Talk:Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom and Diversity

IPlease remove informations about this party in order to stop propagation of pedophilia and drugs.

- An individual finding a subject distasteful is not a reason to remove its Wikipedia entry. The only criteria for whether an entry should be maintained is whether its subject is notable or significant in some way. Hammerite 15:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but this is truly aberrant, and should be told this way in the article.

The first paragraph makes it sound as if they hadn't won any seats because they were a new party. Actually that's exactly what it says. I'm removing that part, because there is no way to know if they will win seats. In fact, I find it doubtful they will be successful. But the job of this page is not to predict one way or the other in my view.--GenkiDama 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS LOOKS LIKE A HOAX TO ME. Is there any proof of existence since 2004? Or just the single article that came out this week, and is making the rounds? Even if the website exists, that doesn't mean the website itself isn't a hoax! -- 68.100.253.101 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, with complete certainty, that the NVD is not a hoax. Sorry. JayW 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion?

I think wiki should think long and hard about promoting this party in such a respectful manner. I don't believe this is notable nor significant. Including an organisation without any verification of their legal standing is questionable (given a story yesterday about the possible formation of this party), as are the motives of those who would want to see such inclusion. It also has a negative effect on wikis reputation, which could be the original intent. Shame on us. PhilipPage 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia (as it's called, a wiki is a technical concept) is inherently independant. And that means independance from everything -- including pro- and con-views on every subject, including this one. Please, let's not permit this "discussion" to escalate and go somewhere else if you don't like Wikimedia's rules. We are here to sum up that facts, present major (and perhaps minor) viewpoints on the subject, and perhaps make a slight attempt at analysis, not any more. Edit: See also: Wikipedia:NPOV -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Wed May 31 20:15:12 UTC 2006

Fair comment, but how does a breaking story from two days ago suddenly become fact? From the linked story "The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its web site it would be registered officially on Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!", according to wiki (what I call wikipedia regardless) this party already exists. Crystal Balls. PhilipPage 23:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been publicized much until now. Most people didn't even know it existed, including me -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Wed May 31 23:26:42 UTC 2006

Well heres to renaming this place Wikipaedophile. I'm off elsewhere, there's nothing to be gained from being here. PhilipPage 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck :^) -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 1 00:08:43 UTC 2006

Trouble is that the article hardly says anything about the party's controversy and the fact that nearly ALL of the Dutch are against this party. About 60 % wants to ban the party and about 35 % is strongly against its ideals, but claims though that freedom of speach forces them to allow the party. This has been proven by many opinion makers on the internet and on the radio. Unfortunately, there is no official source that can be linked to. One could say that therefore nothing about this should be in the article, but it is a fact that this party is disgusted by more than 95 percent of the country. That doesn't have anything to do with a non-neutral point of view. It's just the truth and an important issue, and therefore, I think that it should be part of the article. DaanAlberga 09:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about suspected promotion of this party by Wikimedia. There is no trouble at all in mentioning the controversy, and we could always link to a news article. Also, it should be mentioned that it was an unofficial poll on the Internet, and may not reflect the entire population -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]) Sun Jun 4 12:57:54 UTC 2006

Yes, leave, we don't want someone with such a biased opinion. Skinnyweed 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that was either sarcastic or not directed to me. If it was neither, please leave a note on my talk page (User: 80.127.68.21), so that we can solve this matter -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 6 16:46:52 UTC 2006

EDIT: Do you believe in democracy, or don't you? If you do, stop complaining. If you don't, feel free to keep arguing that other people shouldn't be allowed to express their views (however repugnant).

I _do_ believe in democracy. And that also means i have the right to complain about not letting the tone of the article to remain as neutral as possible. It doesn't matter what political party it is, it's just that i logically stumbled on this one, and i'd like to help making a neutral and informative article from it. The only i think i ask is to keep to the facts and keep far away from bias -- be it positive or negative -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Tue Jun 6 23:30:57 UTC 2006

Sexual contact between humans and other animals

"sex between animals and humans is somewhat legal in holland" ... I definitely DON'T think this is true...! SietskeEN 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See article 36 of [1] which has only provisions for maltreatment, so when there is sexual conduct, but the animal is not maltreated, there is no crime. Intangible 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I'd rather suggest saying "there is no law" (yet) instead of "there is no crime". SietskeEN 09:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a law dealing with animal abuse that is also applicable to sexual abuse. So there _is_ a law -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 1 14:09:11 UTC 2006

Which one exactly in article 36? SietskeEN 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections 1, 2a, and 3 are applicable to _any_ animal abuse, including sexual -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Sun Jun 4 01:29:35 UTC 2006

Title

Wouldnt Charity, Freedom, and Diversity be a better translation? Intangible 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a redirect, but I think we need a little more investigation as to what most media are/will use to give us a guideline. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen it written as Charity, Freedom, and Diversity such as - [2] Horses In The Sky ^{talk contributions}

In my opinion, this article should be titled "Naastenliefde, Vrijheid & Diversiteit." JayW 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Better use the native name and provide a translation within the article -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Wed May 31 22:26:22 UTC 2006

Actually, it is not, the party has been mentioned under a different name in the English media. Furthermore you just cannot start moving the article when this discussion here is not closed. Intangible 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there is no accurate translation possible for a name. Even the one mentioned in the article now may not be fully correct. If there is a policy dictating otherwise, forgive me. -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 1 00:41:33 UTC 2006

Well searching for Charity, Freedom and Diversity on news.google.com gives me 70+ results. Although they might all stem from just one ANP or Reuters article, the name of the party gets spread in the English language world in a transliterated way. See also WP:NAME. Intangible 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the how they translated the name. It is not the name. JayW 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JayW. Of course, redirects for other common names should be made -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 1 02:17:19 UTC 2006

It is the transliteration of the Dutch proper name, just like the VVD is transliterated into the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. Consistency is another big thing, and all Dutch parties have been transliterated so far. Intangible 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I withdraw my objections against changing the title -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 1 02:42:51 UTC 2006

These words can be "transliterated" to English in more than one way; we should use only the group's official translation. If there is none yet, we should use their Dutch name. JayW 18:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i think consistency weighs heigher. So it's either transliterate _all_ articles about political parties, or _none_. I think JayW is also right about ambigious transliteration, so if he wants to rename all articles concerning political parties, be my guest :) -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Sun Jun 4 01:25:36 UTC 2006

Whether the name will be in Dutch or in English, it should not include a "&"; this character screws up all attempts to watch or unwatch the page, for instance, as one has to manually insert the html code for "&" into the address bar. That is *not* user-friendly at all, and therefore I'm strongly against using any kind of title which includes "&" until this problem has been solved software-wise. —Nightstallion (?) 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New?

Why is this party being stamped as new in May 2006 if it already existed back in 2004? Are they preparing for elections this time around? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Wed May 31 16:01:12 UTC 2006

It didn't receive much publicity before and today they officially founded the association in terms of the law. --84.30.97.7 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Please note that there is a slightly updated version of the 2005 program available on their web site, which is the official program for the 2007 elections. Edit: The May 2005 program is still available at it's URL for those who need to compare -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Wed May 31 22:21:21 UTC 2006

I don't really feel like going through it again. Is everything in the article still true? JayW 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A few points have been scrapped, some altered slightly, but the article is still accurate. It was only a warning not to use the 2005 Program link anymore, especially not as a source. Speaking of which, the External Links still mentions the old program. Edit: The life-long sentence for murdering twice has been scrapped. Sorry, looked over. -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Wed May 31 23:30:36 UTC 2006

Factual inaccuracy

MARTIJN advocates adult-child _relationships_, not specifically sex. Also, a redundant sentence seems to have been added. -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 1 03:12:11 UTC 2006

Can you substantiate that fact? -Will Beback 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main page of their site _clearly_ states: "for acceptance of paedophilia and adult-child love relationships". See martijn.org -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jan 1 03:22:41 UTC 2006

I'm sorry, Zeurkous, but Martijn specifically states at http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=100000 that "physical intimity" shouln't be a problem, which - we all know - just means that Martijn thinks that having sex with a child should be considered ok. Apart from that, many - if not all - of Martijn's members actually claim to long to have sex with children. So please don't try to make things less perverse than they are. DaanAlberga 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, control your emotions and concentrate on the facts, not _any_ opinion, including mine, your's, or someone elses. We haven't got Wikipedia:NPOV for nothing. What is or isn't "perverse" is for the individual readers to decide. It's that simple. That's also why i'm not editing the article myself -- i support the NVD in their cause, so i would be _blatandly_ biased on the subject. Feel free to correct me, but please keep a Neutral Point of View. The article should state what MARTIJN states (that sex is not their only intent and abuse should be banned). Notable doubts about that should be in the MARTIJN article itself -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Sun Jun 4 01:21:06 UTC 2006

We can state what the organization says about itself, but that doesn't mean that we should assume it is true. Many organizations purport to hold principles different from those they actually pursue. We can verify that they make the claim, but we can't verify that they never supports sex between children and adults. We can verify that others allege they do so. -Will Beback 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could of course always mention that thier viewpoints are controversial, but the correct place for that would be the MARTIJN article. In every publication i've seen from them they explicitly state that the romantic element is the primary one. Personally, i see that as true to their statement. But please, if you have further doubts, place it in the talk of the MARTIJN article, because this article is about the NVD, _not_ MARTIJN -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Thu Jun 6 16:43:06 UTC 2006

Uittenbogaard not the founder

MARTIJN Association was founded in 1982, and Uittenbogaard was not one of its founders. Uittenbogaard is the current treasurer. --80.57.61.156 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Pedophile activism"

Shouldn't this party be in the category "Pedophile activism"? Of course I know that it does not style itself as a pedophile party or even as a single-issue party but the greatest motive behind the foundation was the activity of MARTIJN. The mentioned category does not necessarily contain pedophile organizations, but some articles that will work handy for a reader on the subject. Also, what is the NVD's ideological line? I can read Dutch just a bit, so I guess I understood that they want a full secularisation of the education system and reforms in the penal policy. I think these should be provided for the article so the reader can get a holistic picture of their line, despite the pedophile controversy. Behemoth 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i don't see any problem with adding the article to that category, as they advocate pedophilia explicitly. For the rest, as i noted elsewhere, i'm biased at the whole thing, but i'd say they are left-winged and their main ideological point, as they themselves state, is to make every citizen think for themselves instead of collectively embracing an opinion without much thought -- De Zeurkous, Thu Jan 6 23:24:32 UTC 2006