Talk:Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, has edited Wikipedia as
194.123.230.36 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in the Netherlands may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Name of this site, Princess Mabel of the Netherlands, is wrong!

There was never given an approval for a marriage with Prince Johan Friso, and the request for approval was withdrawn by the couple. However, they nevertheless married on April 24 2004 and therefore the Princess didn't become member of the Dutch royal house. The Dutch royal house is a smaller part of the Dutch royal family and under the responsibility of the minister; those who are member are in line of succession to the throne. Therefore she didn't get the title Princess of the Netherlands, but because her husband is still Prince of Orange-Nassau her title is Princess of Orange-Nassau (by marriage). Therefore her correct name (and name of this page) should be: Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau. Please correct this!

  • ok, so is the current heading "Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Mrs. van Amsberg" the correct way how they call her in Netherlands? or is it just "Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau" what exactly is your proposal? Antares911 16:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Mabel, Mrs Van Amsberg?

I have never seen Princess Mabel referred to in this way... her husband is not Mr Van Amsberg, why in the world is she Mrs Van Amsberg? I do think that this is a totally false piece of information.

[edit] She is

Princess Mabel is called mrs. van Amsberg because she is married to Prince Johan Friso, who inhereted the appelation of nobility "Jonkheer van Amsberg" from his father Prince Claus of the Netherlands. It is his surname. Since the wives of a "Jonkheer" do not share in that appelation, they are called mrs. followed by the surname. Crownprincess Maxima and Princess Laurentien are also called mrs. van Amsberg. When the Prince of Orange (elder brother of Johan Friso) got married to Princess Maxima, the name mrs. van Amsberg was specifically mentioned by mayor J. Cohen, who conducted the marriage ceremony.Gerard von Hebel 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official full name

Actually her full official name is:

Mabel, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, Gravin van Oranje-Nassau, Mevrouw van Amsberg - Wisse Smit.

in English:

Mabel, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Countess of Orange-Nassau, Mrs van Amsberg - Wisse Smit.

She is a princess, because she married a prince, but the fact that she and her husband are not members of the royal house (i.e. are not in line to the throne) makes that she is not HRH (her royal highness), but HH (her highness).

Princess Mabel is commonly referred to as princess Mabel, but apparently she prefers to use her own name Mabel Wisse Smit.

According to Dutch language rules it is "Jonkvrouw van Amsberg", but "Mevrouw Van Amsberg" and "Mrs Van Amsberg", with a capital V. Explanation: "Jonkvrouw" is a part of the name, while "Mrs" is not. Please change the article accordingly. Skuipers 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up on removal of "false'

[1] [2]. Probably too small for inclusion in the article but Dutch media report that modification to this article, deleting the phrase "and false" from Balkenendes statement in the marriage section was conducted by Mabel and Friso themselves. Arnoutf 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not edited from Balkenende statement... it was edited in wikipedia. Althought I'm a Dutch republican, I think it is great the Dutch Royal family participates on wikipedia. If they have a different point of view, so be it: it will be corrected soon enough (and that is what happened). Ubuntu user 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right, the current text has the Balkenende quote as a quote, the text at the time of the edit did not report it as a quote and was not sourced. Arnoutf 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

- The IP-address has been identified as being from the palace Huis ten Bosch, the residence of the queen Beatrix. Given the declarations of the prime minister at the time, the word "false" is correctly included. See also the refs. The newpaper states that the edit on 10:45, 8 January 2006 (i.e. from 194.123.230.36) is from the palace. The word has been removed more often. -DePiep 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The press office of the Royal Dutch Family itself says that it was Mabel who editted it herself 86.95.64.224 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The report in the Volkskrant, weblink 2 given above. Arnoutf 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And a report on Dutch national television in the show NOVA Arnoutf 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed to an English-language report. After all, this is the English-language Wikipedia. I assume that more central English media will refer to the affair soon. Please update when they do. gidonb 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Incomplete and false' changed by prince and princess themselves

Another link (in dutch) which confirms this information: http://novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=artikelen.details&achtergrond_id=9806&CFID=28964936&CFTOKEN=43246296

The official press department of the government, the RVD, has confirmed that they indeed deleted the word false from their private residence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.148 (talk • contribs) at 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki ethics demand you to sign all comments on a talk page, if only with your IP number (if you don't know that simply use the four tildes ~~~~ which will be replaced with your IP number automatically. If you don't sign an automated program will put your signature for you instead (as has happened here). Please do not remove such an automatic signature without putting in your actual signature (using the tildes). Thanks. Arnoutf 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
As a service for those who are looking for the "royal change" of Wikipedia: click here. Once it was officially confirmed that the change was by Mabel and the prince, from the palace of the reigning Dutch queen, vandalism at this page got pretty bad. It was temporarily protected for edits of new and anonymous users. gidonb 23:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks gidonb, the protection might be just in time: today articles about the edit also appeared in the Sp!ts [3] and the Metro [4]. - Face 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was not gidonb who semiprotected it, but indeed yesterday evening there was a short burst of vandalism (anon IP's removing the false statement repeatedly) until an uninvolved admin (User:Wknight94) blocked the article; good call for which I thanked him on his talkpage.Arnoutf 10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Face. As a Wikipedian and social scientist, it was my pleasure to describe the latest events! Thank you for your response and interest. Best regards, gidonb 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Might it be more accurate to use the word 'incorrect' instead of 'false'? The word 'false' has, in my opinion a much stronger meaning than the Dutch language word 'onjuist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brederode (talk • contribs) 09:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

My Babylon-Pro dictionary gives as translations for the adjective 'onjuist': incorrect, erroneous, false, faulty, mistaken, wrong, untruthful, improper, calumniatory, loose. In the current context, I think "incorrect" and "false" are both correct translations. The word "incorrect" is more literal (on=in; juist=correct). The word 'incorrect' reminds me of a game show of high-school exam, where a contestant or student gives an incorrect answer (while trying to give the correct answer). In this context, the Prime-Minister was suggesting that they said something, even though they knew the information was incorrect. For that reason, the word "false" is the best translation in this case. The word "False" is not that much stronger than incorrect. Johan Lont 10:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, as a professional and sworn translator Dutch-English I think Brederode does have a point here. There is a strong similarity between respectively the two Dutch words 'onjuist' and 'vals' and the two English words 'incorrect' and 'false'. The word 'vals' (= 'false') is more degrading than the word 'onjuist' (= 'incorrect'), which is more matter-of-fact and less of a fierce accusation. And it is almost certainly not accidental that PM Balkenende used the matter-of-fact word 'incorrect' and refrained from using a word like 'false'.

I will not make this edit right now, as it seems hardly desirable that in this situation everyone makes any edit that occurs to him. But I do offer this thought to be considered by other users who have a good knowledge of both Dutch and English, and if we can reach some agreement here, I propose that we will indeed replace the word 'false' by 'incorrect'.

Let me just add that the suggestion made above by Johan Lont that the word 'incorrect' implies involuntary incorrectness does not hold water. It may refer to incorrect information provided either intentionally or unintentionally. Paul kuiper NL 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although in my feeling "onjuist" has a slightly more negative meaning compared to "incorrect". On the other hand "false" seems overly negative compared to the Dutch "onjuist". Arnoutf 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Something important to note here is that the word juist in Dutch also has a strong moral connotation when used in some sentences, with the Van Dale listing rechtvaardig (lit. just) as a synonym for that use. Someone doing the juist thing, for example, would be doing the right thing. Using false as a translation would effectively remove that connotation. In this case, incorrect would be a better translation, but I favour unsound even more, as sound is a better translation of juist than correct. However, the best translation is plain and simple: the word wrong. User:Krator (t c) 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Krator. Apparently the four of us (Brederode, ArnoutF, you and myself) agree that the translation 'false' is somewhat out of place here, and that 'incorrect' is a more accurate translation than 'false'. Your idea of using the word 'wrong' would certainly be fine in many instances, but in this particular case, the resulting phrase would be 'incomplete and wrong information', of which my hunch is that there is an odd sound to it. Therefore, I hope that I can take it that replacing the word 'false' by 'incorrect' is at least also in your view an improvement. Paul kuiper NL 22:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It does indeed sound odd. I still prefer Incomplete and unsound information though, but I am fine with incorrect.

Thanks again. I have made this edit now, and I also thank ArnoutF and in particular Brederode for raising the point.

You're welcome! Brederode 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
→ For what it's worth, to this native English-speaker, "incomplete and incorrect" suggests that the information was incorrect because it was incomplete. Whereas "incomplete and wrong" makes it more clear that the information was 1. incomplete and 2. wrong, i.e. even if more info was added, the statement would have contained inaccuracy. Nor does "incomplete and wrong" sound any odder to my ear than "incomplete and incorrect". But "incomplete and unsound" does seem strange, and I cannot imagine anyone saying it except a pedant: Policies are "unsound", but allegations are inaccurate, incorrect, erroneous, wrong, misleading, untrue or false -- in increasing order of intensity. I favor "incomplete and wrong". Lethiere 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
→ Thanks for your comment. Just as you did, I felt immediately that 'unsound' is a word that definitely cannot be used here. But by now I have consulted several native English speakers, and their unanimous opinion is that 1. nothing in your above comment on the word 'wrong' would not equally apply to the word 'incorrect', and 2. in a formal statement by a government, and used as an attributive (i.e. not predicative) adjective, the words 'incorrect information' are much more likely to appear than the words 'wrong information'. As in the above discussion we have carefully reached an agreement that 'incorrect' is an adequate translation of the relevant Dutch word 'onjuist', I think we should stick to this. Paul kuiper NL 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
→ How about "inaccurate" as a compromise? "Inaccurate", like Dutch "onjuist", has a mildly negative meaning without outright implying an accusation of a deliberate lie. "Incomplete and inaccurate" seems to me like it exactly captures the spirit of "onvolledig en onjuist". McDutchie 14:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
→ I seriously doubt that "onjuist" can be translated as "inaccurate". This is especially the case here, as the section is a quote, it is essential we stay as close as the original wording as possible. Arnoutf 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
→ Wolter's Woordenboek Nederlands-Engels gives "inaccurate, incorrect, wrong" as possible translations for "onjuist". In my opinion, "inaccurate" is a closer translation in this context than "incorrect" because it has a mild implication of intentional inaccuracy, like "onjuist" does. McDutchie 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
→@ McDutchie, I have moved your comment to the spot where you should have put it, i.e. at the bottom of the relevant discussion. I don't think we should keep arguing for many days about one single word. What matters here is that we have all agreed that the translation 'false' was out of place, and therefore it was replaced by a fair translation. Moreover, 'inaccurate' would not qualify here because the PM certainly did not imply that there were only involuntary 'inaccuracies', in fact in his later comments he used the word 'onwaarheid' (= untruth). Settled. Paul kuiper NL 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
→@ Paul kuiper NL, by what authority are you declaring this discussion "settled"? What is your motivation for attempting to silence me? And why, and by what authority, did you take it upon yourself move my comment out of context so that it is now no longer clear exactly what/who it was a response to? (For everyone's information, it was a response to Arnoutf's comment of 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC).)
This word "onjuist" is part of a quote from the Prime Minister, and therefore, as Arnoutf said, we need to stay as close to the original wording as possible. It is also the subject of major media brouhaha because the princess herself attempted to remove the previous translation of it. The discussion about this word would therefore seem entirely justified.
In my opinion, "incorrect" is not as close to the original meaning as "inaccurate". In English-language media, whenever some public figure intentionally provides incorrect information, that information is often or usually described as inaccurate, see for example: [5]. I would welcome any opinions from native English speakers. McDutchie 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an English translation of Balkenende's statement on the official Dutch government site government.nl [6]: "not complete and accurate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.165.9 (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, your link is 404-compliant, and I can't find any relevant articles by searching the government.nl site for "wikipedia" or "mabel". If verified, this would be extremely useful information, and I think we should use the official translation if one is available. Do you (or does anyone) have a working link, please? McDutchie 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed the link; for some reason they removed the original page since yesterday 82.170.165.9 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Edited accordingly, with your reference. McDutchie 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if it was accidentally that from the last paragraph ('Editing negative information') you removed the addition made by Phaunt that at the time the controversial edit was made by MWS, the words in question 'were unattributed and unsourced', (i.e. they did not yet contain a quote from Balkenende). In my view this addition was highly relevant as both in English and Dutch Wikipedia the charge was made that MWS actually falsified a Balkenende quote. So why not state this, possibly with the link it contained to the particular edit? Paul kuiper NL 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the words "unattributed and unsourced" is Wikipedia jargon. See also WP:SELF. To anyone outside Wikipedia, the words "unattributed and unsourced" do not have the meaning they were supposed to have here, though perhaps a scholar would get the meaning. Unsourced is not even in the/my dictionary. What was meant by the statement "unattributed and unsourced" was "this statement was there in violation of WP:V and WP:ATT, which means that it could've been changed and removed at any time by anyone, which means that the edit made by the couple was actually not in violation of wikipedia policy." It is next to impossible to convey that meaning here, without using Wikipedia as a source (a primary source in this case and in violation of WP:SELF), and without using Wikipedia jargon. So, removing the statement was the lesser evil. User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I think that by now I have found a fair solution, which I hope satisfies all of us. Paul kuiper NL 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

→ Hello Krator, I must admit that I find some of your recent edits disappointing. My reasons for adhering to the translation 'incorrect' are stated above. But I also regret that you removed from the paragraph 'Editing negative information' two facts that are certainly relevant in my view: 1. that the article did not contain a PM quote at the time, 2. that the English word 'false' which was originally used is absolutely not a correct translation from Dutch, as the actual Dutch word ('onjuist') that was used means 'incorrect' or 'wrong'.
I do not agree with you that mentioning the first fact 'violates WP:SELF'. Before I wrote the last version. I read carefully what is written there about 'Writing about Wikipedia itself' and 'Articles are about their subjects'. Please check this again. It seems to imply that in a case like this, where publicity regarding an article is significant enough, this may be included in the article 'if it was relevant to the topic of the article itself', and it must be done 'in a neutral tone'. Anyway, the choice should be made, of course: either MWS's involvement with the article is ignored, or it is mentioned here, but if it is mentioned, this should certainly be done in a way which is careful and not in any way misleading.
One of my reasons for insisting is that it was actually me who (on August 29, 17:38) inserted the fact that the particular words were a quote from PM Balkenende. Since then I read both in English and Dutch Wiki repeatedly the charge that 'the quote from the PM was forged', therefore I feel partly responsible for a careful account of the honest facts, ruling out any false charges. If this paragraph is kept anyway (I understand that several users favour its total removal, and they may well have a point), I suggest that you draft an acceptable version, if not, I will favour restoring the version that you removed. Thanks, Paul kuiper NL 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing negative information

Is this really noteworthy enough to include in the article? This may currently be in the (Dutch) news but will anybody care in a few years? —Ruud 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this will die down in a week and nobody will care. This is trivia at its most trivial. Arnoutf 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a significant controversy, and probably the only thing anyone outside of the Netherlands will associate the subject with. User:Krator (t c) 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the to-be princess, in the line for the throne, lied to the government (and possibly to the Queen too). When it came out, the couple had to choose between marriage or right to wear the crown (for the husband).

That itself is worth mentioning and has not died out in a weak, clearly. Then, years later, the couple removes the fact of the lie from Wikipedia, i.e. introducing another lie. I want to read that here too. If you think it's not noteworthy - read elsewhere. We are here for the facts. -DePiep 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As Krator notes above, at the time of the removal the statement "incomplete and false" was unsourced and not presented as a literal quote of Balkenende. Changing such an unsourced statement is not against Wiki policy (although in the context probably not the best/most ethical thing to do). By now the phrase has been sourced, so now it would be against policy.
In other words, although not the best thing to do; changing the section in the way, and in the version of the article, in which is was done, was not as bad as the reports in the press has made it look like.
On the other hand it has achieved some notability in the international press. Perhaps it is getting time for an article on Wikipedia edit controversies, which then can be linked in a single sentence "In August 2007 this article achieved some notority because an edit controversy by Mabel of Orange Nassau was made public in the press." Leave it at that and find the rest in the article. Perhaps such an article exist, does anybody know? Arnoutf 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
RE Arnoutf: incorrect. The edit on jan 8, 2006 was reverted within one hour by User:Baszoetekouw. The edit summary says: "incomplete and false information" is a leteral quote from prime minister Balkenende). Above this, at the time Wikipedia did not use marked-up references as we do now. Baszoetekouw did Wiki policy, and very well. Further: why use vague terms like 'some notority', when we have facts? -DePiep 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In my view, this section should absolutely go. (1) It is against our guideline "avoid self reference". (2) It is totally unimportant in the biography of the subject of this article (lying to the government during an official procedure and removing two words from a wikipedia article are not exactly in the same league). (3) At the time of the edit from Huis ten Bosch, no source was given for the words "incomplete and false" (Baszoetekouw's edit summary came after the royal edit), so there was nothing wrong with the change that was made. In fact, unsourced negative information about living people must be removed. Skarioffszky 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
RE DePiep. We have the facts; but it is also a fact that it has not been worldwide frontpage news; i.e. it is notably but not more then just so. BTW. The exact phrase was: Later that year, it turned out that she had given Queen Beatrix and prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende incomplete nd false information. It is not clear from this it was a quote; if it where phrased as Later that year prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that "incomplete and false information" was given to him and the possibly the Queen." it would be a completely different matter.
RE Skarioffszky I agree unsourced negative information should be removed, but whether you (i.e. the subject of the article) should do it yourself is doubtful. Arnoutf 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it lacks class, Arnoutf, but that's hardly relevant. What happened is: she edited the article and from the point of view of our guidelines and policies there was nothing wrong with the edit. Funny story, yes. Material for an encyclopedia? No. Skarioffszky 18:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. Still it maybe material for a future Wikipedia edit controversies article because of its press coverage. Arnoutf 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not because of Wikipolicy it should stay, but because she lied, lost therefore her right to become queen, and then tried to remove the mentioning of the lie. That is a fact worth in her biography. We are not only doing family, and royal titles here. Also their behavior.- DePiep 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
She did not lose the possibility to become queen because she edited wikipedia! Admins do not have such powers yet. Skarioffszky 19:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I too agree with removing the section. Phaunt 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mabel-affair and many issues connecting to it, is not only Dutch news, but important international news. Why they themselves did change the English wiki, while not doing so with the Dutch wiki?
Sorry but I think you are seeing way too much in this. I myself (as a Dutchman) am practically exclusively on English Wiki; and so are many other Dutch editors. It is not very strange that the royals do the same. The power of the royal house in Dutch politics is very limited, only the Queen has some real power. Furthermore after the Lockheed bribery scandals I am sure the Dutch royal family the would not even touch an airplane related controversy with a ten-foot pole. Personally I think that the princess just did not like the word "false" in here (which I can imagine if the article were about me). Arnoutf 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the well-taken point that at that time the article did not contain a quote from PM Balkenende (this quote was actually inserted only two days ago, by me), there is another important thing to be noted: all Dutch users who expressed an opinion so far agree that the English word 'false' is a mistranslation from Dutch; we may bicker if the precise translation is 'incorrect' or 'wrong', but the word 'false' is certainly more harsh than any word the PM used in his letter to parliament.

If this paragraph is kept at all (I agree that its relevance is very doubtful), I think it should certainly not be maintained without stating this highly relevant fact in an honest way. Paul kuiper NL 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the "no source was given for the quote, therefore the edit is ok by Wikipedia standards" argument

In particular response to the following four points, which are the same argument:
  1. "At the time of the edit from Huis ten Bosch, no source was given for the words "incomplete and false" (Baszoetekouw's edit summary came after the royal edit), so there was nothing wrong with the change that was made. In fact, unsourced negative information about living people must be removed."
  2. "Changing such an unsourced statement is not against Wiki policy (although in the context probably not the best/most ethical thing to do)."
  3. "It is not clear from this it was a quote; if it where phrased as Later that year prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that "incomplete and false information" was given to him and the possibly the Queen." it would be a completely different matter."
  4. "What happened is: she edited the article and from the point of view of our guidelines and policies there was nothing wrong with the edit."
It has to be noted that this argument, summarized best in 4, is completely irrelevant. To make the judgement "no source was given for the quote, therefore the edit is ok by Wikipedia standards" is wrong, and as editors, we should not take this into consideration here. Making the judgement would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
I agree that the controversy is completely without foundations by Wikipedia standards. However, it would be violate the policy of neutral point of view to exclude this information from the article, because we are then writing from a Wikipedian point of view, whereas we should write from a neutral point of view. We happen to be Wikipedians, but that does not mean we should attribute undue weight to the Wikipedian point of view. We should apply the same standards we apply to Christians writing about Christianity and pseudoscientists writing about pseudoscience to Wikipedians writing about Wikipedia.
In what way should the Wikipedian opinion be represented then, and in which way should it influence the way the controversy is described, if at all? Per the verifiability policy and the talk page guidelines (which notes that Wikipedia policy applies to talk pages), it should not be represented at all. Why? Because it none of the sources have written that Wikipedia standards allow for such edits. Using "no source was given for the quote, therefore the edit is ok by Wikipedia standards" as an argument against inclusion of the controversy is original research. One could cite WP:BLP or WP:V (the irony!) to support the argument, however, this does not hold ground according to that last policy, because these pages are self published primary sources, and the one citing them to support the argument would be making a judgement based on primary sources. In original research policy, this is explicitly classified as original research.
Summarizing, the argument that Wikipedia would allow the edit made by the couple, and that the controversy is irrelevant because of that, does not hold ground. Firstly, this argument violates the neutral point of view policy, as it attributes undue weight to the Wikipedian opinion in the discussion. The correct weight of this opinion is none, because no reliable sources have written about it.
User:Krator (t c) 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please limit discussion in this subsection to the argument as displayed in the section title.
WP:OR deals only with information in the article. It doesn't forbid wikipedia editors to try to make their own judgement about the importance and worthiness of inclusion of reported stories on the talk page. Skarioffszky 09:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Important: please note that in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons there is a special paragraph: 3.4 'Dealing with edits by the subject of the article'. This states explicitly that 'subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material'. As at the time when the relevant edit was made, the article did not contain a source for the particular phrase, I think this edit must be considered admissable under Wikipedia rules.

It is obvious that Wiki rules ARE relevant here because at the moment the couple made the edit, they were acting as Wikipedia users. Wiki rules, of course, apply to all users. Therefore the statement made above that using the Wiki rules as a standard to go by here "violates the neutral point of view policy" cannot be upheld in my view. Paul kuiper NL 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

I believe this discussion is getting a bit off track by the question of whether or not Mabel was wrong or right to remove information from her biography. An interesting question, but separate from the fact of whether or not we should report on it. As an encyclopedia is a summary of all human knowledge it only reports on a selected number of facts. Assume you were asked to write Mabel's biography for the 2020 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. Would you mention the "Wikipedia edit controversy" or not? —Ruud 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although these discussion say something about the amplification of the issue by media reporting (ie if it was allowed according to wiki rules, there should be no reason for the media to pay attention to it).
Nevertheless the issue remains whether the (outside the Netherlands) limited press exposure makes this issue notable enough for an inclusion in the article. I think the attention does not warrant inclusion, or at most a oneline remark something like "In August 2007 some media attention was paid to a controversial edit to this article by the princess herself in early 2006(reference to one of the newspapers)". Arnoutf 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)¨
It is the Dutch press reporting about HER & about THIS wikipage. So wouldn`t it be strange if info from mainstream press about this page, in future possibly can't be found here, but can be found elsewhere? (& I aggree if there is a better translation, but think false not only is correct for the erronomous info, but also for falsely presenting her relation with Bruinsma). 201.237.112.206 20:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No that would not be strange because this is an article about Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau and not an article about Edit controversy surrounding Wikipedia article Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau. A wikilink from here to such a (hypothetical) future article would be obvious though. Arnoutf 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This argument is irrelevant. This controversy should be part of any biographical article on the princess, just as "Klaas Bruinsma and Mabel contorversy" is part of the article, and not a seperate article. That the medium we use (Wikipedia) happens to be involved with the subject of the article is irrelevant and should be disregarded per WP:SELF. The whole point of that policy is: write as any other encyclopaedia would do. User:Krator (t c) 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Importance as shown by multiple RSs Articles have now appeared on this in the New York Times, and the Chronicle of Higher Education [7]. Google News now shows over 100 additional stories, including reuters, the International Herald Tribune, Radio Netherlands, This is not what one would call "limited press exposure" and a clear indication of world-wide interest. I suspect it will be the thing most remembered about her, at least outside of the Netherlands. There;s a peculiar delusion around WP that matters involving WP aren't important, especially when they show us in a bad light. When they involve public figures and are reported in press sources of world-wide notability as RSs, they are. Personally, I think it might even justify a separate article, but following all precedent about controversy, it would still be mentioned on the main article as well.
I also note that the present wording of the Wikipedia entry is not what the NYTimes [8] says is the correct translation. I accept their word on the translation over the view expressed above. If one wishes for native language knowledge, Radio Netherlands uses the same English translation: false. In any case, we are required to follow the published sources, and this is the most reliable one so far. I defer making the changes to avoid another round of edit war. DGG (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Media has been reporting on the previous text of this Wikipedia article. Using that as a source would be circular (we cannot change the article because there is a published source on this article that refers to an older version; and change would go against that source). So if we want to use these sources we have to read carefully where they got their correct translation from; if that is from this article we should not mind, if they have it from another source we should reconsider. Arnoutf 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See my previous comment for an answer on this point. User:Krator (t c) 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

@DGG: As the translation argument is really behind us, just one comment here: please try to understand that the media were reporting on the controversial WP edit in 2006, and at that time the WP article read 'incomplete and false'. It was the word 'false' that was removed, so the media just HAD to mention this. The point is therefore obviously irrelevant. Paul kuiper NL 16:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalian

Lol, mrs. Wisse Smit meets Jimmy Wales in Dalian: [9]. I wonder if Wales warned her not to edit her own Wikipedia page. De fries 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there confirmation that this video is real instead of manipulated?? We would not want to break news that is shown a mess later on. Perhaps someone should confirm with Jimbo?? Arnoutf 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It's real. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-09-10/Jimbo_interview. China Crisis 06:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)