Talk:Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom and Diversity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old comments

Please remove informations about this party in order to stop propagation of pedophilia and drugs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.98.161 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 May 2006

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

Yep, but this is truly aberrant, and should be told this way in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.97.102 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 May 2006

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

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

I wanne assure you with complete certainty that the pnvd is not a hoax. Sorry. DennisWerf 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Promotion?

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

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

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

They haven't been publicized much until now. Most people didn't even know it existed, including me -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Wed May 31 23:26:42 UTC 2006

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

Good luck :^) -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Jun 1 00:08:43 UTC 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual contact between humans and other animals

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

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

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

There is a law dealing with animal abuse that is also applicable to sexual abuse. So there _is_ a law -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Jun 1 14:09:11 UTC 2006

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

Sections 1, 2a, and 3 are applicable to _any_ animal abuse, including sexual -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Sun Jun 4 01:29:35 UTC 2006

Title

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

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

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

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

I agree. Better use the native name and provide a translation within the article -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Wed May 31 22:26:22 UTC 2006

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

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

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

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

I agree with JayW. Of course, redirects for other common names should be made -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Jun 1 02:17:19 UTC 2006

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

You're right. I withdraw my objections against changing the title -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Jun 1 02:42:51 UTC 2006

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

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

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

New?

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

That is correct. -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Wed May 31 16:01:12 UTC 2006

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

Update

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

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

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

Factual inaccuracy

MARTIJN advocates adult-child _relationships_, not specifically sex. Also, a redundant sentence seems to have been added. -- De Zeurkous (root@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Jun 1 03:12:11 UTC 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uittenbogaard not the founder

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

Category "Pedophile activism"

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

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

Recent events

Should I bother writing a history section to detail, say, Norbert being persecuted and expelled from his University because of his party activity, or the party's fight with the NVD security company? Are these notable or interesting enough for inclusion? I don't know. It might also make a good place to explain the controversy.. JayW 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

for my reference: (dutch) kicked out, (brief english) kicked out

WbDemocrat

First of all, parroting the poll in the opening is redundant: we already mention it in the 'Controversy' section, albeit more accurately. Your phrasing implies the entire Dutch population was surveyed; it wasn't, and the demographic that was is likely biased.

..now..

The word "bestiality" is slanted and suggests all animal-human sex is abusive. There has already been extensive discussion of the word, in fact: see Talk:Zoophilia. In the end, a sizeable wikiconsensus agreed 'bestiality' is unencyclopedic.

Next, the given source for your assertion on "bestiality's" impending criminalization is pretty weak. Sure, it seems a fair bit of bigwigs want to see it illegal, but we can not make your claim with complete certainty. Explaining that zoosexual behavior is not currently illegal is accurate and doesn't require a time machine.

Finally, it seems one-sided to say Ad van den Berg molested a child, particularly given that he probably considered the act wholesome schlupping (or something more fitting of his rhetoric, I dunno).

..also, please don't employ ad hominem when reverting me, k? Thanks. JayW 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not see the mention of the poll, I merely wanted to stipulate that (since this party's existence will reflect badly upon the Dutch people) most Dutch disagree with this party's perception of "freedom" (what a joke).

Furthermore, polls never question the entire population, yet they are scientifically accurate, with a margin of error. You should not blame other people for your own non-knowledge of statistics. A sample of 800 is more than enough to assure reasonable accuracy. Supposedly, the demographic that was surveyed was 'biased'. Can you provide evidence for so ludicrous an assertion? Or are you merely attacking because you do not like the poll's results (probably)?

With respect to the impending criminalization of the beautiful, nice, wonderful and admirable act of bestiality, it is right to point out that this party stands against the consensus in the political arena. A casual reader might think that many parties agree with this stance, which is incorrect.

By the way, your slant is pretty clear, and it is not 'ad hominem' to point out your dubious interests and history. For example, how is it 'allegedly' when a person has been CONVICTED of the molestation (yes, molestation) of an 11-year old boy (with an Associated Press article to back it up)? Plus, above this post, you talk about the so-called 'persecution' of Norbert de Jonge, because they would not allow somone who advocates sex with children to work in children's mouths (pretty reasonable). Yep, we're really seeing objectivity at work here. Therefore I am reversing the changes you made to the last part of the article. --WbDemocrat 18:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, polls never question the entire population, yet they are scientifically accurate, with a margin of error.

It was an Internet poll, not a 'scientifically accurate' survey of random citizens. Bias is not a mythical problem in statistics.

A sample of 800 is more than enough to assure reasonable accuracy.

Right... is that why the Literary Digest's 1936 prediction of the presidential election using a sample size of 2.3 million indicated Alf Landon would win?[3]

..sample size doesn't mean shit.

While I get your point here, I think it is important to note that sample size is NOT irrelevant in a 'scientific poll'. A poll of 50 for example, if the population size is 1 million would have a high 'margin of error'. 800 is sufficient for most human population sizes. However you are right that sample size in itself is irrelevant if the polling metholody is flawed or unreliable. Nil Einne 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

it is right to point out that this party stands against the consensus in the political arena.

It's hyperdetailed and irrelevant; up-to-the-minute outrage belongs at Zoophilia and the law.

your slant is pretty clear

..and entirely irrelevant. Ad hominem.

For example, how is it 'allegedly' when a person has been CONVICTED of the molestation (yes, molestation) of an 11-year old boy

I reworded it as convicted for allegedly, not allegedly convicted. If you want to keep 'molestation' in there, it should be changed from convicted for molesting to convicted of molestation.

Yep, we're really seeing objectivity at work here.

Indeed - you're totally the most neutral person I've ever worked with. JayW 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

legality of beastiality

"They are against laws that would explicitly outlaw sexual contact between animals and humans (which is not illegal in the Netherlands now[5])"

According to Wikipedia's article on pornography beastiality was recently outlawed in the Netherlands. Some clarification please?

Where are the United Nations? Where are the NGO's? These people are sick.

It's amazing that Holland allows this kind of political party. Let's remember that this country is making propaganda all over the world promoting human rights and tolereance. Moreover, many international organizations, like the International Court of Justice, have their siege there. What a contradiction.

Sex with animals is completely legal in Holland. There are thousands of stores that sell this kind of movies. If you have been in Amsterdam, you probably have seen them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colombiacuriosa (talk • contribs).

At least the Netherlands are democratic, which means that any kind of political party is allowed to exist. If the people want to elect them, they can. If they don't vote for them, the party will not receive any seats in the parliament and thus have no political influence. That is democracy. By the way, it's a seat, not a siege ;-) that'd be something entirely different.

Anyway, let's stay ontopic. SalaSkan 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideology

I've just removed an unsubstantiated claim regarding the party's ideology. The last edit was an unexplained change from "libertarian left" to "libertarian right". Personally, I find it hard to see how a party whose goals include free rail travel for all - presumably funded by the state - can be considered libertarian anything. But my personal incredulity doesn't matter, of course. Any statement about the ideological position of the party should be attributed to a source, and referenced. Editors should not be making their own interpretations. -- 86.156.255.46 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the libertarian right. Although the PNVD integrates ideology by Pim Fortuyn it is not a right-wing party, right-wing extremists are their worst enemies and have been threatening them. As you can read in http://www.groenlinks.nl/partij/werkgroepen/GLFolder.2004-03-18.5800/standpunten/Thema.2004-10-09.5536 their positions were shared by the classical left. Also the name says it all: "vrijheid" and "naastenliefde" equals "libertarian" and "left". Roman Czyborra 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo is incorrect

On the top right, the article about the PNVD displays a logo that is supposed to be official. However, what is shown is part of a screenshot of a page that had the real logo embedded into it. On the website of the PNVD, the real logo can be found in the file http://www.pnvd.nl/PNVD_logo.zip that is linked from the "Buttons" page. If you look at, for example, the party's latest [program], then you'll see that the logo that is current used in the article is incorrect. If anyone cares, feel free to upload and edit stuff, I'm not going to do that. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• That page also contains a Scalable Vector Graphic: http://www.pnvd.nl/PNVD_logo.svg I'm pretty sure Wikipedia prefers the use of those things over that other link with just jpg and gif images. 82.169.92.213 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, also noticed. Logo is still incorrect. How can I change it? --195.169.100.130 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a file here, I don't know if that helps: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:PNVDlogo_without_text.png --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gay activism

I noticed that there is a LGBT banner at the top the page. The article should maybe explain whether this political party is mostly interested in the homosexual type of pedophilia, which is sometimes called pederasty, instead of unspecific pedophilia that would target children of either gender. ADM (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Platform" section is absolutely not neutral

The current section only talks about

• Lowering of the age of consent/majority
• Elimination of marriage
• Permitting public nudity
• The plans to make railway travel free
• Animal rights

and #2-#4 only get trivial mentions. There is not a single mention of

• Their policies against censorship
• Protection of privacy
• Their many plans of reducing government interference in many matters
• Their policy on integration (which is an important subject in the Netherlands)
• The other plans for further giving minors the right to decide things on their own (lowered age of compulsory education, children decide which school to go to, lowered voting age, etc)
• Further separation of religion and state
• Policies for protection of people (laws against unwillful castration and circumcision, for example)
• Policies to protect the environment
• Policies to help consumers of enviroment-friendly products
• Major tax reforms
• Housing policy
• Government ownership of basic provisions and privatization of other things
• Health care reforms
• Education reforms
• Better rights for suspects and prisoners
• Judicial system reforms ("The foremost goal of our penal system should be to prevent the repetition of offences.")

Et cetera, et cetera.

As it is now, the page makes it seem like the only reason the party exists is to legalize sex with children and stir up trouble, which I very much doubt is actually the case. (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that one be VERY careful about editing this article. Despite what the previous contributer claims, the beginning of the article makes it clear that the PNVD platform is NOT only about sexuality. Various right-wing groups, notably Conservapedia, have been claiming that Wikipedia is trying to defend pedophilia, using this article as an example. (Obviously, they're trying to get it shut down.) As it stands the article does indicate what is partictlarly notable about the organization, which is what an encyclopedia of this kind should do. Since the consensus is to keep the article, it should stand clear of advocacy, which it indeed does. Alloco1 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)