Talk:Paul Belien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 User:Intangible's 27 September 06 edits 1.1 References 2 Gazet van Antwerpen firing 3 NPOV-template added

[edit] 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.[1] 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".[2] Belien himself however denied this influence.[3] 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".[4]

--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.[5] 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".[6] Belien himself however strongly denied this influence.[7] 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".[8]

--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)

[edit] References

1. ^ (Dutch) Extreem conservatief Amerika in de bres voor Paul Belien ("Extreme conservative America behind Paul Belien"), De Morgen, 23 August 2006, page 2. (subscription needed)
2. ^ Dansen naar de pijpen van het Amerikaans Belang, De Morgen, 26 November 2006.
3. ^ http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/515
4. ^ Het Laatste Nieuws, 23 February 2005.
5. ^ (Dutch) Extreem conservatief Amerika in de bres voor Paul Belien ("Extreme conservative America behind Paul Belien"), De Morgen, 23 August 2006, page 2. (subscription needed)
6. ^ Dansen naar de pijpen van het Amerikaans Belang, De Morgen, 26 November 2006.
7. ^ (Dutch) Paul Belien, De Morgen: Rakelings langs de Waarheid ("De Morgen: Quite near the truth"), The Brussels Journal weblog, 26 November 2005
8. ^ Het Laatste Nieuws, 23 February 2005.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)