Talk:Rita Verdonk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
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 Politics and government 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Spitting sightseer

In September 2005 Verdonk was spit at by an assailant when she and her family spent a day sightseeing in Amsterdam. Does not sound really encyclopedic information to me. Removing. Taka 08:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:V8rik thought the spitting depicts the political climate in the Netherlands. First of all it is not clear if the spitting had any political meaning at all. It seems highly strange to measure the political climate in the Netherlands by something like this. And lastly, if you want to give some information about the political climate in the Netherlands, then do so explicitely. Verdonk's policy is controversial and it is nice to illustrate that with some examples. But this is just a meaningless example. Taka 10:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Taka, the article attempts to capture Rita Verdonk as a person and her professional life as a cabinet minister. It makes sense to keep track of events making national headlines involving this person and incorporate it in the article. One storyline is about personal attacks, lets say the ketchup incident, the spitting incident, the window incident and the protest signs incident. I do no pretend to know what is more relevant and what is less relevant. Important to Wiki should be the fact that is made national news at one time [1]. Personally I feel the window shooting incident was blown out of proportions and I made sure the debunking was included in the article. The English Wiki information on personal attacks was complete until your intervention. The Dutch Wiki is incomplete because it fails to report on 2 of the incidents. Another storyline would involve personal dossiers making national news: the Dutch wiki carries the Taida case but not the Kanu case. The English wiki does not have this information.

The bottom line is that there is no reason not to be concise, Wiki guidelines state that Wiki is not an ordinary encyclopia because the ordinary paper ones lack space where Wiki does not. Also not every article has the sufficient editors to keep the article up to date. Simple solution is to allow each editor to make a contribution and leave it to the next editor to full up any gaps.

The thing you are doing is destruction of Wiki material which I find wrong. However my proposal to you is an edit we can both feel comfortable with. Simply move this particular information from the political career part and combine it with the part in Miscellaneous Information. We can also do mediation. V8rik 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait before asking for mediation. I propose to make a special section called 'incidents' listing all extra-parliamentary protests against Verdonk's policy, including the Rita's Reisbureau, the Window incident, and the spitting incident, to give an overview of the escalation around Verdonk's policy and personality. C mon 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is here which information is relevant. Of course neither the English not the Dutch wikipedia are in any way "complete" when it comes to reporting the times when Rita Verdonk made the headlines. The point should be that she (or better: her policy) is controversial in the Netherlands. It is fine to illustrate that with examples. But not every possible incident should be used to illustrate that, and even not only street incidents illustrate that (there are also parliamantary and press illustrations available).
I am not questioning that she is controversial, I am questioning the value of the spit incident. The spitting has not been claimed to have a political meaning. That is the reason for me to remove it. Taka 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Taka for your reply. Like I stated before these incidents are THE incidents surrounding her political career to date, they are not just examples. After all the article is about the person. Also the specified policies should not serve as mere examples of policy but should be a concise summing up of all the policies. The summing up would be inappropriate when the article was named Dutch immigration policies or the Dutch ministry of immigration and integration but this is not the case.

I have some general comments on the quality of this article. It is not always clear who is making statements. Several times the article mentions the policy is controversial but please specify by whom. What is the name of the TV show with air date making the black tulip comparison?, which political parties in parliament did vote against the age and income criteria for new immigrants? Also try to include references to news articles so that people van verify information (try www.nu.nl). Better settle these issues now before entering into NPOV discussions.

V8rik 21:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the spitting can hardly be mentioned among "the" incidents. A newspaper like the Telegraaf that is mentioned as a source is known to blow up certain things out of proportion for political reasons. Spitting happens more often and to more people, it does not belong in biographies. Writing an article is something more then just summing up anything one can find. It is so easy find numerous "incidents", parodies in TV shows, that it makes sense to summarize, and only mention the most important things. There is no way that an article can be "complete" as pretended.
But I am giving up, if someone really wants futilities in an article then who am I to resist. Taka 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word Controversial and the section Incidents

Reading through this Wiki I am wondering why about the neutrality of the article. The word controversy in itself implies an opinion, so why is the use still debated. It should be removed. On the incidents, I am just wondering why these are in this article. Is the intend again to show controversy. Considering that incidents like the ones described are coming from individual actions coming from a single person or a small group, what does this actually reflect on the overall person of Rita Verdonk.

Rita Verdonk has been more controversial than mainstream media may have acknowledged. When I was looking at Human Rights Watch a few days ago, I looked over at the Hall of Shame article linked on the front page and found Rita Verdonk listed there. Considering the Rita Verdonk has been sufficiently popular for Human Rights Watch to list her in their hall of shame, perhaps the word controversial is appropriate after all. -Caudax 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minister Without Portfolio ?

It currently says: "Minister Without Portfolio for Immigration of Integration" I think this should be changed to "Minister for Immigration and Integration" (in Dutch: "minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie"), since the current description looks contradictive to me: Immigration and Integration is her portofolio, thus she's not without ... 86.84.145.232 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated per [2]. Intangible 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not true, Verdonk is Minister without portfolio (i.e. she does not lead a ministry. There is no building in the Hague called 'Ministerie van Vreemdelingenzaken', nor is there a separate budget made up for her) like Pechtold, and Van Aardene, and she is made responsible for Immigration and Integration. According to parlement.com she is "minister zonder Portefeuille, minister voor Vreemdelingenbeleid en Integratie" [3] - C mon 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the article Minister_without_Portfolio "A Minister without Portfolio is a government minister with no specific responsibilities", this is not the case for Verdonk. Her specific responsibility is Immigration and Integration. Having a portofolio has nothing to do with having a ministry, a building nor a separate budget."Een minister zonder portefeuille" means a minister that doesn't lead a ministry, and thereby doesn't have a separate budget. Quote from parlement.com: "Een minister zonder portefeuille is verantwoordelijk voor een bepaald beleidsterrein, maar heeft niet de leiding over een departement." [4] So although you can often translate "portefeuille" to "portofolio", it has a different meaning in this context. 86.84.145.232 19:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
First off, is it really necessary to start such a big debate over a translation? Both my dictionaries (Van Dale Handwoordenboek Engels/Nederlands and my Kramers Vertaalwoordenboek Nederlands/Engels) propose translation 'minister without portfolio' - 'minister zonder zonder portefeuille'. Second that the current English wikipedia does not describe the dutch situation, does not mean that the translation is wrong. Verdonk is 'minister zonder portefeuille', and the english translation for that is 'minister without portfolio'. A literal translation, that also very well describes her status. Furthermore 'king' would be translated to 'koning', but our king has a different constitutional status than the british one. This does not mean that we use another word to translate it, but that we explain what the dutch situation is on the Minister without Portfolio page.
Can you find me in this? C mon 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I do find it was necessary to start a small debate over a translation since the combination of this article and Minister without Portfolio at that time was contradictive as I stated in my first post. With the changes made to the article Minister without Portfolio this has been solved, and thus the "without portfolio" can be re-added to the article. Since I wasn't sure what would be the best way to correct the contradiction, I posted my suggestion on this talk-page instead of making any changes myself. I agree that this solution is better than my proposal. 86.84.145.232 12:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah consensus! C mon 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The initial translation of Minister Verdonk's title was not accurate in English, but actually in the Westminster system, a Minister may be commissioned with or without portfolio responsibilities.

[edit] trivia

This wiki containts a lot of facts which may have been the talk of the day at work, when they were in the news, but are rather meaningless in a broader view. This makes it also hard to read for a non-initiated non-Dutch (left-wing extremists who smear ketchup ? Shot at the window and bulletproof vest, but no shot at the window ???) 80.127.227.31 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I originally endorsed this section its maybe better to integrate it with the rest of the text. I've done that now. C mon 08:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disputed tag

I've put a disputed tag to the article. The motion was about suspending extraditions, not a general pardon. Furthermore, it is totally unclear at this point if Verdonk will even resign or not. Intangible2.0 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to this being tagged to the point of my considering removing it. All the content is referenced by respectable and prominent Dutch news outlets. Also, if there is some dispute about factual accuracy, the neutrality of the article does not need to be called into question? This article is i believe surprisingly neutral considering how polarising Verdonk is. Thethinredline 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • object: the december 1 motion was about a general pardon, the others were on postponement of extraditions, if you feel content is incorrect just change it with adding references, but do not simply delete the material V8rik 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Also it is perfectly legitimate to post speculation about Verdonk's potential resignation provided it is legitimate news (which in this case it was) as opposed to original research (which this wasn't). Thethinredline 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The two motions where both not about a general pardon, but they where both about postponement of extraditions until a new coalition will be in charge, who will have the possibility to give a specific or general pardon. Please read the news more carefully. Jeroenvrp 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag. There seems to be a strong preliminary consensus and there are no grounds for the article being disputed based on what User:Intangible2.0 says. The User seems to be quite obviously a sockpuppet of User:Intangible who was placed on probation by the ArbCom and seems to have now found a way around that. Thethinredline 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found a way around that? Anyways, it remains false to speak about a general pardon in the context of this minister. This would have been "new policy" which a demissionary cabinet can never act on. Furthermore, to say that "Verdonk was dealt a severe politically blow by Wouter Bos" is spurious at best. Intangible2.0 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[5] clearly states that the PvdA only expected Verdonk to suspend extraditions. Intangible2.0 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What you say is correct, but regardless to what the PvdA actually hoped to achieve the November 30 motion clearly offered a general pardon to the asylum seekers in question. [6] Anyway, i dont portend to be an expert on ArbCom rulings and what probabttion entails, but should you remove portions of legitimte sourced material again as you did here i will ask an admin to block you from editing this article. Thethinredline 09:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the PvdA itself has said that no "general pardon" was meant with the Bos motion, I'll have to find the debate summary instead I guess. Intangible2.0 10:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In all fairness not all the news reports find that the 30 November motion was about an actual general pardon, in the exact text of the motion here [7] and here [8] (surprisingly short!) it says that the motion "verzoekt de regering in afwachting van de definitieve behandeling van deze pardonregeling door de nieuwe Tweede Kamer, ten aanzien van deze groep geen onomkeerbare beslissingen en stappen te nemen," or "it requests of the cabinet, in anticipation of a definite discussion on the general pardon by the new second chamber, not to take any irreversible measures with respect to this group".

it turns out that several news report say it was a motion about a general pardon like [9] or [10]. Intangible2.0 cannot blame the wiki editors concerned, but should have made some effort to come up with news sources like I just did to make his case. V8rik 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    • latest edits reflect the point I made earlier, Case closed! V8rik 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Excuse me all. but I have made mistakes in what was meant to be some simple grammar/spelling edits. Now, in the Outgoing Minister section which deals with these different motions, a block of text no longer appears. It is still there in the "edit' page but not for the common reader. I suppose I hit some html codes I should have left alone. Can someone tell me how to fix that, preferably on my own talk page? VNCCC (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] current event

I have removed the message Current event above the article. The elections are over, Rita has become an normal member of parliament. There is no current news regarding her at the moment. Kimelinor 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

because of recent developments I`m restoring the tag, --Isolani 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the lifting of Verdonk's security detail as per June 4 and her discussion of it in parliament. I have at least one source from a newspaper on the web; how can I insert the source in the text? Answers here or on talk page VNCCC (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Famous quote that should be in: Ik ben niet links, ik ben niet rechts, maar ik ben recht door zee. Mallerd 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish people only six months in the Netherlands?

Did she really say that Polish people can stay only six months in the Netherlands? This sounds to me very strange, because they Poland is EU member state and I think cannot be legally sent back after three months. I wonder how she tries to implement this in law. http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/117026/Verdonk-Polen-moeten-terug.html Andries (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)