Talk:Heleen Mees/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Affiliation with NYU

"Heleen Mees, 44, a former adjunct professor at NYU's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service..."

"An NYU spokesman said Mees taught a course last fall at the Wagner school but is not currently associated with the university."

• Dutch economist charged with stalking Citigroup chief economist by Joseph Jax, Reuters, July 3, 2013 --24.97.201.230 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Women on Top secondary source

This source can be used after "In 2006 Mees co-founded Women on Top,[11] an organization that advocates more women in top jobs" in the Heleen Mees wikipedia article since the source Bmwz3hm has put down (women-on-top.nl) is not in English.

• Dutch economist charged with stalking Citigroup chief economist by Joseph Jax, Reuters, July 3, 2013

• WP:SECONDARY

"In 2006 [Heleen Mees] co-founded Women on Top, a group advocating for more women in top corporate jobs and company boards." --24.97.201.230 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Arrest

Mees was arrested in July 2013. The prosecution ran into problems in the weeks after Mees' arrest, as it turned out that Buiter had himself sent Mees hundreds of emails, and had even reached out to her after her arrest. That's why the charges are going to be dropped. It's not part of a plea deal, as Mees did not plead guilty to any of the charges. Therefore there is no sentencing, and there is no probation. Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your story, Bmwz3hm, is provably false. ‘Stalker’ ex-NYU prof takes plea deal, but plans defamation suit by Lia Eustachewich, New York Post, March 10, 2014 --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy violation

The picture Heleen Mees/Bmwz3hm added is copyrighted by EPA. See the picture here: http://www.telegraaf.nl/jsp/foto_window.jsp?id=http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/article22001064.ece/BINARY/d/IMG_ajt_mees_2_1_0FQD3LD.jpg&caption=%20&copyright=EPA&artid=22196223&artsec=buitenland&artparsec=buitenland&arttit=Stalkingszaak%20Heleen%20Mees%20weer%20voor%20rechter

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22196223/__Heleen_Mees_weer_voor_rechter__.html

http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2013/oktober/25/stalking-aanklager-wil-schikking-met-heleen-mees-1309476

Must be deleted immediately. It was already deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=603541034&oldid=603536554) BUT Heleen Mees/Bmwz3hm re-added it. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the picture (File:Heleenmees2.png) from the Heleen Mees wikipedia article? --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Image not uploaded on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, where deletion proceedings are underway. Nick (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

German Wikipedia version

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heleen_Mees --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"2009 arbeitete sie als Showmaster bei der niederländische Rundfunkgesellschaft VARA. Sie ist regelmäßig Gast im Ökonomen-Panel von BNR Nieuwsradio.[5]"

So the following should be added to the English Heleen Mees article:

In 2009, Mees was a TV host on VARA, a Dutch public broadcasting association. She was a regular guest at the panel of economists on BNR Newsradio. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

European Commission

Powerfeminist Heleen Mees: 'Het liefst zou ik trouwen en kinderen krijgen', Carolina Lo Galbo, Vrig Nederland, 25 april 2009 says Mees was an employee of the European Commission from 1998 to 2000. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Nijkamp was born in Hengelo, Overijssel

The following part should be re-added to the Heleen Mees wikipedia article as it was inexplicably deleted by Bmwz3hm:

Heleen Mees (born Heleen Nijkamp, 1968, Hengelo, Overijssel, Netherlands) is a Dutch economist and opinion writer. She was Adjunct Associate Professor of Economics at Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service in New York City until July 2013. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

References

--24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This article also says Mees' last name was Nijkamp. (I don't read that language but used Google Translate.) --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, Heleen Mees was known as Heleen Nijkamp until she changed her last name in 2002. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Heleen Mees / Ik vind het niet erg mensen op de kast te jagen" (2008 article) also says she changed her last name from Nijkamp to Mees and that people find it strange. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Advancement of own interests

I did some editing to the effect that this biographical article gives a fair, factual and neutral account, based on reliable sources. User bmwz3hm undid all of my edits. The advancement of personal interests is the wrong motivation for editing Wikipedia articles. Could user bmwz3hm gives encyclopedic arguments in favour of her edits? Edit warring is not a civilised practice. Please do not undo my edits, but use this talk page for a debate. May the best arguments win! Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrs. Mees is quite wellknown in the Netherlands, but mainly as an opinion writer with provocative feminist views (and because of the court case). She is often called a "power feminist", someone who promotes third-wave-feminism. As a scientist or a lawyer she is up till now not particularly notable. The current version of the article states that all charges in the court case are set for dismissal without mentioning the conditions forced upon Mees, but not failing to mention that it is alleged that Buiter in spite of the accusations contacted Mees. This is certainly POV in favour of Mees. On the Dutch Wikipedia bmwz3hm made clear that she wants to emphazise Mees' scientific and juridical activities to contradict and to counteract Buiters low opinion of her capacities. I would like to discuss the relevant topics here. If nobody reacts I think it will be appropriate to restore my edits. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm reverted again, without explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605173655&oldid=605173431 --24.97.201.230 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given Bmwz3hm a final warning in this regard, to no longer revert and to take the issue to this talk page instead, or I will block. If this is ignored, a block will be forthcoming, whether or not 3RR was violated. -- Atama頭 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait another two days in anticipation of a discussion. If the discussion will not start, I will restore my edits once again on wednesday evening. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As an administrator I don't know what other advice to give you. Technically that's "edit-warring" but what else can you do if the other person refuses to talk? Maybe Bmwz3hm will come here and talk now, though. We can always hope. But yes, give it a couple of days to show good faith on your part. -- Atama頭 22:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I discovered this article after seeing Mees on the news several nights ago and wondering who she was. After seeing the edit war I've reviewed the edits made and generally agree with Theobald Tiger with only some minor exceptions. Use of primary sources is reasonable provided we comply with WP:PRIMARY. Use of Mees' website as a source for her residence therefore seems reasonable. I've also left in the references for the publications. I don't see a need to remove these. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm just undid all of other users' edits, again with no edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605257860&oldid=605244004

See also: User_talk:Bmwz3hm#April_2014 --TheCockroach (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the revert. As well as restoring contentious, self serving edits, the deleted image link was restored and the infobox was damaged by partial removal of a parameter. This alone warranted reversion by any editor. The revert was careless at the very, very best. Since Bmwz3hm was specifically warned about reverting without discussion, I've now listed this at WP:AN3. The thread is User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). If that --AussieLegend (✉) 09:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm undid AussieLegend's edits again. I think AussieLegend's edits show some improvements compared to mine, so I am in favour of restoring them (for example I am not sure if Heleen Mees could actually be called a 'pen name'. The name has been changed in the USA, but as far as I know not in the Netherlands). With respect to the footnotes: I am more familiar with the practices on nl.wiki. The Dutch are generally speaking more suspicious about footnotes than the English speaking communities, so I apologize for not having realized the difference between nl.wiki and en.wiki in what is considered best practice. I will wait for the outcome of the above mentioned thread reporting a violation of the 3RR. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There are additional reasons for reverting the changes that Bmwz3hm. Several of the sentences have been lifted directly from Mees's website although the scope of the copyright violation is difficult to gauge, as there has been some reorganising of the copied content. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored AussieLegend's edits. I did some additional editing. I mentioned for example the article that meant Mees' breakthrough as an opinion writer in the Netherlands. I am fully prepared to discuss my edits here. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger- please add sources after "She is known for her provocative feminist views. Mees is a firm advocate of female ambition and a promotor of more women in the supervisory and executive boards of big companies." You could use any of the following:

• Heleen Mees: profiel van de gevallen feministe, 21 oktober 2013
• No more part-time feminism - 2009 - University of Twente
• Powerfeminist Heleen Mees: 'Het liefst zou ik trouwen en kinderen krijgen' - Vrij Nederland
• "The courtroom was packed with avid Dutch journalists eager to see the downfall of one of Holland’s best-known feminist opinion-makers." EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn plumber pays bail for Heleen Mees, who is accused of stalking her ex-lover - NY Daily News --TheCockroach (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I added one source, but nearly every article about her or interview with her states exactly the same facts. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There may be additional sources in revisions prior to Bmwz3hm's edits. That's where I got this edit from. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Feminist

October 2013 profile of Mees in HP/De Tijd:

Heleen Mees: profiel van de gevallen feministe, 21 oktober 2013 --24.97.201.230 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• This article also says Mees is a feminist: No more part-time feminism - 2009 - University of Twente --24.97.201.230 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The two following categories should be placed on the Heleen Mees wikipedia article:
Category:Feminist writers
Category:Dutch feminists --24.97.201.230 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This article says Mees is a third-wave feminist. --TheCockroach (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo in edit summary

In my most recent edit, I said "Undid revision 605966981 by Kinker020 (talk) As you can see in the revision history, Bjelleklang and Theobald Tiger agree that *this* version is the least promotional, least self-serving version". I actually was referring to this edit. --TheCockroach (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

122.248.140.29's non-constructive edits

IP user 122.248.140.29 deleted categories without leaving an edit summary. --TheCockroach (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

IP user 122.248.140.29 deleted the fact that Mees writes for a blog of the Economist Forum.

122.248.140.29 added that Mees writes for the German magazine Capital without providing a source.

122.248.140.29 also added "Her work has been published in the Financial Times, Foreign Policy and other international newspapers and magazine." without a source.

122.248.140.29 inexplicably deleted the "Not in citation given" template after this link: http://www.nrc.nl/heleenmees

122.248.140.29 inexplicably deleted that Mees was a "spokeswoman for former Secretary of State Willem Vermeend" and the source.

122.248.140.29 also deleted "if Mees would comply with two conditions". Taking out this part of the sentence gives a false impression about the nature of Mees' plea deal. --TheCockroach (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

122.248.140.29 inexplicably deleted Mees' birth name from the infobox. --TheCockroach (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit by 122.248.140.29 just repeats what is already written in the Heleen Mees Wikipedia article. --TheCockroach (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that 122.248.140.29 is one of the sock/meat puppets. Now that the article is PC protected the edits will be just a nuisance rather than a problem. I've left a note on the IP's talk page explaining the situation and directing them here to discuss. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another edit-warring report

In less than half an hour Bmwz3hm has breached 3RR again and has indicated that she is not willing to leave the article alone so I've raised another report at WP:3RRNB. The discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was gonna create it if no one else did. Tutelary (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sneaky edit-warring

In light of TheCockroach's objection to the new edits, and what I've just discovered myself, I'm going to revert Bmwz3hm's most recent edits as they constitute some very sneaky edit-warring. Bmwz3hm's first edit today did not revert directly to her previous version,[1] and the next edit was exceptionally minor, albeit being contrary to MOS:LQ,[2] but the next edit was an almost complete reversion to the disputed version that resulted in Bmwz3hm being blocked.[3] This included reintroducing errors into the infobox and was a significant change from Bmwz3hm's first edit today.[4] Subsequent changes were only made to the lead, removing the birth place and inexplicably removing dates from the citation.[5] This is something Bmwz3hm has done in the past,[6] which is why I had to restore it a few days ago.[7] Given that Bmwz3hm's edits today have resulted in an almost complete reversion to the version of the article that resulted in here block,[8] I intend taking this back to WP:AN3 after reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit-warring, and it is certainly not sneaky edit-warring. The talk page clearly explains why the original text is better than the text proposed by Theobald Tiger. If you prefer to have the other text, you have to explain why Mees was teaching economics at NYU (instead of women's issues), and is writing for Foreign Policy, Project Syndicate, Capital et cetera about economic issues instead of women's issues. Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, your edits have no consensus and you were blocked because of them. The current version is an almost identical version of those edits. You reverted without first discussing (discussing requires the participation of other editors) despite warnings NOT to do that. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you start to address my arguments, instead of repeating edit-war, edit-war. There never was consensus on the Theobald Tiger edit, so you can't keep reverting to that text as if there was consensus on that text. Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm: This section is entitled "Sneaky edit-warring" so that's what it's about. You clearly edit-warred. I believe that consensus was reached for Theobald_Tiger's edits. Look at the history of the Heleen Mees article to see your reverts of everyone else's edits. Look at this talk page to see that I agree with Theobald_Tiger's edits and AussieLegend's edits. Read about what achieving consensus means here and the definition of edit-warring here. --TheCockroach (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There never was consensus on Theobald Tiger's edit, not prior to him replacing the entire text of the Heleen Mees article, nor afterwards. Bmwz3hm (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is remarkable that Mees' achievemements are summerized in the introduction mainly with repsect to her feminist views, though she has not been explicit on this for the last few years. In the USA she is well known for her contributions about China and the financial crisis. Cvdullemen (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Cvdullemen: Mees is best known for her feminist opinions (the source used on the Heleen Mees wikipedia article is http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2013-10-21/heleen-mees-profiel-gevallen-vrouw/) Please provide a reliable source that supports your claim that "In the USA [Mees] is well known for her contributions about China and the financial crisis." Letters to the editor don't count. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cvdullemen: Hello, I assume you are Caroline van Dullemen, and you are well-acquainted with Heleen Mees personally? (Since you use Twitter with the handle @cvdullemen this is not a huge stretch or WP:OUTING.) I just wanted to clarify that for this discussion. This helps us understand your knowledge of the subject and any possible conflicts of interest. -- Atama頭 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The HP de Tijd article was intended as a total take-down of Heleen Mees because of false charges that are now set for dismissal (Mees is suing Buiter for defamation). That article can't serve as an objective source for Wikipedia.

Outside the Netherlands Heleen Mees is not known at all for her views on women's issues. No international newspaper ever cited her views as being of interest, because in the United States and most other countries, her opinions are simply mainstream.

In the world outside the Netherlands Mees is known for her opinions and research on economic issues. Check out for example these articles on CNBC and Reuters. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48814165 and

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/us-china-consumer-2020-insight-idUSBRE93H18K20130420

Both cover Heleen Mees' research as an NYU economics professor. The CNBC article has also been published on the Huffington Post website. Mees was also guest in a Huffington Post talk show on the very subject of her thesis, but I've not found a link to that program yet.

Heleen Mees' numerous publications in Foreign Policy, Project Syndicate, Capital, Financial Times' Economists Forum and Capital, were not spontaneous contributions by Mees, but the result of explicit requests by those media-outlets for her contributions on economic issues for which she got paid as well.86.95.97.130 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the original text of the article is much more objective than the current disputed text. The original text just sums up facts without attaching a subjective judgement (like 'provocative,' 'most known for'). What one knows Mees most for will vary per person. Some will know her most for her views on women in top jobs. Others may know her for her writings on a New York style opportunity-based society, which is what her second book is all about. While still others know Heleen Mees most for her criticism of Ben Bernanke and her views on the rise of China. Please note as well that Mees would still be NYU professor if she had not been falsely charged. 113.28.12.161 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you call the "original" text. The article has been in a shocking state since the two IPs started edit-warring and even before that, there were some pretty dodgy edits. There were even some strange edits before then. The current version seems the most stable, objective and least self-serving since the IP war. The article can certainly be improved but at least we have something to start with. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

86.95.97.130- So maybe it's more accurate to say that Mees is known in the Netherlands but not in the United States (except for the tabloid situation in July 2013). --TheCockroach (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are beyond salvation! Why do you think CNBC and Reuters write about Heleen Mees' work? Why do you think Foreign Policy, Project Syndicate, Capital et cetera request her contributions? Why do you think New York University invited her to teach economics? Perhaps you should do some introspection and wonder about your own motives for editing the Heleen Mees article. It sure looks like you want to belittle her overseas achievements. Something with 'boven het maaiveld' to use an old Dutch saying. Bmwz3hm (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm WCM_email 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Kinker020 just reverted and said in the edit summary "‎(Undid revision 605968205 by TheCockroach (talk) As you can see on the talk page, Vdullemen, 113.28.12.161, Bmwz3hm and I find the original version better.)" Problem: Kinker020 is suspected of sock puppetry and meat puppetry with respect to those accounts. On the other hand, the users that clearly agree with the position I agree with, Bjelleklang and Theobald Tiger, are definitely legitimate, non-sock puppet accounts.--TheCockroach (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (Edited) --TheCockroach (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And now IP user 122.248.140.29 has reverted the same material that user Kinker020 reverted repeatedly before being blocked... --TheCockroach (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Missed that, sorry, just done the same. Hopefully it will get some attention. WCM_email 11:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I protected it for a month as AussieLegend requested (pending changes). This should stop the SPAs that have been reverting the article lately without stopping established users. Bjelleklang - talk 14:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Meat-puppetry: https://twitter.com/HeleenMees/status/460368820733874176 --TheCockroach (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[9] Socking confirmed, asked for the socks to be blocked. WCM_email 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: It won't hurt to let CU finish. The article is fully-protected so there's no need to block anyone immediately. I'm not comfortable blocking someone here for a CU result on another noticeboard. And we have more accounts to check than were checked on nl.Wikipedia so I'd like to see the result there before making a decision as to who to block and for what duration. At this point, with all of the disruption that has been caused by Bmwz3hm already I'd probably block all of the confirmed accounts indefinitely. But again, I'm waiting for results before I take action. CU has been pretty responsive lately so I expect it won't take too long, they've been doing a great job. -- Atama頭 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, though I note another newly created account is asking for promotional links to be added. WCM_email 20:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I understand what you're saying and agree with waiting for CU but with a third 3RR breach, not to mention the refusal to comply with Spike Wilbury's ultimatum, or any of the multiple warnings before that, there's enough to block Bmwz3hm. Interestingly, Bmwz3hm took the bait I threw out,[10] and claims not to be Kinker020,[11] so the CU result will be interesting. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while three of the accounts on nl.Wikipedia matched via CU have the same names as three suspected socks here (Bmwz3hm, Kinker020, Bilbao86) I'm not sure that they are actually the same people. For example, while I have a global lock on the Atama account for most language Wikipedias, on the French, Polish, Japanese, and Russian language projects there is someone else with the username Atama. I think it's safe to assume that they are probably the same editors given all the context, but I won't block on that assumption, especially since we can have solid confirmation soon anyway. It's not that I doubt the integrity or ability of nl.Wikipedia CheckUsers. -- Atama頭 21:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI [12][13],[14][15],[16][17] Wikimedia tools show all 3 accounts are global accounts. WCM_email 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Atama; the article is blocked, we can afford to have a few edits to this page while we wait for the CU to complete. Bjelleklang - talk 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I'd like someone else to look at this as well, but from what I see it seems like parts of the current text and also some of the previous revisions from Bmwz3hm is taken directly from the frontpage bio at HeleenMees.com. Can someone else check this and see if they agree? Bjelleklang - talk 08:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are, that is why it was edited in the first place but Bmwz3hm has been edit warring to keep in the Copyvio. WCM_email 09:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with WCM. In my view, someone (under various identities) tried very hard to transform the article in a promotional vehicle for Mees and, subsequently, to maintain it as such. The plagiarizing and copyright infringements are but an aspect of this disconcerting behaviour. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the text does contain copyvios. This was one of the things I noticed when I initially reviewed the article. One of the first things I noticed on the talk page was the section above titled Copy violation. Although that referred to the image that Bmwz3hm kept adding, I checked earlier versions of the article before eventually deciding this revision was applicable. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Per the discussion immediately above, please add {{subst:copyvio|url=http://heleenmees.com/}} to the article. As discussed above, the page contains text copied from http://heleenmees.com/ which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia. Alternatively, the article may be reverted to this revision, as that does not contain copyrighted text. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to the last version I could find before copyvio text began to creep in. As it turns out, that revision dates back to 2011. All versions after that have contained copied text, in whole or in part, from http://heleenmees.com/. The article is now essentially a stub; the remaining duration of this protection would be a perfect time for all parties to hash out what, exactly, the article should say. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Original text is more objective

I also think that the original text, as it is now, is better than Theobald Tiger's text which adds a lot of subjective elements, like 'most known for' and 'provocative.' I'm quite sure that in the United States Heleen Mees is most known for her sharp criticism of the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, not for her views on women's issues. Kinker020 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What original text? The first revision, or the revision written by a specific user? I just reverted User:113.28.12.161 to the last revision by User:Theobald Tiger, simply because it was more objective. The lead is better sourced; even if individuals will know of her for different things as the anon claims on this talkpage, its what the sources say that matter. Mentioning Women on Top the way User:113.28.12.161 does implies that this organization was the reason for why the dutch parliament passed the legislation, even though the sources doesn't make this connection at all. Bjelleklang - talk 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So what one source says about Mees being known for in the Netherlands is indicative for the entire world? Even though it is clear that the article is solely meant as a total take-down of Mees after she was falsely charged? It clearly is not a good faith article and can't be a source for Wikipedia. 113.28.12.161 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Anyway, I have no objection to eliminate 'provocative'. In my opinion the notability of Heleen Mees is based firstly upon her role in the Dutch intellectual debate, and secondly upon her role in the (conditionally dismissed) New York court case. For now the relevancy of Mees in the political or intellectual debate in the United States is fairly negligible, at least as far as I know. But of course I might be mistaken. In that case I would like to ask my honorable opponents to quote an authoritative source to adstruct their point. When I say 'authoritative source' I do not mean a piece of journalism in praise of Mees, but a serious quotation from a respectable publication that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Mees' voice cannot be ignored any longer in American discourse. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Let's discuss the points of contention here. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The belief in uncivilised behaviour is very, very strong. Sock or meat puppetry no doubt. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The dutch source isn't indicative for the whole world, but it is a source, from what I can see it seems to be a reliable source, and thus it can be used. There might be other things that describes her better, but from what I've seen so far the description User:Theobald Tiger has written does appear to match what sources are saying, with the possible exception of the word 'provocative'. And keep in mind that nobody is here to get her; actions in real life tend to get consequences if you happen to be notable and it's relevant for an article. The sources report that she was charged, and also that the charges may be dropped if she complies with two conditions. If the charges are dropped it doesn't mean she was falsely charged, just that they have been dropped as part of an agreement. If you have sources saying she was falsely charged, please provide us with them so the two conflicting views can be discussed in the article. If not, please refrain from pushing a specific POV. Bjelleklang - talk 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why not lead with a sentence saying that Mees is known for role in the Dutch intellectual debate? In 2009 Elsevier magazine listed Mees among the most influential scholars and thinkers in the Netherlands. And here is an article in the UK Telegraph about the falsity of the charges.

Please note that the Telegraph calls Mees a "leading academic." I'm sure there are more sources like that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10691561/Top-economist-sued-by-ex-mistress-over-stalker-claims.html Kinker020 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to Kinker020 and IP user 113.28.12.161's reverts/edit-warring. Kinker020, instead of reverting the entire Heleen Mees article, you could have added a sentence on Elsevier.nl's comments about Mees IF you can also add a reliable source. When I googled "heleen mees elsevier", nothing came up naming Mees among the most influential of scholars and thinkers. About the Telegraph link- that article is based on Mees' lawyers claims to the newspaper. --TheCockroach (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What you have reverted to is not "more objective" at all, Kinker020 and 113.28.12.161. --TheCockroach (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Leading academic" is a qualification the Telegraph gives Heleen Mees on its own account. Kinker020 (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The original text is as the text is now. Bmwz3hm (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not the editor who made that statement (or are you?) so you can't speak as to what the editor meant. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not and sure I can. The text as is now is the text as it was before Theobald Tiger's edit and therefore the original text, which term I used first. Bmwz3hm (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The "original" text that you added was not the original text of the article. There were 261 edits before you came along. The text doesn't become "original" just because you want it to be. It's simply your version and doesn't seem to have any support from legitimate editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the original text as it is the text before Theobald Tiger replaced it with a new disputed text without any prior discussion and/or consensus. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well Bmwz3hm is correct in that the article has been stable and similar to the current status for years but there is a reason for that. I've been looking through the contribution history and joining the dots, it seems likely that the same person was editing and maintaining the article in more or less the current locked form from [18] November 2012. All of the IP addresses can be demonstrated to have a personal or professional link to the subject of the article. WCM_email 22:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm's version is still not the original text despite her claims. As for what is disputed, that would actually be Bmwz3hm's version, which to date has been reverted by (I hope I got everyone), 49.181.236.70, AussieLegend, EvergreenFir, JurgenNL, Theobald Tiger, TheCockroach and Tutelary on many occasions. The only editors disputing what Bmwz3hm calls Theobald Tiger's text have been Bmwz3hm and her sock and meatpuppets. The most recent version of what Bmwz3hm calls disputed is not the same as the text Theobald Tiger originally added.[19] Since then there have been significant changes to it,[20] but Bmwz3hm and the puppets seem intent only on allowing a version that is almost identical to Bmwz3hm's 16 April version despite 110 intervening edits,[21] and without any specific reasons as to why this version is unacceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees achievements

Bmwz3hm (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In the Netherlands Heleen Mees’ opinions about women in the workplace may have been seen as provocative, but in the United States and most other countries the views of Heleen Mees are simply mainstream. Journalists for The New York Times (Katrin Bennhold) and The Atlantic (Sharon Lerner) did interview Heleen Mees in the past about her views on women’s issues, but Mees' opinions never made it into any newspaper article because they are considered nothing out of the ordinary in the United States. If you look at Heleen Mees’ bibliography, you can see that she only wrote 2 English pieces about women’s issues, from a list of more than 50 publications (see below). The first article deals with women on corporate boards, the second with outlawing prostitution. Both articles fit well in a European trend at the time and can hardly be considered provocative, now or then. To summarize Heleen Mees work based on these 2 pieces, which are already more than 6 years old, seems wholly unbalanced to me. The original text of the Heleen Mees article devotes a paragraph to Mees’ successful lobby for more women on corporate boards in the Netherlands in 2006 - 2008, which is just about right in light of the above. The original text pays more balanced attention to Mees' other achievements in English language media, which may have gone unnoticed in the Netherlands. These achievements include the numerous publications in leading newspapers and magazines about economic issues and her teaching position at NYU.

BIBLIOGRAPHY HELEEN MEES:

Forthcoming Bekaert, Geert and Heleen Mees. 2014. Housing Bubbles and the Dutch Disease. (Working Paper).

Mees, Heleen. 2014. NY Service Economy - A Template for a Future Suburbia. Here, There, Everywhere, DroogLab Amsterdam.

Mees, Heleen. 2014. China, No House of Cards. Capital, April 2014.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2014. Are Chinese Individuals Prone to Money Illusion? (Accepted for publication by Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics).

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Why China's Growth Model Makes Sense. Project Syndicate, May 16, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Financial Crisis or Innovation Crisis? Both!. Project Syndicate, May, 2, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. The Big Wage Squeeze. Project Syndicate, April 23, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Transatlantic Strife. Project Syndicate, April 9, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Interest Rates Should Take Blame for Recession. Financial Times Economists's Forum, March 1, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Go Fitch, Go. Financial Times Economists' Forum.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Synthesising Views on West's Poor Growth. Financial Times Economists' Forum, 12-12-2012.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2012. Approximating the DGP of China's Quarterly GDP. Applied Economics Volume 45, Issue 24, 2013.

Mees, Heleen and Raman Ahmed. 2012. Why Do Chinese Households Save So Much? VoxEU, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. PhD-propositions in English and Mandarin Chinese. VoxEU, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen and Raman Ahmed. 2012. Why Do Chinese Households Save So Much? Journal paper on China's household savings rate. This version August 2012. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2012. The Fed Should Buy Stocks instead of Bonds. Financial Times Economists' Blog, August 6, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Changing Fortunes - How China's Boom Caused the Financial Crisis. Ph.D. thesis, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. China's Reliable Rise. Project Syndicate, July 25, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Evaluating the Global Crisis. Public Administration Review, Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 779 - 949, November/December 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Fed Up. Foreign Policy on June 12, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Only Germany Can Save Europe. Foreign Policy, April 24, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. The Zero Man Foreign Policy, April 3, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. How China's Boom Caused the Financial Crisis. Foreign Policy, January 17, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. U.S. Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble. Journal of Monetary Economics. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2011. Real Money in China, Money Illusion in America. In VoxEU on November 20, 2011.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2011. Are Chinese Individuals Prone to Money Illusion? Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 11-149/4. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The Perils of Loose Living. Foreign Policy, October 11, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The Global Saving Glut Will Hold Bond Yields Down. In VoxEU on August 8, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. Lost in Transmission. In VoxEU on June 21, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. Beware of Runaway Headline Inflation. In VoxEU on May 3, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. U.S. Monetary Policy and the Saving Glut. In VoxEU on March 24, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The False Panacea of Labor Market Flexibility. By Project Syndicate, March 22, 2011.

Franses, Philip Hans and Heleen Mees. 2011. Approximating the DGP of China's Quarterly GDP. By Econometric Institute Research Papers in 2011. (Under Review).

Franses, Philip Hans and Heleen Mees. 2011. Does News on Real Chinese GDP Growth Impact Stock Markets? By Econometric Institute Research Papers in 2011. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2010. Germany is not China. By Project Syndicate on August 16, 2010.

Mees, Heleen. 2010. Don't Blame the Euro. By EuroIntelligence on June 10, 2010.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Going Dutch? Not So Fast!. In The New York Times on May 24, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Going Dutch? Not So Fast! (extended version). In NRC Handelsblad on May 10, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Between Greed and Desire - The World between Wall Street and Main Street.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Does Legalizing Prostitution Work By Project Syndicate on January 23, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2008. Wars against Women. By Project Syndicate on May 26, 2008.

Mees, Heleen. 2008. Why We Must Break the Male Cartel in the Work Place. In the Financial Times on April 23, 2008.

Mees, Heleen. 2007. The Cost of the Gender Gap. By Project Syndicate on August 29, 2007.

Mees, Heleen. 2007. China is Buying Europe. In The International Herald Tribune on July 29, 2007.

Mees, Heleen. 2006. Europe's Leisure Trap. By Project Syndicate on June 23, 2006.

Mees, Heleen and Rick van der Ploeg. 2005. Affirmative Action for Europe. In Le Monde on December 2, 2005.

Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

---

(added lines as I want to be clear that the above is not written by me)

Your claims have to be backed up by sources. --TheCockroach (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) --TheCockroach (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't seriously mean that if you can check the source directly, you still need another source. Bmwz3hm (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Source: http://dailyentertainmentnews.com/uncategorized/heleen-mees-citigroups-willem-buiter-demented-girlfriend/ Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your claim -- "Journalists for The New York Times (Katrin Bennhold) and The Atlantic (Sharon Lerner) did interview Heleen Mees in the past about her views on women’s issues, but Mees' opinions never made it into any newspaper article because they are considered nothing out of the ordinary in the United States." -- is not backed by any source. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

...so how do you know that Heleen Mees was interviewed by those people, Bmwz3hm? --TheCockroach (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, my source obviously is Heleen Mees. I only use it on the talk page, not in the Wikipedia article. But it is not up to me to prove that Heleen Mees was never known for her feminist views outside the Netherlands, it is up to you to show that she was. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees herself told you that? --TheCockroach (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Text doesn't do justice to Heleen Mees's achievements. She is a respected Economist with a global footprint.RUmarAbbasi (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

RUmarAbbasi: This edit hasn't taken out any of Mees' "achievements," it has just added her feminist writing (important, as that is what she is known for) and added her birth place, etc. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

RUmarAbbasi: What are Mees' achievements in the field of economics that you would like added to the Heleen Mees article? What are those achievements? When you say she has a "global footprint," what are you talking about? Please share and link to sources. From what I've found on the internet about Mees' career in America, Mees only worked at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service from September 2012 to July 2013 (less than one year) and an NYU spokesperson in July 2013 described Mees as having taught a course (as in only one course). The Heleen Mees wikipedia article currently says "Mees also worked for the European Commission" even though she was only an employee for two years (1998 to 2000), and not a high-ranking one (as far as I can see on Google) so the Heleen Mees wikipedia article actually gives the impression that Mees' achievements (in the field of economics) are larger than they are. In the current Heleen Mees wikipedia article's infobox, Bmwz3hm put that her "institution" is the European Commission and New York University, which, you can see by my sources, is misleading and inaccurate. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any of these points by showing sources. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me deleting "New York University" and "European Commission" from the "Institution" line of the infobox for the reasons stated above? --TheCockroach (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Heleen Mees would still be teaching at New York University had she not been arrested (or she might have moved on to an even better university). Institutions include also those where people have worked in the past, so "New York University" and European Commission" are very appropriate and can not be deleted. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't predict the future ("...Mees would still be teaching at New York University had she not been arrested..."). Mees was an employee of the European Commission from 1998 to 2000. It is irrelevant and misleading to put that under "Institution." What was Mees' job at the European Commission? Was she an intern? Was she an economist? If she wasn't an economist for the European Commission, then the European Commission should not be listed under "Institutions" in the infobox economist. (Do you have any sources that say Mees was an economist for the European Commission?) You have been saying that Mees' older accomplishments (feminist writing) shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article, yet you want this old (1998 to 2000) affiliation to be included. Mees worked at Wagner for less than one year and is no longer associated with NYU.--TheCockroach (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

See how evil you are! Mees was working for Mario Monti in DG Competition on antitrust and state aid cases. So both as an economist and a lawyer (she got her economics degree in 1991 and her law degree in 1998). Heleen Mees was sent by the Netherlands to Brussels as an expert at the request of the European Commission. I did not say that Mees columns about Dutch women's lack of ambition can't be included in the article. Of course they can. Just as the articles in The New York Times, the Financial Times, Le Monde, Foreign Policy et cetera. I just say that the article can't lead with Heleen Mees' views on Dutch women. Bmwz3hm (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't call other editors "evil". It's a borderline personal attack and is not permitted. Comment on content, not the contributor. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop calling them evil as soon as they stop behaving evilly. Bmwz3hm (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That is unnaceptable. Personal attacks are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The way most editors go about the Heleen Mees article, is one big personal attack on Heleen Mees. Unacceptable indeed. Bmwz3hm (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm- You've never added a source to the talk page or the Heleen Mees article that says that she was working for "Mario Monti in DG Competition on antitrust and state aid cases" so how would I (or anyone else that reads the article) know that? (Can you link to your source please?) Also, as I said here, Mees has never written for The New York Times and it's highly misleading/false/inaccurate to claim that she has. Mees is a writer for Foreign Policy, however, she is a blogger for the Financial Times Economists' Forum blog. How many articles did Mees write for Le Monde aside from this one in 2006? Also, again, please stop adding :'s to my comments on this talk page. Respectfully, --TheCockroach (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bmwz3hm - Please stop with the paranoia. You've made disruptive edits to the article, making wholesale reverts of everything added since you last edited without actually specifying what specifically is the problem. It can't be everything. You need to state exactly what you have issues with, and propose a way forward without attacking other editors in the process. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Voilà, a source: http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/1999/juni/16/ik-kan-niet-als-enige-gelijk-hebben-7451175 Bmwz3hm (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've come across this page that says users should use indentation in talk pages, so I will do that from now on. --TheCockroach (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not exactly know what the conventions are on en.wiki with respect to the Institutions-field in infoboxes. If it is common usage to list institutions for which the subject of the article has worked in the past, then the current content of the field is at least partly correct. If not, this field might better be left empty. I doubt if the Erasmus University Rotterdam should be mentioned in the Alma Mater-field. In the Dutch context at least alma mater is used primarily for the university where someone studied and graduated (i.c. University of Groningen), not for the university where you got your PhD. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the instructions for {{Infobox economist}} don't even explain what the field is for. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the Willem Buiter article, for example, institutions clearly include those where he worked in the past. Bmwz3hm (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Hi, would it be okay to ad the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25iht-edletmon.html?_r=0. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Lotje (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the discussions above, and the fact that the page is full-prot, we need to know why adding that link is desirable, so Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've said on this talk page before, that link should not be added as Heleen Mees has never written for The New York Times. Any reader can write in to The New York Times. To include that link gives the idea that it is more than it is. What would that link be used as a source for? --TheCockroach (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)