Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:26, 23 September 2006 editTazmaniacs (talk | contribs)25,976 edits Griffin← Previous edit Revision as of 14:27, 23 September 2006 edit undoTazmaniacs (talk | contribs)25,976 edits Manuel AbramowiczNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:


Manuel Abramowicz is not a specialist. Of course le Soir can have its own opinion, this can be added to the ] article. But Abramowicz does not regularly publishes in academic journals or weeklies. Note that ResistanceS is a radical progressive website, far outside of the mainstream. ] 09:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Manuel Abramowicz is not a specialist. Of course le Soir can have its own opinion, this can be added to the ] article. But Abramowicz does not regularly publishes in academic journals or weeklies. Note that ResistanceS is a radical progressive website, far outside of the mainstream. ] 09:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:You are the only claiming Abramowicz is not a specialist. All the Belgian press refers to him as so. Please stop disruption. ] 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:27, 23 September 2006

Griffin

Griffin is not a neutral source. I am not even sure what the reason is for his comment to be entered here. If you are going make an implication, you have to use a reputable and neutral 3rd party source, otherwise it cannot be entered into Misplaced Pages. Intangible 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Griffin isn't used as a source here. --LucVerhelst 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
He is. That la Libre (incorrectly) reprints his statements, does not make this less a primary source. Intangible 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Griffin's quote isn't used for the information in it, but because of the act of saying that he feels close to the Vlaams Belang. Not the information in his quote is relevant, but the act itself. Surely you can see that.
That's why he isn't used as a source here.--LucVerhelst 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
All fun and well, but the Vlaams Belang didn't even exist back then. Your above notion makes the quote irrelevant to this article. Either way it is out. Intangible 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh ? Back when ? --LucVerhelst 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The Libre article dates from 8 September 2006...--LucVerhelst 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, but you might check the timeline of 2004 as well... Intangible 20:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Please check WP:V again, will you ? --LucVerhelst 20:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? It is verifiable that the Vlaams Belang did not exist at the time of Griffin's writings. Intangible 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
We have a verifiable source saying that "un professeur américain, Robert S.Griffin, membre de l'Alliance nationale américaine, qui a participé le samedi 3 juillet 2004, à des activités organisées par «Blood & Honour Vlaanderen», et le BBET («Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw» traduisez «Sang et sol, honneur et fidélité») avait écrit dans le rapport qu'il fit de son voyage qu'il était heureux de voir que les organisations flamandes qu'il a côtoyées en Belgique avaient à leurs côtés un parti comme le Vlaams Belang."
Griffin probably used the words "Vlaams Blok", which was the name of the party in July 2004. La Libre Belgique used the present name of the party. You see, everybody in Belgium knows that Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok in reality are the same party, it's only legally that there might be a small doubt. But as you know, "the words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Misplaced Pages", so this argument really is no ground to remove the paragraph.--LucVerhelst 08:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Again you are changing your argument for inclusion. You can read the exact words Griffin used via Google cache. He makes not mention of "un parti comme le Vlaams Belang/Blok à leurs côtés". Have you found a Flemish paper that makes the same kind of mistakes la Libre makes? Of course not. This says a lot about the media in Wallonia. Intangible 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Intangible you are again engaging in disruption, despite the fact that you are on probation. Don't make silly claims about Vlaams Belang/Vlams Blok, a name change doesn't modifies a party. You are making us lose time. Furthermore, if Libre Belgique highlighted Griffin's statement, I don't know why I should believe you, and not the Libre Belgique, concerning the usefullness of such a remark. Tazmaniacs 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming

The article at present is called "Bloed-Bodem-Eer en Trouw". I don't like the hyphens, I think they're not correct, so I'd want to propose a name change. I've seen the group mentioned as "Bloed Bodem Eer en Trouw" and as "Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw". Personally, I would prefer the comma-version, with the other versions as a redirect.

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Manuel Abramowicz

Manuel Abramowicz is not a specialist. Of course le Soir can have its own opinion, this can be added to the Manuel Abramowicz article. But Abramowicz does not regularly publishes in academic journals or weeklies. Note that ResistanceS is a radical progressive website, far outside of the mainstream. Intangible 09:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the only claiming Abramowicz is not a specialist. All the Belgian press refers to him as so. Please stop disruption. Tazmaniacs 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)