Jump to content

Talk:Geert Wilders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGeert Wilders was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 2, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 6, 2019, September 6, 2022, and September 6, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article

Wilders-Saudi-Flag "Islam is Poison"

[edit]

This should be included in the article (at the end of "Views about Islam"): http://geertwilders.nl/index.php/in-de-media-mainmenu-74/nieuws-mainmenu-114/1839-let-us-raise-a-flag-of-truth-and-liberation http://www.jpost.com/International/Saudi-Arabia-incensed-over-anti-Islam-campaign-by-far-right-Dutch-politico-352548 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.84.99 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

After removing a dubious external link earlier today I started looking at the remainder and I am troubled by some of them. The last three links on the list are, in my opinion, not suitable for a neutral encyclopaedic article. They all seem to me to be in contravenetion of What to link and should be removed.--Kalsermar (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

[edit]

How about the end of the Geert Wilders trial for the "In the News" section of the main page? Polozooza (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is there now. --Kslotte (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.138.54 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Wilders received an invite to accept Islam and denounce Christianity by Sheik Faarooq al Mohammedi (a controversial preacher and mass Islamic Missionary) this story sparked a lot of outcries from the Anti-Islam/ Counter-Jihad groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.171.23.64 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indo

[edit]

I think it is wrong and potentially confusing to our readers to put the moniker "Indo" in the opening sentence. His heritage is mentioned more than once in the article but Geert Wilders is known as a Dutch politician, not Indo-Dutch. It would be akin to identifying JFK, Ronald Reagan or Tip O'Neill for example as Irish-American and not simply as American.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC) She was a Jewess. he is therefore Jewish, or to suit wikipedia, "Dutch-Jewish" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.37.133.218 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone who wrote down "Indonesian-Dutch", which is incorrect. Indo is the corrept term - someone of Eurasian (European-Asian) admixture, more specific, in this case: Dutch-Indonesian descent. So I changed Indonesian-Dutch in Indo-Dutch, which is correct. Wilders' mother was of Indo(nesian) descent. I see no harm in keeping it this way. Polozooza (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was incorrect, merely that it is out of place in the opening sentence. His heritage is amply discussed in the article.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His mother was born in the Dutch East Indies (according to this article), which makes him a second-generation resident of the Netherlands. I find that it is appropriate to refer to him as Indo-Dutch, just as it is appropriate to refer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for a related example, as Somali-Dutch. People such as Ronald Reagan et al are of Irish ancestry, but the difference is that they were not second-generation residents. Interlaker (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hirsi Al is not a very smart example to bring on here, she was born in Somalia from Somalian parents. But then Wilders: his Indo background is not a widely acknowledged fact, as we can gather from the NRC article that is used as a reference: "In June a genealogist said he had found several Indonesian ancestors of the populist Dutch politician", "The 6-page article reveals that Wilders' grandmother, Johanna Ording-Meijer, came from an old Jewish-Indonesian family". But even if supported by more sources than that one genealogist, first, we're talking about a far background here and second, I think Kalsermar rightly says it's out of place in the opening line, where we don't read words like 'agnostic', 'ex-Catholic', 'controversial', either. Only the very basic facts belong there. Apdency (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that should be in the opening of the lede like that - I have doubts if it is more than the opinion of one person and doesn't belong in the article at all. We neveer (or at least almost never - unless it is highly notable) put ethnicity in the lede like that - its as per WP:mos nationality, this is even more so when it is disputed or partial as is the case here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You got it completely right: we're dealing with someone's personal opinion here: "I want Wilders to be an Indo". If anyone dares to go against that, he labels it as vandalism, as we can see here. Wilders in no way belongs in a gallery of 'notable Indos'. Apdency (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


@Interlaker|talk]]) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) There is a big difference between his mother and Hirsi Ali. His mother was a Dutch citizen. Indo Dutch were Eurasians with the Dutch nationality and European status(Generally speaking)and not an Indonesian living in the Netherlands. In the Dutch Indies they were called Indo Europeans.

Wilders is of Indo(Indo European) or Eurasian decent through his mothers side. His grandmother was an Eurasian, also her parents,etc. Noordin28 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Frits Bolkestein's views on Geert Wilders" section

[edit]

It is very unusual to have a section completely dedicated to someone else's opinions on the subject of a biography. Should there be a separate section for every notable person's opinions of Geert Wilders? I do not think you will see this in any other biography in Wikipedia. Surely, this information should be integrated into the Public reception section. NereusAJ (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I decided to be bold and move the information myself. If any of the original authors disagree feel free to undo my change. NereusAJ (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Public reception subsection is under the Early life and career section, but most of the information in it cannot be considered to be part of his early life. In fact a lot of the reactions mentioned are to his political career, which is a different section. I am suggesting we make the Public reception subsection into a separate section. I am editing the article to reflect this. NereusAJ (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does Frits think about Geerts paramilitary training on a Kibbutz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.37.133.218 (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source for that? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The founder

[edit]

In the introduction, change

"and leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid – PVV)"

to

"and the founder and leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid – PVV)"

i.e. add the phrase "and the founder"—Thanks in advance. 67.101.7.175 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me

[edit]

Please change

" See also "

[edit]

to

"Works"

[edit]
  • Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me, Regnery Publishing (May 1, 2012), ISBN 1596987960

i.e. add the section Works with the title and publisher and release date and ISBN of his new book, thanks in advance.--87.163.232.152 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I added the “works” section, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for removing “see also”. --Six words (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Better Source Needed for Note #86

[edit]

Here is a better one:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/23/uk-norway-killer-idUKTRE76M1OJ20110723

--77.125.82.29 (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Wilders made a public announcement on his party's website: http://www.pvv.nl/index.php/component/content/article/36-geert-wilders/4529-verklaring-geert-wilders-noorwegen.html. It is Dutch written. HidingMyIP (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Henk and Ingrid is unlikely to ever get much bigger, as it's essentially just a political WP:DICDEF. I propose merging to Geert Wilders#Political principles, where they already get a one-sentence mention, to which we can add their description and function as a Dutch Average Joe. --BDD (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done AIRcorn (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right, not right-wing

[edit]

Most reliable sources describe him as far-right, not right-wing. Right-wing is too indiscriminate as that term would even cover moderate conservatives like the Conservative Party of Norway, the CDU of Germany, or Jacques Chirac, hence it is POV. If some politician is described as far-right by RS, we describe them as far-right. We even have an article on far-right politics (heck, the guy has even been banned from entering the United Kingdom and been on trial for hate speech in his own country).

Relevant precedent:

Geert Wilders is described as a far-right politician for example in

There appears to be consensus to describe him as far-right, and I will change the article accordingly to reflect talk page consensus. JonFlaune (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is only rarely sometimes described as far right by Dutch language media. I propose the same as for the PVV, create a dedicated section for classifications, preferrably using scholarly sources. Andries (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UK based newspapers are no experts on Dutch politicians. Andries (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Willem Maas is Dutch. Al-Jazeera isn't British either. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Can you back up your claim with some examples of Dutch mainstream sources?TMCk (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"banned from entering the United Kingdom and been on trial for hate speech in his own country"
You make it seem so nazi-esque, when all he really did was stand up to Islamofash 46.7.28.113 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in sources to label him as far-right.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted there was no discussion. No consensus starts with editors being opposed and discussion is taking place to reach consensus.TMCk (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andries: Still waiting for examples from Dutch mainstream sources. Although there is no deadline, the edit in question will be reverted if opposition to it is not backed up by such sources in a reasonable time.TMCk (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from newspaper Het Parool http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/224/BINNENLAND/article/detail/266418/2009/11/04/Is-Wilders-echt-extreem-rechts.dhtml English"Among others because of these "buts", as the researchers call them, the director of the Sociaal Cultureel Plan bureau, Paul Schnabel does not want to call the PVV extreme far right" Dutch original "Mede gezien deze 'mitsen en maren', zoals de onderzoekers het noemen, wil directeur Paul Schnabel van het Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP) de PVV niet extreem rechts noemen. Andries (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the extreme right label (see Wikipedia:LABEL#Contentious_labels) should be omitted or toned down in the lead and treated in a seperate section. Andries (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that approach. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when scholars describe him as far right, then also mention the definitions they use. I mean, it is an abstract classification and quite meaningless and uninformative when not explained. Andries (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide English sources that demonstrate that the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, Agence France-Presse and the rest of the world press have got it all wrong. A discussion of whether the term "extreme" should be used (and hence your non-English source) is irrelevant to the use of the term far right (not extreme), which is the established English term, with its own article, for the political position to the right of mainstream/moderate conservatism. JonFlaune (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch term for far right is extreem rechts. Sorry for the mistranslation and the resulting confusion. Andries (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say is that foreign non-scholarly sources are not the best available sources and there is no consensus ãbout the far right label among Dutch sources. So he should not be labelled stated as a fact in the summary/intro. Andries (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also "The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders" by Michael Steen in The Financial Times quoted by Mark Steyn in nationalreview.com quoted by Fjordman in frontpagemag.com quoted in gatesofvienna. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch term extreem rechts is not relevant to whether we describe him as far right (not "extreem") in the English Wikipedia. Far right is the neutral, established generic term for the position to the right of the mainstream right. I see no sources demonstrating Wilders to be a part of the mainstream right-wing/mainstream conservatism. Mainstream conservatives are, after all, not usually banned from entering the United Kingdom. JonFlaune (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far right is not a neutral term. Everybody agrees that he does not belong in te mainstream conservative class. Imho he is difficult to classify. His policies have described lately as quite left winged and I can easily get many sources for that. He is described as a populist and this is not denied by any reputable source that I am aware of. Andries (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is known internationally for extreme Islamophobic views and usually described by English language sources as far right. It might be the case that he has adopted some "left-wing" positions on some issues, but this isn't unique, in fact many far right groups (e.g. the NPD) combine far right views with left-wing views on economic policy for example. Are the any examples of Wilders denouncing Islamophobia and taking a stand against racism and prejudice against minorities? JonFlaune (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobia is in itself a very loaded term that is often used as a synonym for '(strong) criticism of Islam'. When it comes to immigration, Wilders can certainly be described as far-right, and I think few would dispute that. Although the charge is sometimes made, even mainstream critics of Wilders recognize that he does not engage in racism (Islam is not a race). He is indeed prejudiced against people from Muslim-majority countries (according to him justifiably, of course). Therefore, I do support the designation 'far-right', but it would be nice if something on his economic views was added. - Lindert (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your or my opinion is not relevant. What I am saying is that he should not be labelled as far right stated as fact in the summary, because there is no consensus among the best available sources. And also because it violates Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. The term far-right is now mentioned twice in the lead, once, not stated as a fact is enough. Andries (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that but still haven't provided sources that back up your claim.TMCk (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I provided one good source that denies Wilders is far right. this proves that there is no consensus. Andries (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One single source is hardly enough to counter numerous others. Here is an interesting read:[1].TMCk (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please no newspaper article titles as sources. Just because a journalist titles something far-right, that's not necessarily a valid description accepted by political scientists. For example, a while ago newspapers titled SYRIZA as far-left but that's not really what academics say. We should leave journalist wordings out. --Pudeo' 04:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have been counter productiv with your choice of comparrison. SYRIZA is a redirect to Coalition of the Radical Left. Wonder why you left that out and chose the redirect instead of the article's title.TMCk (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe, but I'm not really interested in the classification of SYRIZA, I'm just saying that journalistic sources are inferior to actual scientific papers related to the PVV and Wilders. So collecting "far-right" (or "far-left") terms from the Telegraph, Guardian BBC or the like is pretty useless and does not constitute a real source analyzing the political position. --Pudeo' 05:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do quite commonly use news sources to describe political leanings of subjects on WP; And we have one book source cited. I just added a PDF of the chapter in question for easy verification.TMCk (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist titling "Far-right politician Geert Wilders" is not an analysis of his political position. Do you understand what I mean? A political scientist writing a paper on the PVV is a completely different type of a source. Do you really think the BBC journalist Lauren Comiteau for example is an authority on political science? Sure, real news analyses can be added but just lumping a bunch of news articles that only have far-right in the title is of no use. If we need more sources than one, let's find them from scholarly articles. --Pudeo' 18:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do get your point even so I don't concur with you by wiki policies/guidelines. However, I do concur with you that one source (the book source from a Dr. of a university) will do. All the other sources were added while there was a heated discussion and warring was going on.TMCk (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then you should update the Definition and terminology section on the Far-right politics WP article to state that journalists' opinions is the deciding factor when determining what "Far-right" means and who deserves to wear that badge. HoorayForZo1dberg (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

81.58.144.30 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)He is not far-right. I am Dutch and I could say he is right-wing.[reply]

Why don't we call him what he calls himself, instead of trying force a label on him that may or may not be accurate? It is important not to try to slander someone with inappropriate terms.

People don't get to choose their own descriptions in an encyclopedia. I'm Dutch and it's my opinion that he's far-right, even extreme right. In fact, there are no political parties in the Netherlands that are farther right and that can be supported by evidence. Rightfully in the discussion above, scientific evidence was asked in addition to the journalistic evidence that was already given about the stance on the (far-)right scale. It is not that hard to find such evidence. A quoted paper is this one: "De beeldspraak van geert wilders, een tsunami over Nederland?" by Christ’l De Landtsheer, Lieuwe Kalkhoven & Loes Broen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appiehendriks (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA status

[edit]

This article has changed quite a bit since it was passed [2]. The prose does not currently meet the GA standards. Too many short sentences and two much news ticker (in July 2011, on 2 October 2011 etc) type sentences. It needs a good copy edit. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source makes no mention of "Captain Peroxide": Citation Needed

[edit]

Hi. In the background section it claims: "Wilders has acquired nicknames such as "Mozart" and "Captain Peroxide" because of his flamboyant platinum blond hairstyle." However, follow the link to the BBC report that gives this quote its citation and nowhere will one find the claim that Wilders has acquired the nickname "Captain Peroxide." Shouldn't this oversight require a [citation needed] inserted into the body of this article until the proper citation is given or the claim is removed? Otherwise, it remains a spurious and unsubstantiated claim which if left unaddressed will detract from this otherwise rather factual article. Thanks114.158.149.78 (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of aging or aged male politicians with blond hair. Sca (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders converts to Islam?

[edit]

Could someone verify this? http://saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130422162428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.43.27 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Wilders has not converted. That page speaks about Arnoud van Doorn who has - indeed - converted to islam. It is incorrectly stated that Van Doorn is a "leader" of the Freedom Party; in fact, he was only a member of the city council of The Hague for two years. Never a national politician. He was then expelt from the Freedom Party for mismanagement of party funds of the Freedom Party's local The Hague chapter. Van Doorns conversion to islam took place a few months ago, a few years after his expulsion from the Freedom Party.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch pronunciation

[edit]

Could someone who is Dutch-speaking create an audiofile with the correct pronunciation of Geert Wilders? /Marxmax (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the pronunciation would actually vary by dialect. Some dialects more or less merge /ɣ/ with /x/, others keep them distinct. This is particularly noticeable when /ɣ/ is in a word-initial position. 2600:8805:A801:B600:6AC4:389B:97DD:8E91 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014 - New section after "Wilders and Germany" (Wilders, Poland and other Central and East European countries)

[edit]

New section after section "Wilders and Germany" suggested:

Not done for now: While you have found some reliable sources to add this content, I'm afraid I'm unable to add it to the article. It seems that you've mostly just copied and pasted text from http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/02/problems_with_poles_report_the.php and http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE8191ML20120210. We take copyright violations very seriously here on the English Wikipedia. Please make modifications to have this text in your own words (using the same sources is fine as long as it is not copy and paste) and reopen this request. Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders, Poland and other Central and East European countries

[edit]

In 2012 the Wilders's PVV party has launched a website named Reporting Centre on Central and East Europeans which receives complaints about Central and East European immigrants in the Netherlands. 'Do you have problems with people from Central and Eastern Europe? Have you lost your job to a Pole, a Bulgarian, a Romanian or another East European? We want to know,' the website states. It displays newspaper headlines such as 'Wouldn't it be better if you went back home?' and 'East Europeans, increasingly criminal'. The European Commission has condemned the website, and EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding declared, "We call on all citizens of the Netherlands not to join in this intolerance. Citizens should instead clearly state on the PVV's website that Europe is a place of freedom."[1][2] The website caused a lot of controversy within the European Union.[3]

89.74.37.251 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Problems with Poles? Report them to us, says new PVV website". DutchNews.nl. 8 February 2012.
  2. ^ "Dutch allow Wilders' anti-Pole website, EU critical". Reuters. 10 February 2012.
  3. ^ "" Sofiaecho.com 16 February 2012.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014 Geert Wilders is not a populist, this is an opinion. The first sentence in this article needs to be changed accordingly.

[edit]

Geert Wilders is not a populist, this is an opinion and the sentence is politically biased against him. The first sentence in this article needs to be changed accordingly.

He needs to be described as a Dutch politician not a Dutch populist politician.

Repsaj1 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Never heard of the fellow but he is described as "a populist politician" in the first line of the Huffington Post article about him, as well as in 3 other cited sources. --Xiaphias (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Repsaj1. Ben-Natan (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attack in Garland, Texas

[edit]

Maybe information about this attack should be added. – Editør (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if it turns out that the attack was b/c of him being there and not simply directed at the anti-Islam group as a whole. In any case, we'll have to wait for more details to come out.--TMCk (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016

[edit]

The English translation of Wilders asking the audience whether they'd like more or *fewer* moroccans, is embarrassingly incorrectly written as "more or *less*". Skipgilles (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: If the audience were shouting "Less, Less" after then it would be obvious that "More or less" would've been used here –Davey2010Talk 14:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, Skipgilles is right. Oh wikipedia, land of now-nothing policemen!137.205.101.122 (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVADE edits by blocked user Ghangoun

[edit]

Tataral made a series of edits that I partially reverted. These are the reasons: First of all, the label of "far-right" is not universally accepted by all reliable sources. As it's explained in lead, other observers reject this term for Wilders.[1][2][3] Therefore I see unnecessary and POV to include this term in the first sentence as undisputed when it's already mentioned in the proper manner (that's why I moved down the New York Times source with the rest of the sources calling him "far right"). Second, I see this category as problematic because, although he was convicted for "hate speech" by a court, no actual penalty was imposed, and it's very POV to call him "criminal" for that, specially when so many of his criminal trials ended in acquittal. Third, this line clearly doesn't belong, since the case of "hate speech" in December 2016 is too minor to include it in WP:lead and trials are already mentioned elsewhere in the article, in the proper section. The lead is supposed to be "a summary of its most important contents, not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." Fourth, I removed this category because it seemed unsourced. I checked the sources related to his position on Israel. Even though he's an advocate for Israel, not a single source uses the label "Zionist."--Ghangoun (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ West, Ed (30 January 2010). "Geert Wilders is not 'far Right'". London: The Daily Telegraph – Blogs.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 18 June 2010.
  2. ^ (in Dutch) In 2010 a research by the Tilburg Institute for Social Policy Research and Consultancy (IVA) of Tilburg University Archived 2 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine studied the Freedom Party and concluded that a number of radical right views persisted, but that the party did not belong to the traditional "far right" (extreem-rechts), Retrieved 29 May 2012
  3. ^ (in Dutch) Afshin Ellian, a professor of Social Cohesion, Citizenship and Multiculturalism at Leiden University, and known islam-critic, rejected even the "radical right" label for the PVV "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 31 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
I agree. Editors should not use Wikipedia to unduly push a point. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The description as far-right is universally accepted by mainstream, high quality reliable sources. It's clearly relevant and clearly supported by RS, and needs to be in the lead. Wikipedia is not the place to promote WP:FRINGE and extremist views. --Tataral (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice now that the editor who started this discussion and who revert-warred to remove the correct description as far-right, User:Ghangoun, has been indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo. I'm therefore reinstating, per WP:EVADE, this sourced description that was removed by the indefinitely blocked and disruptive Delotrooladoo sockpuppet. --Tataral (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised to hear the Telegraph, Afshin Ellian and the Tilburgse onderzoeksinstituut IVA being called "WP:FRINGE and extremist". Moreover, the fact that a user was blocked, does not mean the argument is invalid. You claim this is supported by "by mainstream, high quality reliable sources" (plural) so please cited those. Kleuske (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:EVADE, edits by a block-evading user can be undone by any editor and without any other reason, so it's clearly relevant that the edit was made by the sockpuppet (which was blocked shortly thereafter) of a blocked user. Furthermore, your demand that I "please [cite]" reliable sources, when the article already cited The New York Times which clearly supported the description is clearly without any merits, and for this reason I will reinstate the edit that was reverted by the blocked user Ghangoun. If it is a question of whether sufficiently many reliable sources support the description, I could easily cite 100, 200, 500, a thousand or more reliable sources supporting it, but it wouldn't be necessary or helpful for this article to cite that many sources for this widely accepted and uncontroversial fact. --Tataral (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who's arguing WP:EVADE? Unless you think I'm somehow evading a block, the point is moot. What isn't moot is that sources are being cited who state otherwise. Actual dutch sources instead of transatlantic assesments. You claim you could "easily cite 100, 200, 500, a thousand or more reliable sources supporting it", then please do. Hyperbolic assertions are no substitute for an actual cite. It doesn't have to be in the article, just list them here. What I know is that the VVD (Rutte) announced it wouldn't cooperate with Wilders because many of his proposed policies are too left wing. Kleuske (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

[edit]
92.77.65.108 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Mistakes .. alternative facts?? ;(

wrong

"His travels to Israel as a young adult, as well as to neighbouring Arab countries, helped form his political views. "

1982 he travelled to Israel and Egypt.

(Sharm-el-Sheik, where he ?saw Moubarak, and Cairo) https://web.archive.org/web/20100724054726/http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1702&Itemid=1

"For several years he volunteered in a moshav and worked for several firms,"

For several months he volunteered in a moshav [i did not find a source for de.WP]

wrong

"With the money he saved, he travelled to the neighbouring Arab countries,"

Israel is (very) expensive, and Egypt is very cheap .. even for 2 backpackers

"When he returned to the Netherlands," he was still 18 years old (~nothing?)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands

[edit]

Is there any rationale behind not capitalizing "The" in "The Netherlands"? I live there and as far as I know I live in De Nederlanden. Thanks. Barbara Touburg (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on Wikipedia is to use the spelling that is most commonly used in English (see WP:ENGLISH). In normal English usage "the" in "the Netherlands" is not capitalized, and Wikipedia simply follows that convention. - Lindert (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O. Dank je wel! Barbara Touburg (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btouburg (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States

[edit]

The Dutch far right’s election donors are almost exclusively American. While Europe has been busy fretting about Russian meddling in its politics, a few Americans have been quietly doing their part to boost the continent’s far right. (David Horowitz Freedom Center, J.A. de Keizer and Chris Rufer is the founder of The Morning Star Company) Source: https://qz.com/928684/the-dutch-far-rights-election-donors-are-almost-exclusively-american - --87.159.127.72 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the existing note on the article for the PVV suffices (my understanding is that the donations pertain primarily to donations to the party... albeit to cover Wilders's legal costs). Mélencron (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the PVV is a one-man show, isn't it? The PVV only has one official member, Geert Wilders himself! Wilders entered Dutch politics as a member of the conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), but left the party after his increased criticism had marginalized his position within the parliamentary faction. After a short period in the Second Chamber as the “Group Wilders” (a group of one), he founded the PVV - which still operates as part of the Foundation Group Wilders, with one sole member... Geert Wilders. --87.156.235.67 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New profile picture photo

[edit]

I think the profile picture photo should be changed. It's patently obvious that an unflattering picture of him with his eyes shut was chosen deliberately in order to demean him. He might well be the Dutch Prime Minister shortly. Change the picture. I am certain the Freedom Party will supply an acceptable alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

[edit]

The entry claims, in section 4.3, that "Wilders lived in Israel for two years during his youth". Wilders may claim that too, but this is not uncontroversial, and probably false. According to the the Hebrew entry for Wilders (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%98_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A1), he lived in Tomer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomer), which is an Israeli settlement in the Jordan Valley, part of the occupied West Bank, rather than Israel itself. This is not a trivial difference, and it aught to be highlighted. Please amend the claim appropriately to state that "Wilders lived in an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank for two years during his youth". 95.96.55.228 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Wikipedia should not be used to cite itself. Please provide reliable, third-party sources to support the changes you want made. Topher385 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right?

[edit]

The label of "far-right" is not universally accepted by all reliable sources. As explained in lead, other observers reject this term for Wilders.[1][2][3] Therefore I see unnecessary and POV to include this term in the first sentence as undisputed when it's already mentioned in the proper manner.--Oxbird (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the lede in its current state. Mélencron (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the fact that he is far-right has been reliably sourced with 8 references. There is consensus among reliable sources that Wilders is far-right; he is seldom mentioned without this descriptor in English language sources (far-right Dutch sources don't count). Only far-right individuals themselves deny it; it is telling that the low-quality sources you cite include a letter to the editor written by an anti-immigration writer who is considered to write "anti-Islamic rant[s]" according to his Wikipedia bioography. Just like we don't portray fringe views on climate science as equally valid as the scientific consensus, it is blatantly POV to disregard the consensus among reliable sources to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE by portraying the far-right fringe's views on Wilders as equally valid as the consensus among reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::As I can see, you have three reliable sources rejecting he's far-right, and four sources supporting the label. There's nothing "fringe" here. Also bear in mind this article falls into WP:BLP.--Oxbird (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First removing several of the references claiming "excessive citation-ing", then complaining about there only being four references? Classic. Apart from that, the consensus among reliable sources is not measured by simply counting the references included in the lead in this way, and as if they are equally representative or have the same weight, and one letter to the editor from a far-right guy does not equal an article in The New York Times. --Tataral (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're meant to be attacking me, not Oxbird, when you object to my removal of citations. In any case, this seems to be standard practice for describing right-wing populist politicians on Wikipedia – there isn't a need to note it immediately in the lede. Look at pretty much any politician's article on Wikipedia, and you'll find that the first sentence simply describes that they're a politician and usually their party affiliation – but not any ideological label, which usually comes later. Undue importance to note it that early in the lede. Mélencron (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not standard practice to exclude the descriptor from articles on politicians universally considered to be far-right by reliable sources – and this has been reliably sourced in the case of Wilders. Udo Voigt and countless other articles mention the term in the first sentence. The removal is blatant POV pushing. --Tataral (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use the Daily Mail as a source for a BLP, that's been decided. We also should not use letters to the editor in a BLP, that's also not acceptable. I'd also question using old sources to discuss someone's current politics but that's not a policy issue (I think). Doug Weller talk 10:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking edits by a sock who is part of a huge recurrent sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo.

I've looked at a few of the sources for the Far-Right claim, but those articles seem to call him that only in the title of the articles. Jarkeld (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an argument that Wilders isn't far-right through (which he plainly is). The only dispute here is the placement of this descriptor within the article. Mélencron (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited should confirm that, but just mentioning it in title and not supporting that in the article itself does not make those RS's for that claim. Jarkeld (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at several Wilders articles in other languages and for the most part the lede does not mention the (far) right bit. They mention it in the appropriate Political views section (or equivalent). The same goes for other Right oriented politicians on Enwiki. Jarkeld (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders is universally considered far-right by reliable sources, as supported by a bunch of sources, both sources that are currently in the article and sources that were removed because people felt there were too many sources. The only ones who insist he's not far-right are the far-right people themselves, in fact such a claim is a tell-tale sign of extremist views. It was a now blocked sock of banned user Delotrooladoo, who engages in extremist POV pushing here and elsewhere, who started removing this sourced descriptor from the first paragraph, and he has apparently continued edit warring over that with other socks, as currently discussed on his SPI page. --Tataral (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ West, Ed (30 January 2010). "Geert Wilders is not 'far Right'". London: The Daily Telegraph – Blogs.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 18 June 2010.
  2. ^ (in Dutch) In 2010 a research by the Tilburg Institute for Social Policy Research and Consultancy (IVA) of Tilburg University Archived 2 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine studied the Freedom Party and concluded that a number of radical right views persisted, but that the party did not belong to the traditional "far right" (extreem-rechts), Retrieved 29 May 2012
  3. ^ (in Dutch) Afshin Ellian, a professor of Social Cohesion, Citizenship and Multiculturalism at Leiden University, and known islam-critic, rejected even the "radical right" label for the PVV "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 31 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geert Wilders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

[edit]
39.41.49.170 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EclipseDude (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

[edit]

Geert Wilders has converted to islam 217.33.217.6 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Businessman

[edit]

I do not see Geet Wilders as a businessman. I've never seen him addressed as such in Dutch media. I suggest removing that term from the article. It is not used all all in the Dutch version of this page, and I don't think anyone in the Netherlands perceives him a such.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

[edit]

On Geert_Wilders#Death_threats, add this:-

2022 Muhammad remarks controversy

Wilders received death threats, namely from Al-Qaeda, after he supported Indian politician Nupur Sharma's comments on Muhammad that caused controversy. Wilders replied to the threats on Twitter that "My message to them is: go to hell. You have no morals. We stand for the truth. We stand for freedom."[1][2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/prophet-remark-row-dutch-mp-geert-wilders-gets-death-threat-for-supporting-nupur-sharma-1959896-2022-06-08
  2. ^ https://www.firstpost.com/world/dutch-mp-geert-wilders-gets-death-threats-from-muslims-for-supporting-nupur-sharma-over-her-prophet-muhammad-remarks-10775711.html

122.170.33.2 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Added a subsection to the article, see Geert Wilders#2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. Thanks for your help! Baggaet (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

however? ->French National Front a 'wrong rightist facist group'?

[edit]

> Wilders rejects being labeled as far-right and views himself as a right-wing liberal, while saying he does not want to be "linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups". More recently, however, Wilders worked together with Marine Le Pen of the French National Front in

Is the Frech National Front a 'wrong rightist facist group' ? I would suggest removing the 'however' since it the National Front is not facist (I think) and the article makes it seem that way Sjobenrit (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Philosopher

[edit]

Geert Wilders is listed under the category: "Dutch Political Philosophers." He has not written any works of philosophy nor received a degree in the subject and as such should not be under the category. 2600:4040:9A3C:D500:1C9B:FDC6:358E:387 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not. A political rhetorician and demagogue is not automatically a philosopher, at least not in the modern sense, without some of the qualifications above. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Considered Prime-Minister Elect of the Netherlands

[edit]

Despite exit polls showing that he has won the most seats, other parties (such as GL/PvdA) have stated that they refuse to form any coalition with Wilders' PVV. In fact, a likely coalition scenario that does not include the PVV would consist of a GL/PvdA, NSC, VVD alliance (with a smaller party). At this stage, there is absolutely no guarantee that Wilders will become PM based on the second exit poll.

Second exit poll: https://app.nos.nl/nieuws/tk2023/ HDC 311 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in The Netherlands a PM isn't directly electrd. Nor is he widely considered to be the next PM. That's a really bold claim. 82.101.216.126 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is. I would appreciate if someone could remove it for me, I don’t quite meet the semi-protected criteria. 134.87.157.45 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^this is OP by the way. Just realized that I wasn’t logged in on this device. 134.87.157.45 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, if anything Wilders has almost no chance of becoming PM even if the PVV is part of the new governing coalition.188.192.53.247 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ironically thats exactly what was said about the results. "wilders has almost no chance of winning the election" yet here we are. 138.255.255.26 (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to be in agreement that none of the parties will let him become Prime Minister, so I say he wont do it, so he shouldnt be called prime minister designate. (2607:FEA8:7228:8E00:3C67:4692:8B3A:78C3 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

He shouldn't be called anything that relies on speculation about an outcome that has yet to emerge nor news that is so new it is still being written.
Not news. Not crystal ball. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph on the recent election results and the stunning victory by him and his party needs to be added to the article. 70.108.1.24 (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

https://ethnicelebs.com/geert-wilders he does have ancestors born in indonesia but they dont seem to be Indonesian but Dutch people who immigrated there, should it be changed? GlobalReference221 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone edit this duplication, please?

[edit]

I don't have sufficient editing skills etc, but look at this:


1.Near Death Threat section

In July 2010, after Wilders complained that his security was inadequate, the Special Security Assignments Brigade, a special unit of Dutch military police, made four attempts to smuggle a firearm into the heavily guarded offices of Wilders' Freedom Party, two of which were successful. Following these breaches, security at the offices was increased.[190][191]

2. Then just afterwards ...also July 2010...

Shortly before this publication, it was revealed in The Hague that Dutch law enforcement officers succeeded twice in smuggling a firearm into the parliament buildings and into the guarded headquarters of Wilders' party. This check was carried out by the Special Security Assignments Brigade BSB, a special unit of the Dutch Military Police. The test was carried out following a complaint from Wilders about his security being inadequate.[203][204] 2A01:B340:82:A8E:DA3A:DB2C:9D64:41C9 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

[edit]

Change "and for his relations to the Kremlin." to "".

OR

Cite sources that actually support this claim. The article does not mention Russia, Kremlin, Moscow, any Russian politicians or backers. Neither the current article nor the archived article. AG-WD40 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
— Urro[talk][edits] 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders' Signature

[edit]

Should we consider making a file for Mr. Wilders' signature? What motivates me is that he has chances of becoming PM, and that most Heads of Government like Mark Rutte have signatures in their Wikipedia articles[citation needed].

I am not a guy acquainted with legal and privacy stuff, so I ask if it is possible. BrightSunMan (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is now apparently not going to be a PM anytime soon, but anyways... BrightSunMan (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders gives up on attempting to be PM.

[edit]

Link: https://www.politico.eu/article/wilders-wont-be-next-netherlands-prime-minister-he-says/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Geert Wilders

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for GA in 2009. Since then a lot has changed, which has led to a lower quality article. After 2010 the article contains no coherent story, but rather incidents. Biographies of him are not used, but only articles about these incidents. The article is focused too much on international initiatives and travel bans, while leaving out many important things on the national stage. Party election results are often mentioned, but rarely linked directly to the person of Geert Wilders. Alltogether I believe it does not meet criteria 1, 3 and given recent national developments also not 5. Dajasj (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agree that it is currently not in very good state. The problem from any article about an active person - factoids keep accumulating making the article more cluttered - while leaving them out would make the article outdated. As is now it seems the introduction is very long but any post 2010 details seem almost completely missing. As Dajasj states, the more recent inclusions are a long listing of incidents without sufficient narrative. I do disagree with Dajasj though on part election results as his political party (PVV) has only one single member: Geert Wilders, making the party results very much his personal results. Nevertheless I think that the article needs a very thorough revision / rewrite that ensures the style and quality of the pre-2010 sections is brought inline with newer sections. All in all I do not think it meets GA standard right now. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Geert Wilders enjoys Mario Kart on Nintendo (not Playstation, that's an error)

[edit]

Here is a primary source TikTok video of an interview where Geert Wilders says that he enjoys playing Mario Kart on his *Nintendo*. https://www.tiktok.com/@gekookteaardappell/video/7304631551810112800?lang=en

The article (and its source material) state that he plays Mario Kart on Playstation, which is factually incorrect, as Mario Kart is not available for any version of the Playstation.

I'm not an established user; can an established user please remove the references, correct the error, and add this or any other source to establish the correct information? Thanks! Bugsbycarlin (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right

[edit]

The label "far-right" has been removed, although the party is labeled as such everywhere on Wikipedia and also in sources. Dajasj (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

Hi @N2e, I saw your request for clarification. But I am a bit confused, because the first sentence of the article makes - imo - clear what party Wilders belongs to (or which party belongs to Wilders). And all the election results are laid out in the article, including the result for 2023, just a few sentences after your request for clarification. Could you clarify what you want clarified? :) Dajasj (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. As a global reader in English, but utterly unfamiliar with the inside game of Dutch politics, I just came to the encyclopedia to figure out who this person (Wilders) I read of in news stories is, and what his position is or isn't in the Dutch politicalsphere.
So seeing the first sentence in the new section (Shoof cabinet) mention two esoteric acronyms of Dutch parties, but not being clear about which one is associated with the BLP subject of this article, or why it matters, makes it hard to follow the prose. I didn't come to read the entire article, and I am of the view that if a major subsection of this BLP—and the section that describes his current (seemingly important) role in Dutch politics—is not clear; so thought I'd just ask if someone who knows Dutch stuff might consider writing some prose that clarifies it. I'm of the general view that major article sections should have a good intro sentence (or two?) that sets the context for the particular section topic with respect to the overall meta-topic of the article.
I think an attempt to rewrite the lede sentence of the section to provide a better introduction could probably straightforwardly accomplish this, and need not excessively lengthen the article. N2e (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification. I will be looking into rewriting the lede of the entire article, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect every section to be self-explanatory. Maybe someone else takes that up. Dajasj (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for every section to be self-explanatory. Still, if better writing can make it more clear, and it does not substantially lengthen the prose that is there, then best to write it so it is more clear.
 Fixed — I copyedited the text to better explain to a global English-speaking audience what the heck happened in the recent 2023/24 election/cabinet formation with respect to the BLP subject, Wilders. N2e (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect geography

[edit]

The article incorrectly says “he went to Israel instead and volunteered for a year in a moshav, Tomer, on the West Bank.”

Tomer is an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. I therefore recommend the phrase above be changed to:

…he went to the Israeli-occupied West Bank instead, and volunteered for a year in an Israeli settlement, Tomer. 2A02:14F:17C:13D3:4C65:C746:A86F:51FF (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geert_Wilders&oldid=1262415157"