Jump to content

Talk:Heleen Mees/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Fundraising

Theobald Tiger and Bilby: The paragraph on fundraising needs to be deleted. In the interview Mees only says that she helped the Clinton campaign to organize events for fundraising. Being a fundraiser (i.e. bundler) has an entirely different meaning in the United States. As a foreign national Mees probably is not even allowed to: http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#Can_nonUS_citizens_contribute. Philimona (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant section in the interview reads (translated by me):
(...)
[Q] So you are an entrepeneur, writer, activist and, on top of that, you are also working for the campaign of Hillary Clinton. How did you get there [became involved in the campaign]?
[A] She asked me. Yes, not Hillary herselves, but a friend who is working there. I participate in the fundraising in New York and I am one of the volunteers who collect money for her campaign. In America it is not the government who is funding election campaigns; that should be organized by the candidates themselves. We organize events in which she presents herself, and we manage the relation with rich people who are willing to support her. We have collected quite a huge amount of money.
[Q] Thanks to you Hillary is able to carry on a succesful campaign?
[A] Yes, also thanks to me.
(...)
Questions are marked by [Q] and italicized, answers by [A] and written in Roman type. The questions are asked by Carrie ten Napel, the answers are given by Heleen Mees, audience and language are Dutch.
Is it really the best way to move forward when administrators carry out the requests of an obvious sockpuppet of Bmwz3hm who has done hardly anything but behaving in an uncivilised way, carrying on personal attacks and introducing COI's here?
What in my opinion now ought to be done with priority is the following: Bmwz3hm puts a request for being unblocked on her talk page by promising never to make use of sockpuppets again, and by promising with respect to the Mees and Buiter articles to restrict herself to suggestions on the talk page. (Mees' imago is not of any interest to us, but, of course, facts matter, and we have to observe the guidelines governing the biographies of living persons.) By proceeding in this way, Bmwz3hm is able to let others correct obvious errors. My suggestion would be that as long as Bmwz3hm is not prepared to do this, no one will respond to the comments of any of her sockpuppets and no administrator will carry out any of the sockpuppets' requests. If I am offending the policies of en.wiki by my suggestion, I apologize in advance. In that unhoped-for case, I hope your suggestions will be better than mine. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Philimona is now blocked as a sock--I thought they were blocked already, much earlier; guess I misremembered. I only just now saw the fundraising thing, and I urge editors to take the above request seriously, even if only to counter it properly. (I can't say that I see it as very problematic, but I haven't read the source yet and it may well hinge on what is called "fundraising" in its modern usage.) There is activity on the SPI, where Callanecc just endorsed CU. If Bmwz3 is reading this, I would urge them to stop this socking around; it does no one any favors, least of all Mees. I doubt that the Bmw account would ever be unblocked, but they could, in principle, place a "help me" request there. (See Template:Help me.)
    But, in all this excitement, let's not forget that whatever Bmw and their socks are doing, we are still dealing with a BLP here, and I've made some edits (check the history) that I think are in keeping with the letter and the spirit of our policy. Having said that, I encourage the oversight of experienced editors and administrators. After all, I feel kinship with the subject, given that we were both born in the same very good year. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
We give second chances to editors all the time. If a blocked editor is willing to stop the disruption that led to a block, and abide by our policies and guidelines, then we unblock them. Your suggestions above are reasonable. The problem is that Bmwz3hm (to my knowledge) has only shown defiance when accused of disruption. There has been no acknowledgment of wrongdoing on her part, whether that wrongdoing was malicious or due to inexperience. I tried to reach out to her, and many others have as well (this can be extensively shown on this page), but although she has been cooperative to a certain degree now and then she refuses to accept that anything she has done was incorrect. She has instead insisted that she has never edit-warred and only others have done so (despite the fact that edit-warring is a completely objective determination, and the criteria to establish the existence of an edit war has been explained to her). She insists that Mees has been "ganged up on", that "Wikipedia just serves as a platform for men to take women down" and is "quite malignant" where "it is difficult to assume good faith" and under "mob rule", and also insists that others "aren't very knowledgeable" either about Mees or US law. None of this gives me any reason to expect her to agree to behave as asked; why would she start now after already being asked many times by multiple editors and really being given many more chances than an editor should be expected to receive? -- Atama頭 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
And there's always WP:OTRS, right? Drmies (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Just returning to the fundraising issue, I'm not sure if there's a problem with the use of the term "fundraising", but it does look like that might be a case of undue weight to cover it - based on the translation kindly provided above, the most that can be said was that she was a volunteer, but that's not (in itself) a major role. Is there any indication that her role in the campaign was significant? - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This question is not so easy to answer. Allowing for a dozen or two interviews, a couple of reviews, a hundred news items regarding the court case, tens of blogs - some of a malignant, some of a gentle nature - there are no sources covering Mees' biography in a comprehensive and balanced way. In my view (based upon reading of a lot of the aforementioned pieces) the fundraising activities fit well in Mees' so-called 'powerfeminism', the range of her political activities, as well as in her (courageous) undertaking to settle and make a living in New York. With respect to her political activities: she was also president (or vice president) of the PvdA-branch in New York (PvdA is a Dutch political party of social democrats) and spokeswoman for former Secretary of State Willem Vermeend (also a PvdA politician). In 2005 she has published an article with coauthor Rick van der Ploeg, also a former Secretary of State and PvdA politician. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As a section about her political activities would at this stage probably disrupts the article's balance, I have no objection to leave the Hillary Clinton-sentence out. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm's recent edits

I strongly object to Bmwz3hm's recent edit where she undid other people's additions that were sourced. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=prev&oldid=605517759

Bmwz3hm just added (again) that Mees' "work has been published" in the New York Times.

Heleen Mees has never written for the New York Times. Any reader can write in to the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29iht-edletmon.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25iht-edletmon.html

Also, Bmwz3hm edits are totally lacking in consensus. --TheCockroach (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The correct way to say it is: Heleen Mees work has been published in The New York Times et cetera, which is how it was in the original article. And sure, anybody can write to The New York Times, but not everybody gets published. Bmwz3hm (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Bmwz3hm just re-added "Mees was Adjunct Associate Professor of Economics at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service until July 2013." to the lede. It's not important enough to stick in the lede. Mees only worked at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service from September 2012 to July 2013, and Mees isn't known for that anyway. As talked about in this talk page (where you can click on the sources), she is best known for her feminist writing. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
If Mees had not been arrested in July 2013 (on charges that are now set for dismissal), she would still be teaching economics at NYU. Bmwz3hm (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, Mees is not best known for her feminist writing. Foreign Policy, NYU, Capital et cetera invited her for her writings on economic issues, not feminist issues. In the world outside the Netherlands nobody ever cited Mees feminist views in an article as being of interest. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Where is your source for the claim that "Foreign Policy, NYU, Capital et cetera invited [Mees] for her writings on economic issues"? And what did they invite Mees to do? --TheCockroach (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
My source is Heleen Mees obviously. NYU invited Mees to teach at NYU (course 'Managing Global Economic Crises'). Foreign Policy invited Mees to write for them (magazine plus online magazine). The German magazine Capital also invited Mees to write for them on economic issues. She is a columnist there now. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Please note that using a person as a source for their own biography is problematic and should be done very carefully and rarely. See WP:BLPSELFPUB, where our policy states:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
So that means that we can use Heleen Mees as a source, but only under the circumstances listed above. If it violates any of those 5 criteria it is unacceptable. -- Atama頭 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that is perfectly reasonable. I only refer to Mees as a source on the talk page. The fact that Mees writes and teaches economics instead of women's issues in Foreign Policy, Capital and at NYU is easily verifiable through other sources. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Policy magazine

It looks like Heleen Mees has written four articles for the American magazine Foreign Policy. (It's possible that she has written more that I can't find through Google.)

Should I add that to her Wikipedia article? I ask this in response to user Bmwz3hm's May 10th comments on her talk page.

Mees' writing:

--TheCockroach (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tilburg University faculty

Should I add Category:Tilburg University faculty or is that category not applicable since Mees is no longer a faculty member there? --TheCockroach (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy or convention is on en.wiki (the Dutch policy is much more restrictive), but I have the greatest difficulties to imagine in what way and for whom this category could possibly be of any use. She has been a kind of guest lecturer in Tilburg for a short period of time. (When I said this before, Bmwz3hm scoffed at my assertion: never had Mees given any guest lecture. But it is a well-sourced assertion: Univers - Tilburg University Magazine, 12 November 2010: "The economist, lawyer and publicist will stay in New York, but she will periodically [or regularly] give guest lectures.") Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone has been a faculty member somewhere they still belong in that category. But the question I have is two-fold, I suppose--why would she lie about something like that, as Theobald suggests? And the reference says only "[Mees]] zal regelmatig gastcolleges geven": that she is slated to give guest lectures, not that it actually happened. So maybe she was right. (As for the "what use could it be"--well, this is simply how we do categories. The things that people did remain part of their biography, and by perusing that category one can see who all taught there. We don't remove such categories if people die either.) Drmies (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why she would lie. Bmwz3hm is passim condescending towards others, telling half-truths about her past, and trumpeting about her glory, real or imagined. With respect to the categories: whatever the outcome, I'll not bother about it. The article as it is now, has in my opinion about the right size, and it is as balanced as it could possibly be. Bmwz3hm has certainly no encyclopedic intent: a lot of quacking and howling about issues that have some impact on Mees' public image, but total silence about what was really wrong with the article. So far, Heleen Mees is known in the Netherlands (i) for her provocative, power feminist and - by the way - slightly condescending views on women who work part-time and give breastfeeding, (ii) for her public image as a strong and sexy woman, and (iii) for her role in the conditionally dismissed court case. Outside the Netherlands she has never been particularly well-known, neither to the general public, nor to the specialist community. It's true, Mees' relative anonymity abroad changed a little by the court case; she became for a period of time the protagonist in a glamorous scandal, but if it will turn out to be a change for the better, remains to be seen. But - who knows! Never lose courage! - it might very well be that one day the Buiter episode will appear as a turning point in Mees' curriculum vitae, as a real blessing in disguise. I doubt very much if Heleen Mees would have had a Wikipedia article for her economist achievements alone. To mention every English or French magazine or newspaper that has been so kind and generous as to publish her letter to the editor, her blog piece or her small dissertation offshoot, would be plainly ridiculous. But if someone feels the urge to categorize Heleen Mees as a writer who has published 400 words in Le Monde, be my guest. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Vrouwen moeten nu eindelijk eens echt aan het werk gaan

In the article, we state that "Vrouwen moeten nu eindelijk eens echt aan het werk gaan" is Mees' "first feminist opinion piece". I can't read the article, but as we are linking to the article itself, can we confirm that it states that it is her first feminist opinion piece? - Bilby (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The URL in my edit summary (same article as referred to in the first footnote) links to the article in Vrij Nederland that literally states that it was "her first feminist opinion piece in NRC Handelsblad". Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was asking for. Thank you. However, the previous wording stated that it was "her first article", so this new wording fixes the problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I made a mistake - she has written four or five pieces before that (I just checked it in the Lexis Nexis database). But what makes you encouraging serial sockpuppeteers to continue their disruption, their condescension towards others, their image building activities, their rudeness? There is hardly time left to do anything else than refuting the useless assertions and suggestions of Her Majesty, translating the sources, checking the facts. Something useful has never escaped the hedge of her teeth, but she makes a fuss about the slightest error. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why you feel that removing an error was encouraging sockpuppets. The editor pointed out an error on their talk page, as they are permitted to do, blocked or not. I considered it, felt that they were correct, and acted on it. Nothing more. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Please read the pertinent remarks of WCM on your own talk page carefully. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I did that, and responded to them there. - Bilby (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

[1]


And


However, there is a problem. It names her wikipedia article as the source, so its unreliable to source any of it. WCMemail 15:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Forward

Hey Fluffernutter, I've been looking into this following the edit warring report, and boy is this a complicated (and really not exciting) history. We should clean this up. First of all, the copyvio you noted started here, and this IP, static and blocked a couple of times already, has a clear COI. I won't go as far as to hazard a guess, but this person should not be editing this article or the related one: the very insertion of the Mees website is disruptive enough and marks them as way too involved. Second, Bmwz3hm should not be editing this or the related article anymore: that they're not indef-blocked yet is a miracle. And perhaps someone should open an SPI: I have half a mind of simply indef-blocking the SPIs found in the article history.
Let's see if we can improve this article over the next few days. Mees is still relevant enough to have a decent article; the stalking should be in, even if charges were dismissed, since it's a significant factor in her (Dutch) notability, and the resume (what she wrote articles for etc) should be trimmed considerably. You'll note that I made a couple of edits to the article, back in November 2013--I wish I had noticed at the time that the IP had simply copied and pasted the subject's website. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think we can and should assume that the content was copied from the website, but checking the wayback machine makes this unclear - the version of heleenmees.com in January 2013 was not the same as the content added here a couple of months later, but there is no version of heleenmees.com between then and when the content was added. So I'd rather err on the side of caution and rewrite, but it is possible that the text appeared here first, even if unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:, an SPI case has been opened. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm was mentioned early in the latest AN3 report.[2] There's really nothing much wrong with this revision of the article. It does have some copyvio text that I missed, but it's minor and can easily be fixed. It's the same version that Bmwz3hm claimed "is a vicious character assassination", but I can't see how that is at all even close to true. It's essentially just a more complete bio. And yes, it is a miracle that Bmwz3hm. Multiple 3RR breaches and 2 associated blocks already, copyvios, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, a clear COI problem, WP:OWN; most indef-blocked editors get blocked for far less. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: There are 3 unified accounts that have been socking on multiple wikis and checkuser on nl.wiki has already confirmed this to be the case. I am astounded that no one wants to tackle the blingingly obvious COI, sock puppetry, meat puppetry using twitter, edit warring, copyright violation, personal attacks, multiple blocks etc. Instead of dealing with the problem editor, the editors here have been told to discuss this with the perpetrator. WCMemail 09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I get the impression that Wikipedia/Wikicommons is ruled by mobs instead of governed by rules. If other Wikipedia editors support the original version of the Heleen Mees article, they get accused of sock puppetry and are immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. But editors who revert the original text of the Heleen Mees article to Theobald Tiger's disputed text without any argument or explanation, are just fine. Another example of mob rule, Wikicommons keeps deleting a photo of Heleen Mees even though the photo agency EPA has released it under the required license (cc-by-sa-3.0) and with a statement as demanded by a Wikicommons editor (anyone can reuse the file, including pages like Wikipedia). Bmwz3hm (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies The (dismissed) charges were included in the original text. I just object to the undue (and vicious) references to the charges in Theobald Tiger's text. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Mob rule doesn't even come into it. Your problem is that the editors who support you are accounts that were clearly created just to support you and the evidence supporting the claims against you is overwhelming. We've even had an admin from the Dutch Wikipedia who has confirmed that two of the accounts were confirmed as sockpuppets of yours at the Dutch Wikipedia and a certain Twitter account has thanked someone for making edits in support of you here. As has been explained previously, the image that you uploaded to commons was deleted for quite valid reasons, firstly because it was a copyright violation and then a second and third time because the licensing terms were unnaceptable, as explained in the deletion discussion.[3][4] That you are still defending your actions instead of accepting that they were wrong, even in the face of considerable evidence, is disturbing. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Your viciousness is beyond limits. And you're clearly not up to date regarding the photo. The photo has been released under the required license (cc-by-sa-3.0) and is accompanied by the requested statement from EPA. That the photo has still not been undeleted, is an example of mob rule, as simple as that. Fact is also that other people agree that Theobald Tiger's text (that you co-edited) is a character assassination of Heleen Mees. That doesn't make them sock puppets, just people who disagree with you. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The image was not released freely. It was released for use on Wikipedia on the condition that any use outside Wikipedia required you to pay a license fee. That is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. The people who have agreed with you have been sock and/or meatpuppets regardless of their opinions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, you're clearly not up to date regarding the photo. Check the Wikicommons mailbox. There you find the EPA email confirming that the photo has been released under license cc-by-sa-3.0 and that EPA has given a statement saying that anyone can reuse the file, including pages like Wikipedia. You may also check with JurgenNL. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, it's you who is not up to date regarding the image. As of 28 April 2014, the latest statement is "As long as you pay the license fee, anyone can reuse the attached file, including pages like Wikipedia".[5] That is incompatible with Wikipedia requirements and is clearly not a free release under cc-by-sa-3.0. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
A one time fee, which has already been paid. Therefore everybody - including Wikipedia - is now free to reuse the file without EPA's permission and/or payment. Still the photo has not been undeleted. As I said, Wikipedia is ruled by mobs, not governed by rules. Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication in any of the discussions that I can find that the license has been paid or that it is a one-time fee. After you advised that Heleen Mees would pay the fee, there was further discussion there was further discussion regarding that and it is why it hasn't been undeleted. Please stop saying that Wikipedia is ruled by mobs. We're following the appropriate rules that we have to, despite your protestations. Remember, it is your failure to follow the rules that has gotten us to where we are today. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is ruled by mobs. And you are a fine example. Please note that the people who object to undeleting the photo of Heleen Mees, like Natuur12, are the same as the people who gang up on the Heleen Mees article. Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You really need to stop the paranoia. Nobody is ganging up on anything. Natuur12 is an OTRS member so he can see the email that was sent. Other editors are unable to access the OTRS ticket so they may not have the full picture. Given the information provided, deletion of the image was appropriate and in line with our policies and guidelines. We can't just ignore everything because it's inconvenient for you. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely not paranoia. The entire back and forth over the photo demonstrates that editors at Wikipedia/Wikicommons operate completely arbitrarily. First they demand release of the photo under license cc-by-sa-3.0. Once that is given, they demand an additional statement by EPA. Once that statement is given, they find new objections. The main objection agains the photo of Heleen Mees is that it is really nice, almost iconic, and the Wikipedia article of Heleen Mees may for sure not look nice. It must be as damaging to Heleen Mees as possible, witness the undue and vicious references to the dismissed charges in the text that you co-edited. Some self-reflection would be appropriate at this point. Bmwz3hm (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Bmwz3, I think you should tone down the "mob rule" kind of language. It's called "collaborative editing" and means that decisions on content and policy are reached by consensus. Of course, if it turns out that there are indeed socks editing here (I'm about to look into that), than the irony is that someone was creating a mob to combat what you call "mob rule". I don't have the time or inclination to counter the "arbitrary editing" charge, and self-reflection behooves all of us from time to time. De pot verwijt de ketel dat ie zwart ziet. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Nevermind: I see that Fluffernutter has already placed the indefinite block (on Koninginnedag, nota bene): thank you Fluffernutter. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It well passes the duck test for mob rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.19.191.56 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin note: Bmwz3hm is now indef blocked for unabated disruptive editing and refusal to participate in good-faith discussion. Right now I intend to leave the article full-protected until the open SPI is closed, to avoid socks (if they exist) jumping into things here, and then I'll drop the protection to semi. I would appreciate it if participants here would please not go to the blocked editor's talk page to continue the debate; ideally Bmwz3hm would have a chance to cool down from the dispute/block without immediately losing talk page access in the throes of the same old back-and-forth. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Oops--sorry Fluffernutter, I just changed full to semi, and then I saw your note. I placed a bunch of blocks (see the SPI), and I think this should take care of our problems for now. Thanks for your help here, and my apologies for jumping ahead of you, so to speak. Your note in regard to Bmw3z's talk page is well taken: y'all, there is no sense in further debate, and let me urge you all to continue editing according to the BLP policy. If that means that maybe we should have a debate on the charges and whether they should be listed, so be it. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
She also has a Denmark and Netherlands page that has all the content that was taken off of this entry here, please see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heleen_Mees and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heleen_Mees OnceaMetro (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The abbreviation DE means Deutsch[land] = German[y]. The German text is in some respects more extensive, in some respects clearly outdated. I have made it a bit more up to date. As yet, my edits have not been gesichtet. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Dutch Labour Party

Currently the claim that Mees was vice president of a chapter of the Dutch Labour Party in the US is sourced to http://www.intermediair.nl/carriere/cv-en-sollicitatie/cv-en-sollicitatiebrief/curriculum-vitae-heleen-mees-econoom-publicist-stalker. I'm sure that I'm just missing something, but is it possible to confirm that the source supports this? - Bilby (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it does and anyway that article cannot be used as a source, the article is itself based on this wikipedia article. You'd effectively be citing material using wikipedia itself. Anything cited to this article should be removed. Sorry to those who have added material in good faith. WCMemail 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have replaced the wrong footnote by the right one. Intermediar is a weekly with vacancies and magazine-like background articles, mainly read by academics. But I agree with WCM that the Intermediair-article cannot be used as a source. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Given that Theobald Tiger has pointed out that the PvdA website describes her as Vice President, [6], but that Volkskrant [7] describes her as President, I think we should go with Vice President over the current wording, as the PvdA website is likely to be the more reliable source of the two. Are there any problems with making this change? - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Your suggestion seems reasonable to me. Nevertheless, it is not beyond reasonable doubt, because the synopsis of her biography in NRC Handelsblad for example (not a random example, for she was writing columns for NRC at the time) also asserts that she was 'president'. By the way, Bmwz3hm herself has in one of her proposals stated that Mees has been 'president'. But it's true, half-truths abound... I am still trying to find out. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits Bilby

Bilby did some editing. I have undone those edits. I have made my concerns crystal clear on this talk page as should have been known to the personal adminstrator of Her Majesty (link). A job that lasted for 10 months should not be mentioned in the lead. She is called a member of Das ökonomische Quartett, but as yet, Mees has not written any column for Capital. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I also wants to protest against this edit summary. It is very sneeky to replace a text and to suggest in the edit summary that you added something. It becomes very difficult to assume good faith with this kind of conduct. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Mees is a columnist, and is currently employed by two publications - Project Syndicate and NRC Handelsblad. But I agree, we can wait until an article is published for Capital. My apologies for a couple of mistakes in those two edits - my intent was just to add Capital, but it was too early in the morning to be editing, and I screwed up the edits. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
For your information: she is not "currently employed" by NRC Handelsblad. Her last regular NRC-column (biweekly) was in 2010. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct. She is currently employed by Project Syndicate and Capital. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You simply do not know if she is "employed by Project Syndicate and Capital". She might be dismissed, or work as a free-lancer, or work for prestige only ("The World's Smartest Op-Ed Page"), or she is too busy with the corollaries of the scandal, or what-have-you. But no matter how, so far, I have not come across any sources that support this claim. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Can we agree that she writes for Project Syndicate? And when she is published in Capital, can we agree that she writes for them? - Bilby (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it, let's just drop this issue. We're too caught up in something that won't be added for now anywyay. When/if Capital publishes an article by her we can revisit mentioning it. - Bilby (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Notability is something that is not given with every random fact that could be attached to a person whose notability is not in doubt. It is something that either will come to light, as can be proven by reliable secondary sources, or it will not. Obviously, not every trifle should find its way to the article. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Generally, the lead should summarise the body of the article. At the moment it gives a good summary of her various roles, with:

Heleen Mees (born Heleen Nijkamp, 1968, Hengelo) is a Dutch opinion writer, economist and lawyer.

We then mention that she is known as a feminist. I think we should also mention her academic work and current position, so I'm proposing adding:

Mees completed a doctorate in 2012, and worked for Tilburg University and New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Currently she is writing for Project Syndicate.

In light of the concerns above, I don't see any problem with leaving out her other current writing job with Capital. Are there any concerns with adding the proposed sentence to the lead? - Bilby (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

She is simply not notable enough for her economic work. She wants to, but she isn't yet. Wikipedia is not a show window. In my view, her NYU-RFW-job has been far too shortlived, and her Tilburg-job way too insignificant, to be included in the lead. Moreover, you cannot be explicit about the NYU-RFW-job really, without telling why it was that the NYU-RFW-job was that shortlived. And to mention the scandal right away in the first sentence, might very well be undesirable per WP:BLP. She has no "current position", as far as I know, so we cannot dwell upon it in the lead. And it is certainly not our calling, neither upon our own initiative, nor upon any sockpuppeteers request, to serve as her saviour. For your information: she is not currently employed by NRC Handelsblad. Her last regular NRC-column (biweekly) was in 2010. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about notability, though. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. Currently it summarises part of the article, leaving out her work after she completed her thesis, and what she is doing at the moment. I'm proposing adding two sentences to the lead to reflect the article content and address this. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Sadly if you do a google search she is most notable for the stalking case with Buiter, so its difficult to avoid mentioning that in any lead. Yes I know Google searches are not substitutes for research but they do help a quick vox pop. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Biographies of living persons suggests that well-publicised recent events should be kept in context and I rather feel per WP:DUE that the two university posts are minor details that don't necessary warrant inclusion in the lead. Hence, I agree with TT that the appointment at Tilburgh and NYU-RFW don't belong in the lead. Whilst noting the comments about well publicised recent events it is difficult to see why there should be no mention of the recent court case. We also seem to be getting sucked into WP:LEAD fixation. Just my 2c. WCMemail 11:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I see the mention of the court case in the lead as a separate issue. Generally I'd avoid doing it, because she hasn't been convicted - it certainly had good coverage in the tabloids, but as the case was dismissed we have BLP considerations. However, my main concern right now is still to make the lead reflect the biography. From what is said in the article, she was an opinion writer, who made a name for herself as a feminist activist, then got a PhD in economics, changed directions, and moved into academia. The lead should, I feel, reflect that. It would also be normal for the lead to mention the current work of any subject.
None of this is related to how Mees does, or does not, want to present herself. The consideration here is how to write a summary of a biography. Covering half of a person's life in the lead, and skipping the other half, is unbalanced. - Bilby (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, your suggestion we're skipping half her life is hyperbole. The question is whether two short lived appointments that have little significance to her notability merit mention. I and other editors are suggesting they don't. I also note that the case hasn't been dismissed yet, Mees has to comply with two conditions for a year before it will be. I wouldn't avoid mentioning the case, since it is reasonable to do so as it relates to her notability and it is perfectly possible to describe the circumstances. WCMemail 12:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
They may have little significance to her notability, but they have significance to her biography. However, based on how she is reported in recent years as an economist and academic, I'm not convinced that they have no significance to notability either. That said, perhaps the best way forward is to skip this issue for now, continue to develop the body of the article, and look at how we can summarise the body later on. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Bilby's proposed lead sentences should not be added. Mees worked at NYU Wagner for less than one year (started September 2012, ended July 2013 after her arrest). She worked at Tilburg University while a doctoral student (graduate student teacher). Also, the case against Mees has not been dismissed. --TheCockroach (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Writing history

I've modified:

She wrote a bi-weekly column in NRC Handelsblad, and is a columnist for Project Syndicate.

To:

She wrote a bi-weekly column in NRC Handelsblad, and has written for publications such as Foreign Policy and Het Financieele Dagblad. Mees is a columnist for Project Syndicate.

This was an issue raised before. I don't agree that we need to list every publication that she has ever been published in, nor that we should include things like blogs. However, the original wording seemed to suggest that she had only written for two publications, so in that sense was misleading. I've added those two because she had more than a single publication in each, and it indicates that she's been published wider than was previously suggested. Hopefully there are no concerns with this. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said here, it appears she only wrote four articles for Foreign Policy. Is that really worthy of being included in her Wikipedia article? (Do you want to include that Mees is a blogger for The Financial Times Economists' Forum blog? http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2013/03/interest-rates-should-take-blame-for-recession/ Is "opinion writer" another word for "blogger"?) If you look at Bmwz3hm's older edits/reverts to the Heleen Mees Wikipedia article, you'll see that she continually tried to make it look as if Mees was more successful/accomplished (or whatever) by, for example, (misleadingly/falsely) claiming that she had written for The New York Times and Le Monde (she wrote for Le Monde once, in 2006). The Heleen Mees Wikipedia article should not include misleading statements or give false impressions about her achievements (or lack thereof in the United States).
Her writing claims have been talked about on this talk page (look up "The New York Times" on this talk page, if you have time). --TheCockroach (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to mention the NYT one. My concern is that the previous line made it look like she had only written for two publications. She has written for a number, but not necessarily many articles in each. The intent was to make it clear that she has written for multiple publications, without listing a whole lot of insignificant ones. That's why I wouldn't want to include the NYT, Le Monde or The Financial Times, nor most of what has been pushed for in the past. I'd be happy to reduce it to just three, though, where she has clearly done more than a couple of articles - probably Foreign Policy, Project Syndicate and NRC Handelsblad to give a range. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, Mees' last piece for Project Syndicate is dated 29 July 2012. Therefore I have undone Bilby's last edit. If I have observed correctly, the lead should not state that "She is currently writing for Project Syndicate". Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Technically, her last piece for them was May 2013. She is still listed as a writer on their site, and was always an occasional contributor rather than one of the monthly ones. Presumably she was not writing during the court case. She lists herself as writing for Project Syndicate in all recent material I've seen. I'm comfortable waiting to put it back, but I don't feel that we can assume that she no longer writes for them. - Bilby (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
But Mees also lists herself as writing for The New York Times in her recent bios even though it's not true. --TheCockroach (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The link Theobald Tiger provided (http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/heleen-mees) shows that her last article was published on July 29, 2012. Where did you get May 2013 as the date of her last article for Project Syndicate, Bilby? --TheCockroach (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
After searching, I see that on her twitter (https://twitter.com/HeleenMees/status/335072684771778560), she posted a link to http://www.project-syndicate.org/blog/china-s-growth-model-makes-sense-by-heleen-mees which has May 16, 2013 as the date. --TheCockroach (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
However, that (http://www.project-syndicate.org/blog/china-s-growth-model-makes-sense-by-heleen-mees) is a blog post. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
What Mees tells about herself is not seldom unreliable, if not frankly misleading. Although under the circumstances keeping up appearances is forgivable, she has always been a crafty self-promotor, as anyone - except Bilby - who takes the trouble to scrutinize her statements, will notice at first glance. But then, Mees' utterances about herself or her career are simply irrelevant, and totally so. We endeavour to write an encyclopedia. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It may be that your opinions of Mees, whether justified or otherwise, are colouring how you perceive this. At this stage, we have good reason to accept that she is writing for Project Syndicate and Capital, and the only reason for assuming she is not writing for Project Syndicate is that she didn't write while her court case was ongoing. I suppose this will be settled when she next writes for them, but the bar is being set quite high. - Bilby (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) This is obvious nonsense! It is almost two years ago that she wrote an article for Project Syndicate - you wrote in the lead: "She is currently writing for Project Syndicate" - and to date she has not written a single word for Capital. Why not stopping with adopting the role of personal administrator of Her Majesty? She - or her representative on earth - offends others, she talks about my genitals, she accuses us of Mob rule, she lies about the court case - there are many more examples of outrageous insolence - and Bilby fights like a lion to get all the testimonies of her rudeness and untruthfulness into the encyclopedia. It is clear you know nothing about the subject, and you have - with respect to the Mees-article at least - no encyclopedic attitude. A topic ban for you seems to me indicated. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It has been two years since she wrote an article, but only one since she wrote for Project Syndicate, even though it was a blog piece. However, I am willing to wait until she writes again, as I indicated above, even though this is an unusually strict requirement. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
No, a new piece for PS, after years of non-writing, is not enough for inclusion in the lead. It is not a strict requirement at all to omit blog pieces from a biographical article, or to maintain that she should actually write for PS when the article states that she "currently writes for PS". What you "assume" regarding her writing for PS being stopped, has no relevance whatsoever for encyclopedic choices. That she is a columnist for PS is already present in the main body of the article. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned, this is something that we will have to revisit when she writes a new piece. I believe that the lead remains an issue, but one that it seems is going to be difficult to resolve until more time has passed. - Bilby (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Revisiting this issue will most probably result in a more prominent mention of the scandal. It's true, the Buiter-case attracted much more attention, but it was not the first time that she was accused of such nasty things: link (HP de Tijd is a serious opinion magazine in the Netherlands). Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't horsetrading, where we use the threat of putting something negative in the lead to kill discussion. At the moment it is a non-issue - discussion isn't going to get us anywhere until circumstances change, so I'm happy to wait to see how things proceed in the future. If Mees returns to active writing, then including where she is being published seems like something to consider. But I'm happy to accept that she needs to be actively writing before there is any point in discussing this. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Fine, this argument should not degenerate into a kind of horsetrading, but as you seemed eager to get in lane for what in my opinion is the next undesirable manoeuvre, I thought it would be cordial to let you know in advance that the opposite direction (mention of the court case) is as likely as yours (mention of the economist activities), or even likelier. But let's agree to discuss this issue later, if and when relevant. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm Seems to be further evidence of sock puppetry. WCMemail 21:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Already confirmed, thanks Materialscientist! WCMemail 21:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP edit

I just made this edit for two reasons. First of all I see no reason to use a newspaper source about her legal issues to verify a factoid about her past with the Labour Party. Second, the Volkskrant article calls her president (in a single sentence, without indication of sources) whereas the party's own website calls her a vice-president: the latter is to be preferred, since one would assume that they would know. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a hassle with the change, but it is also possible that she spent time as vice president before becoming president. So it might be that both are correct. :) That said, I'd defer to the party's site. - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is this revert. WCM said at the SPI that she "is editing to flatter" in a "vanity article". I find that seriously problematic. First, there is no flattery in that edit, and it actually removes original research: that the NRC article should be "feminist" can hardly be verified by a link to the article; the other parts of the edit are really cosmetic. If WCM has a problem with the added links to the Capitalist articles, those can be removed (and I am not a fan of such links to primary evidence, by the way), but "DENY" (as an edit summary) is short-sighted given the BLP issues here. Second, if this is a vanity article, it should either be nominated for deletion or seriously edited--but the fact is that this is not a vanity article. That Solancius is a sock of Bmw, CU seems to have proven that so I take no issue with that decision or the block: but editors should be aware that, socking or now, the BLP policy should be our prime concern here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree there are serious BLP issues introduced with my revert. As Bilby notes both sources could well be correct but I'm happy for better sources to be used if they become available. However, did you really have to single me out for comment? If you have an issue with a comment I make, take it up with me first please.
I don't have a problem if there is a BLP issue and I'm not planning on reverting but:
  1. Contract not renewed after 9/11 is not in the source, its unsourced material added by the sock puppet master.
  2. No source says it was her 1st feminist piece, again unsourced material added by the sock puppet master.
  3. I would remove links to the Capitalist articles as a link to primary evidence, any reason why I shouldn't?
It would have been better to edit the parts of relevance rather than a wholesale revert that re-added unsourced material I removed. We now know that a single editor has been writing this article for some time, if you find my statement that this has been a vanity article to be problematic, it is nothing but a statement of fact. The article has been written consistently by that editor to flatter and promote the subject. It has been seriously edited as a result already and some of the items re-introduced I see as being in the same vein as past contributions from that editor. WP:DENY seems appropriate to edits by that individual when they introduce unsourced material; particularly in a BLP. WCMemail 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
My edit removed the "feminist piece"--so the most recent sock removed it, here. "9/11" is mentioned (admittedly, by herself) in the Twente source, so I suppose moving that footnote a few words is fine; as a side note, I don't really like using such a source in the first place, but we're not talking about controversial material here. As for the vanity part: no, the current version is absolutely not written by the sock/master, and "vanity" isn't in the current version of the article. Check the history. I'm not "singling you out for comment" except in the sense that you made that revert, a revert of an edit that, in my opinion, is entirely unproblematic. Saying "I'm reverting a sock" is, in general, of course perfectly acceptable; what I'm saying is "true, but there are other issues at stake here as well" and you can't really claim that either the edit or, therefore, my revert, was very substantial. It didn't add fluff and if it hadn't been made by a sock it would have been deemed an improvement, if only for the removal of the "first feminist article" bit. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK that's fine. The edit may have improved the sources but as outlined above I had concerns about it and there was some fluff as I saw it. Perhaps I was overly concerned that it didn't slip back into being a vanity piece and looked at it with a slightly more jaundiced eye. Its always good to get a fresh perspective. WCMemail 20:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I had hoped the socking would be over, honestly. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope there are admins watching at the end of the month when the protection expires, I have a feeling it isn't over yet. WCMemail 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

president or vicepresident

I have sent an e-mail to the editorial staff of the PvdA-website. They replied:

"Gerrit Groen is sinds 2005 voorzitter van onze afdeling in New York. In de periode dat Gerrit niet in NYC woonde, van augustus 2008 tot eind december 2010, was Heleen Mees (waarnemend) voorzitter. Dat was, om heel precies te zijn, van 21 augustus 2008 tot en met 7 december 2010."

E-mail available upon request.

So, she was interim president from 21 August 2008 to 7 December 2010. Before and after she was vicepresident of the PvdA chapter in New York. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It probably is, as one source suggested she was president and another vice-president it explains the apparent contradiction. Not sure how we use this though, its now reliably sourced per wikipedia norms. WCMemail 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking I did some original research. Do with it what you want. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep. Can't use an email or something like that, though I appreciate Theobald taking the time to figure it out. Funny, sometimes you absolutely know things to be absolutely correct, but you can't use it--that's the way the wiki-cookie crumbles. Normally I would trust de Volkskrant, but this is a minor detail and it clearly is not entirely correct. I suggest we leave it as it is, sourced to the PvdA website, and move on. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

I have added her guest columnist position at De Volkskrant, right through Courcelles's protection. This information is also found in the fully protected version on the Dutch wiki; I trust that MoiraMoira does not find this problematic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Blondmamas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recent edits [8] have obviously been done by Bmwz3hm who is currently permanently blocked from editing for prolific socking see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. Reverted as a WP:BLP violation by an editor with a WP:COI. WCMemail 22:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Mees contributed to Here, There, Everywhere (2014), a book edited by Renny Ramakers. This should be included in publications. https://www.droog.com/webshop/product/here-there-everywhere-book http://td-architects.eu/projects/show/here-there-everywhere-by-droog/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.245.202 (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

[9] Note this IP was previously use for edit warring as a sock puppet of Bmwz3hm. WCMemail 09:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Here, There, Everywhere was published in 2014 instead of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.245.202 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heleen_Mees/Archive_2&oldid=1255133880"