Talk:Majority of Dutch parliament against accentuation of anti-blasphemy article

This article has been submitted for review by the Wikinews community. The review period is currently a minimum of 8 hours for regular articles and 4 hours for urgent stories. An article needs to find consensus - no objections - in the following categories in order to be accepted for publication. If the review period elapses without comments, the article may be published. See also Wikinews:Article stages#Review for information on what constitutes a valid objection.

Please comment on any of the following issues:

  • Neutrality: All factual claims need to be attributed or sourced. On-topic information which is relevant to the article should be added. Off-topic information should NOT be added to "balance out" an article.
  • Accuracy: All facts should be verifiable. Factual claims which are attributed to a person or group, but considered false by another person or group can remain in the article as long as the controversy is accurately represented.
  • Legality: Does the article violate any laws of the state of Florida in the United States? Specifically, does it violate other people's copyright, in text or images? Please make sure that no images have been directly copied from a non-free source without permission, and that any brief text quoted from a non-free source is attributed accurately. Use Google News and Google Search and pick individual phrases from the article to verify this.
  • Writing: Is it well-written and understandable?
  • Policies: Does the article comply with Wikinews:Content guide and Wikinews:Style guide?
  • Comprehensiveness: Relevant information on the topic should be included, while keeping in mind timeliness. Given that an almost infinite amount can be said about any topic, objections in this category carry less weight than those in other categories.


The news organizations (television stations?) NOS and RTL aren't well known on a global scale, so the article reads a little bit oddly: When I first saw "According to RTL...", I thought this was reporting the position of a political party with acronym RTL, and only later figured out it was a news organization. I'm not sure how to better word this though. Something like "According to broadcaster RTL..." sounds a little bit funny. --Delirium 03:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blasphemy is already illegal in the Netherlands. Donner wanted to update the legislation about it, but the Tweede Kamer now wants to remove that law altogether. Therefore, I think this article is factually incorrect. 08:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW NOS is reputable source here in the Netherlands. We should have some rule about the use of local sources. 08:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've got a point there. Any suggestions for a title which covers the contents better? Foeke 17:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. We must discuss about local sources, although I think they are necessary sometimes--carlosar 01:15 Nov 18 2004 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the title to something more appropriate. Foeke 20:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Superb - let's get this published! Ambi 12:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by this european law against blasphemy. I think it ought to be included in the article, a short description of what "blasphemy" entails. I'm curious.Rainbird 20:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: The name of the D66 Member of Parliament refered to is *Lousewies* van der Laan, not Medy van der Laan (no relative, although also D66), who is state secretary for media affairs. -- 17:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Change the title?Edit

I suggest we change the title of this article to Majority of Dutch parliament against strengthening of anti-blasphemy law. I feel this would make it easyier for people to know what the article is about.

Return to "Majority of Dutch parliament against accentuation of anti-blasphemy article" page.