Talk:Paul Beliën

Untitled

Of course, Wikipedia is not the place for political discussions. But the information in it should be reasonably complete and balanced. Like this page looks now, you have the impression that it is put there by the journalist himself.

User:Intangible's 27 September 06 edits

Intangible removed three sources citing a weblog. Please explain why each of those sources fails WP:V. Thank you. --LucVerhelst 15:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove these sources based on WP:V. Intangible 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Then could you explain why you removed the information ? --LucVerhelst 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the main source for that information was written by Tom Cochez, who, as showed by the link I provided, does nothing but write nonsense about Paul Belien. Even the newer article by him is repudiated by the earlier comments Belien made about this "cowboy journalist."

Note also that Paul Belien is a professional journalist, he was head of the foreign desk of the Gazet van Antwerpen for quite some time. See WP:RS#Self-published sources, which pretty much shows I can use this blog text. Intangible 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we have a problem, don't we. On the one hand we have a verifiable, reputable and reliable source, the quality newspaper De Morgen, and another source (Het Laatste Nieuws) that at least partially corroborates the De Morgen information. On the other we have the personal weblog of a former journalist of a tabloid newspaper (that was sacked by that newspaper because of the content of his journalistic work in another newspaper), writing about himself, providing information that has not been verified. Both are contradicting each other.

The reason why Belien was sacked from the GvA is indeed lacking from this article. Intangible 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How are we going to handle this ?

May I suggest the following common ground, taking into account that your objection is only against the second source. You didn't mention the first, the one about the Flemish Republic, and the third, from the Laatste Nieuws article.

“ Paul Belien has on a number of occasions been related to the Belgian far right Vlaams Belang party, although he -unlike his wife, the Belgian MP Alexandra Colen- is not a member of the party.

He is the main driving force behind "The Flemish Republic", the English language quarterly newsletter of the party.
According to Gerolf Annemans, one of the party's leaders, Belien "didn't formally cooperate in writing the party's economical program, but his influence can't be underestimated". Belien himself however denied this influence.
Belien was quoted saying that he has "acquaintances in the American media, the administration and now also the White House. [...] I certainly contributed to the positive image they today have of the Vlaams Belang".

”

--LucVerhelst 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Only the HLN article is not written by Cochez. So the only real issue is of his work for the Flemish Republic (which publisher is Karim Van Overmeire). Intangible 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, but you can't just throw out a source simply because you don't like the journalist, can you. The source still is there, and I didn't see Belien react to the article in the newspaper either. If he really would have objected to the information, he would certainly have sent a letter to the editor, or even a "Recht op antwoord", that the newspaper would have had to publish. Do you have a source contradicting the "flemish republic" bit ? --LucVerhelst 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "he has also written for The Flemish Republic, a quarterly newsletter of the Vlaams Belang party" can be justly entered into this article. Intangible 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be downplaying it, wouldn't it. The source is clear that Belien is being paid by the Vlaams Belang to steer the newsletter. He is the one that decides about the redactional line of the letter. He decides about the identity of the publication. That is more than a contribution now and again.--LucVerhelst 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, do you have a source that he actually contributes to the newsletter ? --LucVerhelst 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the text. Intangible 13:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this :

“ Paul Belien has on a number of occasions been related to the Belgian far right Vlaams Belang party, although he -unlike his wife, the Belgian MP Alexandra Colen- is not a member of the party.

He is being paid by the Vlaams Belang to help guide "The Flemish Republic", the English language quarterly newsletter of the party.
According to Gerolf Annemans, one of the party's leaders, Belien "didn't formally cooperate in writing the party's economical program, but his influence can't be underestimated". Belien himself however strongly denied this influence.
Belien was quoted saying that he has "acquaintances in the American media, the administration and now also the White House. [...] I certainly contributed to the positive image they today have of the Vlaams Belang".

”

--LucVerhelst 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that no one knows what Cochez meant with "sturen". It is verifiable though that the publisher of the FR is not Belien. Intangible 13:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you know, "the words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Wikipedia." I think it is clear that Cochez meant that Belien decides about the redactional line of the letter, that he decides about the identity of the publication.

--LucVerhelst 13:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What about: "Belien is married to Dr. Alexandra Colen, a member of Belgian Federal Parliament for the party Vlaams Belang. Although himself not a member, the Vlaams Belang study center has at various occassions invited people from Belien's network to speak." Intangible 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For what part of the disputed text ? --LucVerhelst 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

All. Intangible 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought we were on track to achieve some kind of concensus. --LucVerhelst 17:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, without any further factual information it is hard to argue for any other sort of text. Cochez is just (bad) opinion, not really handy. Intangible 18:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What about "Belien is married to Dr. Alexandra Colen, a member of Belgian Federal Parliament for the party Vlaams Belang. Although himself not a member, the Vlaams Belang study center has at various occassions invited people from Belien's network to speak, such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Roger Scruton." Intangible 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. --LucVerhelst 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gazet van Antwerpen firing

Intangible added a section about Belien being fired by Gazet van Antwerpen. This is interesting information. I have three problems with the text :

• It's rather one sided, hardly giving any information on the newspaper's stand
• Being the first section in the article, it gives the impression that this event is about the most important thing that ever happened to Belien
• One of the refs is from Belien's own hand. This not that much of a problem, as there are other references.

--LucVerhelst 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The newspaper's stand is there, this is the only comment I could find.
2. The article remains chronological though.
3. Okay.

Intangible 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to mention that Lou De Clerck was a former spokesperson for Wilfried Martens? Intangible 20:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lou De Clerck : I think so, yes, and also that he was trying to "clean" the Gazet van Antwerpen redaction from far right influences, trying to sever connections to the Vlaams Blok, etc. The dismissal of Belien is claimed to be a part of that (Knack, "De Frut, ons moeilijk lief", 20 April 2005). He also forbid the newspaper's journalists to write for the far right weekly 't Pallieterke. --LucVerhelst 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Says De Haes, so please find some comment by De Clerck or any other one could (back then) speak on behalf of the Gazet. Intangible 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, says Knack, the leading news weekly of the country. Do you think Knack would print such a story if it wasn't verified ?--LucVerhelst 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Because it is opinion. Intangible 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a journalist, telling about the things he discovered while writing a journalistic piece, used by the Knack journalist to corroborate his story (remark also the parenthesis about Belien being a far right ideologue, not De Haes' words, but Knack's).

But hey, have it your way. --LucVerhelst 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Are you saying that the Knack article is an opinion piece ? Because I'm sure you know it isn't. --LucVerhelst 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that Knack publishes the opinions of other people, without verifying if the claims these people make are correct. A common practice. Intangible 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. Good that we have you, to tell us. --LucVerhelst 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-template added

I added the NPOV-template. The present article is biased, and minimises the far right connections of the subject. (See discussions above) --LucVerhelst 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased? Oh wait, the article probably needs some prime minister saying that Belien is a "fascist," or is this not what you are saying? Intangible 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What, have you got a source for that, then ? --LucVerhelst 11:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is not biased. I'm removing the POV tag. Intangible 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't write a biographical article based on the subject's publications alone. That is called a hagiography, and is not encyclopedic. --LucVerhelst 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article is neutral, like it or not. I'm removing the tag. Intangible 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly little visit to suggest that Intangible, in particular, discuss the article here rather than continue to remove citation and NPOV tags. I have not stopped watching this article, nor is the arbitration enforcement complaint closed. If an editor believes an article is not neutral, a good faith effort needs to be made to address that before removing the tags. A request for comment or third opinion might be beneficial here. Thatcher131 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased and dubious material

This (for instance): "Belien received this appointment (...) because of his emergence as one of Europe's leading experts on lawful Islamism" looks pretty much biased ("leading expert") and dubious (can somebody explain what is "lawful Islamism"?). In fact the whole article must be read with a particularly critical eye. Much of the material in the article is supported by what seem to be unreliable sources (e.g. biased articles written by Paul Belien himself). --Edcolins 11:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the data for this paragraph comes from the website of Islam Watch itself, and was not written by Belien. Stijn Calle 16:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have switched the statement to a quotation and sourced it. Kaldari 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong article title

The correct name of this person is "Paul Beliën", not "Paul Belien" which is the Americanized variant of his name. Can someone please change that? I don't know how I can do it myself. Berchemboy (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on the Belgian unitary state and "Geef ons Wapens" controversy

Hi, Just a note to apologize about my interfering with your editing on Paul Beliën. I read the article, noticed the OR and decided to remove it. It's only after I did the edit that I noticed you were actively editing at the same moment.

(I do stand by my decision to remove the paragraphs though.) --Luxem (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC) [Moved from User_talk:Sasper by --Sasper (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]

Thanks for the concern. Firstly, not all the material removed was added by me, part of the section was there before. I don't see how the two sections can be classified as original research. It is based on Beliën's own statements, and there are source references. The quote from Beliën's blog is highly relevant since it was the subject of the letter from the "Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism". Without the quote, one won't be able to estimate what the case was about. Moreover, the quote shows Beliën's typical writing style and way of reasoning. The section about the Belgian unitary state describes some of his most central issues, again with a quote that shows his way of reasoning. Did you think I was writing "original research" or my personal opinions about Belgium? I have merely tried to describe Beliën's stances and style, I have not stated any opinions about his topics. Also, I have not ventured into any further analysis that could be labelled as original research - I have only stated what is obvious from the sources I found, and from those which were already used in the article. --Sasper (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You say : "the quote shows Beliën's typical writing style and way of reasoning" and "The section about the Belgian unitary state describes some of his most central issues". Are these your conclusions, or do you have a source for these statements ? If the former, it is considered Original research.

The "Geef ons wapens"-quote : do you have a source that this quote was part of what the Centre acted against ?

I have no problem to insert these subjects in the article, but we need verifiable (and preferably objective) sources, if possible with an analysis of Beliën's position within the Belgian framework.

--Luxem (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought these things were already evident from the sources, but I shall check it. I am not sure how much the Belgian press has written about these incidents, and maybe there are no truly independent sources, but I'll try and find something.

I agree the homescholing section could need some brush-up. I made a new compromise, mostly based on your version. Remember, it is not bias to quote what Kersey says, it is obvoius from the article that he is ideological, but I just refer to what he says. You put part of the text in citation marks (""), which of course is only acceptable when there is a citation! --Sasper (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some minor changes. What do you think ?

I fail to see the relevance for the Kersey citation : "Dr Belien has incurred the wrath ..." It doesn't add anything to what is previously stated. --Luxem (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

About your quote above:

You say : "the quote shows Beliën's typical writing style and way of reasoning" and "The section about the Belgian unitary state describes some of his most central issues". Are these your conclusions, or do you have a source for these statements ? If the former, it is considered Original research.

I don't need a source for that - I never wrote it in the article, just here on the talk page.

--Sasper (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. But if you want to keep the section on the Belgian unitary state in the article, you must provide references to neutral sources. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. The article's subject's writing are not valid sources to base an article on. If you are using them to write the article, you are performing Original research. --Luxem (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section should not only contain a very long quote. It might take some time to find a good source, Until then, I think it should be kept as it is, because removing information is worse than having a less-than-perfect section.--Sasper (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling

I added some fact-templates, because I am still not comfortable with the present section, and because I do not have the appropriate background to do fact-checking and correcting myself.

The main problem as I see it is that the section still gives undue weight to Beliën's and Coolen's own views, without placing these views within a general framework. The fact is that compulsory education is a basic human right for the couple's children, and that Beliën and Coolen are (ab)using their children to perform a sociological experiment, and to advance their own political views.

At present, the article portrays them as victims of the "state crackdown", because of their dissident views, while in general they are being perceived as a couple of extremist nutcases. The article should find a common ground between those two points of view. --Luxem (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not reading the article as it is. They are not portrayed as victims, but the article renders what they have claimed. That is an important difference. It would be good to balance the section with statements from government officials or from the mainstream Belgian press, but the problem is that such sources are difficult to find. (Maybe the press chose to ignore the case?)

You have criticised the article for having unsourced quotes and facts (which you greatly exaggerated, because there were and are ample source notes) and a lack of objectivity. And now you rightout say that:

"The fact is that compulsory education is a basic human right for the couple's children, and that Beliën and Coolen are (ab)using their children to perform a sociological experiment, and to advance their own political views."

Now, that is a very loose and unproven "fact". I'd say this is a very personal opinion, close to libel. However, it is interesting that you actually agree with Beliën/Colen that there is a political dimension of the case, not just an educational one. I thought the problem arose simply from the parents' denial to sign the declaration - and with the lack of this formality, the children could not be homeschooled?

As a foreigner who happen to be interested in Belgium (I know Dutch, French and German), I have no chance of estimating how Beliën/Colen are perceived by the common Belgian. I don't live in your country but I have access to written and internet sources. If they really are perceived as "a couple of extremist nutcases" in general, this is very important information. I think you should write it in the article, however with a source.

I have never intended to write a positively biased article. I think Beliën is an interesting (or even peculiar) figure who is one little part of the total image of today's Belgium. Likewise, I would try and write a fair account about everybody else, including communists, fascists, liberals, conservatives, socialists and unpolitical ones. On the contrary, it seems that with your extremely condescending opinions you are absolutely unable to maintain objectivity. You routinely remove information which blurs the context. "True objectivity" is not always achievable when writing about controversial themes. If, for example, I read an article about Trotsky, I would expect it to explain Trotsky's views as the man saw it himself, but then also garnished with critique. An average citizen who grew up in a pluralist democracy should be able to read information even from a source he disagrees with, and maintain the normal skepticism and criticism. Are you afraid thousands of schoolchildren and under-intelligent people will swarm to Wikipedia, read Beliën's quotes in this article, and believe every word, joining the Vlaams Belang immediately? If you hate Beliën for his views (which is a fair enough, you have the right to have your opinions), you may still help wikipedia, for example by adding information on negative issues surrounding Beliën. But please don't just sabotage the article or remove infomation from the context. Is Belgium in general such a polarised society that they can't even maintain objectivity or common sense when they act against political opponents? --Sasper (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...you actually agree with Beliën/Colen that there is a political dimension of the case, not just an educational one." Obviously, there is a political dimension to the case : Beliën and Colen are using the case for their political advancement. I'm also quite sure that on the side of the ministry, their is no political intent. They are just doing their job.
• When you are writing a biographical article on somebody, you should of course include their views and ideology. But if these views and/or ideology are extreme, or even if they aren't, they should be placed within a general framework. If they are extremists, the article should point out that they are (objectively, without approving or disapproving).
• You're right, I should have put it like this : "The fact is that compulsory education is a basic human right for the couple's children, and that Beliën and Coolen are (ab)using their children to perform a sociological experiment, and to advance their own political views." The former is a fact (read Compulsory education and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the latter are my opinion. But hey, this is the talk page, so objectivity is not necessary.

--Luxem (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, all I did was to correct a factual inaccuracy, and to put the templates on, in order for other people that have the proper knowledge, to improve the article. I think this is well within Wikipedia standard practices.

I believe you when you say that you didn't intend to write a biased article, but I'm afraid that that is the result. That's why I pressed for secondary sources, seeing you were only using primary sources.--Luxem (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1990 Baudouin abortion question

I am nominating this section for POV-checking. At present, the section describes the "1990 Baudouin abortion question" as the main reason for Beliën's dismissal, downplaying other motives (see the Knack article). --Luxem (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedophiles and Freemasons

I think Belien has been cited as a source for the conspiracy theory about alleged links between pedophile activists and freemasons in Belgium, a theory which was popularized after the Marc Dutroux affair. It would be a good idea to read up on his writings on those disturbing affairs and on Freemasons in general. ADM (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)