User talk:C mon/archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello C mon/archive1, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

mistake

That category was a mistake lol. I removed it :) Globe-trotter 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving Dutch parties

S'mae C mon,

Feel free to move what you want when you want. I was going to wait awhile after I put the template up to see if anyone had any objections before moving the articles. Thanks for the help. aliceinlampyland 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Please do not remove references

I noticed that you removed reference that I inserted in the article Lousewies van der Laan. References are demanded by Wikipedia policies. Besides it has been my experience that contents without references are removed by other contributors. Please do not again remove references. Thanks. Andries 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the dispute between us comes from a different style of writing articles. I sometimes wrote like you, without giving references, but I was and am heavily criticized for writing like that. Referenced contents is removed frequently by contributors who do not agree with me or find my statements implausible. My way of referencing is recommended by policies and guidelines. It will be clear from all of this that I have no intention to have my references deleted by you unless of course this is supported by the community and/or policies and guidelines. Andries 10:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

VWN en WCN

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, Effeietsanders 25 feb 2006 12:27 (CET)

SDP / SPD

Sorry for my stupid mistake, and thanks for correcting it. Lambiam^Talk 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Seats per party.xls

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Seats per party.xls. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. --Casper2k3 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Seats per party.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seats per party.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. --Casper2k3 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dutch seats per party.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dutch seats per party.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another GreenLeft "Comrade"

I see you are a member of GroenLinks. Nice! I wasn't aware of a "I'm-a-member-of-GroenLinks" userbox. Rick86 22:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohad Shem-Tov

Responded on my talk page. -- JLaTondre 21:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you C mon, for your word of welcome. I see you've spent too much time on your user-page as well—makes me feel less ashamed. But I should now just walk away, and do some serious reading. I'll probably see you walking around in Leiden (we'll never know). Thanks again, --Jacob... 13:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

howto

hi. I'm trying to put a

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.

box on my page or talk page (since its crowded), how can I float or allign it..? (feel free to edit it your self..)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

moved one of your pages

Hi C mon! This is just a note to inform you that one of the pages you created, Liberal Political Party, has been moved to Liberal State Party, following a discussion at Talk:Liberalism_worldwide#Liberal_political_party. Nice work on those Dutch party pages, by the way! Feel free to come over and fix up Green Party (United States) anytime. :) -- Coelacan | talk 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Ad Melkert Elections in Nagorno Karabakh Barend Biesheuvel Independent Senate Fraction Theodoor Herman de Meester National People's Party (Curaçao) ChristenUnie Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck Jelle Zijlstra Socialist Alternative Politics Constitution of the Netherlands Elections in the Netherlands Antilles Pieter Cort van der Linden Revolutionair Socialistische Partij Jo Cals Mobile Netherlands Party New Limburg Véronique De Keyser Victor Marijnen

Cleanup W. Averell Harriman The American Mercury Abraham Kuyper Merge Oceanic climate The Workers Party (Ireland) Chemist (character class) Add Sources Genosha Two-party system Wilhelmina of the Netherlands Wikify Keith Douglas Hubert Chico, California Expand Pieter Baan Center Politics of Europe Persian Constitutional Revolution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Green Left (Green Party of England and Wales) Edit

Hi C Mon!

I am an ecosocialist from Wales in the UK and I'm very new to Wikipedia! I was just wondering why you edited an article I'd made, at Green Left (Green Party of England and Wales); I hope I hadn't done anything wrong! Was there a specific problem with it or was it just a case of cleaning it up? Was there a problem with putting the page in so many categories?

Any advice is appreciated, Aled Dilwyn Fisher

Thanks!

Hi C Mon,

Thank you for your suggestions! I agree that there could have been more links and that some of the categories were superfluous.

I have read through the various Wikipedia advice sections - and yet I don't think that the article in its original form was biased in any way. It simply presented what the group stood for, the formation of the group and the Headcorn Statement without comment or suggestion. Nevertheless, I think your edit has made it more succinct and I don't intend to change it greatly (apart from a few typos etc).

Many thanks again, Aled:)

Young Greens (dismabiguation)

Hi C Mon,

I thought this might raise objections. However, the term 'young greens' is used to refer to all youth wings of Green Parties (across the world I believe), whether that is their official title or not. I know this as I am a member of the Young Greens (from the Green Party of England and Wales) and this name was chosen because of its international recognition.

Nevertheless, I accept your reverts. I was thinking instead - maybe I should have made the Young Greens page, which now redirects to the disambiguation page, an article about the term Young Greens, and with a list of Young Greens? At the moment though, the disambiguation page works fine.

Cheers, --Aled Dilwyn Fisher 11:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatnote

Regarding your revert of my edit, I don't understand how the title, Young Greens (Green Party of England and Wales), is ambiguous at all—in fact it is redundant. However, I had difficulty parsing your coment. Please, comment at Talk:Young Greens (England and Wales)#Hatnote. Ta, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Fettes, and sphere soverenty

Thanks for your nice work at Christopher Fettes and also at sphere sovereignty. – Kaihsu 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on Green Politics articles

Hi. Just noticed you on at the same time as me when we had a GMTA edit conflict. I'm not doing much at the moment as trying to multi-task with lots of non-WP stuff and my (currently low on RAM) PC is very slow. I was wondering if you thought there should be a WikiProject on this (assuming one hasn't been created since I last checked). User:FISHERAD and User:Kaihsu from the UK (same as me) have been working on these articles quite a bit too.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've also put a comment further up on this page in case you miss it.

P.P.S. `Youth wing' is two words.

Quite honestly I'm indifferent to WikiProject on this subject. My main work on wikipedia concerns creating good articles for all Dutch political parties and leading politicians. It will take me some time to finish all. Green politics is just something I do on the side. I'm not sure whether an institutionalized system is necessary for green politics. But if there is a project I'll chip in. -- C mon 20:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CNV Public

Hi C mon. I restored the article CNV Public. As one of the largest affiliates of CNV, and with a membership of 84,000, it seems reasonable for it to have its own article. Granted, it's a lowly stub at present, but still worth having. CNV Bedrijvenbond, Hout- eb Bouwbond CNV, and Onderwijsbond CNV could stand being started as well. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 14:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the Dutch (which I don't speak) CNV links are all red - but that doesn't mean that we should be turning blue links INTO red ones. By all means, concentrate on the CNV article, it could use a great deal of improvement, but I don't understand why that is related to removing the article on CNV Public. It has its own history and its own politics, even if they are on a smaller scale than the national federation. Take a look at Category:AFL-CIO, Australian Council of Trade Unions#Current member organisations, Category:New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for a few examples of federations that also have articles about their affiliated unions. --Bookandcoffee 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be too combative here C mon, but I feel like we're talking at cross purposes. I don't understand what point is being made by removing an article about an 84,000 person strong organization. Is it as important as the CNV federation? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it is irrelvant - or it wouldn't exist in the first place. I could see articles such as Healthcare in the Netherlands referencing the union affiliate that represents their workers. I'm sure there are labour and political issues that are directly related to (and responded to by) the org that would not be of interest to the larger federation.

There are many issues and details that are related to smaller topics like these, and as W continues to grow it will work its way into the finer detail. I just don't think it makes sense to decide on such a coarse level of resolution which would exclude articles such as this. (sorry, I have to dash to pick up my father from the airport, but I would be interested in discussing this further if you like.) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Leefbaar

I did indeed not discuss it, but removing an entire topic without a proper discussion, or an merge bar, isn't that polite either. Please propuse a merge on the page and in the talk, and then we will see what people think. Mach10 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Halsema a liberal :-)

I don't think that just because Femke Halsema was named liberal of the year by the JOVD, this warrants the categorization of Halsema as a Dutch liberal. :-) I strongly suggest you remove that categorization. Errabee 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

She is a self proclaimed liberal! See:

• "De vrijheid om af te wijken" in Volkskrant 29 mei 2004
• "Nu waakt links over vrijheid" in Volkskrant 14 oktober 2005
• "Een Linkse Lente" in Vrijheid Als Ideaal
• "Vrijzinnig Links" in de Helling

Either this category is just replicate of members of the VVD, or Halsema should be included.

--C mon 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could claim I'm the pope. Would you then categorize me in category:Popes? :-) The fact that someone claims to be a liberal person is not sufficient. Liberal persons should of course not be exclusive to members of the VVD (or D66 for that matter); for one because I believe not every VVD or D66 member is truely liberal, and second, the VVD was only created in the mid 20th century. There were many liberal people before that, Johan Rudolf Thorbecke for instance. Halsema on the other hand, does indeed have some liberal thoughts like cultural and religious tolerance, but many aspects of liberalism, such as a relatively free private enterprise are vehemently rejected by GreenLeft as a party and Halsema as person. Errabee 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now papacy is a formal position laid down in law. There is no law on liberals. BTW you could be classified as anti-pope though. Free private enterprise is not rejected by GroenLinks. Read the GroenLinks beginselprogramma: "The GreenLeft pleads for selective government intervention. Sometimes intervention is necessary, sometimes the government should take a step back". Furthermore Halsema has always been very moderate on the market. Her manifesto Vrijheid Eerlijken Delen pleads for liberalization of the labour market. Quite liberal if you ask me. Either this category is the problem, because it is POV-ridden or we accept people on their word. --C mon 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL :-) But seriously, I think the category is the real problem. Maybe it should be put up for deletion, since there is no quantitative indicator which could measure liberalism. Errabee 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to put the category up for deletion, and while you're at it, the dutch conservatives has only two entries but suffers from the same problems. --C mon 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

D'66

Ik heb de link vervangen door een directe link naar het artikel over D66. De afkorting D'66 is toch echt zwaar achterhaald. Groet, Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Socialists and SDs

Did you devise this social democracy template? Be advised that Jean Juares and Leon Blum were socialists, not social democrats - not the same thing at all. Adam 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not create the template but I like the idea of the template. I have not looked into peculiarities of the template, but you raise interesting points. Check the template's history to discover its creator (Nikodemos) and issues with the template can best be raised on the template's talk. --C mon 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Politics of the Netherlands

Yeah its fixed. One more good swift revert to knock the sense into it. Next time, try reverting it yourself. I'm to understand that, unless one of a couple of admins on IRC changes its settings around temporarily to combat some vandalbots, it doesn't war with a single wikipedian alone. That is, it won't try to re-revert you. Kevin_b_er 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

So let get it straight (example): I decide to push my POV on an article by including false data. An another user uses notices that the data is wrong and reverts it. I continue to do it again, again and again. He keeps reverting it. He offers to debate it, he offers an explanation and I simply ignore it and change a map to suit my POV. He warns/threats that he going to complain to the "legal authorithies" and ask for protection. He is guilty under 3 revert rule and of making threats?

I can only tell you this: telling anyone that you are going to the police and the judge is not an ilegal threat, it is a quite legal warning. As for protection there is something in the US called order of distance - the strange order of the court telling somebody that he has to keep a safe distance from the other person. The 3 revert rule is one of the most blatant one-sided rules I ever saw. It neglects the fact that some "improvements" are in reality POV pushings. And please don't tell me that these rules are fair. Flamarande 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

re category:Dutch liberals

Well, as I already stated, I am a little bit 'huiverig' to create a category that would align politicans with a certain ideology, although at the party level I do think such categorization would be possible (like Category:Dutch liberal parties or Category:Dutch confessional parties). Then politicians of these parties can be put into a subcat of these categories, using the name of the party, instead of the ideology:

• Category:Dutch liberal parties <-> Category:D66 and Category:VVD
• Category:Dutch social-democratic parties <-> Category:PvdA
• Category:Dutch green parties <-> Category:GreenLeft

Politicians can then be added to the party subcat, and the overall Category:Dutch politicians.

About the notion that a category Category:Dutch liberals is WP:POV if only 'influential liberals' are to be added, I simply note that some Dutch people have a wikipedia article, and some don't, and of those who do, some are liberals. The problem only exists I think for politicians: should they be in the ideological category as well. You can argue that this would be a double categorization, since they will already be added in the party category, a category which inherets from the ideological party categorization. So that could be the bottom line: Category:Dutch liberals will be used for Dutch nationals who are liberals, and not politicians. Dutch politicians should primarily go in their party category, and in the overall Category:Dutch politicians, which can hold also politicians for which no party category exists.

The only exception I though about making was for historical figures, like Johan Rudolf Thorbecke or Willem Drees for example. I could see them be added to Category:Dutch liberals and Category:Dutch social-democrats respectively. Then the notion becomes that of "historic importance." The questions are then: when is somone historic, and when is a historic person important for a certain ideology... Intangible 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some precedence for this in Wikipedia, like Category:American progressives and Category:American socialists. Still, I'm a little 'huiverig' (iffy?) about these kind of categories too. jaco♫plane 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're pointing directly to the problem: how can we find these historical figures? Prima facie Drees sound reasonable as a social-deocrat, but what about Kok and Den Uyl or Troelstra and Domela Nieuwenhuis for the socialists/social-democrats? Is Jan Marijnissen (as resurrector of popular socialism in the Netherlands) not influential? How about Mansholt, a social-democrat who has been president of the European Comission? Bos has renewed Dutch social-democracy. From each different point of view different people are influential. Such a categorization on influence would be a POV minefield with some sort of criterion. With a criterion it borders original research. I would by-pass this problem by allowing everyone to be classified in an ideology-person category.

On a side note, my ideal classification of political parties would be more sophisticated than your proposal (which comes down to one ideology per party except for D66/VVD). If we would use a classification based 1) on the triangular nature of Dutch politics, where we have an confessional cluster, a liberal cluster and a leftwing cluster and 2) which allows for multiple classifications per party. This classification could become possible:

• PvdA, SP, GL, SDAP, CPN, PSP, RSP, SDB - "leftwing"
• VVD, PvdV, LU, LSP - "liberal"
• CDA, SGP, RPF, GPV, HGS, CU, ARP, CHU, KVP, RKSP, AB - "confessional"
• PPR, RKVP, CDU - "leftwing" & "confessional"
• D66, VDB, RB - "leftwing" & "liberal"

This way the three great blocks: the left, the christians and the liberals are easily recognizable. Groups that operate on the borderline between two blocks (D66 and PPR were part of the Progressive Accord in the 1970s; VDB and CDU merged into the PvdA in the 1940s) can be classified as well. But this would never survived NPOV, because of the word leftwing.

So I don't have much faith that picking influential persons to go into a category would survive NPOV or NOR. -- C mon 10:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently in favour for removing politicians from the ideology categories, and only put them either in the "Category:Dutch politicians" or "Category:Member of *". Then "Category:Dutch socialists" etc. shall be used for strictly non-politicians...What do you think? Intangible 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a step in the good direction, since I prefer to have them deleted, but it seems non-sensical to use such a political category for non-politicians. Are there any Dutch non-politician liberals/socialists/conservatives on en.wikipedia at all? In the US you'd be referencing to philosophers, like Rawls, Cohen or MacIntyre, but apart from Erasmus there aren't any dutch political philosophers on en.wikipedia. So I think it is a step in the right direction, but we should go all the way. C mon 06:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Andreas Kinneging and Luuk van Middelaar just to name two. Intangible 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm, sorry but Van Middelaar is a speech writer for the VVD by profession. He is a politician! And Kinnegin's liberalism is disputable. He even sees himself as a conservative now. C mon 14:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just being a speech writer would not make you a politician now? Karl Hess, speech/ghost-writer for Barry Goldwater is categorized as a Category:Libertarian. Kinneging is correctly categorized in Category:Dutch conservatives. I had Bart Jan Spruyt in that category as well. Surely there must be some Dutch academics that are internationally known for espousing socialist, conservative or liberal thought, without being politicians? It just takes time I guess for their articles to appear at Wikipedia. Intangible 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again this only shows that the limitation you would like to set is too unprecise to prevent disputes, furthermore I remain of the opinion that is non-sensical to create a category and then take the heart (i.e. liberal politicians) out. C mon 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your move request

Hi. Regarding your move request at Talk:Confidence (political science), there are a few steps to the WP:RM process which you missed. Check out the steps for requesting a page move. Another option is to just be bold and move the page since it's not an obstructed move. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Free Imperial City

Hi,

I want to stay out of this, but I suggest you take a look at User talk:Rex Germanus, the user who added the Dutch. (My own stance is neutral: I do see the justification for including Dutch, since the HRE was indeed a place of many languages, but I guess to be really exact you'd need to include several other languages as well that were used there or by its princes, such as Latin, Italian, Polish, French, Swedish, Danish etc.)

Now do you know anything about Dutch free imperial cities? Because I couldn't find any mention of them in primary sources that are available on the net, but some cities, I think it was Utrecht or Groningen, are categorised as such.

Thanks, Crix 11:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)#

Sorr for using such strong words

I am sorry for using such strong words against you, but I really lost patience fighting a trend that I think is disruption of Wikipedia. I know that this is mainly due to a clash of different editing cultures. As I said, I come from a background of editing controversial articles where it is near-mandatory to reference almost every word and sentence. Removing references in such an environment is clearly disruption of Wikipedia. Andries 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

UNICEF and Hirsi Ali

Never did I wrote that UNiCEF replied to Ayaan. The statement of UNICEF, an authority, are contrary to Hirsi Ali's belief. Secondly, why didn't rewrite the piece instead completely expunge it? Anyway, I moving it back and when you disagree rewrite it according facts. 62.163.161.226 01:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:ChristianUnion

Quoting C mon from other discussion:

First off, please not that the debate on the move is long since closed, you are replying to posts which are more than a year old. Second, if you have issues with general wikipedia rules, please discuss those there. If you think Wikipedia:use English is not a good plan, post your comments there.

And now substantially: the ChristianUnion is called ChristianUnion in the international arena on the ECPM [ http://www.ecpm.info/page/9732 page ] the ChristenUnie is refered to as ChristianUnion. So the translation is correct. C mon 15:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Substantially: Oops, I didn't didn't knew that, I looked for an english name on their website, but didn't do a very extensive search beond that before posting. Thank you for clearing that up.

YearOldDebate: I'm sorry about that, maybe I should have looked at the posting dates, but on the other hand, maybe the fact this discussion is closed should have been made more clear. (I'll try to fix that right away.) --SevenMass 16:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed our litle discussion from the ChristianUnion talk page to clean it up. --SevenMass 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Kuyper

When you re-arranged parts of the Abraham Kuyper article, you also removed the new See also section with the link to Common grace. Was this inadvertent, or intentional? As Kuyper's work on Common Grace was seminal to the development of the idea by later Calvinistic theologians, I think it ought to be included. If you wish to delete something, it is always preferable to state the reasons in the article's talk page. DFH 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I indeed deleted in purpose. The main reason is that I find see also sections unnecessary, especially when the link could also be mentioned in the text. I've inserted a reference in text, feel free to expand that. I thought there was so I deleted it, sorry for that. C mon 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't spot it at first in the re-arranged text, but have since corrected what was a redlink because of capital G. See also sections can be very useful, especially for "speed readers". For some users of Wikipedia, they may find it easier to skip to the see also section when they are pursuing a line of enquiry, rather than having to read the article's text in every detail. Let's not pre-empt what other users think are helpful and necessary. DFH 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

I posted a lengthy note about Puerto Rico's status on Talk:Federacy. I hope I don't sound too pissy, but I feel really strongly that it doesn't meet the criteria set out in the article itself. Anyway, let me know what you think. --Jfruh (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's LGBT Community

Hi, C mon! You've indicated through various means (a userbox, membership in a category, etc) that you are part of the Wikipedia LGBT community, or are interested in Wikipedia's LGBT related pages. Welcome! You may not know that Wikipedia has both an LGBT Notice Board and an LGBT Studies WikiProject. If you haven't yet done so, take a look at both of them. They sorely need attention and participation! Some things on the "To-Do List" that merit particular attention include: Identifying topics/pages that need attention Identifying problems that need addressing Adding the LGBT template to appropriate pages Categorizing LGBT pages Please feel free to participate in any or all of these activities! And if you feel like it, add yourself to either the Noticeboard Members or the WikiProject Participants - or both!

Glad you're a part of Wikipedia - and Thanks!

This invitation posted here by SatyrTN -- talk Please remove it if you so desire.

Image:Seats per party.xls listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Seats per party.xls, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit at Netherlands...

Why have you done this? I'm just wondering because Netherlands (nl:Nederland) is not the same as the Kingdom of the Netherlands (nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden), it is only the European part. —MC 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the article concerns the sovereign kingdom of the Netherlands and not one of its constituent parts. C mon 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The Kingdom of the Netherlands article is about the kingdom. (as it says in the title ;-)) The article you changed (Netherlands) is about the constituent part. Compare it to the articles on the Dutch Wikipedia. —MC 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right. C mon 07:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One last note about this, maybe we should include the country-template into the Kingdom of the Netherlands article then, to stress its position. C mon 07:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone has done that here: Talk:Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#Infobox —MC 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideologies of parties

Did you delete any entry? Electionworld Talk? 20:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only a limited number and as a conscious choice. I tried to apply similar restrictions as I used on the Template:Political ideologies, which are formulated in my addition to the introduction (no forms of government, economic systems, positions on the left-right spectrum or political strategies). These include: infosocialism (fictional), American liberalism (too limited of scope, redirects to liberalism in the United States), populism (strategy), capitalism (economic system), centrism (left-right axis), theocracy (form of government), racism & ethnic supremacy (policy position), communalism (derogatory term), majoritarianism (political strategy), pragmatism (political strategy), animal welfarism euroscepticism, minorities defense, regionalism (issue stances). C mon 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of Social democrats of Sweden

You reverted [1], Why? Former ministers is irrelevant of a party itself. It should be under a "Minister of Sweden" page. The party leaders however is relevant information regarding the party.

Because your edit led to a considerable loss of information. You did not list the contenders for the leadership election, nor did you list the party's prime ministers. Furthermore as long as there is no "ministers of sweden"-page, this will have to do. C mon 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I belive there is no reason for having information about ministry obtained on a party's page. What is relevant could be a list of positions inside the party itself like Moderate party has on their page. Listing ministries without reason as if the positions where a part of the party rather then the country makes the article skewed to show a non-neutral point of view more suiting for a party of dictatorship. Lord Metroid 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Partij van de Toekomst

Ik zie dat je nu al een paar keer de Engelse naam van de Partij van de Toekomst hebt teruggedraaid naar "The Party Party", omdat dat "appears to be its official English name." Ik vraag me af hoe je aan die informatie komt. Bij mijn beste weten heeft de partij namelijk geen Engelse naam. In dat geval geldt de letterlijke of zo letterlijk mogelijke vertaling van de naam van de partij, en dat is "Party of the Future." Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ik zag trouwens dat je al heel veel geschreven hebt over de Nederlandse politiek. Ik ben nu zelf een inventarisatie aan het maken van wat er nog moet gebeuren, op User:Aecis/The Netherlands/Politics of the Netherlands, mede aan de hand van parlement.com. Heb jij nog tips, suggesties of andere opmerkingen? Artikelen die dringend geschreven moeten worden? Ik heb namelijk unaniem besloten om je niet in de wielen te gaan rijden ;) Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

UDF

See Talk:Union_for_French_Democracy. Checco 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Party Party/Party of the Future

I don't rightly know - I'm not Dutch and speak no Dutch. I seem to remember I was cleaning up an article about "special" political parties and moved some content into smaller stubs. I may have created the article - but the content itself I did not create - I merely moved it.

Gardar Rurak 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rechtenvrij translation

Rechtenvrij is a typical Dutch printing term and means without outstanding rights (actually just as the license you've selected). The author will still have copyrights but cannot assert them anymore. It was printing term because publishers are only interested if they have to pay rights / royalty for using the picture and if not it is called rechtenvrij. KittenKlub 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The license is fine. It's just that the description almost read like it wasn't copyrighted. KittenKlub 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth

I think a good general principle to follow in life as well as in wikipedia is that you always have the right to speak the truth, no matter who is offended by it. Arrow740 21:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical issues aside, if you guys keep thinking that way in Holland then you will be living under Shariah before long. Arrow740 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the immigration trends like? "we are breeding fundamentalism and terrorism, not by our tolerance but by our intolerance." That's probably a large part of it. We have less of a problem with homegrown Muslim extremists here in America because Muslims assimilate (are assimilated, perhaps) a lot better here. But putting all of the blame on yourselves is not right. Islam is violent at its core. For one example, Muhammad expelled two of the Jewish tribes from Medina once he took power, and eventually beheaded all the men and enslaved all the women and children of the third one. Muslims are told that Muhammad is the ideal they should strive to emulate. When Muslims kill people who speak out against fundamentalist Islam they are following his example, and the commands of their prophet as found in the Quran and the hadith. Muhammad himself had many people assassinated who did nothing more than speak out against him. Arrow740 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to separate "Christendom" from "Christianity." You are right about the atrocities committed by Christians, and the Old Testament. However, Christianity, the belief system, is not inherently violent. Islam is the only religion that is (I'm learning about Sikhism now, so I can't say for sure about that, but there seems to be nothing more than a tradition of self-defence against persecution by Muslim and, in the 20th century, Hindu rulers to be found there). You said that immigration rates have fallen; to what? I'm curious to know, for instance, what the current prediction is for the percentage of Muslims in Holland in, say, 2050. Arrow740 08:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I assume that number does not include children and grandchildren of immigrants; children of immigrants would be of Dutch origin, right? Your government might not keep track of the numbers like those or make predictions about that. You said "you can only understand a belief system if you are in it." You seem to have very post-modern ideas. I don't think that what you're saying is correct. The power of reason allows us to understand premises and then make deductions. For example, Islam says that Muhammad should be emulated and his directives obeyed (this is in the Quran, for example). (Sunni) Islam says that the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are accurate. The Sahih Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim say that Muhammad said that every sane male who leaves Islam should be put to death. Therefore, Islam says that every sane male who leaves Islam should be killed. I don't need to be a Muslim to understand that. In fact, many Muslims probably do not have a very good grasp of many aspects of Islam. You only know something if and only if you've learned it. You can understand something if and only if you know it. So you can understand something if and only if you're learned it. So there is nothing precluding me from having a better understanding of Islam than a Muslim. As a side note, you said that no truth is better than the other. I think that even from an atheist materialist viewpoint a strong argument could be made against that. There is a small minority of people that think it should be permissible to marry children. Psychologists have shown that such relationships are mentally damaging to children. So wouldn't we say here that the majority truth really is better, from a pragmatic standpoint? Arrow740 09:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting exchange. I'm glad to hear that you won't becomme a dhimmi (or worse). I'll address your points one at a time.

• "The sentence 'In fact, many Muslims probably do not have a very good grasp of many aspects of Islam.' shows the flaw of your argument. How can you not understand your own religion? You can only understand a religion by being part of it. You might call it post-modern, but it is rather obvious, the only people who truely understand Islam are muslems themselves, who live, deal and struggle each day with their own religion.

I define a religion as a belief system, not a lifestyle. I think I proved above that it is possibly to understand important aspects of a religion without professing it.

• You can interpret scriptures in a very different way, as long as there are pacifist christians and people who go at war over their own religion, that seems rather obvious. I know Christian who accept evolutionary theory and christians who reject it, on basis of the same Bible.

Indeed. But some things, like the passages from the Quran and the hadith that I mentioned, are unambiguous. As regards Christianity and war, the New Testament doesn't really have anything to say about war, and Christians believe that the New Testament "comsummates" the Old Testament, i.e. it "fulfills" it, but really they mean it's more important. Also, the Old Testament war stuff is pretty specific to the events it is portraying and doesn't really give directives as the Muslim texts do.

• Materialism and atheism are as unprovable as any religion, because it is based on the assumption that the world out there exists and that the way we perceive it is correct. That is a very useful assumption, but not one you can prove. Personally I'll stick to being a pragmatist (things are true, facts are just useful) and agnost (the question does God exist, cannot be usefully answered), because I prefer to have a philosophical perspective that is not assume things about the world which I can't know. I have no epistemic basis for that (obviously), but I think that this position is most useful.

Sounds good to me.

• The majority truth might be more useful, but it is not more true. Especially not from the position your arguing because if your an atheist and materialist, you can't possibly think that moral truths exist. Where are those moral truths? How can you perceive them? Materialism almost per definition leads to some relativist position about moral truths. C mon 09:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Most atheist materialists I have talked to have sloppy thinking on this point. You can say that we have evolved to think certain ways about certain issues, and if something is ingrained in us by the natural process that produced us, we should live our lives by it. But of course this is not a proof.

You seem to have retreated a little bit from your initial position which was more strongly relativist that what you're saying now. You seem to have two levels of responding to things; one is to say we can't decide if it's objectively true or not, and the other is to say, this truth is more useful, so for our purposes better, so let's go with it. That doesn't require consensus. You can decide which truth is better by deciding which truth is more useful, which is a practical decision. As far as wikipedia goes my truth, which is that accuracy and informativeness are paramount, and if something is a fact it should almost never be censored, is the most useful. Arrow740 10:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• "We can't understand the way Aristotle thought about nature, because we live in a completely different world, the same is true for Islam." We can't have total knowledge of the way Aristotle thought. But his writings give us enough to make decisions about it that are almost certainly correct. With regard to Islam, saying the Shahada in front of a couple Muslims does not bestow special understanding upon me. Islam as I define it is a set of beliefs. Very closely tied in with Islam is the Quran. Whatever the Quran says, Islam says. Similarly, whatever certain hadith collections say, Sunni Islam says. I can understand what the Quran and the hadith say. So I can make valid deductions, using logic, about Islam. Almost all Muslims are only Muslim because that's what their parents decided, then they never learned a lot about it. They don't have a fuller understanding of the words in the Quran and the hadith than I do.

• "Still the whole point is that we can interpret religions in a certain way, if we are outsiders, by looking at their scriptures but we can never fully grasp their meaning. So the islam in your interpretation is aggressive, but the Islam in the interpretation of many muslems is a religion of peace."

We can grasp their meaning as fully as any Muslim. Muslims themselves will not have as full an understanding of the Quran as Muhammad, but Muslim and non-Muslim read the same things and, with respect to basic, unambiguous verses, have to arrive at the same conclusions. For example, in Islam, sane male apostates should be killed. There's no way around it. If a Muslim interprets Islam to be a religion of peace then he has not read and understood (at a very basic level) the Quran and the hadith.

• "My positions may seem to shift, because I have to have two kinds of answers, unlike materialists.

How we have knowledge, a question of fact How we should have knowledge, a normative question. On the first, I think it is becoming clear that knowledge is dependend on groups, paradigms, solidarity etc. Having knowledge is a group process and not objective. So knowledge is always consensus."

I do not see it becoming clear. I know that Sunni Islam says that sane male apostates should be killed and I don't need anyone else to agree with me in order for me to know it. It is an objective fact.

• "On the second, so how do I deal with this subjectivity as an individual: by pragmatism. That is how I personally deal with knowledge.

These two fuse on wikipedia, where knowledge (i.e. things included in wikipedia) is that which is not deleted by the community and therefore our edits have to be pragmatic: by being bold we can include some of our perspective, by removing information we can prevent edit conflicts. BTW, in Islamic countries I'd be hanged for sodomy, that's the exact reason we (the Netherlands) have to open our borders for those who have lost their faith and those who flee islamic countries. If you have claim to have superior views, you must open your borders to those who agree with your superiority and not close them because you fear those who agree with you. (But this is a very specific European problem)."

Why must you? And how can you discern who truly agrees with your superiority? Arrow740 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose if you want to think that people of different beliefs live in different worlds and speak different languages, you can. I clearly don't. As regards my beliefs, I am neither an atheist nor a materialist. I was only restricting myself to those assumptions because it is better to assume as little as possible when debating with someone whose views you are unsure of or do not share. I think that you go so far in your lack of assumptions that you deny common sense, but you can do that if you want. As regards immigration, you are right that it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Islam has many problems, but all of them can be rationalized with sufficient effort, except the places when the Quran contradicts itself, or makes statements about the natural world that have been disproven by science (it claims that semen comes out of the lower back, for example). In my estimation, the condition of Muslims will only be improved once they realize that the Quran is wrong, and so they don't need to do all of the harsh things that they are told to do. Arrow740 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It says that semen comes out of the lower back, see ^{[Quran 86:5]}. This is incorrect. Arrow740 09:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"semen comes from your lowerback if you're a muslem." Do you really think that? Is it only the case after the Muslim has learned of this verse in the Quran? Where does it come from until that point? Arrow740 10:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant to say there is no objective and realist way to tell where semen comes from. Well that is not a pragmatic attitude. With regards to the Christianity stuff you are attacking the (wrong) straw man. I'm still curious to know where semen comes from in a Muslim before he finds out about this error in the Quran. Anyway, you are denying what's staring you in the face (it doesn't come out of any man's lower back), while at the same time positing the existence of concepts in a platonistic way. I don't think that Islam, or Christianity (throw in anything else you want) really exist in the way that we think of them when we're not thinking very precisely. We have to observe how, say, Islam exists. Well let's look at an average Muslim and see how it exists with regards to him. He is a Muslim because his parents made him one. From his parents and others in his community he hears and remembers certain parts of Muslim writings and ideas. He accepts them with little skepticism. They shape his perception of himself and his perception of his relationships to others and to God. So effectively, Islam for him is a certain number of sentences that he has heard, and then his reaction and adaptation to the rules included in them. That's all Islam is, some ideas and conformity to them. There's no other world, there's no other reality. Islam isn't even real. Arrow740 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• The core of pragmatism is that there is no objective way to gain knowledge, so we have to deal with it in another, in this case pragmatic way.

It sounds coherent. Perhaps you just aren't practicing it well. Denying that semen does not come out of the area between the back/backbone/loins and ribs is not practical in any way. It comes out of the testicles, prostate gland, and seminal vesicles, none of which are in the area between the backbone and the ribs. Look, this is in there because that Aristotelian belief was widespread at the time.

• The core of my argument is that all religion suffers from the same problems Islam does, so attacking Islam is arbitrarily chosing one religion and bashing that. And that's very dangerous. You appear to have chosen this group not because their argument is flawed but for some other reason. Why have you chosen to crusade against Islam? The United States could use some atheist missionaries to prevent gay marriage from being banned, end polygamy amongst morms, prevent evolutionary theory to be removed from schools and to end the grasp of the Christian Right within the Republican Party on the government.

You claim that all religions suffer from the same problems as Islam does. I doubt you've read much about Islam or the other major religions. In any case, you are wrong, Islam is different. I don't care if people subscribe to beliefs that I think are illogical. I only care about their behavior. Islam is the only religion that sanctifies rape and pillage. That's the whole reason I'm against it. In 14 out of the 15 major world conflicts, one of the combatant parties is a Muslim group. There is a reason for that. I have read a lot about this, and it is inescapable that violence is sanctioned in Islam.

I don't see how you can really advocate any of these changes in the US. People who disagree with you on religious grounds are just in another world where words have different meanings, right? Trying to convert them to your way of thinking is probably not useful, right? I'm not trying to convert Muslims to some other religion. I just wish they would leave their own, because the cycle of violence and hate will end only when that happens. Arrow740 03:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't really care where semen comes from it is very useful to believe that it comes from somewhere down below, you have an answer and you can focus on more important things.

Sure but that's not the point.

• Ahh, the bloody edges of Islam, you do realize that two of the largest conflicts currently were caused by aggressive American (Christianity inspired) foreign policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) and one is kept in a cycle of violence because of American support for one of the two sides (Israel).

Afghanistan was a just war and if you disagree we're not going to get anywhere arguing about that. As regards Iraq, it's not clear if the Bush administration led us in there on bad faith, or if they believed that Saddam posed an immediate threat. Founding Israel was a terrible idea but now that they're there we're not going to let the Jews get annihilated. How is the Bush doctrine Christianity inspired?!

• And the Old Testament does not sanctify rape and pillage?

It sanctified specific "historical" acts of pillaging, not future acts.

• And as always how well you've read the Quran doesn't really matter, you can't understand a religion unless you're in it. The majority of muslems in the Netherlands do not rape, pillage or make war on a regular basis. Who are you to say that they practize their religion badly? It is there religion!

I've heard the same things they've heard and read the same things they've read, and probably in many cases more. Taking these things into account, and their definition of their religion into account, I have all the requisite knowledge to make the judgement that they are practicing their religion badly, if that is the judgement I come to. It's not. There are many ways to be a good Muslim. The problem is that raping and murdering is one of them, and there will always be people who try to take that route.

• When Christianity was dominant in Europe 500-1500 Europe was characterized by war, rape and pillage, and Islam was a relatively peaceful and tolerant religion, that actually read and incorporated Aristotelean philosophy in their religion.

What are they supposed to do? "leave their own" what do you mean by that.

You are ignorant of what the Muslims did in India, apparently. Some estimates place the number of Hindus killed at 80 million. They conquered Spain also, and many other places. Anyway Christians incorporated Aristotelean philosophy into their religion too, ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? You are right about the history of Christendom. But the Christian scriptures do not contain the same mandates to violence that the Muslim ones do. That's the whole problem. Look, Christians have done a lot of bad things. But it was all in spite of the examples of Jesus and the earliest Christians. When Muslims do bad things they are following Muhammad's example. Hence the permanent stain on Islam. Arrow740 09:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• So group A pillages, murders, invades Iraq and Afghanistan and fares war, but you say "Hey they are not doing what their scriptures tell them, in my interpretation, but they do do the same as the entire Old Testament exemplifies so I wont bother them with that" and group B pillages, murders and fares war and you say "Hey they are doing what their scriptures tell them to, in my interpretation, so I am going to bother them with that". In both cases there is suffering but you chose one and not the other: because you are prejudiced against one of them. In my view both bring suffering.

Christendom and the Umma have both wrought tremendous suffering. Granted. Why do you keep saying this? I'm not Christian! I asked you how the war in Iraq is inspired by Christianity. The Torah purports to be a historical record of God's involvement with history at a particular time and place. It's a non sequitur to go from "Yahweh wanted the Israelites to own Canaan way back when" to "let's invade Iraq because we're Christian."

• Furthermore there are good reasons to say that Islam is/was actually the more enlightened religion. The position of the Jews under Islamic control in the Middle Ages, in Spain and the Balkans was much beter then the way they were treated in the Christian countries. In Islamic countries (you the religion that starts of by murdering thousands of Jews) they have to pay some increased taxes and in Europe they suffered from pogroms, (while their saviour was himself a Jew). Did you realize that the reconquista triggered a huge migration of Jews to outside of Spain, because Islam treated Jews better than Christianity?

When the muslims invaded Spain it was ruled by warlords, when they left, they left cities, trading posts, culture and castles. About Thomas of Aquinas, Islam incorporated Aristoteles in their religion when it was founded, Christianity only did so 1000 years after it was founded. Which one is the more enlightened religion?

The length of time it takes a religion to incorporate Aristotelian philosophy is not a good measure of enlightenment. A more basic measure of enlightenment is, what does this religion say about enslaving members of other religions? Arrow740 10:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is Islam. If you wish to remain in your uninformed state about Christianity you may. The distinction between the core beliefs of Christianity (as found in the Bible) and Christians is apparently lost on you. The claim "both religions defended slavery, pillaged, fared war and raped" is ludicrous. How can a religion rape? The fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam as regards violence can be found in their scriptures. You have displayed a total lack of knowledge about the scriptures of either religion, and as such have been unable to respond to my arguments and many of my questions. If you want to keep denying basic logic and repeating the same self-loathing cliches about Christianity without addressing any real issues that's your business. Arrow740 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My position is not dogmatic. I approached Islam with an entirely open mind and came to my conclusions after reading their scriptures and material from the earliest biographies of Muhammad. My "interpretations" are not arbitrary. They are inescapable if one approaches the issue with an open mind and proceeds on the basis of logic. I invite you to learn more about Islam and Muhammad and see where it takes you. Western European nations have made a huge mistake if they solve the problem of their falling birthrates by importing workers that they cannot assimilate, and can only accommodate by abdicating reason. Arrow740 10:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, there are many ways to be a good Muslim. About liberal interpretations of Islam, I doubt you could point to a single prominent European Muslim who preaches a brand of Islam consistent with European values, and if you could, he would either be lying or not an expert. Arrow740 23:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good. Maybe it's not as bad as I thought. I'm still looking for a religious leader, not just a political one, who preaches a brand of Islam consonant with Dutch values. Arrow740 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Examining Muslim religious leaders in Europe would be quite a project. Fortunately Robert Spencer has already done so in his book Onward Muslim Soldiers, in which he shows that there aren't any prominent ones who preach a brand of Islam even close to Western European values. He is dismissed by Muslims on wikipedia as an "Islamophobe," but none of them have read anything he's written. He's a meticulous scholar and you might want to read one of his books. Arrow740 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately the behavior of European Muslims is influenced by the rhetoric of their religious leaders. The London bombers and other European-born terrorists are proof of this. This is really the root of the problem. In Europe you guys don't have the same freedom of speech laws that we do here, so maybe you can just start jailing people who preach violent Islam. Arrow740 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made something of a case against Islam already, so the violence fundamentalist Muslim imams promote certainly can't be proven to be true based on an argument using the assumption that Islam is revealed truth, because I've proven that assumption to be false. However more generally, if you deny the existence of objective truth as you can coherently do, then it is just as true that thieves should have their hands cut off as it is that they should be punished in more modern ways, and that fornicators should be stoned is just as true as they shouldn't be, etc. However, I think a practical principle of government is that a society has the right to make decisions about basic guiding principles and values when there is a broad consensus about them, and when someone advocates that people act strongly against those principles and values in such a way as to render other people extremely unhappy, the government has the right to defend them. In any case you could be right about the dangers of deporting dangerous imams, but my instinct is that the benefits would outweigh the risks. Arrow740 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting viewpoint with a lot of truth in it. I admit that Iran has the right to act based on broad consensus just as much as other societies do. As regards neo-nazis and fundamentalist imams, I think that if they advocate the killing of Jews or homosexuals then our societies have the right to silence them. When it comes to imams advocating the less objectionable aspects of sharia I'm not sure. They shouldn't be allowed in at least, becuase if Muslims in the Netherlands go to the mosque and hear their authority tell them that all women in the Netherlands should be veiled and adulterers executed, those Muslims aren't going to assimilate. But I could be wrong. Maybe once they arrive they become receptive to other ideas. It is a complicated issue. Arrow740 10:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

but he promised!!

he he - i enjoy your edit summaries! and im quite happy to cede to your superior knowledge of dutch politics .. i can happily say that because my knowledge is very low, almost nonexistent!!! .. ive only been living in the netherlands three years and i tend to ignore mainstream politics... but the wikipages are interesting as a starting point to learn more. cheers! Mujinga 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mijn vrijheid / The infidel

The Infidel is the english translation of Mijn vrijheid, so shouldn't they be considered as the same book? jaco♫plane 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Conservative liberalism

Thank you. Obviously this page needs more working, but it is a good start. --Checco 09:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)