Talk:Joe Van Holsbeeck

To admins planning to..

To admins planning to speedy delete this article as nn: please don't. It has been extended from the original Joe Van Holsbeeck and ample references have been provided. This story may seem unimportant to you, but I can assure you that it is talk of the day in Belgium. Give it some time to be extended by other users. At worst give it a fair AfD. Thanks. 1652186 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative statement

The term 'North African Immigrants' is speculative. Most probably they did not migrate themselves, rather their parents or grandparents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.108.174 (talk • contribs)

You're right, that was bad phrasing. I fixed it. 1652186 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Hi, 1652186. Thanks for your contributions to this article. I am concerned about the neutrality of some passages without any references provided. Especially in the "reactions" section. For instance, this one is dodgy: "Amazingly, the religious service was limited in order not to offend the attending Muslim representatives." Also, please cite English references whenever possible (so that we can crosscheck what's written). Thank you! --Edcolins 20:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree that this article is rather pessimistic, but I leave it up to other Wikipedians to cheer things up. However, everything I state are facts, which I try to prove as good as I can. I'll do my best to improve this (more and in English), but in the meantime you shouldn't be too concerned: there are enough optimistic Flemish left wingers on Wikipedia who will be happy to correct me if I tell anything wrong. 1652186 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I think your reaction will not satisfy the concern about neutrality. You should try to be neutral yourself, not leave it to "left wingers". Also, could you give us a quote of that metro article? I don't think anyone sent out "invitations" for the demonstration, so it seems normal that Vlaams belang didn't get one. Michaël 12:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about those invitations, I removed that. 1652186 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Well, to those who were concerned in the beginning, now we have a blatant POV situation. Diderot, obviously a left-wing activist trying to make the original article look like the extremist vision of a 'Vlaams Belanger', has deleted or changed all content that in his opinion is irrelevant (which is just about all the content, which has been built up during the past week), even that with references. 1652186 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent an endless not/too discussion, I'll right away present evidence that Diderot is deliberately lying. In one of his content deletions, his rationale is fear of a witch hunt? Read the reference, it doesn't say that!. The reference mentioned, HLN.be, Gerecht geeft vandaag beelden roofmoord vrij, explicitly mentions this word, heksenjacht. It is even a subtitle! 1652186 15:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reporter says it, not the authorities:

Het parket vreest niet dat door de beelden openbaar te maken een soort heksenjacht kan beginnen. "Men heeft ons gewaarschuwd voor dat risico, dat natuurlijk bestaat. Maar het enige dat we willen bereiken, is dat iedereen die de daders kent of herkent contact opneemt met de politie of het gerecht."

--Diderot 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course, I forgot. In Belgium, don't ever believe what the press says, as they are all being bribed and threatened to state things that could give more votes to right wing parties.

After a second reading, I noticed that Diderot really entirely deleted relevant and well referenced paragraphs. He even states that the murder apparantly was over an MP3 player and has removed the fact that the victim resisted nonviolently. These are just examples. In my eyes, his edits are pure vandalism by someone trying to minimize this hideous crime. I therefore have changed the tag to Total Dispute. I'm really considering giving this up, I'm not blaming Wikipedia, but it's very frustrating if two week's work is destroyed in 30 minutes. 1652186 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple really. I read the articles referenced, and when the content was matched by factual reporting on the part of the reporter, I kept it. Where it did not, I cut it. I also removed a lot of passive verbs - which are well seen in Dutch but strongly opposed in English - by trying to provide an overt subject for each verb. Where there was none, I cut it if it was speculation.

As I understand it, that is the current policy at Wikipedia. I note that User 1652186 has not attempted similar edits on the Dutch and French Wikipedia pages, where their acceptability and accuracy might be judged by people closer to the events. I dislike to see the English Wikipedia become hostage to non-mainstream positions on foreign events simply because few anglophones are easily able to research the events. --Diderot 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask why you removed the English references that do not support your point of view? 1652186 15:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Brussels Imams launch an appeal? It seemed superfluous.

The Brussels Muslim community feels stigmatised as the killers are believed to be of North African descent. Their identity is probably known among the Brussels ethnic minorities.

This isn't a factual claim. The first part is likely true, but not specifically relevant to the murder and clearly not something the reporter is likely to know first hand. The second claim can only be an opinion. If the article has said "according to Mohammed So-and-so of the Woluwe Mosque, someone in the Muslim community probably knows who the killers are", that would be a factual claim. But a reporter's unsupported opinion deserves no more consideration on Wikipedia than the unsupported opinons of Wikipedia users.

I don't care if the reference to the article is restored, but the claims it makes should only be here if they contain some substantial claim to factual accuracy. --Diderot 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, not only HLN, but also the (central-left) government-controlled (or at least funded) VRT is spreading unfounded rumors showing that this evil extreme right racist Vlaams Belang party is telling the truth after all? This would just be too funny for words, if the subject weren't so sad. If you don't trust the press after all, I suggest you remove all references, completely rewrite the article yourself, according to your 'neutral' POV, and then all problems in Belgium will be solved. Oh yes, before I forget, concerning your outrageous allegation in the previous reply: the reason that I only write about this at the English Wikipedia is because I don't think Flemings and Walloons need education about the situation in Belgium, as they already receive it through the (no doubt hellbound) press. If you honestly believe that you are doing the right thing with this article, I was obviously wrong about Wallonia. 1652186 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting that VRT and some of the rest of the Flemish press is poorly edited, especialy in its wire-style dispatches. Considering that the Van Holsbeeck family and Joe's friends seem unwilling to let their son's murder turn into an anti-immigrant pogrom, perhaps your fellow Belgians are not aware of whatever aspect of their situation that you seem to think the rest of the world ought to know; they are no doubt more likely to read the other wikis. --Diderot 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your last sentence (perhaps you fellow Belgians are not aware of whatever aspect of their situation that you seem to think the rest of the world ought to know). If you are saying that I'm going against the will of the victim's friends and family, that is certainly not my intention, but I do think that the world has the right to know the facts, even if those give a negative impression of immigrants to the objective reader. 1652186 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting your excuse for not editing the French or Dutch wikis holds little water, since so many Belgians seem to disagree with your assessment of events. And I am an immigrant to Belgium, so whenever you think an article should leave a negative impression of immigrants as a whole, as if we're all somehow the same, I assume you mean me. --Diderot 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you say that you are the same as the two immigrants who killed Joe, then I certainly do mean you. However, I don't think that is what you mean. So of course I didn't mean all immigrants, I mean those who are criminals. Or maybe we should also no longer mention the fact that the September 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, because that puts all of them in a bad daylight... Are you suggesting that we should censor all facts that are in conflict with the immigrants' best interest? 1652186 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which facts do you mean? I haven't removed any actual fact present in any of the sources you provided. I did remove a lot of innuendo about Muslim organisations and politicians, speculation about the motives Belgian politicians, and some gripes about Belgian law enforcement. But I do resent the implication that somehow people whose great-grandparents weren't born in Belgium deserve to be singled out as a source of crime, something you and all too many Belgians seem to believe, and I won't stand for it. --Diderot 17:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the edit I just made to see which facts I mean. If you have a problem with them, please post that here before just removing them again. I'm willing to make a compromise on the wording, but the factual content that is in now stays in, unless you want to vandalize.

I do resent the implication that somehow people whose great-grandparents weren't born in Belgium deserve to be singled out as a source of crime. I never said that, and I don't think so. But I do think that if the objective statistics say that their share in crime is above average, the world has the right to know. 1652186 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder via soundwaves?!

...this murder, over an MP3 player... I did a double take when I read that. Obviously, the writer wants to say that a dispute concerning an MP3 player motivated the murder. The sentence doesn't really read that way, though. Thought I'd mention this before editing, since the article is tagged NPOV. Fsotrain09 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the incident as a 'dispute'. To me, a dispute involves words, whereas the article seems to indicate simply that either the murderer or his companion simply grabbed the player and tried to make off with it.

Fixed it, thanks. 1652186 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imam's quote

1652186, I changed the last sentence of the article to stick to the VRT article. IMHO the article does not say that "an Antwerp imam is of the opinion that some Brussels Muslims know who the murderers are." What the imam said is "The people who know who the killers are, should not remain silent and reveal their identity". Do you agree? --Edcolins 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I also agree with the omission of 'only', but I don't understand why you see that as POV. 1652186 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to stick to the facts without adding an emotional context. --Edcolins 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Could you explain briefly what is still NPOV disputed thank you? I'd like to help. Cheers. --Edcolins 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point, nothing. I'm however not sure whether Diderot agrees with my content, so I'd keep it until he confirms that. Also, I'm not the one who tagged it in the first place, there was a 'POV check' initially. 1652186 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did add the tag first, but now the content seems better (to me at least). I've now changed the tag from POV to POV-check to enable Diderot to comment. Let's wait and see. --Edcolins 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present it's okay. I think there's truly superfluous information that suggests an earlier slant, but it's fairly well neuitralised. If no one else objects, go ahead and remove it. --Diderot 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder on 16 year old boy in January

I've read that in january 2006 a 16 year old boy of Nigerian descent was killed in a similar incident (also by a knife, also by young criminals of North African descent, also a theft). Some people even suggested that this murder and the murder of Joe are both based in racism. Others say that the incident on the black boy didn't receive much media attention because he was black and not white. I don't say these things are the case, but I think the murder on this boy is relevant for this article. Need to find some references though. Anyone agrees with mentioning this murder? Sijo Ripa 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be added in the article if one reference is provided which actually compares both crimes. Otherwise IMHO mentioning the crime there could be viewed original research. This seems pretty relevant: "Some people even suggested that this murder and the murder of Joe are both based in racism. Others say that the incident on the black boy didn't receive much media attention because he was black and not white." Was this published in a "reliable primary source", e.g. a newspaper or the like? --Edcolins 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two partial sources, didn't find the main source though:

De Standaard: ,Ik probeer al een tijdje aan te kaarten dat steeds meer criminele Marokkaanse of Turkse jongeren slachtoffers uitkiezen die er als ongelovigen uitzien. Vorige maand was het een Nigeriaanse jongen en nu een Belgische", aldus Ahidar. ,,We moeten racisme bestrijden in al zijn facetten, of dat nu van de allochtone of de autochtone gemeenschap is", luidt het. [1]
De Standaard: Op 22 januari werd in Molenbeek een jonge Nigeriaan van zestien met een messteek in de keel omgebracht. Hij had het op straat aan de stok gekregen met een groepje Noord-Afrikaanse jongeren. Het bericht haalde zelfs de meeste Vlaamse kranten niet. [2] Sijo Ripa 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead. I suggest adding a "similar crimes" section. --Edcolins 11:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, good idea to add this very relevant topic. I'll help if I can. 1652186 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the title

Why is this here and not at Joe Van Holsbeeck, which would be the obvious choice? (Matthew Shepard, for example) Tuf-Kat 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Moved. Thanks. --Edcolins 08:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic MP3 player

There's been repeated talk of people using iPod's being a target for robbery. The article only talks about a generic "mp3 player"?

Yes it was an iPod in this case, but to be honnest, an iPod is also a mp3 player, right? Wildchild1992 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French and Dutch Wikipedia

The perpetrators' picture must be deleted or altered from French and Dutch Wikipedia under Belgian law. See Protection des mineurs. This is so weird since the pictures have been on the web for a long time... anyway --Edcolins 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only officialy accused criminals must be made unrecognizable under Belgian law. As they were not formally accused until now, images were allowed. Sijo Ripa 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this proves to those who don't believe that I'm not exagerating about the slackness of the Belgian justice system for minors... 1652186 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And France, Canada, the UK, the US (IIRC), and probably most of Europe. --Diderot 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree about France and Canada, but you can't exactly call a country that recently had capital punishment available for minors slack... But this is totally off topic, so let's not fight over it. 1652186 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup references

I would suggest amending the reference: "Het journaal (19h), VRT, April 19, 2006" and similar ones (or replacing them by lasting verifiable sources). It is actually difficult to confirm and verify what the TV program actually said. --Edcolins 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, but for these specific facts they are the only references I have. So if you remove them, some people are going to contest that the text is true. I mean, some references in other articles are to books or things not available for free on the internet, I don't really see the difference. 1652186 16:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can retrieve books at a library. Maybe you could add an explanation about how to obtain a copy of the TV program, if possible? Are these programs transcripted somewhere? And is it possible to get a copy (does not need to be on the internet and does not need to be free of charge)? --Edcolins 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: [3]. 1652186 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks. --Edcolins 07:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the site of the VRT News, and I found the exact fragment you were referring to, and as I suspected "On April 15, the VRT news quoted an uninvolved North African teenager describing the murder as normal and not regrettable." is either taken horribly out of context or horribly misinterpreted. The teenager said that these things happen each day, that each day people die, and that it's terrible. You make it seem as if he literally said the murder was "normal and not regrettable", while he didn't say anything of the sort. I'll even give you a full transcript of his exact words tomorrow. I think that means that bit can be removed. --Ganchelkas 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 81.240.88.50 / 213.193.186.184

Yesterday [4] 81.240.88.50 added an irrelevant external link to a column by Khaled Diab, which was immediately reverted. Today [5], 213.193.186.184 reinstated this link within the article itself. If you check the history of this user, you will notice that it consists solely of adding references to columns by this Khaled Diab. I have two questions:

Does anybody else have a problem with the relevance of this edit?
Isn't this in violation with the sockpuppet/vanity rules?

1652186 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma decent in 'event' paragraph

Anyonymous user 84.153.60.142 has (twice) removed the mention of the murderers' gypsy decent, claiming that the boy's gypsy ethnicity is mentioned where relevant. It is not relevant in the first paragraph except to emphasize it for possibly racist reasons! For starters, I do not possibly see how mentioning a referenced fact can be racism, unless of course in the mind of people who don't know (or refuse to accept) what racism actually is. Secondly, he does not mind that the nationality of the culprits is mentioned there. And by the way, of course, the mention is not in the first paragraph, but in the event paragraph. Does anybody object reinclusion? 1652186 11:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No negative reactions, so I will reinstate the article as it was. 1652186 14:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

belgian Muslim executive

i corrected the status of the executive to official; i will add the link now.

Make a page about "Zinloos geweld"?

The word "Zinloos geweld" (Meaningsless Violence) is lately often used in Belgium. Media sources even frequently speak about "een golf van zinloos geweld" (a wave of meaningless violence). I think the sentence is becoming a term which defines all the latest happenings in Belgium (the murder on the 16 year old Nigerian kid, the murder of Joe, Hans' murders, the skinhead assault which put one person into a coma, the chased Morrocan who drowned, the deadly beating of Guido on the bus, etc.). Therefore I think it's appropriate to make a page about it, which could summarize these latest happenings and the combined consequences on politics, public opinion, etc. Also, it would put the separate cases into a context. I suggest: Meaningless Violence (Belgium). Sijo Ripa 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not "ethnic" Polish??

In the article someone felt the need to explicitly exclaim, after the fact that the assailents were Polish nationals, that they were NOT (this was actually italicized) ethnic Polish. I think this is very racist and unbecoming of a encyclopedia, so I deleted it. The fact of the matter is, is that the boys hailed from Poland... Whether they are Gypsy or Roma or "ethnic Polish" is absolutely not relevant to the article and I feel was put in there by someone disappointed that the perpetrators were Europeans, so felt that they still needed to add SOME "foreign" element to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssoass (talk • contribs) 05:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Which is why I edited the lede to reflect this.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

Trying to repair a dead link, I noticed there is now talk of giving Joe a street name. His name has come up a few times in connection with security issues in public transport recently. I also think it is funny how this article devotes a lot of space to reactions to the murder but does not mention the fact that two well=known politicians called for white Belgians to arm themselves against the Islamic onslaught and refused to retract those words when it turned out the perpetrators were Europeans. That happens to be the main things that Belgians remember about this event: the insecurity problem in stations and on buses and trams, and the "exaggerated" reaction of certain politicians. The article should be updated. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]