The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Prince Friso, Princess Mabel and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f128/)
-   -   Dutch Royals edited Wikipedia Entry on themselves: August 2007 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f128/dutch-royals-edited-wikipedia-entry-on-themselves-august-2007-a-13690.html)

RhapsodyBrat 08-30-2007 11:53 PM

^^ got that exactly, Elspeth. that's what they were doing. they weren't setting a record straight; they were glossing it up as if to save face.

kimebear 08-31-2007 01:34 AM

Well I have to disagree. Mabel is the only one, besides the ex boyfriend, who knows for sure what was true and what was false about their sexual relationship (or lack thereof). It's up to her if she wants to remove the "and false" terminology from her Wiki page when talking about the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister.

Elspeth 08-31-2007 01:56 AM

If the original wording in the Wikipedia page was the way it is now, the "incomplete and false" was attributed as a quote made by the Prime Minster, and it appears that that's what he actually did say - or, rather the more correct translation, "incomplete and incorrect."

The present wording says "Later that year, Prime-Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that she had given "incomplete and incorrect information" to Queen Beatrix and to him about the duration and extent of her relationship with drug kingpin Klaas Bruinsma," which shows that "incomplete and incorrect" is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. If they changed that to say "...Prime-Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that she had given "incomplete information" to Queen Beatrix and to him...", they're falsifying what he said. This isn't a case of the Wikipedia author claiming that they gave incorrect information, it's a case of the Prime Minister saying it, and being known to have said it, and of them changing what he said. That's seriously unethical.

Lady Jennifer 08-31-2007 02:45 AM

Very interesting. I wonder who else has edited their wikipedia pages. :hmm: :lol:

kimebear 08-31-2007 03:08 AM

If it was a matter of changing the Prime Ministers statement, then yes it was unethical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 660032)
If the original wording in the Wikipedia page was the way it is now, the "incomplete and false" was attributed as a quote made by the Prime Minster, and it appears that that's what he actually did say - or, rather the more correct translation, "incomplete and incorrect."

The present wording says "Later that year, Prime-Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that she had given "incomplete and incorrect information" to Queen Beatrix and to him about the duration and extent of her relationship with drug kingpin Klaas Bruinsma," which shows that "incomplete and incorrect" is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. If they changed that to say "...Prime-Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that she had given "incomplete information" to Queen Beatrix and to him...", they're falsifying what he said. This isn't a case of the Wikipedia author claiming that they gave incorrect information, it's a case of the Prime Minister saying it, and being known to have said it, and of them changing what he said. That's seriously unethical.


princess olga 08-31-2007 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 659562)
I really dislike the way this couple keeps dealing with this matter like sulking teenagers who can not stand it that somebody corrected them. If they think they have been treated unjust and false alligations were made they should either open up about it or be silent. Not secretly changing sentences etc. It was the prime minister himself who said that the provided information was false btw, so this change is rather uncredible.

Hear, hear.

This new sorry episode just proves once again that Mabel just doesn't get it. And probably never will. Friso, ditto.

I'm sure the wikipedia pages of, say, Maxima contain factual errors as well, but does the princess go and muck around in what's now already considered the great internet encyclopedia? No of course she doesn't.

All I can say is, for all Mabel's and Friso's combined academic smarts and phd's and whatnot, they sure know how to put their foot in their mouths. Goes to show that university diplomas cannot buy anyone common sense.

I gave Mabel the benefit of the doubt for eons but am starting to fess up to what she really is: a manipulative person who had affairs with dubious men to end up in the family of, of all people, our great queen. I feel Friso made a big mistake.

princess olga 08-31-2007 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 660032)
If the original wording in the Wikipedia page was the way it is now, the "incomplete and false" was attributed as a quote made by the Prime Minster, and it appears that that's what he actually did say - or, rather the more correct translation, "incomplete and incorrect."

The present wording says "Later that year, Prime-Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that she had given "incomplete and incorrect information" to Queen Beatrix and to him about the duration and extent of her relationship with drug kingpin Klaas Bruinsma," which shows that "incomplete and incorrect" is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. If they changed that to say "...Prime-Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that she had given "incomplete information" to Queen Beatrix and to him...", they're falsifying what he said. This isn't a case of the Wikipedia author claiming that they gave incorrect information, it's a case of the Prime Minister saying it, and being known to have said it, and of them changing what he said. That's seriously unethical.

This is exactly right and hitting the nail on the head. Editing an on-the-record quote about the matter by, no less, the prime minister of the Netherlands. Again, Mabel, how dumb can you possibly be?!

Another thought, as they say, 'history is written by the winners.', right.. But in this case, it looks like technology is catching up with these 'winners', which is extremely intriguing.

The other thing is that I read somewhere that Wikipedia actively discourages people from writing up their own bios for example for the encyclopedia. I'd argue Mabel went against that here. Unethical indeed.

princess olga 08-31-2007 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimebear (Post 660045)
If it was a matter of changing the Prime Ministers statement, then yes it was unethical.

You bet!

What I'm wondering is: to me, this latest incident regarding Mabel has really been the last straw.

I now just want this woman to go away from the public stage, I mean, who needs a pedantic 'princess' who, mind you, not even a year ago, publicly berated the Dutch media for not sticking to facts and what does she sneakily do? Pot, kettle, anyone? I've had it with this person and wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one, if she becomes a sort of de facto persona non grata among the long-suffering Dutch public.

lucien 08-31-2007 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimebear (Post 660045)
If it was a matter of changing the Prime Ministers statement, then yes it was unethical.

It was the PM who changed the words in the first place as written down in the letter of the couple to the PM and gave his own twist to it at the time by adding the "and false" bit.Un-ethical?Yes.All in all it was him that didn't handle this situation due to himself and the amateurs in the information/security services of whom he is responsible and should have done their job right but failed hence the mess.PM J-P saved his own,then younger and incompetent,behind.

kimebear 08-31-2007 04:06 AM

I am really not familiar with the intricate details of the original letter. Wasn't the whole debate over whether or not she had slept with the drug dealer and had been dishonest about it? Honestly, was that the whole reason that JF had to relinquinsh his claim? It was strictly the dishonesty part, right? Not the actual relationship????

crisiñaki 08-31-2007 04:44 AM

I almost couldn't believe it!:eek: this is almost tabloid stuff :lol:

Is plain stupidity, if they wanted to change the content, why couldn't they make someone do it somewhere else?:cool: they are experts on screwing things up when it comes to Mabel's past and such:cool:

no, they had to do it by themselves:bang:
smart, reaaaaaaaaally smart Friso and Mabel...:rolleyes:

princess olga 08-31-2007 04:54 AM

it's even reported here in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Dutch Royals Caught Revising Wikipedia

One Chronicle reader's comments is: "Cowardly and deceitful House of Orange....what else is new?"

Boy oh boy. Mabel sure knows how to get bad PR. And you know what: she deserves it. Big time. Mabel, you blew it, with your utter disdain for anyone but the criminal and powerful. Glad you're not in line for the throne.

princess olga 08-31-2007 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucien (Post 660058)
PM J-P saved his own,then younger and incompetent,behind.

Disagree. The PM saved the Dutch nation AND the monarchy by ensuring this upstart will never ever sit on the Dutch throne. Thank goodness.

If he hadn't, and if something would have happened to Alex and Maxima, god forbid, then Mabel would have had to become queen, which could have easily led to a public revolt with a REpublic as a result. No one in the Netherlands wants that woman on the throne in a million years. Again, the PM did everyone a favor including the monarchy.

Avalon 08-31-2007 05:26 AM

I don't understand why the press release confirming the edit was made. Or why did they have to do the changes from the Queen's palace, and why did they have to do the changes at all - the information was correct, the PM did refer to it as incomplete and incorrect.

lucien 08-31-2007 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Jennifer (Post 660037)
Very interesting. I wonder who else has edited their wikipedia pages. :hmm: :lol:

The Australian government,as was reported last week,and no doubt many others,not in the least that piece of land across the big pond I'm sure.
:yuk:....but that's O/T

acdc1 08-31-2007 08:02 AM

This is such a waste of time. We've seen a ton of other official sources have edited wikipedia articles that might be controversial or incorrect. It's really not fair to trace who has been editing articles in general, it's invading privacy. They probably edited it from the first computer available, they didn't think that anyone would be able to find out where it was from.

Marengo 08-31-2007 10:25 AM

Well, the problem is they aren't setting the record straight. The official version of the Prime Minister is that the information they gave was false and incomplete. They removed the remark false. IMHO it would have been better to edit the sentense, saying that the PM called it false and incomplete while in their own version it was just incomplete (sigh). But better still would be if they just left it alone and moved on. Everybody else already had but now this entire issue is back in the press again.

They are really rediculed in the press for this action btw, for two people who are usually referred to as 'very intelligent' they keep making silly mistakes.

Lady Jennifer 08-31-2007 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucien (Post 660110)
The Australian government,as was reported last week,and no doubt many others,not in the least that piece of land across the big pond I'm sure.
:yuk:....but that's O/T

Well I know all that...its been reported on in the news...I was referring more to the royal side of things. Which Princes or Princesses have gone in & "touched up" their pages :biggrin:.
Why did they do the corrections at the palace? Do they not realize that IP addresses can be tracked? :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 660243)
They are really rediculed in the press for this action btw, for two people who are usually referred to as 'very intelligent' they keep making silly mistakes. \

Some people say that the more degrees you have (& the smarter you are) the less common sense you have.

Marengo 08-31-2007 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucien (Post 660058)
It was the PM who changed the words in the first place as written down in the letter of the couple to the PM and gave his own twist to it at the time by adding the "and false" bit.Un-ethical?Yes.All in all it was him that didn't handle this situation due to himself and the amateurs in the information/security services of whom he is responsible and should have done their job right but failed hence the mess.PM J-P saved his own,then younger and incompetent,behind.

Why his own twist? They already said that the PM was using the word 'false' while they didn't regard that as such? Still, it is his, and his department's word against Mabel as none of us knows what the couple originally told.

I agree that the PM was rather clumsy, boith in this case and in the one of Margarita. Social Democrats are usually far more competent in dealing with Royal scandals... ;)

Marengo 08-31-2007 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Jennifer (Post 660244)
Well I know all that...its been reported on in the news...I was referring more to the royal side of things. Which Princes or Princesses have gone in & "touched up" their pages :biggrin:.
Why did they do the corrections at the palace? Do they not realize that IP addresses can be tracked? :doh:

Probably they never thought that somebody would bother to look if and where the page was editted. And even if they did they wouldn't do anything with that information either.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises