Talk:Vlaams Belang

Talk Archives / Previous discussions

I've achived the older discussions, because the page was so long, and it's nicer to start afresh anyway. -- Joolz 15:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Discussions in Archive01 correspond with the following historical version of the Flemish Interest article. -- --Jvb – April 18, 2005

I've archived entries up to 1 december 2005 at Archive02 -- LucVerhelst 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The partial transfer of discussions to Archive02 corresponds with the following historical versions of Vlaams Belang and its discussion page -- --Jvb – December 21, 2005

I've archived entries up to 8 August 2006 at Archive03 --LucVerhelst 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• The partial transfer of discussions to Archive03 corresponds with the following historical versions of Vlaams Belang and its discussion page --LucVerhelst 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

I have expanded the history section. I used information from a number of other Wikipedia articles, both from the English language as from the Dutch language Wikipedia.

Off course, feel free to contribute constructively . --LucVerhelst 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This can all be detailed in the Vlaams Blok article and elsewhere. Intangible 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the next section ("Outline"). --LucVerhelst 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Outline

I'm thinking about a reworking of the article, towards a quality, NPOV, encyclopaedic article.

What do you think ?

I was thinking about the following outline :

• Introduction
• Party History
  • Volksunie
  • Vlaams Blok
  • Trial
  • Government subsidies
  • Electoral results
    • Vlaams Blok
    • Vlaams Belang
• Ideology and issues
  • Platform + discussion
  • Cordon Sanitaire
  • Issues
• Representation
  • European parliament
  • Federal parliament : Senate
  • Federal parliament : Chambre
  • Flemish parliament
  • Brussels parliament
• Electorate
• Present Party structure
  • Party organisation
  • Other members
• External links
• References

Does this make sense ?

The present article seems to grow to long (over 30 Kb, which seems to be the threshold to start and split up articles, see WP:SS). Any thoughts on splitting up ? --LucVerhelst 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neocons

I don't understand why Intangible keeps removing the sentence on the neoconservative inspiration for the Vlaams Belang party program. It is well referenced and verifiable, that Gerolf Annemans, main author of the program, himself has said this influence is clear : "In het normen- en waardendebat ben ik sterk uitgegaan van wat in Amerikaanse kringen van de neoconservatieven allang wordt gezegd. Ik kan die beïnvloeding niet ontkennen." ("In the values debate I started from what since long is being said in American circles of the neoconservatives. I can't deny that influence." -- (in Dutch) "De neoconservatieve mosterd van Gerolf Annemans en Philip Dewinter" ("The neoconservative mustard of Gerolf Annemans and Philip Dewinter"), De Morgen, 17 November 2004.)

Not only is it well referenced and verifiable, I don't see what is so controversial about it that Intangible seems to be starting another edit war for.

Any suggestions on how we can use this information in the article ? --LucVerhelst 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you that Intangible is right on this point. Gerolf and the fellow posters do not know what neocons are. However, it is always nice for a party accused of racism to try to connect with a more moderate group like the neocons, and it is also nice for a left-wing newspaper to connect a racist group with a main movement in the United States. So, I will look up the interview with Paul Beliën in which he cleary denies any link or connection with the USA and the Vlaams Belang. (and Beliën is a credible source here)--Portalis 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll see if I can find the Knack article De Morgen based its article on.

I don't know anymore what to think about this. Gerolf Annemans himself said he was influenced by the neoconservatives. Now either he's wrong -knowingly- and then this is an attempt by the Vlaams Belang at propaganda, at gaining neocon voters. I think this is important enough to be added to the article.

Or he's not wrong, off course.

Actually, I'm really curious as to what Beliën has to say about this. I've never known him to contradict something the Vlaams Belang leadership has said. It would be a first. --LucVerhelst 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've managed to retrieve the Knack article. The situation isn't as straightforward as I thought.

(in Dutch) "De ketchup van het Vlaams Belang"("Vlaams Belang's ketchup"), Knack, 17 November 2004 (subscription needed)

The Knack article talks first and foremost of the Neocons, with the American Enterprise Institute, as a source for inspiration. Next to that, "certainly as important", is the Heritage Foundation. And then there were visits to Pat Buchanan's seminars. Another name, dropped in the article, is that of Tom Tancredo.

The importance of all this is, that while the old Vlaams Blok for its ideological frame referred to the French Nouvelle Droite or GRECE, just before it changed it's name to Vlaams Belang it adopted a basic party program that mainly referred to the different American conservative currents. I believe his is important enough to put it somewhere in the article. I would suggest under the heading "Ideology and issues". Any proposals on the wording ? --LucVerhelst 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You make it seem there is neoconservative influence here, while the article talks about Ronald Reagan, Jefferson, the CATO Institute and Pat Buchanan. It's more like a smorgasbord than ketchup or mustard. Intangible 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The American Enterprise Institute isn't neocon, then ? --LucVerhelst 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nop. The neocons are mostly at the Project for the New American Century and The Weekly Standard. Intangible 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you might go and have a look at the Neoconservatism article. --LucVerhelst 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The AEI was founded in 1943, long before those American Trotskyites became Neocons as a reaction to the New Left. Intangible 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, right. --LucVerhelst 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm suggesting something along these lines :

While the Vlaams Blok for its ideological frame referred to the French Nouvelle Droite or GRECE, the Vlaams Belang basic party program draws more from the different American conservative currents. The writers of the program refer first and foremost to the American Neoconservatives, with the American Enterprise Institute, as a source for inspiration. An equally important source of inspiration is the Heritage Foundation, which is a more tradional conservative think tank. Other references are Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo, well known American conservatives.

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. These were two badly written articles. Intangible 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And your suggestions to improve ? --LucVerhelst 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I see no suggestions for improvements, I assume that Intangible will not object anymore. --LucVerhelst 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One can not improve on a badly written article without invoking WP:OR. Intangible 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Electorate

I added a section on the Vlaams Belang electorate, which was removed by Intangible. I based it on a KUL study from 2002, that used data from the 1999 general elections.

Electorate

The Vlaams Belang party itself has not yet participated in elections.

A study¹ of the 1999 general federal elections by researchers of the KUL has yielded some results on the electorate of the Vlaams Blok, that -with the necessary precautions- still apply to the present Vlaams Belang electorate.

The study showed that it is first and foremost the low educational level that is characteristic for the V.B. voter. There does not seem to be a correlation, or a very small one, with age, gender nor occupation.

Another characteristic is the sector of employment. People working in sectors with a very large international competition are overrepresented within the V.B. electorate, while workers from the health and social sector -with no international competition at all- usually don't vote for the party. Job insecurity does not seem to have an effect.

As a third characteristic, researchers found that the average V.B. voter have a low idea of their economic situation. It's not certain that this corresponds with their real situation.

Ethnocentricity is a strong reason to vote V.B., as is the feeling of alienation towards politics.

There does not seem to be a correlation between the social-economic attitude of a voter and his preference for the V.B.

¹(in Dutch) Depickere, A. and Swyngedouw, M. Verklaringen voor het succes van extreem rechts getoetst (Explanations for the success of the far right reviewed), In : Swyngedouw, M. and Billiet, J. (eds) De kiezer heeft zijn redenen (The voter has his reasons), Leuven/Leusden, Acco, 2002, pp. 1-26.

I don't think any sound man would argue that the party's electorate between 1999 and 2006 has changed that much that the study's results are completely inaccurate. Because there will always be some changes, I entered the caveat "with the necessary precautions".

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 12:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If no-one objects or has remarks, I will enter the section in the article. --LucVerhelst 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR. The VB has seen a reasonable increase in its share of the voters since 1999; there is no reason to assume that the 2006 or 2007 voter base is the same. Intangible 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable. On the other hand, you will never be able to give the present electorate of a party, since studies about that will always have a considerable back log. Nevertheless, this information is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedic article.

Why don't we change the first lines as follows :

The Vlaams Belang party itself has not yet participated in elections.

A study¹ of the 1999 general federal elections by researchers of the KUL yielded some results on the electorate of the Vlaams Blok. As the VB has seen a reasonable increase in its share of voters since 1999, these results can not simply be projected to the present day.

The study showed that it was first and foremost the low educational level that was characteristic for the Vlaams Blok voter. etc., putting everything in the past tense.

--LucVerhelst 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections to my last proposal, trying to find a middle ground, so I assume we reached a concensus. I'll put it in. --LucVerhelst 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, one cannot find a middle ground based upon WP:OR. Intangible 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and issues

Next to the bit about the conservative influences, I'm proposing to put a bit about the 2005 economic manifesto in the introduction :

On drafting its 2005 economic manifesto, the party let itself be inspired by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) philosopher. (Extreem-rechtse partij heeft ultraliberaal economisch ontwerpmanifest klaar ("Far right party prepared ultra liberal economic draft manifesto"), De Morgen, 4 June 2005. (Subscription needed))

I would also like to take a closer look at the party program section, trying to write a more balanced text.

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections about the paragraph, so concensus is reached. I'm putting it in. --LucVerhelst 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I already stated that these were badly written articles, unfit to be used at Wikipedia. That also goes for the "ultraliberalism" presented here. Intangible 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hooghe article

I cannot find the article in the archives of De Tijd. Is this source correctly cited? Intangible 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard, then, did you. It took me one search : [1]

--LucVerhelst 08:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro Flandria

Pro Flandria is not a "marginal organization". One member was a director of KBC, another one was editor of De Standaard. Intangible 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"schimmige satellietorganisatie" ("'satellite organisation without substance, hardly visible'") are the words used by Bart Eeckhout to describe Pro Flandria.

He also puts quotes around "toplui" ("top executives"), describing the members of the organisation. I think that's clear. (De Morgen, 26 November 2005, [2] )--LucVerhelst 14:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Further arguments : check out the English and Dutch Wikipedia articles on the organisation.--LucVerhelst 15:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Eeckhout is of course entitled to his own opinion. If you do not want the views of Pro Flandria, make an argument based on WP:RS please. Pro Flandria has had a considerable exposure in De Tijd and De Standaard. Intangible 15:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible's 17 September 06 edits

I reverted User:Intangible's 17 September 06 tendentious edits

• "storme is N-VA member, Pro Flandria is not a marginal organization"
  • Storme may well be an N-VA-member, he's also a VB supporter.
  • Pro Flandria : the fact that this small, marginal organisation wrote an open letter in 2003 really isn't relevant
• Cordon Sanitaire and Nova Civitas' debate : the cordon sanitaire isn't about debating with Vlaams Belang, it's about forming coalition. The info on the NC-debate therefore isn't relevant.
• Pim Fortuyn : Dewinter and Vlaams Belang are campaigning in Antwerp with the slogan "Leefbaar Antwerpen". This is a Fortuynist slogan, they are trying to take over Fortuyn's inheritance. Therefore, the opinion Fortuyn had about Dewinter is important and certainly relevant.
• Paul Beliën : it is a fact that Beliën works for VB, verifiable source was provided. See WP:V
• "Other members" : these individuals are notable and relevant. The fact that the VB wants to distance itself from them shouldn't play in adding them to the article. --LucVerhelst 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Storme

Describing Storme as a VB supporter reads as if he's not a member of any other political party, which he is, namely of the N-VA.

You're right, we should add that he's a member of N-VA.--LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can probably live with that text now.Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks !--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro Flandria

Pro Flandria is not a marginal organization. They get plenty of media exposure (in De Tijd and De Standaard for example).

Let's see some sources, then.--LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some examples of their articles that got published: "VLAAMSE PARTIJEN MOETEN COMMUNAUTAIRE RONDE VOORBEREIDEN" (De Tijd, March 31, 2006); "BEDRIJFSLEIDERS MOETENWAKKER LIGGEN VAN PROBLEEM 177" (De Tijd, May 13, 2005); "Zal er wat veranderen?" (De Standaard, May 17, 2004). The organization gets also mentioned in other regular news articles. Next to the above two mentioned persons of the KBC and De Standaard, maybe I should mention that an old editor of Knack and a former legal counsellor of the UN are members of this organization as well!Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

These are all opinion pieces written by members of Pro Flandria. They're just above a "letter to the editor". This hardly qualifies for notability, does it.--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"The organization gets also mentioned in other regular news articles" Somehow you have missed my comment? The views of this organization can be entered in Wikipedia. It as simple as that. Intangible 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss your comment, it's just that when I asked to provide some sources, all you came up with were these Letters to the Editor.--LucVerhelst 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For your happiness, some other articles, among others, were Pro Flandria is mentioned: "Roep om Cordon te doorbreken wordt luider: informateur Yves Leterme handhaaft standpunt" (De Tijd, June 15, 2004), Cordon is steeds meer blok aan het been: nieuw proces dreigt electoraal cadeau te worden" (De Tijd, November 17, 2003), "Cordon sanitaire brokkelt beetje bij beetje af" (De Standaard, November 12, 2003).Intangible 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. For the moment I only have access to the Standaard article, and it mentions Pro Flandria as follows : "Voor de verkiezingen publiceerde Pro Flandria, een beweging van Vlaamsgezinde stemmen, een open brief tegen het cordon. De brief kreeg honderden handtekeningen." ("Before the elections Pro Flandria, a movement of pro Flemish voices, published an open lettre against the cordon. The lettre got hundreds of signatures."). I would say that the way the organisation is presented here, the need for clarification, the vague description, proves that it is unknown and not notable. --LucVerhelst 10:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, there are more articles that mention Pro Flandria. So the addition of Pro Flandria is fully in accord with Wikipedia standards. I'm getting tired of your nonsense here. Intangible 18:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nova Civitas

The text said (and still says) "...and many have participated in debates with VB politicians." I just provided a reference that this actually the case, which made the article better.

You didn't make it better, since you elaborated on the false notion that the cordon sanitaire is about talking and debating with V.B., which it isn't.--LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is also about debating. Intangible 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fortuyn

Pim Fortuyn died 2 years before the Vlaams Belang was founded, and therefore could never have criticized the VB.

So ? He criticized PD, who is trying to take over Fortuyn's inheritance.--LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And earlier he defended PD. All very irrelevant for this article. I thought Fortuyn tried to take over PD's stanches, at least, that;s how Fortuyn got portrayed in the media...Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree.--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is. This an article about the Vlaams Belang, not Vlaams Blok. Take your notions elsewhere.Intangible 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Philip Dewinter still is a member of the Vlaams Belang.--LucVerhelst 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thus? This is the Vlaams Belang article.Intangible 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. So it's relevant to have the Fortuyn quote in the article. I'm glad we agree on this one.--LucVerhelst 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Fortuyn could never have critized the VB because he was death before this party was created. Stop this nonsense. Intangible 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok are the same party.

2. Fortuyn didn't criticise the party, he criticised Philip Dewinter, who still is a party leader.--LucVerhelst 20:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Belien

Being on the loan list of VB does not make Belien part of the party administration, which can be found here [3].

What is your suggestion, then ? Creating another sub-heading just for Belien ?--LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Belien needs to be mentioned in this article. I really does not add much.Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It does, it does. It links the V.B. with the various American conservative currents.--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not. Somehow you are under the impression that if, say, Roger Scruton holds a talk before the VB, the party is somehow magically transformed into conservatism (or paleoconservatism, or neo-conservatism, or anarcho-capitalism, or neo-liberalism, take your pick). Intangible 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Beliën didn't hold a talk for the V.B. He works for the party, publishes their international news letter. Please don't distort the truth.--LucVerhelst 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do I distort the truth? You say he is part of the party administration, which is incorrect. He is not even a member.Intangible 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say that he is part of the administration of the party. I say he works for the party. And you don't have to be a member of the party to work for it.--LucVerhelst 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you put him up there in that section? Intangible 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. You could have made yourself clearer.

I moved Belien to the 'other' section. You could have done that yourself, you know. --LucVerhelst 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Other members

If they are relevant or notable their names should come up in a different section in this article.

Why ?--LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because one cannot just enter all members of VB in this article. If a member is mention worthy, it should come up in the history section or so. Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Roeland Raes already was mentioned in the article. What do you propose to add about Spinnewyn and Rob Klop ? Spinnewyn's proven links to the neo nazi VMO ? Rob Verreycken on a photo giving the Hitler salute in front of a Stormfront banner ? It's all verifiable and noteworthy.--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it?Intangible 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The Hitler salute seems to be a fairy tale. But the connection between Verreycken, the Neo Nazi think tank "Nieuw Rechts" and White Power can be verified : "Het Vlaams Parlement mag zich niet laten hinderen door federale regels" (De Tijd, 11 August 2005) and "Wij moeten ons hoeden voor zelfcensuur" (De Tijd, 28 June 2005).

--LucVerhelst 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thus? Verreycken is not even a parliamentarian anymore. Intangible 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So ? He's still important. --LucVerhelst 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that is indeed the case. Intangible 18:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Remark

Re: your remark on my talk page : writing that your edits are tendentious isn't a personal attack. It is criticism on the nature of your edits. --LucVerhelst 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Writing that my edits are tendentious when they are not is indeed a PA. Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing your actions is not a personal attack : "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." (WP:NPA)

But maybe I should explain a bit further why I believe they are tendentious. I have the impression that you are making an effort to remove all content that is critical towards the V.B., and all content that links parts of the V.B. to American (neo)conservatives. I have the impression also that you are not contributing constructively in building a complete and neutral article. I can be mistaken, but since you started cooperating on the Vlaams Belang article, I do not recall an edit by you that actually adds something to the article. But I have been known to be mistaken before, and I have a short memory, so please prove me wrong.

--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you are under the impression that your notion was civil there. Intangible 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible's 18 September 06 edits

I reverted User:Intangible's 18 September 06 tendentious edits.
For either discussion there where only two participants, him and me. There was no consensus reached pro or against adding the information in the article. Since the information was backed with verifiable and reliable sources, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. --LucVerhelst 14:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1999 the Flemish Bloc obtained 584,392 votes for the European parliament elections. In 2004, they obtained 930,731. Somehow you are under the impression that these group of voters are alike. This kind of thinking has no place in Wikipedia, see WP:OR. Intangible 15:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:V a bit more thoroughly.

The article text states clearly that the Vlaams Belang under that name hasn't participated yet in elections, and that the figures in the first paragraph are about the 1999 elections. That's enough for a caveat. I believe the research has a place in this article, since the entire electorate can not have changed profile overnight when the name of the party was changed.

The paragraph on Carl Devos and Dries Verlet has a source from June 06.

--LucVerhelst 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"That's enough for a caveat." It is not. Somehow you are under the impression that if a party increases it election results with 60%, the same kind of voters are attracted to party. One does not know. Any notion saying otherwise, like yours, is WP:OR. Intangible 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a second look at that Devos piece. But the other piece is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies, such as no WP:OR. Intangible 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that, then ? --LucVerhelst 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible's 24 September 06 edit

Intangible made this edit on 24 September 06, with this explanation : "rv - verhofstadt is not a neutral source". I think it is quite clear that Verhofstadt isn't used as a source here, so I reverted back (and added some more sources to be on the safe side).

I really don't understand on what grounds Intangible would assume that PM Verhofstadt was being used as a source here, which makes it hard for me to keep assuming good faith in Intangible's edits. I can be mistaken, off course, but I have the feeling that this really starts to look like trolling. --LucVerhelst 08:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a claim in this article of "Some even call the party or its leaders "fascist"". Who is referenced here? Intangible 10:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Defoort was. As I believe you very well know. --LucVerhelst 11:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Defoort has never called the party or its leaders fascist. So again, who is referenced here? Intangible 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PM Guy Verhofstadt and foreign minister Karel De Gucht, both of the right wing VLD -among others- called Dewinter a fascist. This was reported by -among others- the De Standaard newspaper and Eric Defoort (in an opinion piece in De Standaard). The reputable and verifiable source here is De Standaard.

On another occasion it was Pim Fortuyn who called Dewinter a fascist. In this case, it was the De Morgen newspaper that was the reputable and verifiable source.

Now please stop, will you ? --LucVerhelst 12:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being hypocritical here. Above you say that Pro Flandria's views cannot be entered into this article, while their views were also published in De Standaard. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Intangible 13:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can appreciate the difference in standing and notability between an Prime Minister and a Foreign Minister on the one hand, and some minor, unknown organisation like Pro Flandria. --LucVerhelst 14:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Using your argument, one can use the comments of Hugo Chavez, to say in the introduction of the George W. Bush article: "some call Bush the devil." Verhofstadt and De Gucht are political opponents of the VB, and should be treated as such. Their views were repudiated by a history professor. One is giving undue weight (which is POV) if their views are entered here. They are not neutral observers on the VB. Wikipedia is not a political blog. Intangible 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely you can appreciate the difference between on the one hand Hugo Chavez criticizing George W., and on the other hand the Belgian Prime and Foreign Ministers criticizing a Belgian political party.

The fact that a history professor doesn't agree with the Ministers can be noted, but the fact is that both PM Guy Verhofstadt and foreign minister Karel De Gucht called Dewinter a fascist.

The article doesn't say that the Vlaams Belang is a fascist party, it says that some people call it such. And since some of these people are the Belgian Prime and Foreign Ministers, this information is relevant enough to mention it. --LucVerhelst 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've come here via Rfc. I have no opinion on whether the "fascist" bit should be included in this article. It should not, however, be written "some even call the party or its leaders fascist". "Some" is a weasel word. If it is going to be included, it should state, in the article sentence itself, exactly who is saying that the party or its leaders are "fascist". Additionally, such criticism is probably not appropriate in the article's introduction unless the opinion is so widely held as to be nearly indisputable (I don't think it is). · j e r s y k o talk · 15:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind changing the introduction as follows :

The party characterizes its current party policies as those of a traditional conservative party; opponents and some observers see it as "far right." The Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, as well as the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn have called Filip Dewinter, one of the party's main leaders, a fascist.

But I believe this would give even more weight to the opinion.

--LucVerhelst 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So what what about just saying that "political opponents see it as "far right." Certainly not all observers don't see the party "far right," and certainly no fascist expert sees the party as fascist (you can check Google Scholar). Putting the views of Fortuyn, Verhofstadt or De Gucht in the introduction or elsewhere would be giving undue weight. They are not experts on fascism. Intangible 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the party is fascist. That would be factually incorrect. Some people however call it that, so it should be mentioned. I think the Belgian Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister are important enough to warrant inclusion of this.

Of course Verhofstadt and De Gucht are no experts in fascisme. That is not important, their quote isn't used because they are experts, but because they are quite important as politicians. --LucVerhelst 21:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They are political opponents of the party for Pete's sake, and their views have repudiated by a history professor. Or on a different note, coming back to my Chavez analogy, this would be describing George W. Bush as a "devil" in the introduction of his article. Intangible 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to distinguish two things here. On the one hand there is the opinion of people about the Vlaams Belang, and on the other hand there is the question whether this opinion is scientifically correct.

If the prime minister and the foreign minister of a country call one of that country's largest parties a fascist party, if they believe this is a fascist party, and act upon that belief, then this is an important fact, that should be mentioned in the article. It doesn't matter if that opinion is scientifically correct.

On the other hand, if you are writing a quality article about that party, you might decide to discuss this opinion. If indeed there is scientific proof that the opinion in question is scientific nonsense (and I'm sure that is the case, here, the Vlaams Belang isn't a fascist party as far as I'm concerned), then this certainly should be entered in the article.

What do we do ? Create a subheader to discuss the fascism bit ? I think it would be best placed within the "Ideology and issues" section.

--LucVerhelst 12:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To open an article with a strong claim, such as "they are fascists" leads me to question the quality of the article. I believe the people mentioned above did make that claim, but unless the party itself claims it is a fascist party, it should not be in the intro. Knowing a little about wikipedia, the weasel word and the "fascist" claim makes it seem inaccurate and slanted. I think that statement should be moved to another section.--Connor K. 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I took the liberty to move the statement. Thanks for pointing it out. --LucVerhelst 07:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'v also removed the weasel words, as per j e r s y k o.--LucVerhelst 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

party platform

This article [4] by Belien pretty much confirms the earlier concerns I had with User:LucVerhelst's edits. Intangible 15:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting information. We should of course use it with care, because it isn't really a verifiable source, it is a web log, and Belien clearly is taking a political stand.

I agree however that we should use it. It is clear that the Vlaams Belang leadership is trying to paint a picture about the party, linking it to the American right wing currents. This information is important enough to enter in the article. Now we can add to it, based on Belien, that apparently, the leadership is not entirely telling the truth, and that the economical program of the party still is ... what ?

Intangible, could you suggest a paragraph ? --LucVerhelst 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, have you been able to think this through ? This is your area of expertise... --LucVerhelst 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation

This article contains several quotes in English translated from non-English sources. Isn't that original research if a Wikipedian is the one doing the translating? Ken Arromdee 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative, taking in consideration that the English language Wikipedia now already has a problem of being too centered towards the English speaking world ? --LucVerhelst 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The alternative to original research is to take out the original research. If this means you have no information, so be it. Ken Arromdee 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, I don't think translation is OR. --LucVerhelst 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But I believe it is an interesting question. There actually is a problem, both with translated quotes and with foreign language sources. I raised the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Foreign language sources and translated quotes. --LucVerhelst 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible's 29 September 06 edits

Intangible added the parentheses "(Timperman was deputy chief of staff to VLD justice minister Marc Verwilghen)" to the sentence "Vlaams Belang also alleges that past ties between Timperman and Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt (VLD) are evidence that the trial of the Vlaams Blok was politically motivated". Now, this looks as if the fact that Timperman worked for Marc Verwilghen is used as proof of the ties between Timperman and Verhofstadt. I would say this violates WP:OR :

“ It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;< ”

I would rather have seen that both parts of the sentence ("Vlaams Belang alleges..." and "Timperman was deputy...") would be referenced by the same source, making the connection between both. The way it is now, it looks as if we are building the case for the Vlaams Belang allegations.

It is quite possible of course that, if we found a reference for the first part of the sentence, the problem is solved. --LucVerhelst 18:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Problem solved with edit while I was entering the piece above. --LucVerhelst 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have asked for full page protection : This Sunday, local elections are being held in Belgium. One of the main issues is the Vlaams Belang party's result. It is very divisive within the country, and a lot of vandalism is to be expected. Please protect, maybe until Tuesday or Wednesday. Thanks. -- ➌  LucVerhelst  16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And it has been declined. Ah well... -- ➌  LucVerhelst  16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put a __NOEDITSECTION__ in, and put small warning at the top of the edit window. I hope nobody minds. -- ➌  LucVerhelst  16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems there have been no problems so far...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Work

As LucVerhelst knows, I responded to an RFC a few days back. Since then, the article has improved a ton. Weasel words are no longer damaging the article, vandalism is being reverted, and the over all flow of the article is now easy to read. Keep up the good work everyone! --Connor K. 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not far-right?

Only opponents see the party as far-right? So is the BBC an opponent of Vlaams Belang: [5]? What about The Washington Times [6] or the Agence France-Presse [7]? Rather, these are all neutral, reputable, and well-known sources; and three reliable sources of this calibur are enough to say that Vlaams Belang is far-right.

To claim they are neutral is really ridiculous. The patriotism expoused by Vlaams Belang (and formerly Vlaams Blok) was pretty normal for any political movement in Europe for most of its modern history. Doesn't matter, if they were conservative, liberal or socialists, all parties were in prinicple patriotic not so long ago. How someone can be "extremist", because he is working for the interist of his people, is a bit odd to me. I think the problem is rather that we have to many people in influencial position having some kind of mental problem. Collective masochism or something like that.

It's not the VB's nationalism that make it far right, the N-VA is also a nationalist and even a separatist party but it is not seen as a far right party. The VB is seen as a far right party because of its anti-immigrant, anti-Islam, anti-etc... stances. I also think that accusing everyone who describes the VB as "far right" of having "some kind of mental problem" doesn't really help your case and in fact might be perceived as a sign of unwillingness to reach a consensus on these matters.--Ganchelkas 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see as a casual reader of this article why "far right" is aligned with being "anti-Islam". Islam is a conservative religious movement, far more conservative for instance than the American Christian Right- whose enemies are generally on the Left. Islam's misogyny, imperialist rhetoric, dismissal of democracy and human rights and violent summary justice put it far to the Right. Ergo, it's hard to see how opponents can be naturally classified as "Far Right", since Islam is "Far Right". The whole question of alignments is difficult. Fascism (classed as "right wing") grew out of left-wing syndicalism and can be seen as a nationalist left movement, rather than "right wing" which it's described as. Left-wing media entities such as the BBC describe anyone who disagrees with them as "right wing" or "far right wing" so that's not really a guide. All one can say is that islamisation of western society would inevitably drive it to the far right, so it seems a bit odd to call people opposing that Far Right. They may be Far Right for other reasons, but being anti-islam isn't one of them. Do the left approve of the burka and honour killings etc? I doubt it.82.71.30.178 04:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We've already experienced Intangible's disruptions in the National Front article a while ago; he was actually put on probation because of them.

-- WGee 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your changed. These sources are not applicable. There are also plenty of news articles that call the VB a "right-wing party."

Secondly, I am not on probation for "disruptions in the National Front article a while ago." Intangible 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I mean tendentious editing, the type of editing you carried out at the National Front article . Anyway, you cannot delete three of the world's most reputable, well-known sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view. If you continue to do so, you will be reported for tendentious editing. -- WGee 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even on probation for "tendentious editing." Intangible 01:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They must have changed the nature of the probation, then: it's now much more vague, referring simply to "disruptive editing." Regardless, I believe that your tendentious revert was disruptive, so you may be wise to discuss your edits lest you will be reported. In fact, the main idea of the probation is to discourage you from making edits without first establishing a consensus with all of the involved editors. -- WGee 03:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How am I suppose to accept good faith on your part when you haven't previously edited this article? For all I know you are just trying to provoke me. I doubt you know much about Belgian politics, that might be a good thing sometimes, but in this case, it is certainly not a plus, as the Belgian political arena is highly dynamic. Probably one the most dynamic ones in the world. Just last week the main liberal party in Belgium ejected a candidate, who previously got 40% of the votes of the members of that party in a leadership election. Furthermore, separatist issues, like in Canada, are a hot political item here. Intangible 04:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

News sources are primary, please quote reputable secondary sources.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are very reliable in many cases and are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, especially ones of this calibur. And their opinions about the far-right orientation of VB are derived from secondary sources: seldom does the media make political judgements that contradict the prevalent opinion in academia. In fact, media reports can be both primary and secondary sources: like primary sources, they contain first-hand accounts of events (e.g., that the VB procured 20% of the vote in Flanders), and, like secondary sources, they include inferences from primary sources (e.g., the VB is far-right, as inferred from its party platform, which is a primary source).

As for my knowledge of Vlaams Belang and my intentions, you shouldn't be so presumptuous, Intangible. There's a reason why I have edited and continue to monitor articles about the National Front, the Sweden Democrats, the British National Party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, the National Democrats (Sweden), and the Progress Party, to name a few: I have extensively studied and read about the European radical right. Thus, my involvement in the Vlaams Belang article is a logical extension of my interest in European disestablishmentarian politics, not part of a campaign to incite your ire.

My knowledge of Belgian politics is actually irrelevant, though, because one does not need to be an expert in any field to cite reputable sources. In addition to the sources I've included in the article, several scholarly sources describe the VB as far-right, including the following: Pasi Saukkonen, political science lecturer at the University of Helsinki [8]; Audrey Rigo du Département des Relations Internationales à l'Université catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve [9]; several contributors to the European Journal of Political Research [10]; Eric Mielants of Fairfield University [11]; Hans Keman and André Krouwel of the University of Amsterdam [12]; Jan Erk, political science lecturer and contributor to Nations and Nationalism [13] and West European Politics [14]; Gilles Ivaldi and Marc Swyngedouw [15]; Baldwin Van Gorp, contributor to the European Journal of Communication [16].

-- WGee 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me start citing Cas Mudde again? Seriously, I will have this debate all over again... Intangible 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no European "radical right." I can show studies that show there is no European party family, and that no international comparisons can actually be made between various parties. Intangible 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have your studies and I have mine. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. -- WGee 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is not an academic consensus, one cannot use the words as currently in the introduction. That would be dishonest. Intangible 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about your second assertion, that there is no European radical right. But if you're talking about the labelling of the VB as far right party, there is a consensus for that. If you believe otherwise, you'll have to reveal your sources. -- WGee 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it being called "far right," but to say that it is "far right, because of widespread, recurrent issues of racism" I find to be sort of foolish. Since when is a political party automatically far right if it is racist? Sounds like a POV far left political slur, as the "far left" (socialist) Nazis were also racist. Perhaps it could be reworded to sound more neutral. It is, after all, in the opening paragraph. Invmog (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article about horseshoes theory and how discredited it is 81.242.27.90 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Anke Vandermeersch

I would like to have some opinions on Talk:Anke_Vandermeersch#Video. Please discuss it over there. Thanks.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro

These are just five sources that say the VB is right-wing:

• Belgische regering krijgt vertrouwen parlement, ANP, 05-13-2005
• Justitie begint onderzoek naar Filip Dewinter, ANP-Belga, 08-04-2005
• Vlaams Belang versterkt positie, NRC Handelsblad, 10-09-2006
• Belgisch parlement keurt strengere wapenwet goed, Het Parool, 05-19-2006
• Vlaams Belang schiet omhoog in peiling, NRC Handelsblad-ANP, 01-03-2006

Since there is no consensus under newspapers what to call the VB, I suggest restoring the intro. Intangible 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To what?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That of political opponents see it as "far right." Intangible 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WGee are you still going to discuss this, or can I restore the introduction? Intangible 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Political opponents? I have heard several political scientists call the Vlaams Belang a "far right" party (for instance Walgrave in De Morgen). And most of the foreign observers and media also describe it as "far right". Here are just some examples:CNN,TIME,Al Jazeera. You mustn't be afraid to call a spade a spade.--Ganchelkas 16:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I already give 5 examples above that there is no consensus under the media. I do known that all political opponents of the VB call them "far right." I think to say that is enough. One can expand on the political programme later on in the article, so nothing is lost at all. Intangible 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe CNN and TIME as "political opponents". Just because political opponents also call them "far right" doesn't mean that anyone who does so is a political opponent of the Vlaams Belang. I think the current intro adequately describes that most foreign media describe them as "far right", that's a matter of factual accuracy. If you remove that bit and replace it with "the VB is described as far right by its political opponents", you make it seem as if everyone who calls it "far right" is biased against the VB, which needn't be the case. --Ganchelkas 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All political opponents, like Groen! or sp.a, do. It's not factual that all foreign media call the party "far right." See the above sources. Intangible 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"24 procent van de stemgerechtigde Vlamingen kiest voor de extreem-rechtse partij." Opkomst en groei van het Vlaams Belang, NRC Handelsblad. And Het Parool. Even your sources call the party far right. Meaning that if they say "right wing" they don't exclude "far right". Far right is right wing too, as opposed to left wing.

Not the articles I presented above. They are just articles written by different people (I guess). It just shows that there is simply no consensus among the media. Intangible 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"observers within and outside Belgium describe it as far right"... Where does it say that there is a consensus among the foreign media? It just states the facts, many foreign observers and media describe the Vlaams Belang as a far right party. It even cites several examples of well-known foreign observers that do so. Why remove that factually accurate bit in favour of something which would describe CNN, TIME, the BBC, etc... as being "political opponents" of the Vlaams Belang, which isn't the case.--Ganchelkas 09:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. How can on decide upon those news articles which call the party "right-wing" and those that call the party "far right." Choosing either of them would be POV. Mentioning both would make for a bad introduction. Intangible 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ganchelkas. Intangible is in the right this time. The current version of the article leads by pejoratively labeling Vlaams Belang "far right," then endorsing that point of view by judging its source "reputable," while implying that Vlaams Belang describes itself dishonestly. One might ask, if CNN and Time are "reputable," then are the voters who voted Vlaams Belang "disreputable?" Whether Vlaams Belang is "far right" or not depends on your definition of "far right," but the clear intent of the current article intro is to give the reader a bad impression of Vlaams Belang before he even reaches the body of the article. Not fair. Not neutral. Tannoce 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Prefer to describe it" and "some outside the party" are not exactly neutral either. "Many observers describe it as far right" is a more neutral way of putting it in my view. Since you seem to think that "reputable" is POV, I've left out that word (for now), but it must be said that sources such as CNN and Time are widely regarded as reputable, but that doesn't mean that the VB voters are "disreputable".--Ganchelkas 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(My comment of an hour ago, which I have just removed from this spot, was unnecessarily sharp. Accept my apology and accept this comment instead.) Consider this statement: "Although the Italian national football team describes its current tactics on the pitch as those of a traditional attack-style football team, many observers describe it as theatrically sly." Or: "Although Professor Smith describes his current theory as scientifically sound, many observers describe it as purposely blasphemous." Would such words belong in the intro of a Wikipedia article on the Italian national soccer team or on Professor Smith? Every word in the statement may be true, but the statement implies a judgment against Vlaams Belang, which in my view belongs in the article's "Criticism" section rather than in the intro. The clear implication of the intro as presently worded is that Vlaams Belang is either lying or delusional---an opinion many share, but hardly an NPOV fact. Remember: the article is about Vlaams Belang, not about the cordon sanitaire. If the article were about, for example, the German Social Democrats, and there were two fundamentally differing views as to how to introduce the party, then the Wikipedia article should not imply either view; but in any case as a courtesy to the Social Democrats, the words with which the Social Democrats describe themselves should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. If so for the Social Democrats, then so also for Vlaams Belang, don't you think? There ought to be a better way to word the intro than "Although foo describes itself as bar, many observers describe it as baz instead." Really, the sentence structure itself makes NPOV practically impossible to achieve. Since you will not accede to my redaction, would you please yourself rewrite the intro entirely, so as to achieve a generous-spirited NPOV? Tannoce 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would these words belong in the criticism section ? The introduction should give a short description of the subject of the article, so the identity of the party, which by most people is described as "far right", belongs in the introduction. --83.182.252.228 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Anonymous. That simply is not NPOV. Many Belgians, probably even most, do appear to regard Vlaams Belang as far right, but this is not an article on anti-Vlaams Belang sentiment; it is an article on Vlaams Belang. Consider whether you have separated your personal feelings from your judgment in the present matter. That Vlaams Belang is "far right" is a broadly accepted view, not a generally accepted fact. Logically, two issues are being conflated here: one regards Vlaams Belang; the other regards opposition opinion against Vlaams Belang. It is impossible to arrive at NPOV until these two are cleanly separated. Tannoce 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What's not NPOV about that ? The fact is that most independant, non-partisan, neutral sources describe the party as far-right. That is not an opinion, it is a fact, and an important one when you're describing the identity of the party. --83.182.252.228 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) This discussion page reflects no consensus that the sources you refer to are neutral. (2) Even if they were neutral, the usual practice in Wikipedia is to express negative opinion in a Criticism section, not in an article's intro. (3) Facts can easily be summarized to distort their subject; and it seems pretty clear to me that the intro as written does precisely this (although to give Ganchelkas credit, today's version is an improvement on yesterday's). (4) You and I would not accept a paralleledly worded intro to an article on, for example, the British Labour Party; why should we accept it for Vlaams Belang? Let me ask you: what precisely was objectionable in the version of the intro I edited, which was on-line about an hour before Ganchelkas changed it, but which you can still find in the article's history? Was it not factual? Or was it merely insufficiently hostile to Vlaams Belang? Remember: the article is not pricipally about how many journalists and academics dislike Vlaams Belang; the article is pricipally about Vlaams Belang itself. Personally, I have little problem with describing Vlaams Belang as "far right," "fascist" or whatever, because I think the labels pretty accurate; but clearly Intangible and the Vlaams Belangers themselves do have a problem with describing them so. The words "far right" are not meant as a description so much as as an insult and a warning. If you are fair, then I think that you will agree that such has no place in the intro of a Wikipedia article. Before you comment further, as a favor to me, would you review Wikipedia's NPOV policy? I am not sure that you fully understand it yet. Tannoce 22:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There may not be a consensus that the sources are neutral, that is true. Hence the removal of the word "reputable", as without that word nothing is implied about the observers, it isn't implied that they are objective, nor is it implied that they are biased. Your version said "some outside the party prefer to describe it as far right", which makes it seem as if those observers are de facto biased against the VB, while that needn't be the case. It may be so that the supporters of the VB have a problem with the VB being described as "far right" (which for the record, needn't be an insult, there are many radical right-wing elements that are proud of being known as "far right"), but what is factually incorrect about saying that many observer describe the VB as "far right"? Is there something factually incorrect about that? I don't think so, as many observers do, and there are more than enough references backing that statement up. Whether those observers are neutral or not is another question and one that can be debated for years without a consensus being reached, but that many observers describe the VB as far right is a fact. But because there is no consensus about the neutrality of those observers, the article should be neutral and non-judgmental when it comes to those observers.--Ganchelkas 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: what do you suggest then? Clearly your previous suggestion is incorrect since non-opponents call it far right too. We wouldn't start the PS article by saying that "opponents call Elio Dirupo ****". I think the current intro is quite correct, unless you have sources saying that "some see the VB as far right but this is incorrect".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean with political opponents is just the other political parties in Belgium. Maybe we could say that the political opposition calls it "far right," or some other wording? Your example of "calling Elio Di Rupo a ****," is not the same, because it presupposes that all parties other than the Parti socialiste call Elio Di Rupo that, which (likely) would not be the case (I doubt that the sp.a will ever tarnish Di Rupo). Intangible 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what Steven was trying to say: it's not only political opponents that describe Vlaams Belang as far-right; independent political scientists and media organizations describe as such, as well. Your proposal would therefore be factually inaccurate. -- WGee 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand quite well. The only consensus out there is with political opponents of VB. That's factually accurate. There is no other consensus out there. That's also factually accurate. Intangible 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I restore the introduction? Intangible 13:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus yet.--Ganchelkas 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What are we waiting for? Intangible 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

state security

What State Security says is not in accordance with what NRC writes. From [17]:

“ De definitieve veroordeling van het Vlaams Blok heeft de partij verplicht haar naam te veranderen en haar programma te zuiveren van racistische elementen. De lancering van de nieuwe naam Vlaams Belang ging gepaard met een publicitaire campagne die tot doel had een image van respectabiliteit te creëren [sic]. Dat het hierbij om een soort esthetische ingreep gaat... ”

So State Security does not make the claim that "this is merely a cosmetic operation." It says it "looks like a cosmetic operation". Therefore my revert. Intangible 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny that the state security concerns itself with the programs and ideology of political parties. Sounds like some kind of KGB manner of running things in Belgium.

I don't see what the difference is. Do you say that NRC is a liar ?--StormOpZee

There is no difference between "om een soort esthetische ingreep" and "dat was slechts een cosmetische ingreep"? That's like saying that "he is a socialist" is the same as "he seem to be a socialist." Intangible 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NRC apparantly sees no difference.--StormOpZee

NRC is misquoting the State Security, that we know. Thus the NRC in this case is not a Reliable source. Intangible 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How you know NRC is misquoting the State Security ?--StormOpZee 11:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Because one knows what State Security is saying.[18] Intangible 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a pdf from the Standaard. --StormOpZee 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the document from State Security itself. But if you don't trust the web site of the newspaper De Standaard, how is it possible for you to trust the web site of the newspaper NRC Handelsblad? Intangible 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that State Security writes it "looks like a cosmetic operation". But in the pdf, State Security writes "een soort esthetische ingreep" : "a kind of esthetic operation". Your translation is wrong.

So NRC and State Security say the same. --StormOpZee 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed the words just before that, the full sentence is "Dat het hierbij om een soort esthetische ingreep gaat." The words "dat het hierbij om een soort" imply uncertainty in the statement being made. Intangible 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Dat het hierbij om een soort esthetische ingreep gaat, wordt bevestigd wanneer men nader kijkt naar ..." : "That it is a kind of esthetic operation, is confirmed when looking close at...". Where is the uncertainty ? --StormOpZee 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of kind of Intangible 22:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It says "a kind of" as in "a type of". In fact, the Dutch word "soort" translates most accurately into "type" according to SYSTRAN. Also, be careful not to engage in revert wars, Intangible; that is a violation of the terms of your probation. -- WGee

Type is synonymous to kind Intangible 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to tell that to a native speaker of English. I stressed the "a" in "a kind of" because you incorrectly cited the definition of "kind of", which is actually an informal idiom meaning "somewhat" (the missing "a" changes the meaning entirely). -- WGee 05:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why discus the translation ? Someone who speaks dutch knows that NRC said what State Security said. --StormOpZee 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• The NRC says: " Maar dat was slechts ,,een cosmetische ingreep”, aldus de dienst"
• Staatsveiligheid says: "Dat het hierbij om een soort esthetische ingreep gaat"

They are not saying the same thing. On the Dutch Wikipedia we could have just inserted a direct quote from State Security, but here we run the risk of inserting Original Research into our own translations. It is best to be on the cautious side in general, and specifically here. Intangible 18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What NRC says is what Staatsveiligheid says, just in other words.StormOpZee 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The words do not mean the same, "slechts" implies "only" or "merely," which is far removed from "a kind of" or "a type of." Intangible 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not true.--StormOpZee 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The French version of the report has the same uncertainty.[19]. It says: Les mouvements satellites..., qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting"

The French word "viennent" (come to, i.e. approach) implies the uncertainty. There wouldn't have been any uncertaintity in the statement if the word "viennent" was omitted. Note also the quotation marks around manœuvre de lifting. Intangible 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your french is bad like your dutch. That staatsveiligheid rapport is a original source. --Luxem 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

An original source? What's that? Do you mean that the State Security report is not a reliable source?! Intangible 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean that the report has to be considered a primary source : "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; ... It could be an official report,..." (WP:RS) --Luxem 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is irrelevant anyways, because we use the State Security text only as descriptive statement here; we are not interested in this article in what NRC thinks State Security is saying, since this is the Vlaams Belang article, not the State Security article. Intangible 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the uncertainty in the french version. This is proof that NRC and Staatsveiligheid say the same thing. --StormOpZee 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just your opininon, WP:OR. Intangible 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you find a English language source if you want to keep that piece of text. Intangible 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why ? Do you say that NRC is a liar ?--StormOpZee 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no way one is going to find a consensus here based upon our own translations. You think I have an OR translation that's false, I think you have an OR translation that's false. The only way out is to find an English language source that has the State Security statements, otherwise the text in this article needs to be changed. Intangible 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference between NRC and Staatsveiligheid. Thus why change the article ?--StormOpZee 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference in the dutch texts.--StormOpZee 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, could you elaborate about how the word viennent implies uncertainty? Also, I wouldn't give up on formenting a consensus just yet. Perhaps you could recruit an informal mediator who speaks French as a first language, to put this debate to rest? I don't think editors' translations constitute original research, but Wikipedia sould really have a specific policy regarding that. -- WGee 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Intangible never tired into turning discussions into circles & questionning newspapers & scholars. I've noticed before his French is not as bad as he demonstrates here: he is only trying to find a (bad) argument to follow the "debate" with you guys. I can positively assure you that "viennent" in no way marks uncertainty, quite the contrary. Translating "Les mouvements satellites..., qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting"" would be: "Satellites movements..., which continue their action without modifying in anything their former political line, confirms this thesis of a "lifting maneuver"." (sorry for the on-the-spot translation). Thus, the thesis is confirmed by this, and there is no "uncertainty" whatsoever. Furthermore, "manoeuvre de lifting" is in bracket, because "lifting" is an English word, and thus "manoeuvre de lifting" an expression which is not "correct French". In no ways does it put in doubt the idea that such a "lifting act" was done, it only refers to the English aesthetic operation of a "lifting", which is usually refered to, in French, under the English term (hence the brackets). Intangible, you never get tired, do you? Tazmaniacs 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

flemish parliament report

The judicial report of the Flemish parliament noted that the appeals court did outlaw the party or disband the party, nor was the party required to change its name. (Conclusie: Het Hof van Beroep van Gent heeft het Vlaams Blok niet ontbonden, noch verboden. Het arrest verplicht het Vlaams Blok evenmin de partijnaam te veranderen.) The reason why the Vlaams Blok was disbanded was because of possible court cases against its employees and electees. (Andere organisaties of personen (mandatarissen, fractiemedewerkers, …) die in de door het Hof onderzochte periode (2 juli 1999- 29 januari 2001) verbonden waren aan het Vlaams Blok, of in die periode hun medewerking verleend hebben aan die partij, zijn wellicht eveneens strafbaar.) So the article section "Trial" does not currently reflect what and why. A statement by State Security this appeared to be a cosmetic operation is laughable at best. If the Vlaams Blok did not disband, its employees could individually face criminal charges. This is a big issue. So I suggest changes to be made to that section. Any thoughts? Intangible 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Added "Conservatism" again

The Vlaams Belang is a conservative party, I don't understand why that term was removed. Many parts of its programme are clearly conservative, such as the following bit: "De eerste en belangrijkste kern van de samenleving is het traditionele gezin, waarvan de waarde maatschappelijk erkend en gewaarborgd wordt door het huwelijk tussen man en vrouw." (English: The first and most important core of society is the traditional family, of which the value is socially recognised and guaranteed by the marriage between a man and a woman.) The VB also focuses on tax cuts, reduced immigration, and tougher law and order policies, which are all typical characteristics of a conservative party.--Ganchelkas 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why "conservatism" was changed to "free market"? Because I think "conservatism" better describes the VB than "free market", though perhaps both are applicable.--Ganchelkas 11:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Vlaams Belang is also against gay-marriage, against abortus and against euthanasie. I am convinced that they are conservative.

Section on Electorate

Apparantly some users want to remove most of the section on the electorate of the Vlaams Belang. I'd like to invite those users to state their reasons here rather than just removing those sections, so that a consensus can be reached. I personally don't think the section should be removed as the study might still be relevant, and if it isn't relevant to the Vlaams Belang anymore it should be kept either here or on the article about the Vlaams Blok because it is a study about the VB electorate during at least a part of the party's history.--Ganchelkas 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not intent to re-include the section if it is removed AGAIN, but I think we really should try to reach a consensus on this issue, otherwise this might result in an edit war.--Ganchelkas 15:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact is that most of these left-wing researchers have a secret agenda. They just want to redicule the Vlaams Belang electorate by saying that they're dumb (low educational level that was characteristic for blabla) and afraid (low idea of their economic situation) to support and reinforce the image of the stupid "bange blanke man". Plus I think that 1999 is just not relevant anymore, definitely not in politics. Since 1999 the party won 9%, so its electorate nearly doubled. The relevance of this study has thus dropped to zero!!--User:81.240.194.78 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse researchers of the KULeuven, arguably one of the most reputable universities in Belgium, of having a secret leftist agenda, you're going to have to back it up. Furthermore, the study dates from 2002 and while it may not be entirely relevant to the present Vlaams Belang electorate, I feel it should be kept, as I have said before, either here or on the article about the Vlaams Blok because it is a study about the VB electorate during at least a part of the party's history. However, if no other studies are available it might be important to keep the section about this study. Also, as you'll find here, there was a consensus to include the section and I don't think the situation has changed much since the inclusion of the section.--Ganchelkas 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your comment before I reverted your edit. Good to see you are starting to debate the issues. But I have to disagree, statistics about an electorate are quite common, data about a 1999 election remains relevant though you could replace it with more recent material from the same or a similar source.--Caranorn 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw some paper that said a considerable amount of VB voters in the 90s were disgruntled socialist party voters. I have to look that one up though. Intangible2.0 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be astonished about that. From the other side of the political spectrum (extreme left) I've actually told some prospective voters (I ran for office three times so far, not that I ever stood a chance;-)) to get lost, respectively to vote for the extreme right as their ideas were incompatible with our platform... So I wouldn't be astonished if voters of more moderate parties were to migrate to reactionary or extreme right groups such as VB. And you can add to that protest votes. Historically the phenomenon is also well documented.--Caranorn 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

category:Anti-Islam sentiment, biased? yes? no?

Simple question, why is the inclusion of that category (which is undergoing a vote and should not be emptied) considered biased for this particular article. The continual revert war for the past two weeks is disruptive, maybe a solution could be found here. So far no one has broken the triple revert rule, but as I recall that rule can also be applied in borderline cases (for two editors in this case it seems). So could the editors involved in this edit war please take the time to explain why that category should be included or why it should not be included? Thanks.--Caranorn 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's only fair to include it. I mean, only a few weeks ago Anke Van dermeersch said in an interview that she had something against Islam. (I'll try to find the magazine and the exact words.)--Ganchelkas 16:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is biased because this is a political party. I can imagine academic scholars etc. to be entered into a cat Category:Critics of Islam. Intangible2.0 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand that argument. Why couldn't a political party be discriminatory (the best example would of course be the NSDAP, though to be fair I will in also name the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Even currently the article has at least one reference (iirc) pointing to Islam criticism from Vlaams Belang (or possibly Blok) officials.--Caranorn 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They might as well be, but it is kind of pointless to mangle valid academic criticisms of religion with the political flavour of the day. The views of a political party are not held to same standards of review. Intangible2.0 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we must consider the fact that the category is called "Anti-islam sentiment". Sentiment has very little to do with valid academic criticisms.--Ganchelkas 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but sentiment is almost impossible to gauge using objective standards. Intangible2.0 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This makes little or no sense as an argument. If several RS can be quoted as saying that the VB exhibits Islamophobia, or anti-Islam sentiment, or whatever we are calling it these days, then the category fits; otherwise it doesnt. I don't see why this article should be an exception to general rules on the subject. Hornplease 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a reply to this point soon, if the article as it stands supports the categorisation, I will put the cat in myself. Hornplease 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, go ahead and re-add the category.--Caranorn 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That you can perhaps find some reliable sources that advance the point of view that their position on Islam is based more on feelings rather than on reason, doesn't change the fact that NPOV still applies. We can present such opinions, but we can not endorse them. -- Karl Meier 07:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you should take the category to CfD then; clearly even if RS are provided you think placing the cat here is still biased, as the cat itself is irredeemably biased. Until it is deleted though, I am afraid it belongs here. I look forward to participating in the discussion at CfD. Hornplease 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually at CfD once again, third time in a row.--Caranorn 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And this time it was deleted. Anyway, that a category exist and possibly survive a deletion debate doesnt mean that it is neutral to use anywhere. It can still be very biased to use, as it was the case with the anti-Islam sentiment category on this article. -- Karl Meier 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

mult-ethnic or multi-racial?

The part that states the party is opposed to multiculturalism but accepts a multiethnic society, should not multiethnic be replaced by multiracial? To me it seems impossible to have a monocultural,multiethnic society because the stance of monocultualism is that immigrants of different ethnicities are obligated to assimilate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.22.162 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Scientifically there is no such thing as human races, or therefore multiracial in respect to humans. On the other hand ethnicity (at least in theory) has nothing to do with culture. Note the article on race is problematic as it seems to give undue weight to non scientific (racist) material.--Caranorn 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of, I checked on the page of ethnicity to verify if your claim is valid and in fact it is not.Culture, and several other things like language and religion, is the basis of ethnicity. Secondly, claiming that there is no scientific thing as race and employing the cliche that our differences are only skin deep is pure ignorance. The research of many University professors and scholars such as; Rushton, Whitney, Murray, Levin, Francis, Lynn and many others in the fields of psychology, psychometrics, genetics etc.., shows that there are overall differences in IQ scores, Brain sizes, Hormone levels and differing levelso f susceptibility to different diseases. The difference between openly Nazi and white nationalist groups(like the BNP) and groups like Vlaams Belang and I believe the Front National(France) is that the latter does not believe that it can be traced to every individual and that there are exceptions that can be assimilated into a predominantly white society. I implore that we replace multi-ethnic with multi-racial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProudAryan (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I suggest we look first at the party's program and at articles and studies about the party, before starting this discussion.--83.182.246.193 08:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

English Translation

The article opens with "Vlaams Belang (English: Flemish Interest)". I wonder whether "Interest" is a very accurate translation. Obviously they want to portray their interest in Belgian politics, but "belang" also translates as "importance". Maybe a short sidenote should be added? Jack the Stripper 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy in intro sentence?

Remove anti-immigration from intro sentence, due to it mentioning that this party "advocates [...] strict limits on immigration"? Or does the latter simply reinforce and explain the label? As the intro has been controversial and I can see both arguments, I decided to mention it for discussion. Gotyear (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you but I would argue per wp:undue weight. Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is also a redundancy with the Flemish culture and language's attachment which is given 2 times. Ceedjee (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "DevosVerlet" :
  • Democratie went niet aan extreem-rechts
  • {{in lang|nl}}[http://www.mo.be/article.aspx?ed_id=57&a_id=469&type=mondiaal Democratie went niet aan extreem-rechts] ("''Democracy doesn't get accustomed to the far right''"), MO*, June 2006, p. 51

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Does anybody know if this is the correct logo of het Vlaams Belang ? I feel not sure. Galoubet (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Flemish Interest

Per WP:USEENGLISH, shouldn't this page be at Flemish Interest? — Jon C.^ॐ 10:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there established usage of the name of the party as "Flemish Interest" in English-language sources? The sources of this article usually just transcribe the name of the party directly into English (Vlaams Belang).--JasonMacker (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The original name ("Vlaams Belang") is very common in the relevant English-language literature, probably more common than the translated name "Flemish Interest". --RJFF (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Vlaams Belang (Dutch for "Flemish Interest")"

Actually, this is incorrect. Belang is Dutch for Importance, not Interest. It's possible that they style themselves as "Flemish Interest" in English, of course, but it's not a translation of the Dutch name. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the Van Dale dictionary both importance and interest are valid translations of Dutch "belang". Given the political views adhered to by the party, "Flemish Interest" seems more appropriate to me than "Flemish Importance", as their aim is to defend (in their view) the interest of the Flemish people. From a Google search you can find numerous articles from international media (Politico, The Guardian, BBC, ...) translating Vlaams Belang as Flemish Interest, and none calling them Flemish Importance. --Cinoreros (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reducing the Ideologies

I think the number of ideologies should be reduced to two, like with other right-wing populist parties. Here are the ones I propose:

• Flemish nationalism
• Right-wing populism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0, Autospark, Checco, and Helper201: Pinging for your opinions. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with such change as it is most commonly associated with those ideologies. Vacant0 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "Flemish nationalism" (by the way, Flemish Movement should be moved to "Flemish nationalism") and "right-wing populism" are enough. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll implement them :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd go for:

• Flemish nationalism
• Right-wing populism
• Anti-Islam
• Euroscepticism

in the infobox. This being because these with the exception of Euroscepticism all have more than one supporting citation whereas national and social conservativism both only have one each. I'd make an exception in the case of Euroscepticism as it is commonplace to include the EU stance of European political parties within the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, while I appreciate the ping to ask for my thoughts (as I'm sure the other editors do too) I think there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline against pinging specific editors for comment on stuff like this as those selected may not offer a fair or neutral balance of opinion due to being selected by the person pinging them i.e. there may be bias or selectivity by the person doing the pinging. This was brought up to me a while back so I think opening a RFC is the recommended thing to do in this sort of situation for fair and neutral balance. Helper201 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "anti-Islam" and "Euroscepticism" especially beacuse they are policies, not ideologies. --Checco (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In regards to anti-Islam you may well be correct. However, Euroscepticism is listed on List of political ideologies and is in wide spread use in Wikipedia infoboxes across Wikipedia, therefore a wider consensus would be needed to omit such a thing rather than going on an article-by-article basis of exclusion. I've found another source in the main text supporting social conservatism as well as the one in the infobox. I also accidently missed out separatism in my last comment which has two supporting citations. Therefore, I'd propose:

• Flemish nationalism
• Separatism
• Right-wing populism
• Social conservatism
• Euroscepticism

Helper201 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of Euroscepticism for a moment, surely listing separatism in the Infobox is superfluous given the inclusion of Flemish nationalism, and social conservatism is an intrinsic element of right-wing populism, so realistically doesn’t need to be listed apart from the latter. (FWIW, my preference would be to list just Flemish nationalism and right-wing populism, or Flemish nationalism, right-wing populism and national conservatism if really pushing it.--Autospark (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. "Flemish nationalism" encompasses "separatism", while "right-wing populism" encompasses "social conservatism" and "Euroscepticism" (that is btw not an ideology, but merely a policy). I would not oppose "national conservatism", but it may also be redundant. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201 add fascism too, they quote nazis regularly and openly support deporration of all foreigners and reducing political representation of the few that are allowed to remain 176.91.32.23 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

So... which ideologies do we agree shall stay? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Flemish nationalism and right-wing populism.-- Autospark (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Political position in the infobox: "right-wing to far-right"

Five of the citations for right-wing mention the party being part of an extreme right wing, which to me (and potentially others) reads as simply being far right. IN MY OPINION, the party in general seems to/does espouse far right rhetoric and themes in their messaging and within their programme. In the opinion of sources used, it is part of an extreme part of the right wing or, put simply, part of the far right. It is of my personal opinion that we should remove the right-wing label and only keep far-right in the infobox and also try to declutter it with its many, many sources. Lexoomfie (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Usually i don't take part in these far-right vs. right-wing to far-right discussions but in this case source count is 5–1 to 7+1 so its a clear case imo, probably add the note we use for other far-right parties Braganza (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0, ValenciaThunderbolt, Braganza: echo'ing for opinion (and hoping that the echo works). Lexoomfie (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Lexoomfie (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

or not, nvm

@Vacant0: @ValenciaThunderbolt: see message above Lexoomfie (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of extreme right being, in a way, another way of saying far right, so I agree with removing "right-wing" from the infobox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your opinion, I don’t think you should. The debate on how right the party is, is still ongoing in Flanders. Yes, it is true that there are some members who are far-right, but a large part of the party are practically the same as the New Flemish Alliance (Right-wing). The only difference is that VB doesn’t throw their opinions in the trash if they can work together with the Socialists. 213.118.189.202 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the status quo is sufficient, there are sources for both descriptors. I would not suggest any change until after the Belgian elections, given the likely end of cordon sanitaire.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RN's cordon sanitaire is also almost broken by that point, so i wouldn't make it dependent from that Braganza (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for status quo as recent sources as Politico described them as "right wing" Shadow4dark (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Most reliable sources I could find describe the party as far-right, including Belgian newspapers.

This is not really a point of discussion.

Although I do believe the article should note that the party self-describes as "right-of-center": See their official website in english.

References

– Howard🌽33 21:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: its because over similar parties are now described as just far-right i dont see where they are more moderate than say RN Braganza (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Political positions are more based on the context of place and era. Wikipedia's policy is to note the position which is described by a consensus of reliable sources. – Howard🌽33 15:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

like said above there are many sources for far-right Braganza (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

and VB is less mainstream than RN so i dont really see the difference in "context of place and era" Braganza (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)