Talk:The Greens (Netherlands)

Untitled

This is messy. Please choose for Dutch or English names, while mentioning the translation the first tame a name is used. Currently both Dutch and English names just flood this text. I tnkink only people who understand Dutch will actually understand this text in this form. Migdejong (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to do it your self! C mon (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Political_parties/Assessment#WikiProject_Political_parties_Importance_scale gives a high importance to this article. With Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic I should choose for low. Otto (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest statement

I am an unpaid member of the board of De Groenen and regularly update this page. Otto (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Chairperson and CoI edit

Declared WP:CoI editor User:Otto ter Haar made an unsourced change of the Party Chairperson in this edit [[1]] without requesting a change on the talk page against guideline WP:COIEDIT. I tried to find a source, including in the Dutch language website of the party, without success so reverted leaving the edit summary 'Unsourced. Not found on website'. User:Otto ter Haar has since replaced the unsourced material without adding a source as needed. They did leave the edit summary 'this is edit-warring instead of looking for consensus' which at first I took to mean they were implying I was edit warring but now as they are not following WP:BRD on second consideration there is a second possibility that they are declaring an edit war! Comment please User:Otto ter Haar, revert your change, and request an edit here in the usual way with an independent reliable source.SovalValtos (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

SovalValtos, if you want a source for a change you should ask for that instead of reverting a change from which you don't know the source. I can provide sources but you are unwilling to look for censensus by giving me reasonable time to provide them. I have updated the info at the website http://www.degroenen.nl/adressen.html and will add the citation. --Otto (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So you first changed the article on Wikipedia and after questions were asked here on Wikipedia you added the information on the website of that organisation? - Robotje (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. The website of the organisation was not yet updated either. --Otto (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand it. Yesterday you did this edit on that Wikipedia article but at that moment their website was not updated yet. Than based on what source did you change the Wikipedia article yesterday? - Robotje (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday I made the change you cite based on inside information which was not yet published. After the request for a source I published the inside information on the organisation's website and created with that action a public source for my update from yesterday. --Otto (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So what you did was a clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability where you can read:

“ Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. ... ”

I think it is better you never ever edit this article anymore. The revert of your unsourced change was a correct thing to do because there was no verifiable source on which you did that change. After that revert you blamed the person who made the revert instead of blaming yourself. Shame on you! Since most of this article seems to be written by you, and it turns out we cannot trust you on this topic, I think a big clean up is needed or maybe just have this article deleted. - Robotje (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I find this response quite rude and over the top. The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability which you quote says: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.". That is the situation here. --Otto (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If some wikipedian is using two books borrowed from the local library to write an new article and a few years later there is a source request, then it is very well possible the author doesn't now for sure based on which of the two books that fact was added to that article. Then it might take several days or even more before he goes back to the library to look up that fact (hoping the books are not borrowed to another person). In that case there was a public source before the addition was made. In your case there was no public source so you should not have changed the article based on some knowledge. What you did on Wikipedia was a 'deadly sin' in a COI situation and you got caught on doing so. Instead of admitting you were wrong you blamed the other. To me that makes you unfit to edit this article any longer. - Robotje (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The policies Verifiability and COI say nothing about "deadly sins" as you call it in relation to making an unverifiable edit. I did admit it was an omission and corrected the public source quickly. Indeed I blamed SovalValtos for the revert, which was unnecessary, just adding a tag would have been enough. I disagree with your opinion that I should be unfit to edit this article. --Otto (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that one single revert is identical to edit warring is ridiculous and looks like a complete misunderstanding of what edit warring is. The Banner talk 14:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

One single revert which isn't based on proper knowledge of the subject is ridiculous and the first move in an edit war. You can't clean your hands by calling criticism "ridiculous". --Otto (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And your stance here is a typical example where your editing and behaviour is ruled by your COI, Otto. The Banner talk 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that my edit is ruled by any COI. Which COI should I have in your view? --Otto (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As a member of the party board and former chairman... The Banner talk 09:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The guideline Conflict of interest is more restrictive than I expected. I will publish my next edit first at this talk page. --Otto (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

True, but its application can also vary with the behaviour of the COI-editor. Poking a bear is not a good idea. The Banner talk 13:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Website source

I am not sure that the party website being used as a source for anything is justified now. The party seems to have been reduced to tiny factional splinters and it is not clear who the website is controlled by or represents. I have had trouble finding evidence that the party still exists. Should we now remove material with no independent sources both infobox data and text? Should there be re-writing in the past tense?SovalValtos (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

De Groenen participated in the election of the council of Amsterdam on March 21st. Reports of the campaign are available on the website. The website is maintained by WebHazard InternetDesign assisted by the board of De Groenen. --Otto (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

What is a nice euphemism for "updating by order of the board". The Banner talk 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A few days ago Otto ter Haar did on this page this edit in which he wrot:

“ Yesterday I made the change you cite based on inside information which was not yet published. After the request for a source I published the inside information on the organisation's website and created with that action a public source for my update from yesterday. ”

So he changed the Wikipedia article based on inside information that is not available elsewhere (which is a violation of WP:Verify) and after complaints came in he himself put the information on the website of that party and now he thinks there is a source for what he wrote in the article. But he is using his own publication as source for what he wrote in the article. Combine that with the COI issue and it is only getting worse. Still he doesn't understand it if an outsider writes that he thinks Otto is unfit to edit this article. - Robotje (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not my publication what I use as a source but a publication of The Greens. I do know/understand that Robotje regards me unfit to edit this page because of my COI. I agreed already to follow the guideline to publish future edits first at this page to give outsiders the chance to comment. --Otto (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you family of Donald Trump? First you admitted on this page "After the request for a source I published the inside information on the organisation's website and ..." (underlined by Robotje) and now you write "It is not my publication ..." - Robotje (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The board of De Groenen mandated me to edit the website. My change was approved by the board. --Otto (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you prove that with independent sources? Or - to play it nice - any other proof that the edit to the website was approved by the full board? The Banner talk 18:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)