let's see what happens in the daily press when the final report from the coroner is ready. --LucVerhelst 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still that doesnt explain who are talking there in the Humo article...Intangible 14:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Humo article apparently is based on interviews with the boys' lawyers, which apparently were verified with the judicial file from the prosecutor's office, an interview with a "gerechtelijke bron" ("judicial source"), press clippings, the police reports and own research. Most of the Humo article already was published on the politics.be website. --LucVerhelst 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the small piece I saw of the article, I cannot see how you could possible justify putting a "totally disputed" tag on this article, unless the standard has become that all Wikipedia articles should be written according to whatever is said in a Humo article. Intangible 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so predictable.

I put the total dispute tag up, because

the factual accuracy of the article was compromised, since the new information -which contradicts most of what was published in the press the days following the incident- from the police investigations and the first and preliminary second coroner's report wasn't incorporated in it.
the article was strikingly unbalanced, depicting the youths of foreign descent as criminals, Guido Demoor as an innocent hero, creating an athmosphere bordering on racism, while in reality the youths may not have been choir boys, but certainly weren't criminals, and Demoor, alledgedly leaning towards the far right, caused much of the incident himself. The article was furthermore unbalanced, because it still depicted the youths as murderers, while it is now clear that what happened in the bus only very indirectly had an influence on the death of Demoor. In his condition, he might just as well have died in any other stressful situation.

--LucVerhelst 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you provide direct quotes here from the Humo article about the "new information." Intangible 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion, but I don't think so. I have other things to do, apart from Wikipedia.

If you want to use this to declare the source illegitimate : sources "need not be online; availability through a library is sufficient." (WP:RS). If you want to fight my sources, please go to a news stand or a library.

Anyway, I already incorporated part of the new info in the article, and will continue later.--LucVerhelst 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I revert back to a sane version. I don't feel like 'rewriting history' just based on Humo. Intangible 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And about WP:RS, you try to refute something I do not claim. Intangible 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert back. As per WP:DR : "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

--LucVerhelst 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to, you started rewriting this article from scratch without any talk page discussion. Intangible 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And completely following Wikipedia rules, doing it. Please revert back.--LucVerhelst 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reverting, I am not sure how a Wikipedia editor can justify rewriting an article from scratch just by putting a disputed template at the start of the article. You should first have defended your disputed template before making those leaping edits. I just restored the article in order to have at least a basis for which a sane discussion can be held here. Intangible 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:BOLD out, will you: "If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it. That's the nature of a Wiki. Many new contributions are lost from the system with straight deletes but that loss adds to the sharpness of the medium. In time too much information will overwhelm the deleters and subtlety will be left in." Please revert back.--LucVerhelst 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to say that the article was inferior here [1]. Intangible 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Shall we seek a third opinion ? Please revert back.--LucVerhelst 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can always put forth a WP:RFC somewhere. Intangible 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the article, I suggest meditation. In the meanwhile, it should stay as Intangible restored it (with the tag added), since Luc started the edit war without rationale. As far as in reality the youths may not have been choir boys, but certainly weren't criminals, and Demoor, alledgedly leaning towards the far right, caused much of the incident himself is concerned, this pretty much summarizes everything I've tried to show about Belgium in the past few months: people who beat somebody up (resulting in death) are not criminals, but somebody who is attacked by foreigners must be, because the only lead can be that he was a racist. Nice going, this quote goes in my diary. I think this is even a better way to conclude my Wikipedia career than Sunday's. 1652186 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It certainly wasn't me who tried to start an edit war. I was just editing the article. My edits were plainly reverted, and I refrained from reverting them back. I prevented an edit war.

- "...everything I've tried to show about Belgium in the past few months..." : this actually summarises the problem : Wikipedia is not for show things about Belgium, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you want to convince people of something, please start a web log, or participate in a forum.

- "people who beat somebody up (resulting in death) are not criminals" : the facts as known at the moment are that Demoor was not "beaten up", but started a fight were he received some bruises, and that his death wasn't a result of the fight itself (that he started) but of his poor medical condition. --LucVerhelst 15:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calmness please

This page has been protected as a result of edit-warring over differing depictions of events. Please, while remaining civil, enumerate specific changes you wish to see in the current text, together with citations for each change.

Please also feel free to indicate any unsourced statements that you feel warrant removal. Xoloz 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the first paragraphs of the article (everything before the "Investigation" section) as follows : Guido Demoor/Proposal. Citations are provided, argumentation is as per above. --LucVerhelst 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What news? See also [2]. Your source is full of statements of the youths or their lawyers. Hardly neutral thus at this time in the procedure. Might I add that there are still people incarcerated here! Intangible 22:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided two, not one, sources, one from Humo, one from Politics.be.

My Humo source is a journalistic article, thoroughly checked by its author, based on interviews and written official documents.

The sources upon which the present article is based consist largely of loosely assembled quotes, hear-say and speculations. --LucVerhelst 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should just wait until judicial procedures are over. No other media outlet in Belgium has found it necessary to react on the Humo or Politics.be piece. That says enough. Intangible 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think they would have, if the Humo and Politics.be info was blatantly wrong ? --LucVerhelst 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was blatantly wrong it is best not to be talked about. Intangible 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources to support that claim ? --LucVerhelst 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a TV magazine for pete's sake! Intangible 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a TV magazine, with a journalistic section and a media and entertainment section. It has quite a reputation for publishing journalistic articles and series that go a bit deeper than the other mainstream media.

As you well know. I have the impression that you are trying to misguide (english language) readers that don't know the situation. Are you ? --LucVerhelst 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, do you have suggestions to find a middle ground between my proposal and the present text ? --LucVerhelst 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions, anyone ? --LucVerhelst 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait and see what happens next. There are still two people incarcerated. Wait before De Tijd or De Standaard write about it again. Intangible 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why these two newspapers ? --LucVerhelst 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because these are no rags. Intangible 16:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a problem using "rags" to source the version of the story that you think is the truth, then ? --LucVerhelst 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though Humo perhaps isn't a neutral source, I don't think that this article reflects the current uncertainties about the involvement of the six youngsters. For example, the article still stresses too much that Demoor died because of the fight ( a fight that's barely a fight according to the authopsy and could even be considered self-defence), while several sources claim the heart-attack probably was caused by himself (in the sense that he worked himself up)--Maraud 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't happen to have other sources than those we already have in the article, do you ? They would be most welcome.

--LucVerhelst 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doublechecking my sources, it seems they either refer to humo or non-verifiable sources (read: they're bs). But I still feel this isn't NPOV, as it has a distinctive anti-youngsters approach while their's and Demoor's involvement are very ambigious --Maraud 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a proposal on the way the article could become more NPOV ? --LucVerhelst 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New try

I reworked my proposal, trying to make it as NPOV as possible, giving both the initial press releases as the youths' lawyers version.

See Guido Demoor/Proposal.

What do you think ? Please, feel free to edit constructively. --LucVerhelst 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Xoloz to lift the protection on the page, in order to be able to implement the proposed changes, as of 22:00 tonight. Any objections ? --LucVerhelst 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Xoloz beat me to it, and replaced the article by my proposal page, merging both pages' history. --LucVerhelst 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Interesting note, the lawyer of the two youths still incarcerated stated that a causal relationship between the youths handling of Demoor en Demoor getting a hemorrhage can not be ruled out (De Standaard, Sep 30). This goes to show that one should not try to rewrite Wikipedia articles just based on what statements defense lawyers make. Intangible 23:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence

A sentence of two years was handed down today for the youth who kicked Demoor.[3] I put a POV tag to article, because it needs a major revision. Intangible2.0 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please address this? I cannot read the source, but this seems like a routine update and is not a NPOV issue. - Roy Boy 17:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually look at the article history is POV tag, "Final court ruling" seems to have fixed the issue. Removing tag. - Roy Boy 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Guido Demoor. 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) 12:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]