Talk:Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau

Name of this site, Princess Mabel of the Netherlands, is wrong!

There was never given an approval for a marriage with Prince Johan Friso, and the request for approval was withdrawn by the couple. However, they nevertheless married on April 24 2004 and therefore the Princess didn't become member of the Dutch royal house. The Dutch royal house is a smaller part of the Dutch royal family and under the responsibility of the minister; those who are member are in line of succession to the throne. Therefore she didn't get the title Princess of the Netherlands, but because her husband is still Prince of Orange-Nassau her title is Princess of Orange-Nassau (by marriage). Therefore her correct name (and name of this page) should be: Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau. Please correct this!

• ok, so is the current heading "Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Mrs. van Amsberg" the correct way how they call her in Netherlands? or is it just "Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau" what exactly is your proposal? Antares911 16:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Princess Mabel, Mrs Van Amsberg?

I have never seen Princess Mabel referred to in this way... her husband is not Mr Van Amsberg, why in the world is she Mrs Van Amsberg? I do think that this is a totally false piece of information.

She is

Princess Mabel is called mrs. van Amsberg because she is married to Prince Johan Friso, who inhereted the appelation of nobility "Jonkheer van Amsberg" from his father Prince Claus of the Netherlands. It is his surname. Since the wives of a "Jonkheer" do not share in that appelation, they are called mrs. followed by the surname. Crownprincess Maxima and Princess Laurentien are also called mrs. van Amsberg. When the Prince of Orange (elder brother of Johan Friso) got married to Princess Maxima, the name mrs. van Amsberg was specifically mentioned by mayor J. Cohen, who conducted the marriage ceremony.Gerard von Hebel 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Official full name

Actually her full official name is:

Mabel, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, Gravin van Oranje-Nassau, Mevrouw van Amsberg - Wisse Smit.

in English:

Mabel, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Countess of Orange-Nassau, Mrs van Amsberg - Wisse Smit.

She is a princess, because she married a prince, but the fact that she and her husband are not members of the royal house (i.e. are not in line to the throne) makes that she is not HRH (her royal highness), but HH (her highness).

Princess Mabel is commonly referred to as princess Mabel, but apparently she prefers to use her own name Mabel Wisse Smit.

According to Dutch language rules it is "Jonkvrouw van Amsberg", but "Mevrouw Van Amsberg" and "Mrs Van Amsberg", with a capital V. Explanation: "Jonkvrouw" is a part of the name, while "Mrs" is not. Please change the article accordingly. Skuipers 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow up on removal of "false'

[1] [2]. Probably too small for inclusion in the article but Dutch media report that modification to this article, deleting the phrase "and false" from Balkenendes statement in the marriage section was conducted by Mabel and Friso themselves. Arnoutf 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not edited from Balkenende statement... it was edited in wikipedia. Althought I'm a Dutch republican, I think it is great the Dutch Royal family participates on wikipedia. If they have a different point of view, so be it: it will be corrected soon enough (and that is what happened). Ubuntu user 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the current text has the Balkenende quote as a quote, the text at the time of the edit did not report it as a quote and was not sourced. Arnoutf 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

- The IP-address has been identified as being from the palace Huis ten Bosch, the residence of the queen Beatrix. Given the declarations of the prime minister at the time, the word "false" is correctly included. See also the refs. The newpaper states that the edit on 10:45, 8 January 2006 (i.e. from 194.123.230.36) is from the palace. The word has been removed more often. -DePiep 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The press office of the Royal Dutch Family itself says that it was Mabel who editted it herself 86.95.64.224 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The report in the Volkskrant, weblink 2 given above. Arnoutf 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And a report on Dutch national television in the show NOVA Arnoutf 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed to an English-language report. After all, this is the English-language Wikipedia. I assume that more central English media will refer to the affair soon. Please update when they do. gidonb 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

'Incomplete and false' changed by prince and princess themselves

Another link (in dutch) which confirms this information: http://novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=artikelen.details&achtergrond_id=9806&CFID=28964936&CFTOKEN=43246296

The official press department of the government, the RVD, has confirmed that they indeed deleted the word false from their private residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.148 (talk • contribs) at 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki ethics demand you to sign all comments on a talk page, if only with your IP number (if you don't know that simply use the four tildes ~~~~ which will be replaced with your IP number automatically. If you don't sign an automated program will put your signature for you instead (as has happened here). Please do not remove such an automatic signature without putting in your actual signature (using the tildes). Thanks. Arnoutf 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As a service for those who are looking for the "royal change" of Wikipedia: click here. Once it was officially confirmed that the change was by Mabel and the prince, from the palace of the reigning Dutch queen, vandalism at this page got pretty bad. It was temporarily protected for edits of new and anonymous users. gidonb 23:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks gidonb, the protection might be just in time: today articles about the edit also appeared in the Sp!ts [3] and the Metro [4]. - Face 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was not gidonb who semiprotected it, but indeed yesterday evening there was a short burst of vandalism (anon IP's removing the false statement repeatedly) until an uninvolved admin (User:Wknight94) blocked the article; good call for which I thanked him on his talkpage.Arnoutf 10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Face. As a Wikipedian and social scientist, it was my pleasure to describe the latest events! Thank you for your response and interest. Best regards, gidonb 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Might it be more accurate to use the word 'incorrect' instead of 'false'? The word 'false' has, in my opinion a much stronger meaning than the Dutch language word 'onjuist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brederode (talk • contribs) 09:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

My Babylon-Pro dictionary gives as translations for the adjective 'onjuist': incorrect, erroneous, false, faulty, mistaken, wrong, untruthful, improper, calumniatory, loose. In the current context, I think "incorrect" and "false" are both correct translations. The word "incorrect" is more literal (on=in; juist=correct). The word 'incorrect' reminds me of a game show of high-school exam, where a contestant or student gives an incorrect answer (while trying to give the correct answer). In this context, the Prime-Minister was suggesting that they said something, even though they knew the information was incorrect. For that reason, the word "false" is the best translation in this case. The word "False" is not that much stronger than incorrect. Johan Lont 10:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, as a professional and sworn translator Dutch-English I think Brederode does have a point here. There is a strong similarity between respectively the two Dutch words 'onjuist' and 'vals' and the two English words 'incorrect' and 'false'. The word 'vals' (= 'false') is more degrading than the word 'onjuist' (= 'incorrect'), which is more matter-of-fact and less of a fierce accusation. And it is almost certainly not accidental that PM Balkenende used the matter-of-fact word 'incorrect' and refrained from using a word like 'false'.

I will not make this edit right now, as it seems hardly desirable that in this situation everyone makes any edit that occurs to him. But I do offer this thought to be considered by other users who have a good knowledge of both Dutch and English, and if we can reach some agreement here, I propose that we will indeed replace the word 'false' by 'incorrect'.

Let me just add that the suggestion made above by Johan Lont that the word 'incorrect' implies involuntary incorrectness does not hold water. It may refer to incorrect information provided either intentionally or unintentionally. Paul kuiper NL 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although in my feeling "onjuist" has a slightly more negative meaning compared to "incorrect". On the other hand "false" seems overly negative compared to the Dutch "onjuist". Arnoutf 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Something important to note here is that the word juist in Dutch also has a strong moral connotation when used in some sentences, with the Van Dale listing rechtvaardig (lit. just) as a synonym for that use. Someone doing the juist thing, for example, would be doing the right thing. Using false as a translation would effectively remove that connotation. In this case, incorrect would be a better translation, but I favour unsound even more, as sound is a better translation of juist than correct. However, the best translation is plain and simple: the word wrong. User:Krator (t c) 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Krator. Apparently the four of us (Brederode, ArnoutF, you and myself) agree that the translation 'false' is somewhat out of place here, and that 'incorrect' is a more accurate translation than 'false'. Your idea of using the word 'wrong' would certainly be fine in many instances, but in this particular case, the resulting phrase would be 'incomplete and wrong information', of which my hunch is that there is an odd sound to it. Therefore, I hope that I can take it that replacing the word 'false' by 'incorrect' is at least also in your view an improvement. Paul kuiper NL 22:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed sound odd. I still prefer Incomplete and unsound information though, but I am fine with incorrect.

Thanks again. I have made this edit now, and I also thank ArnoutF and in particular Brederode for raising the point.

→ For what it's worth, to this native English-speaker, "incomplete and incorrect" suggests that the information was incorrect because it was incomplete. Whereas "incomplete and wrong" makes it more clear that the information was 1. incomplete and 2. wrong, i.e. even if more info was added, the statement would have contained inaccuracy. Nor does "incomplete and wrong" sound any odder to my ear than "incomplete and incorrect". But "incomplete and unsound" does seem strange, and I cannot imagine anyone saying it except a pedant: Policies are "unsound", but allegations are inaccurate, incorrect, erroneous, wrong, misleading, untrue or false -- in increasing order of intensity. I favor "incomplete and wrong". Lethiere 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

→ Thanks for your comment. Just as you did, I felt immediately that 'unsound' is a word that definitely cannot be used here. But by now I have consulted several native English speakers, and their unanimous opinion is that 1. nothing in your above comment on the word 'wrong' would not equally apply to the word 'incorrect', and 2. in a formal statement by a government, and used as an attributive (i.e. not predicative) adjective, the words 'incorrect information' are much more likely to appear than the words 'wrong information'. As in the above discussion we have carefully reached an agreement that 'incorrect' is an adequate translation of the relevant Dutch word 'onjuist', I think we should stick to this. Paul kuiper NL 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if it was accidentally that from the last paragraph ('Editing negative information') you removed the addition made by Phaunt that at the time the controversial edit was made by MWS, the words in question 'were unattributed and unsourced', (i.e. they did not yet contain a quote from Balkenende). In my view this addition was highly relevant as both in English and Dutch Wikipedia the charge was made that MWS actually falsified a Balkenende quote. So why not state this, possibly with the link it contained to the particular edit? Paul kuiper NL 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the words "unattributed and unsourced" is Wikipedia jargon. See also WP:SELF. To anyone outside Wikipedia, the words "unattributed and unsourced" do not have the meaning they were supposed to have here, though perhaps a scholar would get the meaning. Unsourced is not even in the/my dictionary. What was meant by the statement "unattributed and unsourced" was "this statement was there in violation of WP:V and WP:ATT, which means that it could've been changed and removed at any time by anyone, which means that the edit made by the couple was actually not in violation of wikipedia policy." It is next to impossible to convey that meaning here, without using Wikipedia as a source (a primary source in this case and in violation of WP:SELF), and without using Wikipedia jargon. So, removing the statement was the lesser evil. User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I think that by now I have found a fair solution, which I hope satisfies all of us. Paul kuiper NL 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

→ Hello Krator, I must admit that I find some of your recent edits disappointing. My reasons for adhering to the translation 'incorrect' are stated above. But I also regret that you removed from the paragraph 'Editing negative information' two facts that are certainly relevant in my view: 1. that the article did not contain a PM quote at the time, 2. that the English word 'false' which was originally used is absolutely not a correct translation from Dutch, as the actual Dutch word ('onjuist') that was used means 'incorrect' or 'wrong'.

I do not agree with you that mentioning the first fact 'violates WP:SELF'. Before I wrote the last version. I read carefully what is written there about 'Writing about Wikipedia itself' and 'Articles are about their subjects'. Please check this again. It seems to imply that in a case like this, where publicity regarding an article is significant enough, this may be included in the article 'if it was relevant to the topic of the article itself', and it must be done 'in a neutral tone'. Anyway, the choice should be made, of course: either MWS's involvement with the article is ignored, or it is mentioned here, but if it is mentioned, this should certainly be done in a way which is careful and not in any way misleading.

One of my reasons for insisting is that it was actually me who (on August 29, 17:38) inserted the fact that the particular words were a quote from PM Balkenende. Since then I read both in English and Dutch Wiki repeatedly the charge that 'the quote from the PM was forged', therefore I feel partly responsible for a careful account of the honest facts, ruling out any false charges. If this paragraph is kept anyway (I understand that several users favour its total removal, and they may well have a point), I suggest that you draft an acceptable version, if not, I will favour restoring the version that you removed. Thanks, Paul kuiper NL 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Weapon trade never proven"

In my opinion this is incomplete information; the emphasis is made on that those allegations might appear to be untrue, while it is/was common knowledge those days -printed in several Dutch newspapers like "De Telegraaf"- that the Taleban (some say Al Qaeda) and other Moslem groups were supporting their Moslem brothers with weapons, all with full permission (and more..?) of CIA.
Freelance journalist (BBC/Guardian) Greg Palast published in his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" that (former?) CIA agent Abdulah Bin Laden from Virginea, did the Moslem funding WAMY, World Assembly Moslem Youth. Right now this org is on the terror list, but Bush personally kept them from the list for some years after 911, inspite of severe protests from Europe. In Palast's book, he states that the Dutch intelligence in former Yugoslavia (most Dutch were located in Sebrenica) made note of weapon transports in connection to WAMY. Please see the book for the exact details and context.
Sacirbey was the Bosnian ambassador, so it's logically and his job (however: indeed 'not proven') to be involved as the primary responsible person in this weapon trade for his folks. Mabel was with him where they internationally went, so that's the picture about the quite reasonable suggestions that she was involved in weapon trade and possibly earlier in a Aristocratic and VIP intelligence network around higher Dutch criminal gangs (the Bruinsma affair, who's boat late prince Bernhard liked to buy and was almost docked next to the House of Orange`s boat "Groene Draeck" (Green Dragon; also the Japanese society introduced in Britain appr. 45 years after the Orange invasion), in the small harbor of Muiden.
Sacirbey is put away in prison and inspite the importnace of this affair, no interviews with him were made and/or published about the details of his affairs. Rumors exist about that the Moslems around Sebrenica purposedly received weapons (other Moslem regions received almost no arms), in a set-up to provoke the Serbs for a higher political power game, creating Western public support for later military intervention. Some say that first 2000 Serbs were murderd around Sebrenica wich was purposedly not published in Western media, before they came to take revenge. As we know, the Western command did nothing to stop them (Video on TV journals: Mladic: "are you going to evacuate them, or do we have to do that?". Response Karremans: "We can't."; what in military terms means he has orders not to evacuate them) and even helped the Serbs to get the male Moslems in busses, before they were mass-murdered.
Mabel Wisse Smit is/was the managing director of George Soros OSI; Open Society Institute, which statutes clearly stated with other words 'to break open closed societies'):
http://www.soros.org/about (their discription is a bit altered (cleaned up) during the years)
...exactly that was the aftermath of the Sebrenica murders and the later grenade attack on a market place, which was the prelude for the Western intervention (and the necessary Western public support). 201.237.112.206 15:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing negative information

Is this really noteworthy enough to include in the article? This may currently be in the (Dutch) news but will anybody care in a few years? —Ruud 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this will die down in a week and nobody will care. This is trivia at its most trivial. Arnoutf 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a significant controversy, and probably the only thing anyone outside of the Netherlands will associate the subject with. User:Krator (t c) 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the to-be princess, in the line for the throne, lied to the government (and possibly to the Queen too). When it came out, the couple had to choose between marriage or right to wear the crown (for the husband).

That itself is worth mentioning and has not died out in a weak, clearly. Then, years later, the couple removes the fact of the lie from Wikipedia, i.e. introducing another lie. I want to read that here too. If you think it's not noteworthy - read elsewhere. We are here for the facts. -DePiep 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As Krator notes above, at the time of the removal the statement "incomplete and false" was unsourced and not presented as a literal quote of Balkenende. Changing such an unsourced statement is not against Wiki policy (although in the context probably not the best/most ethical thing to do). By now the phrase has been sourced, so now it would be against policy.

In other words, although not the best thing to do; changing the section in the way, and in the version of the article, in which is was done, was not as bad as the reports in the press has made it look like.

On the other hand it has achieved some notability in the international press. Perhaps it is getting time for an article on Wikipedia edit controversies, which then can be linked in a single sentence "In August 2007 this article achieved some notority because an edit controversy by Mabel of Orange Nassau was made public in the press." Leave it at that and find the rest in the article. Perhaps such an article exist, does anybody know? Arnoutf 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RE Arnoutf: incorrect. The edit on jan 8, 2006 was reverted within one hour by User:Baszoetekouw. The edit summary says: "incomplete and false information" is a leteral quote from prime minister Balkenende). Above this, at the time Wikipedia did not use marked-up references as we do now. Baszoetekouw did Wiki policy, and very well. Further: why use vague terms like 'some notority', when we have facts? -DePiep 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view, this section should absolutely go. (1) It is against our guideline "avoid self reference". (2) It is totally unimportant in the biography of the subject of this article (lying to the government during an official procedure and removing two words from a wikipedia article are not exactly in the same league). (3) At the time of the edit from Huis ten Bosch, no source was given for the words "incomplete and false" (Baszoetekouw's edit summary came after the royal edit), so there was nothing wrong with the change that was made. In fact, unsourced negative information about living people must be removed. Skarioffszky 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RE DePiep. We have the facts; but it is also a fact that it has not been worldwide frontpage news; i.e. it is notably but not more then just so. BTW. The exact phrase was: Later that year, it turned out that she had given Queen Beatrix and prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende incomplete nd false information. It is not clear from this it was a quote; if it where phrased as Later that year prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that "incomplete and false information" was given to him and the possibly the Queen." it would be a completely different matter.

RE Skarioffszky I agree unsourced negative information should be removed, but whether you (i.e. the subject of the article) should do it yourself is doubtful. Arnoutf 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it lacks class, Arnoutf, but that's hardly relevant. What happened is: she edited the article and from the point of view of our guidelines and policies there was nothing wrong with the edit. Funny story, yes. Material for an encyclopedia? No. Skarioffszky 18:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Still it maybe material for a future Wikipedia edit controversies article because of its press coverage. Arnoutf 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not because of Wikipolicy it should stay, but because she lied, lost therefore her right to become queen, and then tried to remove the mentioning of the lie. That is a fact worth in her biography. We are not only doing family, and royal titles here. Also their behavior.- DePiep 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She did not lose the possibility to become queen because she edited wikipedia! Admins do not have such powers yet. Skarioffszky 19:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I too agree with removing the section. Phaunt 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User Phaunt is Leon Planken from the Royal city of Delft (where Johanm Friso is part-time managing director of TNO-space, with whom Leon might have bussiness ties) and is a millionare in selling computer equipment to many professional customers. He therefore might not be independent. Actually he is under suspicion after damage was done to my wikiresear.ch pages and I could clearly track one IP to him, after many Dutch wikipedians (partly with Royal or multinational connections) in a short time visited my wikiresear.ch. That was in a edit-war around former resistance fighter Charles Destree, who`s wikipedia page was first altered by them to the Royal Dutch line of Prince Bernhard (opposite to the version of Charles, who accuses him of betraying the resistance and has a reasonable theory about why), before the attack on my page about Charles Destree happened:

http://wikiresear.ch/Charles_Destr%C3%A9e_Achtergrond
http://wikiresear.ch/Willem_Huberts
http://wikiresear.ch/Ed_Stevenhagen -The attack at the same moment and at the same page that Leon Planken and friends visisted my wikiresear.ch "Charles Destree" page (pitty these background links are in Dutch; if/&when I have more time it might be important to translate in English). 201.237.112.206 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mabel-affair and many issues connecting to it, is not only Dutch news, but important international news. Why they themselves did change the English wiki, while not doing so with the Dutch wiki?

Johan Friso worked for the Bilderberg Group and for Goldman Sachs and is part-time managing director of TNO-Space; the Dutch (o.a. Philips) counterpart for Boeing and Lockheed (ehum 3 Lockheed affairs with late Prince Bernhard and a recent JSF affair with a polital murder just before the 2002 elections on Pim Fortuyn and politically 'shooting' Prime Minister Wim Kok by former USA Defence Minister Richard Holbrooke, while Wim Kok couldn't or didn't want to get his Labour party top ready to vote in favor for the JSF before these 2002 elections).

In future his brother Wilhelm Alexander might be the formal King, but on the background Johan Friso will be the schadow(y?) financial and (dirty?) bussines king, with the experienced three-double spy Mabel on his side. That next to the question if this specific subject is relevant or not. I think it's relevant, as the Dutch press found it relevant and its about this wiki! Also it's important to know that they actively engaged in cleaning-up unwelcome information, just like Mabel high-society friends payed a full page newspaper advertisment, telling how an admirable and high-esteem person Mabel was according to them, what turned out to be partly untrue and only gave more important indications about here strange networks.201.237.112.206 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are seeing way too much in this. I myself (as a Dutchman) am practically exclusively on English Wiki; and so are many other Dutch editors. It is not very strange that the royals do the same. The power of the royal house in Dutch politics is very limited, only the Queen has some real power. Furthermore after the Lockheed bribery scandals I am sure the Dutch royal family the would not even touch an airplane related controversy with a ten-foot pole. Personally I think that the princess just did not like the word "false" in here (which I can imagine if the article were about me). Arnoutf 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to some insiders; the affair was only the top of the ice-berg and the money was not fraudulous but only to pay expenises in a much greater plot. The other Lockheed affairs were erased before they met the press and even now very difficult to find. Most Dutch people only think that there was only one Lockheed affair, inspite the facts that where withhold for most of them. 201.237.112.206 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the well-taken point that at that time the article did not contain a quote from PM Balkenende (this quote was actually inserted only two days ago, by me), there is another important thing to be noted: all Dutch users who expressed an opinion so far agree that the English word 'false' is a mistranslation from Dutch; we may bicker if the precise translation is 'incorrect' or 'wrong', but the word 'false' is certainly more harsh than any word the PM used in his letter to parliament.

If this paragraph is kept at all (I agree that its relevance is very doubtful), I think it should certainly not be maintained without stating this highly relevant fact in an honest way. Paul kuiper NL 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"all Dutch users who expressed an opinion so far agree that the English word 'false' is a mistranslation from Dutch" -well, I don't aggree that it's a 'false' translation. False means erronomous as well and can mean by flase intentions. However the first is proven, the second also seems to be the case by purposedly falsely covering up issues.

(and many Dutch users/wikipedians are directly related to the Philips, TNO (Delt & Eindhoven), Lockheed, Leiden-Bilderberg, Johan Friso scene). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.237.112.206 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)