Talk:Theo van Gogh (film director)

Goat fuckers?

The line: "He caused widespread resentment in the Muslim community by consistently referring to them as geitenneukers (goat-fuckers). Although it is not clear whether Van Gogh actually coined the term geitenneukers, he certainly popularized it."

...Seems extremely misleading. One, since when has "Goat f*ckers" been a popular term to refer to Muslims? I have never heard this term being used and I live in the Netherlands, this term is no where near as universally widespread as "Camel Jockey", "Towel Head", and other related slurs. I also doubt he himself popularized this term, as none of the listed sources mentioned him using such a term, I even bothered to check interviews and videos on YouTube and couldn't find a source that showed him using it.

Unless some one can source this I'm removing it. If you have a problem with that, feel free to bring it up here, but don't add it back in without a source. Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer112 (talk • contribs)

The polularity of the word depends mainly on where you live, it is an actual word though[1]. However, you're right about it needing a source to be included in the article. StaticGull  Talk  11:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Murder in Amsterdam (Burma) states he used this word I believe, when talking about his funeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.124.55.89 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

i also live in the netherlands and goatfuckers is a very well-known derogatory term for muslims here ('towel head', camel jockey'? i've never heart those around here). iirc theo used it himself, but it only got to be a really popular term after his death. at first mostly as an insult towards his murderer and likewise minded individuals. later towards all muslim-terrorists.

This is a discussion from long ago, so I do not know why Gamer112 could not find sources at the time, but in fact there are plenty of sources for it. Van Gogh used the word very frequently in his Metro columns, but there are also many other publications discussing his use of the word, for example Geitenneuker – Herkomst en geschiedenis van het scheldwoord (by Enne Koops at the well-known historical web site Historiek). He explained it himself in an interview in 2003 with HP De Tijd, for which he has worked.

His use of the term can be considered because it was of course considered very derogatory and considered by some as a way he induced anger, while not being a good reason for murder of course. Before and after the murder, there was a lot of discussion whether the meaning of freedom of expression included insult. “You are allowed to say anything, but you do not necessarily have to”. But Mohammed B. said in court that this particular insult (the most notorious one) was not his reason for the assassination.

Van Gogh himself, when criticised for it, sometimes told that he only pointed at intolerant fundamentalist Muslims, not at the “neighbours”. See also this article by the late Joost Zwagerman in NRC, based on an essay by Max Pam. In his columns, Van Gogh often used the phrase “fifth column of goat-fucker's” (vijfde colonne van de geitenneukers).

As for the origin and popularity of the term: Koops and Zwagerman tell that while the word was known previously (already around 1900 as an invective for people from British India), it was the writer Gerard Reve who popularized it. But without doubt, Van Gogh was the most conspicuous user in the beginning of the 21st century and there will have been a surge in the period after (and in reaction to) the murder, see the quote by Ewoud Sanders in the Historiek article. I think this surge has calmed since. Van Gogh’s pupil Ebru Umar used it in an angry column in 2016. In the same year, the reference to bestiality (but not the actual word) was also used by the German comedian Jan Böhmermann in his rant-poem against the Turkish president Erdogan, as Max Pam notes in another column. Bever (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Assasination picture

I have decided to take down the Assasination picture. It should not be shown in full at all on the biography page. It is distasteful as well a few people I have spoken with have complained about itSatanical Eve 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Website

Is there anyone close to Theo van Gogh who can convince the persons now controlling his web site to please not shut it down? It would be a great shame for him to be effectively censored after his death. I read about his story, and read that his writings were on his web site, and I wanted to go read his writings for the first time. But what I found when I got to the site was that the content of the site is no longer available! This seems like the wrong response to his death, and I hope his writings will be restored so more of us can read them.

Don't worry about it too much. It is temporarily out of full service since the servers were overloaded. Most probably it will be restored in a couple of days. Bontenbal 17:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can assure you that his writing will NOT be censored, not now, not never. The official website has turned off all content pages because of the extreme traffic load. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:31, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

This question is probably totally inappropriate today, but I wonder whether Theo van Gogh is related to Vincent van Gogh? --Edcolins 18:17, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he is (or was? I don't know...). -- Harry 18:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article says that Theo van Gogh "said he was related to the famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh". But... is it true? And how was he related to his ancestor? --Edcolins 19:12, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK he was a great-grandson of Vincent's brother Theo.

yes. he was a direct descendant of vincent's brother theo. no need for the 'he claims to be....' structure. he didn't 'claim' anything, they simply are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.253 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Date coincidence

removed this text: (911 days after the assassination of Pim Fortuyn). Unless someone connected with the murder says otherwise, this is coincidence and numerology which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. silsor 22:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Good work. Note by the way that he was killed on 11/2, which is the alarm number in the Netherlands and Europe in general. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Except that the Dutch use dates in dd-mm-yyyy format, so it becomes 2-11. mvdhout 12:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Location

This is probably nitpicking but for the sake of accuracy, was it actually in front of the stadsdeelkantoor or just near it? The stadsdeelkantoor is like 100 m away from the corner with Mauritskade. Rkundalini

From the maps I've seen it seems he was first attacked right in front of it. Note though that he tried to ran away as well, I believe his body was not found in front of the stadsdeelkantoor. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:33, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, he was cycling, got shot, moved on foot to the other side of the road, where he was again attacked, and died. I'm not familiar with the local situation, but I believe it is opposite to the 'stadsdeelkantoor'. mvdhout 12:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh was attacked in front of the stadsdeelkantoor on Linnaeusstraat 89, fled accross the street and died on the corner of Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstaat. Vinny 19:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Non-racist critic of Islam"

Does "non-racist critic of Islam" sound weird to anybody else? It's like special attention is needed to avoid misunderstanding that he's racist. --Menchi 05:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what it's intended for. It's a POV addition to fend off any accusations of racism (since "against Islam = bad to minorities = racist", that sort of reasoning). It sounds weaselly, and probably should be removed. If any accusations of racism do pop up, they should be dealt with in substance. JRM 07:36, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

It sounds weird to me too. 1) Islam is a religion, not a people or a race. Therefore no clarification on racism is needed here. 2) whether or not Theo van Gogh (or anybody else for that sake) holds racist views is a matter of Point of View. Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV. For those two reasons, I'll delete the remark 'non-racist'.Paul 08:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The film Submission

the text says "Arabic texts, disadvantageous to women, are painted on their skin". In fact, they were texts from the Qur'an, in Islamic, about the role and position of women, especially in relation to men. When translated, they sounded extremely sexist and degrading for women to today's ears. The point that both makers were trying to make was that many muslims take those lines literal, resulting in the Islam and Qur'an being used to "excuse" female circumcision and wife beating among other things. The movie was shown on Dutch National Television in August 2004.

Lier Lier pants on Fire. The reason Female circumcision exists is beacuse of Cultural reasons not beacause of Islam. Islam forbids female circumcision. it only allows male ones. the reason it is cultural is beacuse those people who actually committ is are not men. It's usually older women forcing young mothers to do that to there daugthers. Most men won't know it. So get your facts straights. This movie is bullshit. It is full of lies. Furious Stormrage

The adjective Arabic can of course refer to the language, in which case it is more appropriate than "Islamic" which of course is not a language. Thus the texts cannot be "in Islamic" though they can be "Islamic texts," where Islamic is a cultural/religious adjective. The Qur'an is traditionally printed only in Arabic, right?

While I have not seen the film, I agree with the second entry that female circumcision (or more technically, female genital mutilation (FGM)) is actually a cultural practice. Most importantly, it is practiced by non-Muslim cultures in Africa. I suspect, though, that most FGM is performed by Muslims, and that is how the association developed. Also, while FGM is of course unconscionable regardless, it is usually less severe than some American (and European, I suppose) yellow journalism would lead you to believe. I'm getting most of this info from articles in The Nation, BTW.

Last name Mohammed B.

Why don't you mention the last name of the killer, since this is a international site and not just a dutch site? Wou did it with Volkert Van Der G(raaf).

I mean you instead of wou

It's alright to edit your own comments to fix spelling mistakes.

Volkert's last name is by now well-known, in Dutch as well as international circles. Mohammed's is not. That said, the question of whether these last names should be mentioned is tricky. By not mentioning them, you support the Dutch POV that crime suspects are entitled to this particular forrm of protecting privacy. By mentioning them, you express the POV that this is not important by blatantly ignoring it. There is no possible NPOV solution where you both mention it and don't mention it, so we'll just have to decide. My vote is in favor of not mentioning it until Mohammed is convicted (when his last name will certainly be mentioned in the Netherlands), giving the Dutch legal system the benefit of the doubt. Little or nothing is gained by mentioning his last name, as far as encyclopedic value goes. I see potential "the public has a right to know" arguments here as deeply POV and not belonging here; go change the Dutch system instead, if that's a concern. JRM 11:29, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Update: I see Solitude has already gone ahead and mentioned it. Wouldn't have been my choice, but since it is the English Wikipedia, I can't really base my stance on anything but personal preference. JRM 11:31, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I agree fully with JRM. I removed the surname.Paul 18:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK Wikipedia always mentions suspects' surnames and I don't see why Mohammed Bouyeri should be an exception. Känsterle 20:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is against Dutch law to mention the names of suspects. Andries 21:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is most certainly not. Please read the Wetboek van Strafrecht and stop uttering such nonsense since you obviously don't have ANY idea what you're talking about. Besides that, what does wikipedia have to do with Dutch law? Känsterle 03:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Känsterle, Sorry, you are right it is untrue. Andries 08:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for being a bit rude to you. Känsterle 12:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Känsterle wrote: stop uttering such nonsense

It's technically wrong, but it is certainly not nonsense. The Dutch press council (which handles self-regulation of the Dutch media) is generally in favour of maintaining the privacy of suspects (i.e. no photographs of someone's face, not mentioning someone's last name). Sietse 15:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean it is ILLEGAL to do so. Känsterle 17:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added the full name of Mohammed Bouyeri to allow actual linking to his article and to provide complete and full information on the topic, which I am glad is supported by U.S. law. I am glad we're not a Dutch media, Wikipedia does not fall under Dutch law, so I feel the dicsussion on it is not at all relevant. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:05, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Stabs

the article so far states he was "shot to death" while in fact he seems to have also been stabbed. i have read at least 2 sources (incl. the local amsterdam news paper on the day of the murder) that mention his throat was slit. is this relevant enough to mention and do others have confirmation from other sources?

he was stabbed around 20 times, shot several times, and had his head nearly decapitated by a edged weapon. all this is according to CNN. Alkivar 01:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

so then the question is; is this relevant for the main article? should it be mentioned there? 217.79.38.87 12:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont think so, the details of his death dont add much. We know he's dead, we know he was murdered, do we really need the gruesome details? Alkivar 00:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is important. JFK was shot by a gunman who ran away after the shooting, Lincoln was shot in the back of the head by someone who then jump on to stage publicly and ran off, theo was shot multiple times, had his throat slit, stabbed several times in the chest and was left with a knife in his chest pinning a note to him (as i understand it, i don't speak Dutch so i can only read the english articles i can find.) there is clearly a differnce in the ammount of violance here. this wasn't just an assassination, this was a message that the perpatrator was trying to convey. Cavebear42 16:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Murder

I'm very sad that such a person was murdered. In a world full of PC crap..where everyone caters to everyone else, I enjoy the refreshing ideals of Theo.

Just because this category is here: I was wondering if his opinions were ever respected? I mean the article says he justified saying "geitenneukers" against Muslims because of the teachings of Khomeini... I mean, I suppose he missed the Shia/Sunni disinction. I know very little about him but was he seen as a well educated man or a man who would tend to just try to be perverse having little clue of reality (as that statement makes it seem). gren

His own fault. He offend alot of people.WTF does he expect? For them all to not give a shit?

OK so you mean he deserved to die because he protected european values when it comes to womens rights? You should have your brain checked up, actually theres really no point to, since you dont have one. Furious Stormrage

Murder is never justified. Remember that. Amused Himself to Death 22:46, 17 October (UTC)

Us humans aren't consistent with that. I think that's just a matter of who's doing the killing and who's getting killed. (Antonio.sierra 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

On the Aftermath

I find the attention given to the police destruction of the public artwork pretty exceturated and it should imho be bound in, this feels like a matter of opinion; not fit for an encyclopedia. I have not removed it myself, since i felt the author/maintainer of the page should consider this for him/herself.

Why should mentioning the facts around the destruction of the public artwork be POV? The artwork and its destruction has caught A LOT of media attention, and is surely worth mentioning.. IMHO the "Aftermath" section should (hopefully!) be expanded and not reduced. Stereotek 23:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed" descendant?

Can we have some links or evidence that there is some dispute that he not a descendant of Vincent's brother before we authoritatively state that in the intro? Should be easy enough to trace someone in a direct line back just 4 generations. Gamaliel 20:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's absolutely no dispute whatsoever. See [2] for details of the relationship of Theo & Vincent van Gogh. - Nunh-huh 02:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Autochtonen" in English

Wouldn't it be much less complicated to talk about the indigenous Dutch people instead of autochtonen?

It would be less complicated but it is also obfuscating matters, autochtonen are simply not the same as indigenous Dutch people. There are non-indigenous Dutch people who can be autochtonen: for example, one phases out being an allochtoon after three generations. I propose we stay with the Dutch concepts of autochtonen and allochtonen.

Leftist censorship at Wikipedia?

For those who want to make a personal judgment, why mister FvdP might possibly be inclined to remove the conservative links I included in this article, see at the “Flemish Interest” discussion.

It’s also about the problematic that this article should leave some space for interpretation. In my opinion some interpretation is admitted, the more because Muslims and their leftist allies show no reluctance and give in the aftermath their own interpretations too (see the would-be removed links), even now when Theo cannot respond himself any more.

Therefore I put the removed links back with the explanation “controversial (see discussion)”.

Johan – Flanders ---Jvb– 12/2004

OK. So about the links mister Johan from Flanders is trying to add here:

• "Thou Shalt Not", Friday, November 05, 2004
  • An sequence of blog entries, none of the first entries is anyhow related to Theo VG (I haven't looked at all entries). Irrelevant (or at the very least too imprecise a link) -> removed.
    • I fear you did not understand. This is a monthly overview. You should scroll up to Friday, November 05, 2004. Here one can read how people reacted immediately after the assassination: an artist for instance, but also the Moroccan youth and the clumsy authorities. First reactions are very important. They reveal much. So I invite you to put it back. Johan - Flanders - --Jvb - 12/2004
      • Of course I did not understand. But neither will the average person clicking on this link. I maintain it's "too imprecise a link", at best.
• "26,000 times a bleeding heart" (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/157/), Thursday, December 16, 2004 - controversial (see discussion)
  • Essentially a rant against writers called Bosland and MacNab. Only passing mentions of Theo Van Gogh. Irrelevant -> removed. (Also contains such hate speech as "Maybe Macnab needs psychotherapy, he doesn’t say. He certainly exhibits all the traits associated with compulsive, bleeding-heart liberalism." : you get the idea.)
    • No rant: you must view that in its proper context. The author defends the rights of the native Dutch who were harassed until they had to leave their homes. Something Theo Van Gogh did in his last column too. If you don’t want to understand this, you can better apply for a job at the Belgian Thought Police (the Agency for Equal Rights-Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen). According to them, the Flemish should only speak about important social problems in a very scientific and non-emotional way. By the way, that’s just what they steal from us. Johan - Flanders - --Jvb- 12/2004
      • "Something Theo Van Gogh did in his last column too": too weak a relationship. I maintain this link is too remotely related to TVG to be relevant. (It's more like you're trying to push your point of view on Wikipedia's reader, than like you're trying to enlighten them on TVG.) BTW, "(if) you don't want to undestand this" and " you can better apply ..." are ad hominem attacks that have no place in a discussion between reasonable people. --FvdP
        • I insist on the context: the Guardian only brings highly fertile imagination to prove the stand that the Dutch can better continue their sleep even after Theo Van Gogh. Btw, the longer I think about it, the more I am inclined to say that me too could advice psychotherapy to the Guardian and/or the persons they “interviewed”. This is no rant. Rant would be for instance, only because you provoke me: “what’s wrong about trying to understand the psychology of those people who gave legitimacy to the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh.”
        • Ad Hominem? Sorry lad, but it’s YOU and nobody else, who doesn’t seem to understand what the style figure of a witticism means! Neither in the text nor in my remark about you. BTW, don’t expect me to weep about the fact that in Belgium opinions are made official so that those who don’t agree can be fined or even imprisoned. Then you would say that I am melancholic. Moreover, the Belgian Thought Police is controlled by some, but not all political parties. This is the definition of being biased, because politicians will always (ab)use the power they get.--Jvb Dec 24, 2004.
• "the weekly Standard" (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/059darxx.asp), Saturday, December 18, 2004 - controversial (see discussion)
  • Actual title "The Dutch rethink multiculturalism". Theo Van Gogh appears only incidentally for the first time at the 3rd paragraph of this article. mostly irrelevant thus. Reference removed.
    • The article in the Weekly Standard is about the impact of the murder of Theo Van Gogh on thinking about multiculturalism in the Netherlands. This is also written in the leading NRC Handelsblad. See at: http://weblog.nrc.nl/index.php?user_id=5&jaar=2004&maand=12 By the way, don’t forget this is a monthly overview! Look for the title: “Weekly Standard over Nederland”. And this is Van Gogh’s legacy...why not discuss it? Johan - Flanders - --Jvb -12/2004
• "Theo at Wikipedia and Tiscali" (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/176/), Monday, December 20, 2004 - controversial (see discussion)
  • Personal blog entry. Mostly personal opinion rather than facts. That one is on topic though. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's worth keeping here.
    • Since noone (else than jvb and me) is saying anything, I decided to remove. Contains almost no on-topic objective information anyway (where topic = Theo Van Gogh). --FvdP 19:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--FvdP 18:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Newly removed 7 jan:)

• " More and faster … the story of the radicalising Muslim youth of Holland", Monday, January 03, 2005
  • Again mostly jvb's opinion. Again only weakly, indirectly related to Theo Van Gogh. Again propaganda against arabic immigrants. Removed. --FvdP 19:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You simply don’t seem to catch that this text is the summary of THE official Dutch report written by the Interior Ministry concerning the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Already in the preface is written that this murder has the same meaning for the Netherlands as September 11 for the United States and the Madrid bombings for Spain. By removing this link, it is as if you would deny that the official American report concerning the September 11 attacks that has been discussed in Congress is worth mentioning. But perhaps you don’t speak enough Dutch to understand this? I hope I am wrong, because I meanwhile understood that you live in Flanders’ capital, surrounded by “pure” Flemish soil.

But after that author Mr. Johan Van Vlaams has finished the brief SUMMARY of the report by the Dutch General Information and Security Service (AIVD), then starting his two last paragraphs, he makes clear that he then continues with HIS own remarks. Of course, you don’t have to agree with him, but in that case you can make your own comments, isn’t it??? At any event, you already made your principal remark: the text is alleged to be “Again propaganda against arabic immigrants”. Well, I explicitely read the text once more and I can assure you that the text doesn’t speak about “Arabs” at all. The author only speaks about “Muslim Youth”. And I suppose to know why. As far as I know, the Dutch police report about the major gang rape problem in Holland does not differenciate among the nationalities of the perpertrators. But in Belgium, where the gang rape problem is still smaller, the differenciation in the research results is made: and in Belgium indeed, number one on the list are the Moroccan youth, number two the “blacks”. So it is YOU who made the link with the Arabs, not the author.

Considering all this, I think that FvdP is in a very weak position to remove the link I placed. If no one else objects, I will not accept the link to be removed.

--Jvb Jan 10, 2005.

Removed again:

• this link is not on topic, because it's not about Theo Van Gogh. That alone is a sufficient reason to remove.
• jvb, now replace "arabic" by "muslim" in my argument, and answer to that ! I stand by my claim: you are first and foremost a propagandist. Even though you're sufficiently clever to be hypocritical enough to hide it under a pretense of objectivity.
• JVB = Johan Van Vlaams. (If not, then you should display an authorisation by J V Vlaams about all his texts you have copied verbatim in this encyclopedia.)

--FvdP 20:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• About the first removed link, I already gave enough info above. About the second removed link,"An evening in Amsterdam", Monday, January 24, 2005, I can say that everything in the story refers to Theo van Gogh. Compare for ex. “Laura Schlessinger” at Wikipedia. Complex social phenomenons need proper explanation and context information to understand.

• An Arab is a person, Islam is a religion. Two completely different notions, such as “hardware” and “software” in computer technology. But the Politico-Correct people would like it to be otherwise, to label people who don’t adhere to their ideology as being “racist”, isn’t it?

• You write: “JVB = Johan Van Vlaams. (If not, then you should display an authorisation by J V Vlaams about all his texts you have copied verbatim in this encyclopedia.)”. I see that you principally refer to: Talk:Eurabia. Answer: I can confirm you that I have the authorisation to use the texts from Mr. Johan Van Vlaams such as represented at: http://www.majorityrights.com .

--Jvb Jan 25, 2005.

06/05

• the page currently says "Until his death Van Gogh was working on a movie (0605) about the assassination of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. The film is set for premiere on December 15, 2004 on the internet through a Dutch ISP, which also financed the movie." That time has come and gone, did it come out? the best link i can find is this one but since i dont speak dutch i cant tell much of what is going on. someone who does should really update that phrase and if there is an english vertion, id live to hear it. also, it appears to me that the movie is called 06/05 not 0605 but it is lost on me as to why. Cavebear42 07:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try this link: http://notontv.net/

--Jvb– Jan 10, 2005

English

I am a native speaker of English, also fluent in Dutch. Whoever wrote this page did a very fine job, however, ocassionaly the otherwise gorgeous prose seems to suffer from a Dutchisms or two.

I tried to correct a couple of the most blatant errors. Maybe someone should edit this stuff for style once.

Christopher Hitchens

Is it me or does he not look like Chrisopher Hitchens a bit?

Watch the video

The video links don't appear to work anymore?

Meaning of submission in Arabic

in the article : " The title itself, "Submission", is the translation of the word "Islam" in english. "

I don,t know what is the source of this claiming , but that is totally wrong as i speak arabic as mother language , submision is translated in arabic as : خضوع , which means to be under the role of other human being and to obey other's wills . while إسلام Islam means to go peacefully with god's will which is always the best for humans . the root of the word سلام meaning exactly the english word : Peace .... and that is why the muslim greeting is : السلام عليكم , Peace be on you .

I think the hurry in translatins could make many misunderstanding of peoples with eachothers . --Chaos 12:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "submission" as english translation of the word "Islam" is widely accepted.

Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-islām (listen^ⓘ), "submission (to the will of God)") is a monotheistic faith, one of the Abrahamic religions, and the world's second-largest religion. From Islam page.

Here are just the first results from google (searching from "islam meaning"):

"The Meaning of Islam. Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. "

From: http://www.barghouti.com/islam/meaning.html

"The word Islam is an Arabic word meaning peace, submission and obedience."

From: http://www.al-islam.com/articles/articles-e.asp?fname=ALISLAM_R11_E

"With Islam, God completed the religion He revealed and chose for humanity (5:3). Literally, Islam means submission, peace, and salvation."

From: http://www.islamanswers.net/crossroads/meaning.htm

I don't speak arabic, I can't prove the correctness of the statements, but it's a matter of fact that it is associated with Islam.

The title of Theo's film is clearly a reference to that.

The discussion about the meaning (if any) should be moved to Wikipedia's Islam page. You should notice, anyway, that the matter of discussion is not the "meaning of Submission in arabic" - as you state - but whether the word islam means submission. There's a great difference, you totally missed the point.

Since the reference to Islam is clear (and obvious thinking about Van Gogh's critic), the sentence is readded.

Please before editing again, post here. --User:Lasah 12:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this sentence : The film's title is a direct translation of the word "Islam". .. represents nopv and mistake in the translation .

actually arabic language has another world for Submission which is الخضوع ... I have explained that many times ... Isalm means exactly is to go freely and peacefully with god's will ... إسلام is derived from the word "سلام" which means "Peace".

when u say : Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. " then this world carries all of these 4 meanings together so that should be clarified . --Chaos 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you're not arguing that translations are bijective mappings? One word in one language means exactly one word in another language? I have changed "the translation" to "a translation" in recognition of the fact that there is no one translation.Heqwm 05:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hofstadgroup not radicals ?

The dutch government, law enforcement agencies and the national news seem to differ:

http://www.nos.nl/nieuws/artikelen/2005/2/7/ledenhofstadgroepvoorderechter.html

(in Dutch)

quote: "Leden van de Hofstadgroep zouden ook contact hebben gehad met Mohammed B., de verdachte van de moord op Theo van Gogh.

Twee van de radicale moslimjongeren werden een week na die moord in het Haagse Laakkwartier opgepakt. Dat gebeurde na een belegering door de politie, die de hele dag duurde."

You might be interested in this letter, written by the Dutch ministers of Justice and the Interior: http://www.regering.nl/Images/briefplusbijlagen_tcm42-50573.doc

(In Dutch) , I do not think there is any reason to revisit this point. --Isolani 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

These links are now dead. But this article might shed some light on the subject. It is also in English. In this article it is made clear that Bouyeri was a member of the Hofstadgroup. It might be worthwhile to point out that the verdict in the case of Bouyeri, which was extreme under Dutch law, was not appealed. It might also be useful to point out that for people like Bouyeri, prison is seen as a recruiting ground, not punishment. Finally I would like to point out that Bouyeri has stated that he does not regret his actions nor has he shown any signs of remorse. JHvW 21:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Submission film

Cut from article:

The movie was perceived by the Islamic community as an inaccurate perception of Islamic teachings.

According to whom? And more to the point, which elements of the Islamic community formed this perception? And which Islamic teachings did these people say van Gogh inaccurately portrayed in the film?

As is, this statement is unattributed POV masquerading as fact.

Secondly, what was the point of van Gogh's film?

• that the Koran tells Islamic people it's okay to "abuse" woman (by Western standards); or,
• that men in Islamic societies (i.e., men who ostensibly follow the Koran's teachings) abuse women despite Koranic teachings; or,
• that regardless of what the Koran may or may not teach, women are getting badly mistreated?

My personal impression is that Islamic society is selfish and violent, and that anyone who exposes this self-centered violence is liable to be bullied into submission. But the question for us Wikipedia contributors here is, how to describe Islam's reaction to van Gogh's criticisms. Was he murdered for branding Islamic men as murderous, womanizing bullies? (Ironically, proving his point!) Or what? Let's be as objective as we can in this article, please. --Uncle Ed 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that it was the first option, as he utilized actual Koranic verses to make his point. TheKaplan 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Passive vs active voice

While I understand the reasoning behind changing the wording to the active voice in order to emphasize the murderer Bouyeri, it seems to me that the passive voice is more appropriate to an artile about Theo van Gogh, because he is the subject of the sentences. Consider: "Theo van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri." This focuses on Van Gogh, as the article should. Next: "Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Theo van Gogh." This focuses on Bouyeri, and seems more appropriate for his own article. TheKaplan 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed major Dutch cities/Washington Times claim

I really don't think the far-right-wing Moonie-controlled Washington Times is a credible source in any situation, let alone this case as regards the supposed "majority of under-14's in major Dutch cities are Islamic" and similar claims, especially as according to the CIA World Factbook Muslims make up only 5.5% of the total Dutch population. The Washington Times article in question is a commentary piece and quotes statistics without reference to any sort of study. This is thoroughly unencyclopaedic. Unless this claim can be substantiated by a more impartial and mainstream source it should not be in the article. JF Mephisto 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do they hate us?

Isn't there a way to incorporate the current trend towards self-blame into the article? By doing so, it could be shown that van Gogh brought on his own death and that Bouyeri is totally and absolutely not responsible for his alleged actions. Lestrade 02:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Meaning of the word Islam

Ok after studying this i found 2 meanings of the word Islam:

1. literal meaning: peace or give peace as a verb.
2. implied meaning:submission and outward conforming with law of God <<Smart_Viral 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Van Gogh's son

As van Gogh's son is a minor and has been threatened himself (Theo van Gogh (film director)#Aftermath)), we should remove his name completely from the article as per WP:BLP. -- Túrelio 07:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objected, today I've removed all mentions of his name from the article. -- Túrelio 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it is sensitive to have removed the son from the article there is now a different problem. His son is no longer a minor and is very outspoken about his fathers death. A Dutch journalist interviewed the son in 2014 for a Dutch newspaper (Vrij Nederland). The journalist won an award (De Tegel, category interview) for the interview. JHvW 21:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Free speech activists category

Theo van Gogh has certainly become an emblem of free speech, since he was murdered for speaking, but was he himself an activist for free speech? Salman Rushdie, for instance, has given multiple talks about freedom of expression since being targeted. But van Gogh's article/biography doesn't mention that sort of activity from him. If he was not an activist, per se, then we should delete the category Category:Free speech activists category. In that case, perhaps a category about "Free speech controversies" or "Speech-related violence" would be appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

big difference with rushdie is that although van gogh had received death-threats nobody really took those threats seriously, least of all van gogh himself. he called himself a 'village-idiot': not worth the trouble of murder. just a crazy guy with a big mouth shouting whatever came to his mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.253 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

'Nihilist'

Seems to be written by a Dutch person here, as the Dutch cognate 'nihilistisch' simply means 'devoid of interest in life' in common speech yet has retained its original meaning in academic circles. In English however, nihilism still exclusively means the philosophical propositions wither the link points. I don't think the propositions listed there describe Van Gogh, a moralist, very adequately. Rajakhr (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Film maker

The article should discuss his films other than the one paragraph in the section Life and the film Submission. Perhaps his influence as a film maker and the American remakes Interview (2007) and Blind Date (2008) can be discussed too. Rubenescio (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Index on censorship" clones

The section Van Gogh's murder and Index on Censorship is cloned in Index on Censorship#Theo van Gogh controversy and Rohan Jayasekera (writer)#Theo van Gogh. It would be better to decide for one article and link there from the others. I wanted to link to WP:DRY but that rule doesn't seem to exist -- well it should.--87.162.0.50 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations in Aftermath

The aftermath section needs citations, especially about reactions. If nobody finds any, it needs to be cleaned of "some dutch people" statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.124.55.89 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "assassinated"

I've noticed extensively in this article (and in articles that link to it or otherwise touch on the same event, such as Criticism of Islam) that van Gogh's demise is referred to as an assassination rather than a murder. I was always under the impression that assassination refers to the intentional killing of a political or religious leader; van Gogh certainly doesn't seem to fit this criteria simply because he was a critic of islam. To me, it feels as if theres a vague undertone in the use of assassinated that sides with the people who think that the killing was wrong; while I completely agree that it was wrong, it does not feel neutral to me, as all wikipedia articles should. Or am I just nit-picking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.243.95 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

to most dutch this is most certainly a political murder, after all: he was specifically targeted for the things he said (about moslims). the fact that he wasn't a politician or 'leader' doesn't really matter. for a long time the last political murder (aside from woII) had been the assasination of william of orange in 1584 (the 'father of the fatherland' of the netherlands). then we got pim fortuyn, and then van gogh as hopefully the last political murder for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.253 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also uncomfortable with the prevalence of the term "assassination" in relation to Van Gogh. "Murder" is far more accurate.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Death

I read this article because of the news about the recent South Park episode. It is not correct that the murderer decapitated (or "nearly" decapitated) Theo van Gogh and I removed this error from the article. KathaLu (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Look into it more especially if you are going to edit the article. It was an attempted decapitation as mentioned in numerous sources (one of which I have added).[3] Cptnono (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had looked into it before I edited the article, in particular in reliable Dutch sources, including, but not only, the well researched Dutch Wikipedia article on the murder of Theo van Gogh. The murderer cut his throat, and that's it. Throwing in "decapitation", "nearly decapitated him" or "tried to decapitate him" makes it more sensational, but not factual. I know that you can find plenty of sites on the web, or even newspaper articles that have this claim, again, it does not make it so.KathaLu (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

When numerous sources say that he attempted to then we have verification. That is the benchmark for inclusion. Cptnono (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's how Wikipedia works, lol. I will let it go now. Everybody knows that there are numerous mistakes in Wikipedia, some less important than others. In the shortened version of the charges at the beginning of the judgement of the Dutch court in the van Gogh case, there is no mention of decapitation at all. What I could find, and what I regard as official first hand original reliable sources (NOT some newspaper articles found through Google), is the transcript of the prosecutor's charges ("requisitoir") which mentioned "(4) sawing movements" of the murderer, seen by one witness, and "at least 4 sawing movements to cut his throat" in the autopsy report. Of course people tried to put this into relation to decapitation but the prosecutor goes only so far and makes only the following reference to decapitation (my translation): "The cutting of Van Gogh's throat makes one think of the decapitations which regularly take place in the Middle East, in particular during the war in Chetchenia, Afghanistan and Iraq ..... and by cutting his throat, the accused wanted to let the people of the Netherlands know that the time has come that this should also happen in the Netherlands." KathaLu (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Many newspapers are considered reliable sources. If you have a problem with that you might want to take it up at the Village Pump but I doubt that will be changing anytime soon.Cptnono (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

like it nor not but it was an attempted decapitation. the murderer was no doubt inspired by all those decapitation video's from afghanistan that were making the rounds at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.253 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

antisemitic claims and so on

Van Gogh was condemned and fined for antisemitic claims in 1991. he stated in the magazine Moviola : "Fornicating yellow stars in a gas chamber.... What a smell of caramel today. Today the crematoriums burn only diabetic [in Dutch literally: sugar-sick] Jews".
Critized by the jewish historian Evelien Gans, he answered : "I suspect that Ms Gans gets wet dreams about being fucked by Dr Mengele." Very witty, isn't it ?
Plus he befriend and supported the anti-immigrant political lead Pim Fortuyn.
I don't know if Van Gogh was a "real" antisemitic or a "real" fascist or just an alcoholic big mouth, but his statements are at the least controversial, and deserved to be mentioned.
This article seems to depict him as a martyr of free-speech killed by the fascist muslims, and a defensor of women. It can hardly be that so, since he claimed that "Maybe a man who really beats them up is actually very attractive to some ladies." and supported the exclusion of Somali women victims of mutilation.
Stot (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Quotes or stories need full citations (author, title, publication, date) to be included in the article. Not sure that "Moviola" is a reliable source (RS) as defined by WP.Parkwells (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To the editors of this page

RE: Very careless handling of near-contemporary facts.

In August 2004, after the movie's broadcast on Dutch public TV, the newspaper De Volkskrant reported that the journalist Francisco van Jole had accused Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh of plagiarism,[citation needed] saying that they had appropriated the ideas of Iranian-American video artist Shirin Neshat, whose work used Arabic text projected onto bodies. After Submission was broadcast, Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali received death threats. Van Gogh did not take the threats seriously and refused any protection. According to Hirsi Ali, he said, "Nobody kills the village idiot", a term he frequently used in self reference.[2]

• A paragraph must contain internally-related material.

In writing any paragraph, the author needs to consider whether it hangs together.

It can be linear narrative: He went here, did that, stopped here, did that, saw them, did that, etc.

Or it can be making a point. In which case, the point is stated first.

Events that are not closely linked, but have some link, need a statement that links them.

Unrelated stuff, jammed into the same paragraph, because of time-frame can be confusing, or just plain misleading.

• The information here is seriously misleading about a very serious topic.

Jamming information about "a challenge of plagiarism", and information about "death threats" into the same paragraph, just because they both followed the publication of the book is extraordinarily thoughtless.

• What did the journalist Francisco van Jole and the video artist Shirin Neshat have to do with the "death threats"? Absolutely nothing!!!

Then why are they in the same paragraph?

• Writing a report like this is not simply about telling a linear narrative.

i.e. You can't say: "First he published the book, second he got challenged with plagiarism, third he got death threats, fourth he got murdered."

If we go back to IQ TEST, year 7, then you must answer this question: Which one of these statement is the odd one out?

The odd one out, obviously, is the challenge of plagiarism..

Yes, it happened. No, it doesn't belong in a paragraph dealing with death threats. Not unless van Jole and Shirin Neshat wrote the death threats.

I am almost certain that neither of them had anything to do with it whatsoever. I am equally certain that both would be aghast to find that their association with a matter of intellectual property had been the starting sentence to a paragraph about death threats.

• The bottom line is: The death threats were a separate matter to the matter of plagiarism, and should never have been contained in the same paragraph, with the second (death threats) hanging on the first (an accusation of plagiarism).

One of these matters led to a brutal murder.

The other may have led to court and a monetary settlement, if Ms Neshat decided to pursue the matter.

• Please take on board the comments that I have made here, if you are going to continue writing about events such as murder, terrorism, court cases, etc.
• READ what you write, after you have written, and THINK about every sentence, including how it relates to those around it.
• Writing this sort of stuff demands far more care than most types of article do!

Amandajm (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath and reaction of islamic youth

I think the Aftermath section of the article should mention the generally exhuberant reactions to the murder of Muslim youth in the Netherlands which further damaged the image of muslims in the Netherlands. The news showed muslim youth dancing in the street. It proved in the eyes of many people the truth of what Theo and Pim were saying about Muslim culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschipperheyn (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014

Should say murdered, not assassinated. He was not an office holder. That is the wrong word, technically, and it also endows too much dignity on the crime. 98.202.117.5 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Assassination "is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons." - There is no requirement for the person to be an "office-holder"
So was Theo van Gogh a "prominent person"? - that depends on one's PoV - and was he murdered for "political reasons" ? - undoubtedly yes. Arjayay (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I feel that mentioning religion in an infobox should only be done if it is relevant to the persons actions. Many people are brought up in a religion but may not be practising but still believe in the fundamentals. There is also a risk of confusion. None, would mean to me, not practising. Atheist would mean that a person does not believe in a deity. An agnostic does not believe in anything (but this is not the same as having no religious views). Christians usually believe in Christian ethics, although they may not be practising. Similar cases can be made for other religions. The problem seems to lie in the fact that some people are against the organisation of the religion they were brought up in and not necessarily the basic principles. The same applies to political views. I think van Gogh was anti-establishment, his aim was to annoy and shock people (often with a sense of humor), not necessarily to oppress them with his own views (which were very outspoken and sometimes very crude). JHvW 21:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

God Bless Theo's soul

Every year, November 2nd is a day on which we should remember and mourn the loss of a brave, great man who was assassinated simply for exposing an inconvenient truth. Every day that we fight the satanic, sadistic, soul-less, sub-human enemy (namely, the terrorists and the radical Islamists), we must remember that we are doing so not only for ourselves and our descendants, but also for people such as Theo, who are among the victims in this war.LeQui (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Theo van Gogh (film director). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105102756/http://www.om.nl/organisatie/item_144364/item_144365/nieuwsberichten/@128509/stand_van_zaken/ to http://www.om.nl/organisatie/item_144364/item_144365/nieuwsberichten/@128509/stand_van_zaken/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flameout.org/flameout/vangogh/freespeech.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Theo van Gogh (film director). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/english/amsterdam_treasures/death/theo_van_gogh/index.en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101124421/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/nederland/nieuwsbericht/asp/artnr/56876/index.html to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/nederland/nieuwsbericht/asp/artnr/56876/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160116194944/http://www.theovangogh.nl/ to http://www.theovangogh.nl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160116194944/http://www.theovangogh.nl/ to http://www.theovangogh.nl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070605110344/http://fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/muslim/Manifestations_EN.pdf to http://fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/muslim/Manifestations_EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160116194944/http://www.theovangogh.nl/ to http://www.theovangogh.nl/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theovangogh.nl/Hirsi_Subm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Death

Why is the section entitled Death, instead of Murder/Assassination? 163.1.18.120 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)