Talk:Theo van Gogh (film director)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Theo van Gogh (film director) has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Assasination Picture

I have decided to take down the Assasination picture. It should not be shown in full at all on the biography page. It is distasteful as well a few people I have spoken with have complained about itSatanical Eve 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Website

Is there anyone close to Theo van Gogh who can convince the persons now controlling his web site to please not shut it down? It would be a great shame for him to be effectively censored after his death. I read about his story, and read that his writings were on his web site, and I wanted to go read his writings for the first time. But what I found when I got to the site was that the content of the site is no longer available! This seems like the wrong response to his death, and I hope his writings will be restored so more of us can read them.

Don't worry about it too much. It is temporarily out of full service since the servers were overloaded. Most probably it will be restored in a couple of days. Bontenbal 17:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can assure you that his writing will NOT be censored, not now, not never. The official website has turned off all content pages because of the extreme traffic load. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:31, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent van Gogh

This question is probably totally inappropriate today, but I wonder whether Theo van Gogh is related to Vincent van Gogh? --Edcolins 18:17, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he is (or was? I don't know...). -- Harry 18:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article says that Theo van Gogh "said he was related to the famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh". But... is it true? And how was he related to his ancestor? --Edcolins 19:12, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK he was a great-grandson of Vincent's brother Theo.

removed this text: (911 days after the assassination of Pim Fortuyn). Unless someone connected with the murder says otherwise, this is coincidence and numerology which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. silsor 22:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Good work. Note by the way that he was killed on 11/2, which is the alarm number in the Netherlands and Europe in general. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Except that the Dutch use dates in dd-mm-yyyy format, so it becomes 2-11. mvdhout 12:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Location

This is probably nitpicking but for the sake of accuracy, was it actually in front of the stadsdeelkantoor or just near it? The stadsdeelkantoor is like 100 m away from the corner with Mauritskade. Rkundalini

From the maps I've seen it seems he was first attacked right in front of it. Note though that he tried to ran away as well, I believe his body was not found in front of the stadsdeelkantoor. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:33, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
As I recall, he was cycling, got shot, moved on foot to the other side of the road, where he was again attacked, and died. I'm not familiar with the local situation, but I believe it is opposite to the 'stadsdeelkantoor'. mvdhout 12:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Theo van Gogh was attacked in front of the stadsdeelkantoor on Linnaeusstraat 89, fled accross the street and died on the corner of Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstaat. Vinny 19:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "non-racist critic of Islam"

Does "non-racist critic of Islam" sound weird to anybody else? It's like special attention is needed to avoid misunderstanding that he's racist. --Menchi 05:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what it's intended for. It's a POV addition to fend off any accusations of racism (since "against Islam = bad to minorities = racist", that sort of reasoning). It sounds weaselly, and probably should be removed. If any accusations of racism do pop up, they should be dealt with in substance. JRM 07:36, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
It sounds weird to me too. 1) Islam is a religion, not a people or a race. Therefore no clarification on racism is needed here. 2) whether or not Theo van Gogh (or anybody else for that sake) holds racist views is a matter of Point of View. Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV. For those two reasons, I'll delete the remark 'non-racist'.Paul 08:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] the film Submission

the text says "Arabic texts, disadvantageous to women, are painted on their skin". In fact, they were texts from the Qur'an, in Islamic, about the role and position of women, especially in relation to men. When translated, they sounded extremely sexist and degrading for women to today's ears. The point that both makers were trying to make was that many muslims take those lines literal, resulting in the Islam and Qur'an being used to "excuse" female circumcision and wife beating among other things. The movie was shown on Dutch National Television in August 2004.

Lier Lier pants on Fire. The reason Female circumcision exists is beacuse of Cultural reasons not beacause of Islam. Islam forbids female circumcision. it only allows male ones. the reason it is cultural is beacuse those people who actually committ is are not men. It's usually older women forcing young mothers to do that to there daugthers. Most men won't know it. So get your facts straights. This movie is bullshit. It is full of lies.

Furious Stormrage

The adjective Arabic can of course refer to the language, in which case it is more appropriate than "Islamic" which of course is not a language. Thus the texts cannot be "in Islamic" though they can be "Islamic texts," where Islamic is a cultural/religious adjective. The Qur'an is traditionally printed only in Arabic, right?

While I have not seen the film, I agree with the second entry that female circumcision (or more technically, female genital mutilation (FGM)) is actually a cultural practice. Most importantly, it is practiced by non-Muslim cultures in Africa. I suspect, though, that most FGM is performed by Muslims, and that is how the association developed. Also, while FGM is of course unconscionable regardless, it is usually less severe than some American (and European, I suppose) yellow journalism would lead you to believe. I'm getting most of this info from articles in The Nation, BTW.

[edit] Last name mohammed b.

Why don't you mention the last name of the killer, since this is a international site and not just a dutch site? Wou did it with Volkert Van Der G(raaf).

I mean you instead of wou

It's alright to edit your own comments to fix spelling mistakes.
Volkert's last name is by now well-known, in Dutch as well as international circles. Mohammed's is not. That said, the question of whether these last names should be mentioned is tricky. By not mentioning them, you support the Dutch POV that crime suspects are entitled to this particular forrm of protecting privacy. By mentioning them, you express the POV that this is not important by blatantly ignoring it. There is no possible NPOV solution where you both mention it and don't mention it, so we'll just have to decide. My vote is in favor of not mentioning it until Mohammed is convicted (when his last name will certainly be mentioned in the Netherlands), giving the Dutch legal system the benefit of the doubt. Little or nothing is gained by mentioning his last name, as far as encyclopedic value goes. I see potential "the public has a right to know" arguments here as deeply POV and not belonging here; go change the Dutch system instead, if that's a concern. JRM 11:29, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
Update: I see Solitude has already gone ahead and mentioned it. Wouldn't have been my choice, but since it is the English Wikipedia, I can't really base my stance on anything but personal preference. JRM 11:31, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
I agree fully with JRM. I removed the surname.Paul 18:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK Wikipedia always mentions suspects' surnames and I don't see why Mohammed Bouyeri should be an exception. Känsterle 20:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is against Dutch law to mention the names of suspects. Andries 21:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is most certainly not. Please read the Wetboek van Strafrecht and stop uttering such nonsense since you obviously don't have ANY idea what you're talking about. Besides that, what does wikipedia have to do with Dutch law? Känsterle 03:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Känsterle, Sorry, you are right it is untrue. Andries 08:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for being a bit rude to you. Känsterle 12:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Känsterle wrote: stop uttering such nonsense
It's technically wrong, but it is certainly not nonsense. The Dutch press council (which handles self-regulation of the Dutch media) is generally in favour of maintaining the privacy of suspects (i.e. no photographs of someone's face, not mentioning someone's last name). Sietse 15:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean it is ILLEGAL to do so. Känsterle 17:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added the full name of Mohammed Bouyeri to allow actual linking to his article and to provide complete and full information on the topic, which I am glad is supported by U.S. law. I am glad we're not a Dutch media, Wikipedia does not fall under Dutch law, so I feel the dicsussion on it is not at all relevant. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:05, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] stabs

the article so far states he was "shot to death" while in fact he seems to have also been stabbed. i have read at least 2 sources (incl. the local amsterdam news paper on the day of the murder) that mention his throat was slit. is this relevant enough to mention and do others have confirmation from other sources?

he was stabbed around 20 times, shot several times, and had his head nearly decapitated by a edged weapon. all this is according to CNN. Alkivar 01:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so then the question is; is this relevant for the main article? should it be mentioned there? 217.79.38.87 12:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I dont think so, the details of his death dont add much. We know he's dead, we know he was murdered, do we really need the gruesome details? Alkivar 00:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that it is important. JFK was shot by a gunman who ran away after the shooting, Lincoln was shot in the back of the head by someone who then jump on to stage publicly and ran off, theo was shot multiple times, had his throat slit, stabbed several times in the chest and was left with a knife in his chest pinning a note to him (as i understand it, i don't speak Dutch so i can only read the english articles i can find.) there is clearly a differnce in the ammount of violance here. this wasn't just an assassination, this was a message that the perpatrator was trying to convey. Cavebear42 16:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I'm very sad that such a person was murdered. In a world full of PC crap..where everyone caters to everyone else, I enjoy the refreshing ideals of Theo.

Just because this category is here: I was wondering if his opinions were ever respected? I mean the article says he justified saying "geitenneukers" against Muslims because of the teachings of Khomeini... I mean, I suppose he missed the Shia/Sunni disinction. I know very little about him but was he seen as a well educated man or a man who would tend to just try to be perverse having little clue of reality (as that statement makes it seem). gren

His own fault. He offend alot of people.WTF does he expect? For them all to not give a shit?

OK so you mean he deserved to die because he protected european values when it comes to womens rights? You should have your brain checked up, actually theres really no point to, since you dont have one.

[[User:Furious Stormrage|Furious Stormrage]

Murder is never justified. Remember that. Amused Himself to Death 22:46, 17 October (UTC)

Us humans aren't consistent with that. I think that's just a matter of who's doing the killing and who's getting killed. (Antonio.sierra 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] On the Aftermath

I find the attention given to the police destruction of the public artwork pretty exceturated and it should imho be bound in, this feels like a matter of opinion; not fit for an encyclopedia. I have not removed it myself, since i felt the author/maintainer of the page should consider this for him/herself.

Why should mentioning the facts around the destruction of the public artwork be POV? The artwork and its destruction has caught A LOT of media attention, and is surely worth mentioning.. IMHO the "Aftermath" section should (hopefully!) be expanded and not reduced. Stereotek 23:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "self-proclaimed" descendant?

Can we have some links or evidence that there is some dispute that he not a descendant of Vincent's brother before we authoritatively state that in the intro? Should be easy enough to trace someone in a direct line back just 4 generations. Gamaliel 20:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's absolutely no dispute whatsoever. See [1] for details of the relationship of Theo & Vincent van Gogh. - Nunh-huh 02:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Autochtonen" in English

Wouldn't it be much less complicated to talk about the indigenous Dutch people instead of autochtonen?

It would be less complicated but it is also obfuscating matters, autochtonen are simply not the same as indigenous Dutch people. There are non-indigenous Dutch people who can be autochtonen: for example, one phases out being an allochtoon after three generations. I propose we stay with the Dutch concepts of autochtonen and allochtonen.

[edit] Leftist censorship at Wikipedia?

For those who want to make a personal judgment, why mister FvdP might possibly be inclined to remove the conservative links I included in this article, see at the “Flemish Interest” discussion.

It’s also about the problematic that this article should leave some space for interpretation. In my opinion some interpretation is admitted, the more because Muslims and their leftist allies show no reluctance and give in the aftermath their own interpretations too (see the would-be removed links), even now when Theo cannot respond himself any more.

Therefore I put the removed links back with the explanation “controversial (see discussion)”.

Johan – Flanders ---Jvb– 12/2004

OK. So about the links mister Johan from Flanders is trying to add here:

  • "Thou Shalt Not", Friday, November 05, 2004
    • An sequence of blog entries, none of the first entries is anyhow related to Theo VG (I haven't looked at all entries). Irrelevant (or at the very least too imprecise a link) -> removed.
      • I fear you did not understand. This is a monthly overview. You should scroll up to Friday, November 05, 2004. Here one can read how people reacted immediately after the assassination: an artist for instance, but also the Moroccan youth and the clumsy authorities. First reactions are very important. They reveal much. So I invite you to put it back. Johan - Flanders - --Jvb - 12/2004
        • Of course I did not understand. But neither will the average person clicking on this link. I maintain it's "too imprecise a link", at best.
  • "26,000 times a bleeding heart" (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/157/), Thursday, December 16, 2004 - controversial (see discussion)
    • Essentially a rant against writers called Bosland and MacNab. Only passing mentions of Theo Van Gogh. Irrelevant -> removed. (Also contains such hate speech as "Maybe Macnab needs psychotherapy, he doesn’t say. He certainly exhibits all the traits associated with compulsive, bleeding-heart liberalism." : you get the idea.)
      • No rant: you must view that in its proper context. The author defends the rights of the native Dutch who were harassed until they had to leave their homes. Something Theo Van Gogh did in his last column too. If you don’t want to understand this, you can better apply for a job at the Belgian Thought Police (the Agency for Equal Rights-Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen). According to them, the Flemish should only speak about important social problems in a very scientific and non-emotional way. By the way, that’s just what they steal from us. Johan - Flanders - --Jvb- 12/2004
        • "Something Theo Van Gogh did in his last column too": too weak a relationship. I maintain this link is too remotely related to TVG to be relevant. (It's more like you're trying to push your point of view on Wikipedia's reader, than like you're trying to enlighten them on TVG.) BTW, "(if) you don't want to undestand this" and " you can better apply ..." are ad hominem attacks that have no place in a discussion between reasonable people. --FvdP
          • I insist on the context: the Guardian only brings highly fertile imagination to prove the stand that the Dutch can better continue their sleep even after Theo Van Gogh. Btw, the longer I think about it, the more I am inclined to say that me too could advice psychotherapy to the Guardian and/or the persons they “interviewed”. This is no rant. Rant would be for instance, only because you provoke me: “what’s wrong about trying to understand the psychology of those people who gave legitimacy to the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh.”
          • Ad Hominem? Sorry lad, but it’s YOU and nobody else, who doesn’t seem to understand what the style figure of a witticism means! Neither in the text nor in my remark about you. BTW, don’t expect me to weep about the fact that in Belgium opinions are made official so that those who don’t agree can be fined or even imprisoned. Then you would say that I am melancholic. Moreover, the Belgian Thought Police is controlled by some, but not all political parties. This is the definition of being biased, because politicians will always (ab)use the power they get.--Jvb Dec 24, 2004.
  • "the weekly Standard" (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/059darxx.asp), Saturday, December 18, 2004 - controversial (see discussion)
    • Actual title "The Dutch rethink multiculturalism". Theo Van Gogh appears only incidentally for the first time at the 3rd paragraph of this article. mostly irrelevant thus. Reference removed.
      • The article in the Weekly Standard is about the impact of the murder of Theo Van Gogh on thinking about multiculturalism in the Netherlands. This is also written in the leading NRC Handelsblad. See at: http://weblog.nrc.nl/index.php?user_id=5&jaar=2004&maand=12 By the way, don’t forget this is a monthly overview! Look for the title: “Weekly Standard over Nederland”. And this is Van Gogh’s legacy...why not discuss it? Johan - Flanders - --Jvb -12/2004
  • "Theo at Wikipedia and Tiscali" (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/176/), Monday, December 20, 2004 - controversial (see discussion)
    • Personal blog entry. Mostly personal opinion rather than facts. That one is on topic though. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's worth keeping here.
      • Since noone (else than jvb and me) is saying anything, I decided to remove. Contains almost no on-topic objective information anyway (where topic = Theo Van Gogh). --FvdP 19:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--FvdP 18:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Newly removed 7 jan:)

You simply don’t seem to catch that this text is the summary of THE official Dutch report written by the Interior Ministry concerning the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Already in the preface is written that this murder has the same meaning for the Netherlands as September 11 for the United States and the Madrid bombings for Spain. By removing this link, it is as if you would deny that the official American report concerning the September 11 attacks that has been discussed in Congress is worth mentioning. But perhaps you don’t speak enough Dutch to understand this? I hope I am wrong, because I meanwhile understood that you live in Flanders’ capital, surrounded by “pure” Flemish soil.
But after that author Mr. Johan Van Vlaams has finished the brief SUMMARY of the report by the Dutch General Information and Security Service (AIVD), then starting his two last paragraphs, he makes clear that he then continues with HIS own remarks. Of course, you don’t have to agree with him, but in that case you can make your own comments, isn’t it??? At any event, you already made your principal remark: the text is alleged to be “Again propaganda against arabic immigrants”. Well, I explicitely read the text once more and I can assure you that the text doesn’t speak about “Arabs” at all. The author only speaks about “Muslim Youth”. And I suppose to know why. As far as I know, the Dutch police report about the major gang rape problem in Holland does not differenciate among the nationalities of the perpertrators. But in Belgium, where the gang rape problem is still smaller, the differenciation in the research results is made: and in Belgium indeed, number one on the list are the Moroccan youth, number two the “blacks”. So it is YOU who made the link with the Arabs, not the author.
Considering all this, I think that FvdP is in a very weak position to remove the link I placed. If no one else objects, I will not accept the link to be removed.
--Jvb Jan 10, 2005.
Removed again:
  • this link is not on topic, because it's not about Theo Van Gogh. That alone is a sufficient reason to remove.
  • jvb, now replace "arabic" by "muslim" in my argument, and answer to that ! I stand by my claim: you are first and foremost a propagandist. Even though you're sufficiently clever to be hypocritical enough to hide it under a pretense of objectivity.
  • JVB = Johan Van Vlaams. (If not, then you should display an authorisation by J V Vlaams about all his texts you have copied verbatim in this encyclopedia.)
--FvdP 20:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • About the first removed link, I already gave enough info above. About the second removed link,"An evening in Amsterdam", Monday, January 24, 2005, I can say that everything in the story refers to Theo van Gogh. Compare for ex. “Laura Schlessinger” at Wikipedia. Complex social phenomenons need proper explanation and context information to understand.
  • An Arab is a person, Islam is a religion. Two completely different notions, such as “hardware” and “software” in computer technology. But the Politico-Correct people would like it to be otherwise, to label people who don’t adhere to their ideology as being “racist”, isn’t it?
  • You write: “JVB = Johan Van Vlaams. (If not, then you should display an authorisation by J V Vlaams about all his texts you have copied verbatim in this encyclopedia.)”. I see that you principally refer to: Talk:Eurabia. Answer: I can confirm you that I have the authorisation to use the texts from Mr. Johan Van Vlaams such as represented at: http://www.majorityrights.com . If you doubt about this, ask them yourself at the blog’s email: wirebiz@btinternet.com .
--Jvb Jan 25, 2005.

[edit] 06/05

  • the page currently says "Until his death Van Gogh was working on a movie (0605) about the assassination of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. The film is set for premiere on December 15, 2004 on the internet through a Dutch ISP, which also financed the movie." That time has come and gone, did it come out? the best link i can find is this one but since i dont speak dutch i cant tell much of what is going on. someone who does should really update that phrase and if there is an english vertion, id live to hear it. also, it appears to me that the movie is called 06/05 not 0605 but it is lost on me as to why. Cavebear42 07:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try this link: http://notontv.net/
--Jvb– Jan 10, 2005

[edit] English

I am a native speaker of English, also fluent in Dutch. Whoever wrote this page did a very fine job, however, ocassionaly the otherwise gorgeous prose seems to suffer from a Dutchisms or two.

I tried to correct a couple of the most blatant errors. Maybe someone should edit this stuff for style once.


Is it me or does he not look like Chrisopher Hitchens a bit?

[edit] Watch the Video

The video links don't appear to work anymore?


[edit] meaning of Submission in arabic

in the article : " The title itself, "Submission", is the translation of the word "Islam" in english. "

I don,t know what is the source of this claiming , but that is totally wrong as i speak arabic as mother language , submision is translated in arabic as : خضوع , which means to be under the role of other human being and to obey other's wills . while إسلام Islam means to go peacefully with god's will which is always the best for humans . the root of the word سلام meaning exactly the english word : Peace .... and that is why the muslim greeting is : السلام عليكم , Peace be on you .

I think the hurry in translatins could make many misunderstanding of peoples with eachothers . --Chaos 12:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "submission" as english translation of the word "Islam" is widely accepted.
Islam (Arabic:

الإسلام‎; al-islām (listen (help·info)), "submission (to the will of God)") is a monotheistic faith, one of the Abrahamic religions, and the world's second-largest religion. From Islam page.

Here are just the first results from google (searching from "islam meaning"):
"The Meaning of Islam. Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. "
From: http://www.barghouti.com/islam/meaning.html
"The word Islam is an Arabic word meaning peace, submission and obedience."
From: http://www.al-islam.com/articles/articles-e.asp?fname=ALISLAM_R11_E
"With Islam, God completed the religion He revealed and chose for humanity (5:3). Literally, Islam means submission, peace, and salvation."
From: http://www.islamanswers.net/crossroads/meaning.htm
I don't speak arabic, I can't prove the correctness of the statements, but it's a matter of fact that it is associated with Islam.
The title of Theo's film is clearly a reference to that.
The discussion about the meaning (if any) should be moved to Wikipedia's Islam page. You should notice, anyway, that the matter of discussion is not the "meaning of Submission in arabic" - as you state - but whether the word islam means submission. There's a great difference, you totally missed the point.
Since the reference to Islam is clear (and obvious thinking about Van Gogh's critic), the sentence is readded.
Please before editing again, post here. --User:Lasah 12:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


I think this sentence : The film's title is a direct translation of the word "Islam". .. represents nopv and mistake in the translation .

actually arabic language has another world for Submission which is الخضوع ... I have explained that many times ... Isalm means exactly is to go freely and peacefully with god's will ... إسلام is derived from the word "سلام" which means "Peace".

when u say : Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. " then this world carries all of these 4 meanings together so that should be clarified . --Chaos 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hofstadgroup not radicals ?

The dutch government, law enforcement agencies and the national news seem to differ:

http://www.nos.nl/nieuws/artikelen/2005/2/7/ledenhofstadgroepvoorderechter.html

(in Dutch)

quote: "Leden van de Hofstadgroep zouden ook contact hebben gehad met Mohammed B., de verdachte van de moord op Theo van Gogh.

Twee van de radicale moslimjongeren werden een week na die moord in het Haagse Laakkwartier opgepakt. Dat gebeurde na een belegering door de politie, die de hele dag duurde."

You might be interested in this letter, written by the Dutch ministers of Justice and the Interior: http://www.regering.nl/Images/briefplusbijlagen_tcm42-50573.doc

(In Dutch) , I do not think there is any reason to revisit this point. --Isolani 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submission film

Cut from article:

The movie was perceived by the Islamic community as an inaccurate perception of Islamic teachings.

According to whom? And more to the point, which elements of the Islamic community formed this perception? And which Islamic teachings did these people say van Gogh inaccurately portrayed in the film?

As is, this statement is unattributed POV masquerading as fact.

Secondly, what was the point of van Gogh's film?

  • that the Koran tells Islamic people it's okay to "abuse" woman (by Western standards); or,
  • that men in Islamic societies (i.e., men who ostensibly follow the Koran's teachings) abuse women despite Koranic teachings; or,
  • that regardless of what the Koran may or may not teach, women are getting badly mistreated?

My personal impression is that Islamic society is selfish and violent, and that anyone who exposes this self-centered violence is liable to be bullied into submission. But the question for us Wikipedia contributors here is, how to describe Islam's reaction to van Gogh's criticisms. Was he murdered for branding Islamic men as murderous, womanizing bullies? (Ironically, proving his point!) Or what? Let's be as objective as we can in this article, please. --Uncle Ed 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that it was the first option, as he utilized actual Koranic verses to make his point. TheKaplan 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passive vs Active Voice

While I understand the reasoning behind changing the wording to the active voice in order to emphasize the murderer Bouyeri, it seems to me that the passive voice is more appropriate to an artile about Theo van Gogh, because he is the subject of the sentences. Consider: "Theo van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri." This focuses on Van Gogh, as the article should. Next: "Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Theo van Gogh." This focuses on Bouyeri, and seems more appropriate for his own article. TheKaplan 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed Major Dutch Cities/Washington Times claim

I really don't think the far-right-wing Moonie-controlled Washington Times is a credible source in any situation, let alone this case as regards the supposed "majority of under-14's in major Dutch cities are Islamic" and similar claims, especially as according to the CIA World Factbook Muslims make up only 5.5% of the total Dutch population. The Washington Times article in question is a commentary piece and quotes statistics without reference to any sort of study. This is thoroughly unencyclopaedic. Unless this claim can be substantiated by a more impartial and mainstream source it should not be in the article. JF Mephisto 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Do They Hate Us?

Isn't there a way to incorporate the current trend towards self-blame into the article? By doing so, it could be shown that van Gogh brought on his own death and that Bouyeri is totally and absolutely not responsible for his alleged actions. Lestrade 02:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7ETheo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29_c5d3.html"