Talk:Marthijn Uittenbogaard

Mr Editor...

...how can you possibly dispute the sourcing of written truth from an article by Uittenbogaard on his own site as POV? Is it that you experience cognitive dissonance on reading that a young boy may desire sex with an older man? Possibly?

Please put the POV tag back, if you wish to actually discuss this. Jim♥Burton 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the NPOV tag or stop disputing the removal of the views section which is unencyclopedic, unnotable and the product of a sick mind, sonmething that has no place ina an encyclopedia. Given that someone else has been trying to discuss this and you remove the tag further action will have to be taken if you continue to remove it without addressing the issue, SqueakBox 04:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive to remove editing tags without resolving the matter. Please let's all discuss this and resolve the dispute. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At the two points where I removed this tag, squeakbox had been long gone from editing the main article, and had not raised any discussion on the talk page. In the first instance, I understand that he had not even made an argument (other than 'unsourced') in his edit summary. I have also adressed the issue, by leaving a message on talk, and I have recieved no reply. Thus the removals. Jim♥Burton 06:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I havent bbeen long gone from anywhere near this collection of articles, SqueakBox 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the guidance on how to use a Template:NPOV tag:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic.

i.e. a tag claiming that something is disputed is not worthy, if there is no dispute. Jim♥Burton 06:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SB, where does it say that ideas from 'sick mind(s)' are not woth a place in an encyclopedia? See Hitler. Where does it say that after being judged as notable (the article exists), a small section on personal views is not suitably biographic? Jim♥Burton 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he hasnt been judged notable and I am considering an afd, encouraged by your stement, to see what the community thinks, SqueakBox 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that SB has identified the specific passage he is concerned with, so I don't see that there's any problem with the use of the tag. I'll let him expound on his issues, but the point of a bio is to tell about the subject, not necessarily to give the subject a soapbox. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he's fine with the tag now. I just don't think that a small section entitled 'views', containing views usually counts as a 'soapbox', especially when there is criticism. His objection is also tied to the content, as opposed to the mere presence of his views, which is obviously a false complaint that will get nowhere whilst WP is not censored. Jim♥Burton 07:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler had sick ideas but was notable. This guy is not notable and to give space to his ideas isnt encyclopedic as we arent here to promote pedophilia, SqueakBox 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it is now on afd. The Norbert de Jonge and Ad van den Berg should, IMO, be deleted too but its best to see the results of this afd first, SqueakBox 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)