Talk:Pim Fortuyn

Additions

Okay, I made some additions to this article. As I said earlier on this page, I think it's a good idea to include some information on the background of his success and on his influence. Also, I have changed some bits here and there. Most notably, I removed the bit about asylum seekers numbering in the 40,000s as claimed by Fortuyn, and the comments that the number was actually in decline. While this is perfectly true, it seems a bit POV to include this directly after his statement, especially since he wanted to severely limit immigration and was presumably not very concerned about the exact number. We could still include something like it, I think, if we improve on the wording. Also, the previous wording seemed to suggest that there was something of a quota of 40,000, while this is obviously not the case. Furthermore, I think it's a bit odd and POV to go into gruesome details about the shari'a unless Fortuyn specifically mentioned those. So unless he did, I suggest we remove that comment as well. Junes 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If Fortuyn is 'quoted' then the 'quote' should be correct, so if he said there were 40.000 asylumseekers per year, then that shouldn't be changed. Especially since it illustrates a point about him, namely that he had a habit of shooting his mouth off. He said loads of stuff that appealed to the multitude but was incorrect or inconsistent. DirkvdM 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you here. So I changed the wording to "the practice of allowing as much as 40,000 asylum-seekers into the country each year had to be stopped (however, the actual number was not that high and already falling at that time)". The "as much" part is there to clarify that this is not some kind of quota. I still feel it's a bit POV; he did the interview in February 2002, so he couldn't possibly know the numbers for 2002 (although perhaps it was possibly to predict them). And the number for 2001 wasn't that far off: 32.600. On the other hand, it is true that he was sometimes sloppy with the facts. But we have to be very careful not to make this sound like some sort of political commentary slipping through.

I completely removed the "reasons" for the controversy, because I didn't think they were really the reasons his opponents had for criticizing him. More probable they would have argued that asylum seekers are persecuted in their home countries and therefore have the right to request asylum.

About my other edits: I removed the Nawijn reference because this article is not about Nawijn and it seems to try to make Fortuyn guilty by association. I moved the "Greatest Dutchman" part to Legacy where I think it fits better (it's not that important after all. I removed the part about Spain's amnesty because the strictness in Dutch immigration policy is not so much in asylum laws (these were not significantly changed after Fortuyn AFAIK), but in other immigration, especially by marriage. I removed the part about Verdonk because I don't think she merits special mention in this article (well maybe she does, but then we could include Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali as well - I think the article should primarily about Fortuyn). Also the article should not include detailed discussions of her policies, methinks. Oh yeah, I removed the polls info because this tends to change rapidly and does not really add all that much.

As you see I removed quite a bit of your edits (although I liked most of it) and I hope you do not feel offended. I really tried to make this a better article and not include some kind of POV in it. If you think some things should be inserted, feel free to edit or discuss. Junes 20:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No offence taken. As long as it's properly argumented I don't mind, whether I agree or not. I wasn't sure about the thing about Nawijn either, but the point I meant to make was about Fortuyn's following. Alas, a politician is not only what he is, but also what he is perceived to be and thus what effects he has. Or, put more strongly, Fortuyn had an effect that he could have foreseen. The addition about Wilders was also meant in this way. And maybe Rita Verdonk isn't important, but her policies can certainly be said to be a consequence of what Fortuyn was about. So the loss of political correctness has caused a shift to the right (in immigration matters anyway) but that has had an effect of others moving to the left. Let's see how I can work that into the article. One problem I've run into before is how to refer to the present; should that be in present tense? I wrote "By 2005 a polarisation is visible". In that case it should be constantly updated. Can we rely on that to happen? DirkvdM 09:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, as long as the content of statements like that is not likely to change very quickly. You can also use perfect tense, e.g. "has become". But I removed that part By 2005 a polarisation is visible. One-issue voters on immigration policies have caused the most right-wing government in recent Dutch history. But this is a government that is right-wing in all aspects. As a result, polls now show a possibility of an all left-wing coalition without the Christian Democrats, which would be a first in Dutch politics. Let's not put too much (personal) analysis in the article. First of all, calling them "one-issue voter" is a bit condescending. Let's also not speculate too much on the reasons for the unpopularity of the present government, because there are many more that can be thought of. Finally, a left-wing coalition is very, very unlikely. Also, this is really contemporary parliamentary politics that are not very much related to Fortuyn.

I really like the way this has been improved so far. Junes 10:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A left-wing coalition very, very unlikely? PvdA, GroenLinks and SP together often have a majority in the polls, so it's a possibility to say the least! The point I wanted to make was that many people must have voted right-wing on a few related (in their view) issues like immigration, allochtones, Muslims, terrorism. Let's face it: the present government is rightwing, it's very unpopular and left-wing parties are bigger in the polls than they ever were in elections. Surely, it's blindingly obvious what this means. And how did this right-wing government come about? Mostly on social and security issues that made LPF big. Which makes it relevant for the Legacy section of this article. But now the people have got a cabinet that's right-wing in other respects as well, which explains the present move to the left (which I predicted years ago, by the way - the best scientific prove for a theory; predict something and if that comes out you've got a strong point). This is such 'common knowledge' that it isn't really a personal analysis. I don't speculate on the specific reasons for the unpopularity of the present government, as you suggest. I do speculate on the reasons why they got into power, but I don't think that's very disputable (maybe the term 'one-issue voters' isn't well chosen). The reason for their unpopularity is just the rest. DirkvdM 10:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because some coalition is a theoretical possibility doesn't mean it's likely to happen - let alone that we need to write about it in the Pim Fortuyn article. The PvdA is not interested in a left-wing coalition, because they fear it would alienate voters in the centre. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's unlikely, so let's not speculate on it, especially not in this article, which is only marginally related to it.

I appreciate the fact that the paragraph is written to explain Fortuyn's influence on contemporary politics - this is certainly a valid objective. However, there are difficulties with establishing to what extent these political phenomena are influenced by him. Let's not forget that, if I remember correctly, the main issue of the 2003 elections, according to voters, was not immigration or integration, but the economy. That we have a right-wing cabinet now is also pretty much coincidence - the left won the 2003 elections! PvdA had gained an enormous number of seats, and if the CDA had been more willing we would have had a centre-left cabinet now. To some extent I agree with your assessment that the CDA and the VVD have capitalised on the remaining concern about immigration and integration, and that they have used their mandate to push through largely unpopular social security reforms. However, given that

• the left won the 2003 elections
• integration & immigration were not the main issues
• The LPF is not in the present cabinet
• The current impopularity of the cabinet also has to do with the state of the economy and the EU referendum

I fail to why this has much to do with Fortuyn. And I think this is pretty POV: "One might think the voters got more than they bargained for, but even the strict immigration policy is heavily criticised." How about this: "Fortuyn received many votes due to his stance on immigration and integration issues, which is traditionally seen as right-wing. However, this should perhaps not be seen as an indication of the Dutch voters leaning more towards the right in general, given, for example, the impopularity of the social security reforms by the present right-wing cabinet." Junes 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right in one crucial respect: the present right-wing cabinet is a consequence of a choice CDA made, and I cannot establish that that has anything to do with Fortuyn. What about the following text.

Fortuyn had made issues like Immigration, Integration, Muslims and Terrorism debatable (is that the right word for 'salonfähig' in English?), pulling many voters in the 2002 elections to the right, especially from PvdA. By the 2003 elections many had moved back, but not all. By 2005 a polarisation has become visible in Dutch politics. Polls show a further loss for LPF, but Group Wilders is now on the rise. In contrast, the polls show a possibility of an all left-wing coalition without the Christian Democrats, which would be a first in Dutch politics (close to the required 75 seats, compared to about 55 seats on average in the last two decades). This probably has to do with the impopular social security reforms, but it might also be a reaction to the immigration policies, which would indicate that Fortuyn actually caused a move away from what he stood for (action = reaction).

Maybe the whole section needs to be rewritten (much is said double and the order isn't all too logical), but I don't have the time for that now.

I realised all this after I had already written the following, which you might still find interresting to read (you're wrong in most other respects), especially the second bit about the 2003 elections. Maybe I could work this into some other article.

The leftwing coalition is more than just a theoretical possibility and I didn't write that it's likely to happen, just that polls show a possibility. That PvdA isn't interrested isn't relevant, the point is that voters have swung to the left. Whether this should be stated in this article is indeed doubtful. But it's in the Legacy section and this is a 'second generation legacy', so to say. It's not just that the effect has faded away, but there's even a stronger move to the left than there ever was before if the polls are to be relied on, and that makes the argument weak, but I still feel it's noteworthy and ultimately an effect of Fortuyn, or rather what Fortuyn stood for. That LPF is not in the present cabinet has nothing to do with the popularity of the left. Nor does the EU referendum, because opponents and advocates of the Constitution were found both on the left and on the right (with LPF an opponent and they dropped further in popularity). Whether integration (hadn't mentioned that) and immigration were not the main issues I'm not sure. I thought they were. And I also mentioned Muslims and Terrorism, don't forget those - the link may be doubtful, but it exists in people's heads and that was the cause of the rise of the right and LPF in particular, with Fortuyn as the figurehead.

About who were the winners in 2003, let's assume that PvdA, SP and GroenLinks (or their predecessors PPR, PSP and CPN) constitute the left. In the last ten elections their combined number of seats were as follows: 77:59, 81:53, 82(1):53, 82(2):55, 86:55, 89:55, 94:44, 98:61, 2002:42, 2003:59. That's an average of 54 seats. So what's striking is not so much the 59 seats in the last elections but the 42 seats in the 2002 elections (maybe that's what you were comparing to). Furthermore, in the 2002 elections, when LPF jumped from nothing to 26 seats, where did those seats come from? CDA jumped up 14 seats (after a slump in the 90's), SP gained 4 seats and the only parties that lost were VVD who lost 14 seats and PvdA who went down 22 seats! The conclusion seems obvious: LPF got their seats from former VVD and especially PvdA voters. After the fiasco of Balkenende I only the hardliners stayed with LPF (and have now moved to Wilders) and the rest went back to normal, though some got so scared they moved further to the left as a counterbalance. I admit that last bit is more speculative, but I deliberately avoided being specific about the conclusions. I just stated the facts to let the reader make up their own mind. Of course, which facts you present to the reader is implicitly like a statement, but if you reason like that you can never get anything written down.

Note, though, that in the new version I am specific about the conclusion, but at the same time I have mellowed it down.

DirkvdM 09:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think we found enough common ground now to establish some facts.

1) There is a polarisation in contemporary Dutch politics (at least, more than in recent years).

2) Some (but not all!) of this focuses on issues as immigration, integration, Islam, terrorism, etc.

3) The government is highly impopular.

4) In recent polls, the left is performing above average relative to earlier periods

5) Geert Wilders is also doing well (although this fluctuates wildly).

Now, let's see what merits inclusion in the article. 1) definitely, of course, since Fortuyn was involved in this. 2) for the same reasons. As for 3), I'm not so sure, because, as I said, it could have to do with many things. You write This probably has to do with the impopular social security reforms, but it might also be a reaction to the immigration policies, which would indicate that Fortuyn actually caused a move away from what he stood for (action = reaction). However, this is speculation: it might be so, but it might also not be so. Did you know that Verdonk is actually the most popular minister in the cabinet (check Google)? I don't like her either but it's very clear that a lot of people do.

So instead of writing about the government's impopularity, let's include more info on the polarising effect of those government's measures which were implemented. About 3) and 4), if you can show me some sources (credible polls, something like that) that these are due specifically and substantially to the government's position on immigration etc., then I'd be all for including such a statement. Otherwise, it would remain speculation and not suitable for this article. However, we can include 3) and 4) by claryifing to the readers that there is no general "shift to the right" in Dutch voting behavior (as I did in my proposed version earlier). 5) is a notable fact for this article, because Wilders' platform is similar to Fortuyn's in some respects.

I'll attempt a rewrite in the article, see what you think of it. Junes 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I based my perception of Verdonk's popularity on what I hear from the media, but they're not all that reliable. Then again, how reliable is info on the Internet in this respect? How do you Google the popularity of Verdonk? Anyway, that's behind us. Indeed, I don't know what the popularity of the left and thus impopularity of the present government is based on, so without that knowledge it can't be included. So the second half of my proposal hereabove can be dropped. But not the first half. Most of that is already in there now, but I think it's worth mentioning that many voters moved from PvdA to LPF and then back again. As is the further loss of LPF in the polls. For the rest I'm satisfied, so I'll just put that in there. See what you think.

Yeah, sorry, I should have been more clear about the Verdonk reference, what I meant was this: [2]. I agree completely with including the PvdA -> LPF -> PvdA trend. Ideally we'd have a cite for that, but it's okay for now. Glad to have this solved, prima!

Well, that's the Telegraaf, not a newspaper I'd trust too much for neutrality. But the article says she has grown in popularity, not that she is popular. It even states that 53% don't like her. Most of all she is controversial, but apparently she is more unpopular than popular. Also notice that the headline and first lines of the article suggest something completely different from what the figures actually say. That's the Telegraaf for you. DirkvdM 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you mention that there were plans to expell 26,000 asylum seekers, but that hasn't really happened yet, has it? Only about 10,000 so far and it doesn't look like they want to take it any further. Or did I get that wrong? And a linguistic bit: does one say 'PvdA' or 'the PvdA' and are parties singular or plural? DirkvdM 19:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll replace that number with a less definite description. About the linguistic issue: there seems to be a U.S./U.K. difference, with British people often writing "Labour are". However, the Brits themselves are not really consistent; therefore I'd go for 'the PvdA is' as that also seems to be the standard in the U.S. media ("The NAACP is"). Junes 22:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That also happens to be the Dutch standard, although that is not really an argument. DirkvdM 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

POV notice

I think tis article is actually pretty NPOV now, and the notice should be removed. I'll add a comment on the talk page of the anon who included it. Junes 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's much, much better, thanks for working on it. Since you asked me to look it over, I may as well comment on one small thing. "He openly rejected all violence and was no overt racist" -- these are strong claims, especially the latter, and require strong evidence. I would replace the sentence with quotations that demonstrate the points. If no such quotes can be found, the sentence ought to be cut. Once that sentence is dealt with, I agree that POV notice should be removed. 128.59.31.237 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. To be fair, I only did a little work on this article just recently. And yes, I agree completely about that sentence you mention. It's very gratuitous. The first part is rather broad (what? Any violence at all?). And while I feel the second part is probably true, there's not really a reason to include it. Certainly people have called him racist (although opinion leaders were more like to refer to him as extreme-rightist, xenophobic or Islamophobic). In the future we should include some attributed criticisms concerning that statement (for instance Paul Rosenmöller "this is not just right-wing, this is extreme-right") and rebuttals, and discuss the "demonisation" claim. In the meantime, I removed the comment. I will also remove the POV-tag shortly if no one else objects. Junes 10:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the POV notice. Junes 18:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Books?

The man has written a number of books in his lifetime. Should we include a list, even though they haven't been translated into English (yet)? And give a quick summary of each one as well?

I think a list of (a selection of his) books could probably be included, at least for completeness' sake. Maybe we could also include a small section Works or something like that, but I don't think we should be too exhaustive in discussing his works, given that his books are in Dutch only and he's not primarily known for them. Junes 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I reverted the additions on Fortuyn's alleged defense of pedophilia, which have been added twice by User:195.93.21.71. I'm not sure, but the quotes seem to have been taken out of context and used as a smear against Fortuyn. It could very well be that Fortuyn held supportive views of pedophilia; we know that he was rather liberal both in behavior and thinking when it came to sex or drugs, so I guess it's not inconceivable. However, this is rather irrelevant since AFAIK it has never been the subject of public discussion or controversy. So I don't think it belongs here, and certainly not at that length in the introduction. Junes 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, i just reverted the piece once again. It might be worth a paragraph further down, but certainly not this prominent in the intro. The Minister of War 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So now that there is some more evidence regarding Fortuyn's escapades with minors, I tried to rewrite the new section about it to include some of the old stuff. In retrospect, it might have been better to rewrite the allegations instead of deleting them outright. I apologize for that.

Anyhow, I rewrote the section avoiding the word pedophilia. Although this label is often incorrectly applied to any sort of sex with minors, it really applies to sex with prepubescent children. Being attracted to teenage boys or girls is fairly common, while pedophilia is relatively rare. I strongly suspect that any sex that Fortuyn might have been engaged in, would have been with boys in their teens (although I haven't reviewed Peter R. de Vries' claims in detail. Junes 17:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually believe that this section shouldn't be included at all, because of the insignificance of it. I think it's an insult to Pim Fortuyn to even include such a section. Anyone could accuse somebody of something, and it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be included on that person's wiki. If it does, hereby I'm accusing George Bush of having sex with babies!

The criterion is simply whether or not such an accusation has received enough media attention and this one certainly had; we merely reflect this. The question whether it is insignificant or an insult can be left to the personal judgment of each reader.--MWAK 07:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the original dutch version of this wiki doesn't mention a word about it?

This page was developed independently from the Dutch version. It's not a translation, nor is the Dutch version a translation from the English page. In my opinion, the Dutch article (or the equivalent article in any other language) should also include information on the allegations. However, that's for the editors there to decide. By the way, you can sign using ~~~~. Junes 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Language

Edited introduction and biography for clarity and grammar. Erdapfelgal 12:09, 8 November 2005

Trivia

Edited the section about the significance of the fact that it was a political murder; Excluding WWII, it was appartantly the first peacetime political murder in the Netherlands since the lynching of the De Witt brothers in The Hague in 1672! More them 300 years.

"Apparently"? It's hard to prove a negative fact of course; but do you have any serious references for this?--MWAK 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is true. It would go too far to call it "common knowledge" in the Netherlands, but it has been brought up VERY often in the news that year.

A short google search reveals some references. The Volkskrant calls it the first in modern history (which is cute, but doenst really cut it for this reference); the BBC mentions it in the last part of this article; The Nation mentions it; The Guardian; the list goes on.

Any of those references might help, though personally i think it warrants to be put in unreferenced. any added references to the articles above would only cloud the issue. Secondly, its a plain historical fact, without real need for reference imho. We just need to make sure it is mentioned very precisely and completely. For example, I myself am not sure that the De Witt murders were the previous murders, though i have to admit its plausible. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the references brought forward above are not enough, then i do not know how the wikipedia in general can move forward. Agree that it is a difficult fact to prove and that there has already been another possible political killing (in Nijmegen) recently. But in all fairness, can i rephrase the sentence slightly and re-introduce it?--Prudentia 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can't believe that the Orangists didn't murder more opponents later in the 17th and 18th century, though I have to admit I can't come up wih any examples :o). But I'll change "atrocities" to the more neutral "events", as the former word suggests that only the Germans committed murders in that period and that all murders were highly reproachable: the Dutch resistance "eliminated" thousands of people they suspected of collaboration or simply of being a nazi. That something is "common knowledge" is a dangerous argument of course — especially as historical awareness is very low in The Netherlands...--MWAK 12:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As you mentioned earlier, it is very fifficult to varify, but I agree wit h your comments. Let's leave it like this for the time being, since i hope all involved in the discussion can agree with this line. BTW: the word atrocities could have been used for Dutch as well as German ones, but no disagreement from this side against the word 'events'.--Prudentia 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Political party memberships

Should this article also not mention that before LPF and even Leefbaar Nederland, Pim Fortuyn had been a member of PvdA as well?

That would be best. :o)--MWAK 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(Re-)adding Peter R. de Vries research, notes

I re-added the De Vries stuff which was taken out, although I left out the reference to the Scotsman; I don't feel that this article has received enough attention in the mainstream press, and including the piece seemed to suggest that Fortuyn might have had with minors after all. Furthermore, the quotes in the lead are now referenced to the Volkskrant article. Of course, it's in Dutch, but I can verify (as can other speakers) that the quotes are there and that they are presented fairly here. Something went wrong with the notes, though. I thought that the numbers would automatically be adjusted, but that turned out not to be the case. If anyone can fix that, I'd be grateful. Junes 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I archived this page, partly because this page was getting too long, partly also to get rid of the (inactive) discussions about Fortuyn that were not really related to the article. Junes 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Backwards or retarded?

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pim_Fortuyn&diff=73028288&oldid=72594028 someone changed "backwards" into "retarded". How to translate Pim Fortuyn's "achterlijke" remark? Achterlijk can both be translated to retarded and to backwards, yet they have widely different meanings. How should a translation problem like this be dealt with? Frank Quist 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

By translating it correctly: backward. :o)--MWAK 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "retarded" much better captures the pejorative sense of the Dutch word than "backward" does. Paul Koning 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "retarded" is something you say of people, hardly of cultures.--MWAK 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Achterlijk" is not normally used in the sense of "backward," but very frequently in the sense of "retarded". In fact, it is hard to come up with any occurrences in the former sense. Of course, the translation is politically loaded: Fortuyn claimed to have meant "backward" after his calling it "achterlijk" caused an uproar. Perhaps we should respect the stated intention by the speaker, but the ambiguity should not go unnoted -- I will add a remark. 129.27.152.126 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Backing this up: nl.freedictionary.com mentions only mental retardation and stupidity. nl.wiktionary.org mentions only mental and physical retardation (and a naval meaning). Synoniemen.net mentions retarded, provincial, idiotic, outdated, ignorant, and crazy. 129.27.152.126 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholic revisited

Why is he categorized as a catholic? Only because he was born in a catholic family and because his funeral took place in a catholic church? Not enough it seems to me. See Talk:Pim_Fortuyn/Archive1#Roman_Catholic Andries

Because he felt deeply religious catholic, that's quite clear from his TV performances and books. Furthermore, he intended to become pope. C mon 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say so then I have to accept it in faith, because I do not know enough about the subject. Andries 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I've been googling but can't find much besides the fact that he was born a roman-catholic. Surely for such a public figure there is a reliable source out there that documents this. jaco♫plane 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cmon, was he a just an "ietsist" (believer that there is more between heaven and earth) or did he express sympathy for the catholic church? Andries 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pim Fortuyn, while being interviewed at his home ONE week prior to his death Fortuyn was asked whether he was a religious man. He answered "No" Question: "Are you afraid to die?" (referring to the large number of death threats he received daily) Fortuyn "No, not really. My father was very religious and he had a very traumatic death, whereas my mother wasn't particularly religious and her death was quite peaceful. So I prefer to go like my mother." On DVD Gerry1211

He is listed as catholic on parlement.com, he claimed being catholic in this interview both in Dutch though. C mon 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cmon, convincing, thanks. I prefer good Dutch sources over flawed English. Will try to insert with a reference. Andries 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those references, I guess your google skills p0wn mine :) I use dutch sources regularly on articles regarding Dutch people, and there is no clause in WP:V that states that the source needs to be in English. Groet, jaco♫plane 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Leefbaar Rotterdam

i dont know how to word this, but leefbaar rotterdam predates leefbaar nederland, so its NOT an offshoot of either leefbaar nederland or LPF.
actually, there were many 'leefbaar' parties in many different cities 'leefbaar haarlem' and so on. but because of the charismatic leader of fortuyn (he was lijsttrekker of leefbaar Rotterdam long before he went national) and perhaps the many ethnic people in rotterdam (over half of them i believe) he got about 40% of the votes, far more then in any other city, and decided to go national, and leefbaar nederland was born, wasnt long before he got kicked out^^--Lygophile 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Since someone made an issue of the spelling of his last name: it is true that "ij" is baffling to non-Dutch speakers. But in fact, so is "uy" or for that matter "ui". I've tried to teach that sound to English speakers for a long time, with singular lack of success. In any case, the fact that a particular way of spelling is baffling to people doesn't change the fact that it is the spelling of the name. Paul Koning 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume user Cholmondeley-Smythe hadn't understood Fortuijn was his registered family name and assumed earlier editors had tried to give the standard spelling of the word. Which, however, is fortuin :o).--MWAK 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted to MWAK's version in the interests of stability, even though I think the copy edited version is better in terms of the writing. Polentario, can you say what you are trying to achieve instead of reverting back and forth? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. I recommand to read given sources (not only the titles) and to do this with a gran of salt. The lemma is being biased by the attempt to tell only the "corrected version" of Graf about the immigrant issues, not the original fur.
• What I do want to say:

First, animal protection zealotism played an important role in the assassination. The killer was predominatly a vegan / animal rights fanatic and not a protector of Mulims. The fact that the killer changed his statements from animal to muslim during the proceedings can be told. But he is the killer - he may lie and even as a vegan non smoker, he is no credible source. The telegraph report shows a difference (call it a bias) between its reference to "muslim" in the title and the basic facts told in the text. The text of the telegraph article (and i recommand to read it) confirms animal rights issues, van der graaf being an Animal rights Zealot (nothing about Muslims) and the family wearing fur (not bikinis) to provoke the killer. I assume it tries to do away with the fur issue - similar as it happens here.

I added the Parker article

• as a source for Graaf being an animal rights zealot and trouble maker and btw for animal rights fanatics being a seriuos security problem. Again, its not about islamists being attacked.
• Second Fortuyn populist opinions were not to be itdentified with a clear part of the political spectrum. He was pro a permissive society and against immigrants that didnt fit in.
• Fortuyn permissive and hedonistic lifestyle was an important part of its appeal.

• What I therefore want to insert in the text

Fortuyn presented himself in fancy clothes and a flashy lifestyle with hard-hitting views against religious puritans and a support of gay rights, legalized drugs and prostitution in a permissive dutch society. He was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign by animal rights activist and militant vegan Volkert van der Graaf. The killer initially claimed that he opposed Fortuyn's intention to do away with restrictions of the mink fur business in Holland and then admitted in court that he murdered the Dutch Prime Ministerial candidate to "protect Muslims"

Fortuyns family members wore fur coats during the proceedings to show their disdain for the murderer Polentario (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be engaged in OR here e.g. that a non-smoker and vegan can't be a reliable source. :)

The claim that he killed him because of the mink fur business, I could find in only that one source, which is an article written by a vet. The killer said, and all reliable sources report, that he was motivated by the views Fortuyn expressed about Muslims.

The fancy clothes and flashy lifestyle is unnecessary in the lead. The fur coats issue isn't about Pim Fortuyn, and the lead should pick out the most important points about him, his life, and his death. What his family may have worn in court isn't really part of that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if u seem to see a vet as not being a credible source - wht is your agenda? A quite biased one.

An article by a vet on an unknown website about an important news event not related to veterinary medicine is not a reliable source under our policies. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1974572.stm ?

That's a good source but it doesn't say what you said. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Its similar - the whiole text about an animal rights activist and a little point about "weacker groups " in society.

For the record: Furtuyn is not Theo van Gogh, the muslim bullshit is ONLY mentioned in the title of the telegraph article - the more important issues about animal are to be found in this text as well.

What u make out of it is to bias the article even more. OK, I give up - its clear that a political aganda wins over the facts here. --Polentario (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Polentario, you are doing the same thing in multiple articles. You are using poor sources expressing minority views, then taking what they say and extending it some more, and reverting when people remove it. Please read our content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats your personal POV - as said and proven you dont accept facts if they dont fit into your world view. I at least agree with the NYT. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803EED71330F93AA35756C0A9649C8B63 Polentario (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good source, but again, it doesn't say what you are claiming, which is: "The killer initially claimed that he opposed Fortuyn's intention to do away with restrictions of the mink fur business in Holland and then admitted in court that he murdered the Dutch Prime Ministerial candidate to 'protect the weaker in society (both human an [sic] animals)'." That implies that the killer first said he killed Fortuyn because of the mink. You would need to find a reliable source that says that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First the mentioned edit is not my original one but one already altered by somebody trying to weak the mink approach. If its about wording - I am able to adapt. Graaf claimed, not confessed in some respect and the animal issues have been confirmed explicitely by the (accepted) source of the telegraph. --Polentario (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As a Dutch/American person who listened extensively to all Fortuyn's interviews on television, who has his books as well as a DVD of his most important interviews, I can honestly say that I have NEVER seen a more biased, dumb and totally untrue description of the man, what he said and what he stood for. He did not hate Muslims. He held them accountable and required that they live according to Dutch laws, norms and values, and if they couldn't do that they had the option of leaving. The Netherlands is full, he said. Currently over 47,000 refugees have entered the Netherlands, so the nonsense that the number he quoted, was wrong. or that he referred only to Muslims is blatantly false. The descriptions that Fortuyn was a xenophobe/racist/Muslim hater were propagated by the political parties who were losing their power. They were helped by the Dutch News media who hyped it up into a frenzy, not because it was true but because it sold newspapers. All English sources are translations of those Dutch articles which had their origin from statements made by political losers. There were slugfests on television almost nightly. Case in point, the Imam, who on Dutch television, attacked Fortuyn and said "You are worse than a pig and should be slaughtered like one"! Fortuyn turned to him an very calmly said "If that is what you truly believe than your religion is retarded." The Next day, all the headlines read "Fortuyn calls Islam retarded". Not one word about what the Imam said. This is proof that Wikipedia is about as trust worthy as the local rag we pick up free at any street corner. The New York Times is not a reliable source. Neither is the BBC. Simply because Fortuyn, oddly enough, did not command the English language and refused to speak to them saying "You lie". I have made various corrections and took the liberty to somewhat streamline the poor English. However, I find that the corrections have not been accepted, which make me wonder about the agenda of those who run or control this Wikipedia. Gerry1211

Well, I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia — as most people do. It is not a primary source reflecting reality or "the truth", it is a tertiary source reflecting secondary sources. In other words: we simply abstract what others have written about a subject. E.g., the DVD you possess containing the interview is a primary source. It might give a far better picture of his religious beliefs (indeed I'm personally convinced it does), but unless you can find a secondary source (that is a book or article commenting on the interview) that you may quote or cite, this information has no legitimate place on Wikipedia. You correctly indicate that a majority of sources is based on views that are different from your own. For that very reason the article should predominantly reflect those views. So, yes, in a way Wikipedia is controled by something — but it is not some secret agenda; it is the common (and very public) opinion of those who write books and newspapers that indirectly decides the content of this encyclopedia.--MWAK (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

--I have not misunderstood Wikepedia. Most people see Wikipedia as a definitive source. Your notion that a tertiary source reflecting "secondary sources" should be valid is preposterous. Try primary sources, i.e something out of the horse's mouth. Nothing written here on Fortuyn is based on facts. You have no sources. The Volkskrant is not a source when it quotes politicians in order to sell newspapers, neither is the BBC and certainly not the New York Times. English media simply copied whatever Dutch politicians via the media quoted. The media loves slugfests. It sells. De Telegraaf is a possible source. You have none. You are misleading the public by making assertions on a man who was brutally murdered by a radical animal rights activist as the direct result of the Dutch Government's creation of a climate of extreme hatred and vilification of him because they were losing. Fortuyn, besides being a professor, was a prolific writer. I suggest you take up the Dutch language. Here are some of his books "A hell of a Job"; "De Verweesde samenleving" ; "De Islamisering van onze Cultuur"; "De Puinhopen van Acht Jaar Paars"; "Autobiografie van een Babyboomer". That should do it. Until then please don't assume you know ANYTHING about Pim Fortuyn. I suggest that you insert, in bold, the comment that the content of this site is based on hearsay not fact. If the purpose of Wikipedia is writing nonsense then you are to be congratulated. Gerry1211 Sept.28,09

Well, it might be "preposterous" but it is not "my" notion but official Wikipedia policy. I refer to Wikipedia:No original research. Especially to this section:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

So, indeed, the content of this encyclopedia is to be based on "hearsay" and not directly on the "facts" — we after all, are not in a position to determine what the facts are as we are not a research institute; we can only report what others say they are.--MWAK (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources'(bold)". There you go! Reliable?. Since when is the media reliable? There are tons of articles claiming WMD in Iraq. According to you, because they were published in the New York Times that makes them reliable. You're whole theory on Fortuyn is based on the vile rhetorical ramblings of Dutch politicians who lost power, but whose ramblings and baseless accusations were published. I rest my case. Thank you for your detailed explanation of what Wikipedia really is. You post hearsay. And, like the Dutch rags, vilifying someone seems to sell a fast deal more than any truth. Gerry1211 Sept.28, 2009

References

Right wing?

Unless someone can defend it, I plan to remove the desciption of Fortuyn as right wing. I realize that it's common in the news media to describe Fortuyn as right wing, but few of his views as described in this article match what is described in the Wikipedia article on the term right wing. Most flatly contradict the term right wing, as the Wikipedia article defines it -- particularly his views on drug policy, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and compulsory military or social service. --Tedd (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and edited accordingly. There's media commenting that can be cited. --tickle me 01:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed the BBC quote saying that "Dutch people describe him as a populist rather than a fascist." The "popularist" label is already mentioned in another sentence, so why should a claim about what someone is not be in the article? I imagine Dutch people would also decribe him as a populist rather than a bycycle, or a tree, or a field of tulips. That doesn't mean the article should say "he has been described as a popularist rather than a field of tulips". Meowy 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What about environment and animal rights?

In this whole article (untill now) not a word seems to be spent to the person's declarations on subjects with noteworthy environmental and/or animal rights aspects. For instance he favoured the building of live-stock flats, thus enabling the building of even more residential area's in that allready very densely populated country, in places, where now cows and other animals mostly still can live in more or less natural meadows. About items like the anti-fur movement he was said to be kind of humiliating. --VKing (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but these aspects hardly constituted the core of his thought. Of course if you can find a serious source claiming this to be otherwise, feel free to add the information.--MWAK (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is written, that only information about the core of a politician's thought is supposed to be given in a Wp article about him or her?

And, where is written, that the information that now is given in the article about this politician's thought, does concern the core of it?

After these questions will be answered in a way, that urges to, a search will be started for a "serious source", as mentioned. Otherwise, the aspects as mentioned could be added to the article immediately. --VKing (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to Berlusconi

Is Silvio Berlusconi "centre-right"??? I highly doubt it. The upper part of the article states as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.255.196 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in an Italian context he may be called so :o). The "centre" part should here be understood as "as opposed to being a far-right extremist".--MWAK (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography

Is there a reason Fortuyn's autobigraphy is not included in the list of his books?

    Babyboomers: Autobiografie van een generatie 
    www.amazon.com/dp/9022983692
    www.worldcat.org/oclc/39937054

If there is not a reason for excluding it, may I suggest that it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.70.154 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory statement in "Posthumous sexual allegations"

The following statement in this section is surely contradictory?

"informant had claimed that Fortuyn had engaged in sex with under-age Moroccan youths;[38] they would be aged between 16 and 21, this was legal under Dutch law"

How can the alleged youths be both "under-age" and of legal age under Dutch law? Only one of these things can be true, if they were of legal age then the "under-age" term is incorrect and misleading - if they were under-age then the second part of the statement about ages and Dutch law is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.155.147 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You have a point there. The "under-age" was an imperfect attempt at translating Dutch minderjarig, being a minor. The age of consent, even for prostitutes, at the time was 16 (or 12 in most contexts) but you were generally a minor until the age of 18/21. I'll adapt the text accordingly.--MWAK (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are we including something that is presented as a "scandal" but (i) did not happen, and (ii) would not have been illegal if it had happened! Why give this issue so much weight - because it's been covered in the press!? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Imam televised debate story

I suspect the following part of the article is inaccurate:

He said he was concerned about intolerance in the Muslim community. In a televised debate in 2002, "Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his homosexuality. Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of multiculturalism."

A comment above also says:

Case in point, the Imam, who on Dutch television, attacked Fortuyn and said "You are worse than a pig and should be slaughtered like one"! Fortuyn turned to him an very calmly said "If that is what you truly believe than your religion is retarded." The Next day, all the headlines read "Fortuyn calls Islam retarded".

However, I could find no trace of this televised debate on internet. I found the following source from The Guardian which says that there was indeed such an exchange (i.e. an imam called Khalil el-Moumni attacked Pim Fortuyn on his homosexuality in derogatory terms). However it looks like Fortuyn answered to him a posteriori (i.e. the exchange did not happen live on TV).

Could someone find a trace to the actual video footage of this exchange, or correct this section to more accurately describe how this exchanged happened precisely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado.221 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Such a confrontation never took place. It is a conflation of a published altercation in Fortuyn's book De islamisering van onze cultuur, Nederlandse identiteit als fundament, het woord als wapen, met een kritische reactie van imam Abdullah R. F. Haselhoef, thus with another "imam" and the fact that Khalil el-Moumni had earlier compared homosexuals with pigs.--MWAK (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pim Fortuyn. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws/denhaag/1013147690985.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newcriminologist.com/article.asp?nid=870
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/actueel19/kn1920a.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.volkskrant.nl/den_haag/article153195.ece/De_islam_is_een_achterlijke_cultuur
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/05/10_years_after_pim_fortuyn_was_1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310014512/http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id%3D106882/contentid%3D525037/sc%3D5ce917 to http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id%3D106882/contentid%3D525037/sc%3D5ce917

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit to lede.

Hi, I recently made two changes. I figured I'd comment given I'm at work and thus not logged in to anything so people know if they're reverted as 'vandalism' or any such nonsense that it's an attempt to revert them for political reasons. I am on the other side of the world, and a centrist, thus have no dog in this fight but noted that the lede of this article read as apologetica defending the murderer of this guy. Idgaf who he is, murder is a crime, and we don't use bio's to defend or excuse murders. It's irelevant to the biography what the murderer said in his trial, this man faced political violence in the past according to the rest of the article, so using the lede to allow the murderer a platform to justify his murder is absurdly POV.

I also added a bit more context to the murderer passage, it simply stated he was an 'animal rights activist' which makes no sense, why would an animal rights activist kill someone who had nothing to do with abuse of animals? But his article lists him as a radical environmentalist AND animal rights activist, radical is a bit strong although let's face it to murder someone you're clearly radicalised but I added environmentalist in to at least give it a bit more context so it doesn't sound like he got murdered for wearing fur. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Precisely for that reason, it is important to make explicit the motives of his assassin. Obviously, for him they justified his actions. But the essence of our NPOV policy is not that we avoid platforms or POV: then Wikipedia would be empty. It is that we present all relevant POV, leaving it to the reader to decide whether he agrees with any of it.--MWAK (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead revert

Hello User:MWAK. Can you elaborate on your 06:43, 1 March 2024 revert please. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the claim that the assassination of Fortuijn was the first political murder since the lynching of the De Witt brothers has often been made but, as far as I'm aware, never on the basis of serious scientific research. If no good source can be given, should it be mentioned as a fact? If no such research exists, is this not a sign objective relevance is lacking regardless?

In any case, the events during the Second World War, with the resistance liquidating thousands of collaborators and Dutch landwacht militia murdering (suspected) resistance members, were certainly of a political nature and the same is true of the revenge killings after the war. Comparable conditions existed during what basically was a civil war between Orangists and Patriots between 1775 and 1805. "Classical" political murder must have been rare in recent times, but there is the case of Jan Reuvens who was killed in Brussels in 1816. Then part of the Netherlands of course :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

1. I understand your point about the claims of the first political murder since De Witt's excepting WW2. It is certainly a matter of reflecting what reliable sources state on the matter, per the verifiability policy. If you consider the claim extraordinary or reliable sources contradict each other, then Wikipedia has guidance for that.
   1. Verifiability § Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
   2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Balance,

      when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.

2. I understand your point about other violent periods in Dutch history. We could accommodate such concerns in the context of the extraordinary (within Dutch history) notability of the assassination of Fortuyn.
3. Regarding the assassination of Jan Reuvens I understand it may have been more of a judicial assassination than a political one. But even if it was a political one, was Reuvens active in politics at the time of his murder? And more crucially, even if you consider Reuvens a politician, Fortuyn still would be the first politician assassinated in more than 180 years in the Netherlands, which I think merits it being the first sentence of the article. Because this differentiates and makes him more notable than other politicians even abroad, not the regular description of politicians the first sentence currently has.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what is special about the case is that it is the murder of a Dutch politician for political reasons. That combination should then be expressed, perhaps in a less awkward way. Then there's the matter of whether he should be defined mainly by his being murdered. WP:LEAD states For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. However, being the the leader of a new and very successful Dutch political party would have sufficed for meeting the notability criteria. Indeed, the article had been already started on 24 March 2002, thus six weeks before his assassination. So, it seems more correct to mention this aspect in a subsequent sentence. As a last point, I would say that the picture of the corpses of the De Witt brothers is a bit over the top. Had they not been murdered, Fortuijn's tragic death would still have been notable.--MWAK (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style/Lead section § Biographies' first sentence,

The first sentence should usually state: [...] 4.One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. 5.The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) [...] However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section.

The current first sentence includes, politician, author, civil servant, businessman, sociologist and academic who founded the party Pim Fortuyn List. Six roles and a secondary notability (founder of a party).

The first sentence that I had included is more compliant of the Manual of Style and of more quality, was the first Dutch politician assassinated in essence in more than 300 years. It includes his most notable role, politician, and the most notable reason he is known for, his assassination. I don't think him winning the election in Rotterdam or founding a political party is anywhere near as notable as his assassination. In addition, following the guideline, I spread relevant information to other sentences in the first paragraph of the lead. Fortuyn was also an author, civil servant, businessman, sociologist and academic. He founded the party Pim Fortuyn List. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You cannot use a formalism about style to get around a substantive, policy-based objection to the content. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me what is that unnamed "substantive, policy-based objection to the content"? Because there have been a few objections and refutations. I already addressed objections in a previous reply, pointing out relevant policies. In the reply you object to I am addressing the previous reply of MWAK about sytle "That combination should then be expressed, perhaps in a less awkward way." Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That the sentence you wrote is factually false, and not supported by quality sources. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Except what you wrote is false because I literally wrote the sentence after reading relevant information in the article itself. It basically is a summary of info within the article.

Months later, Van der Graaf confessed in court to the first notable political assassination in the Netherlands since 1672 (excluding World War II).

Therefore I ask you to quote what you think is false from the sentence I wrote.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning that he was an author, civil servant, businessman, sociologist and academic hardly overloads the first sentence by Wikipedia standards. It would be absurd to limit the information to "he was a Dutch politician who was murdered". So the murder is presented as special for being the first in over three centuries. But though this is in itself notable, it doesn't make Fortuijn notable. Had there been a hundred murders, his death would not have been much less noted or important.--MWAK (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• It would be absurd to limit the information to "he was a Dutch politician who was murdered". Well, except I did not write that, I wrote,

  the first Dutch politician assassinated in essence in more than 300 years.

  You mention in your third sentence about three centuries, but only after saying previously in the mentioned sentence that it is absurd x sentence, which is a sentence I did not write.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability of the assassination of Fortuyn

I agree that Fortuyn was already notable and that his assassination didn't create his notability. But I don't really share that Had there been a hundred murders, his death would not have been much less noted or important. First, the meaning of the sentence is unclear. Do you mean a single attack that resulted in 100 murders? Do you mean 100 murders in a year? Do you mean 100 politicians murdered? In a single attack? Over which period of time? Secondly, the fact there had been no assassinations of politicians for a long time made his death the more shocking and important in the Dutch psyche. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Literally any of those sentences would give a valid conclusion, because the first sentence you wrote is not a good one. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The historical knowledge of the Dutch population is notoriously poor. Most people could not have told who Johan de Witt was, let alone that he was murdered. They were shocked or indignant that an anti-establishment politician who successfully challenged the politically correct consensus was eliminated by violence. Then they were told by the media that it had been centuries ago a political murder had happened and this element became part of the standard narrative of the event.--MWAK (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the pages Assassination of Pim Fortuyn and Pim Fortuyn List, I could make a guess that both have similar notability. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

First sentence overload and conciseness

According to the Manual of Style guidance of the first sentence, there shouldn't be overload of information and instead it should be concise. Certainly, such is determined by reasonable limits and specially consensus. My view is that the first sentence should be as concise as possible without compromising meaning or readability.

Pim Fortuyn was many things but according to one of the points in the guidance for biographies' first sentence (item 4), the information should include one, or possibly more, roles of the subject. Although it mentions possibly more, the main idea is to provide one role in the first sentence if that is enough. Only if it is not enough (key word "possibly") then it advises to include more.

If we say in the first sentence that Fortuyn was a Dutch politician who founded the Pim Fortuyn List party (not really my preference, as it introduces redundancy), the reader then will be reasonably informed as to who he was. Mentioning he was an "author, civil servant, businessman, sociologist and academic" can be relegated to other parts of the lead in order to maximize conciseness of the first sentence without compromising proper information. Likewise if we say that he was the first Dutch politician assassinated since World War 2.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Making the first sentence as concise as possible is not policy. "(T)he main idea is to provide one role in the first sentence if that is enough" is not correct for in that case the text would have read "if possible limit the sentence to one noteworthy fact". The "possibly more" simply means "more if the occasion warrants". However, there are many defensible forms the first sentence might take. My objection was merely that a reference to the events of 1672 would be included.--MWAK (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The "possibly more" simply means "more if the occasion warrants". I agree. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References